August 3rd, 2010

Professionalism (Or Lack Thereof) In The Courthouse. And A Solution

Queens County, Supreme Court

It happened again to me today. I arrived for a Preliminary Conference in Queens. The conference was scheduled for 9:30. I was there on time, as I always am. Defense counsel sauntered in at 10:35. No pre-conference phone call to indicate she would be late. No excuse when she appeared. No apology. And nothing to indicate she actually gave a damn about the concept of professionalism.

The problem sits with the courts. They schedule a gazillion conferences for the same time, and then lawyers sit around waiting, and waiting and waiting. If you have a single appearance to make, and the other side has three or four, you can be forced to sit there while the other lawyer runs around billing his or her time. Or maybe the other lawyer just wants to sleep late.

But, no matter the reason,  it’s being done on your time if you were acting conscientiously and actually showed up. I wrote about this problem last in 2008 (see: How One Brooklyn Courtroom Wastes $10M Every Year). And if you then need judicial intervention on an issue, you have to wait in line with all the others.

Abraham Lincoln once said that “A lawyer’s time and advice are his stock in trade.” Indeed.

Perhaps one day, maybe even in my lifetime, the courts will figure out how to stop squandering all of our time and wasting so much damn money (time = money).

There are a couple of options:

1.  Schedule the conferences at staggered times. If a lawyer has a conflict,work it out at least 3 days before. Sanction those that are late; or

2.  Many of the conferences can be done by phone without the court. At least 90% of the details, and often 100%, can be worked out by the lawyers. Let the remainder, those that need intervention, be done by conference call with the judge.

The only problem with this is that much of the defense bar still bills by the hour. Those of us that work on contingency have every incentive to get the job done efficiently. The late-arriving lawyer in today’s conference, if she billed today’s appearance, probably claimed at least three hours for it as we didn’t get out until about 12:15. Don’t forget to add the travel time.  But we could have been done by 10:15. And if a court forced the lawyers to do this stuff by phone, we could have done it in even less time.

Now magnify all that lawyers’ time against the huge caseloads that sit in the New York City courts. The millions of dollars in wasted legal time add up fast. That is time spent just sitting there in addition to the travel time.

While it is true that it would cost additional money for the courts to implement this solution, it could be paid for by raising the bi-annual registration fees of the bar. They currently sit at $350, to be increased to $375 come September. But I’d gladly pay $500, if it saves me the wasted time in the courthouse. It would be, perhaps, the single most cost-effective fee increase in the history of the New York courts.

 

July 29th, 2010

Lessons in Blogging

Some bloggers hate to link outside their own site, under the belief that it drives visitors away. Others will link, but only to “friendly” sites that agree with the author.

In steps Walter Olson, of Overlawyered fame, displaying once again why he is a master blogger; Linking directly to someone who criticizes him.

In his July 26th round-up you will find this little note:

  • An injury lawyer reads and reacts to my first book, The Litigation Explosion [Alan Crede]

Now most folks don’t know who Alan Crede is, as he is a relative newcomer to the legal blogosphere. But the cite Olson gives is to an exceptional post on the poverty of new ideas in the tort “reform” movement, of which Olson has been a pretty big player for awhile.

But whereas most bloggers would ignore such criticism, or silently fume, Olson links to it, showing the other side of the coin to consider. Crede’s points may be good, or not, but it is for the reader to decide.

Not too shabby. And a damn good lesson for new bloggers trying to understand how the blogosphere works in its many  interlocking ways.  Good bloggers don’t view the visitor as a one-shot deal, but as a recurring reader. If you write well and provide quality links when deserved, the readers come back. Google made its fortune, its worth noting, by sending people away from its site.

Take note also that Crede “gets it” with respect to blogging, as he likewise linked to Olson’s sites at Overlawyered and Point of Law (though Olson has now moved from PoL to Cato).

 

July 22nd, 2010

George Bush. A Boat. And a Point About Trial Tactics.

The Associated Press reported on a boating accident last week involving the elder George Bush. This is the way the AP phrased it:

KENNEBUNK, Maine — Former President George H.W. Bush’s fishing boat ended up high and dry on a beach near his Maine home after it ran aground in thick fog.

Now what is so wrong about that that it inspires a blog post? I’ll tell you. The boat didn’t just run aground. Someone most likely caused it to run aground.

Let’s take that language now into the courtroom, and consider an accident at an intersection. This is the way two skilled trial lawyers will try to present it:

Defendant: The accident happened.

Plaintiff: The Defendant caused this car wreck.

For the most part, accidents don’t just happen. I dealt with this back in May when Kentucky Republican Senate candidate Rand Paul seemed willing to give a free pass to BP and its friends who dumped so much oil into the Gulf of Mexico. He wasn’t happy that President Obama criticized BP:

“And I think it’s part of this sort of blame-game society in the sense that it’s always got to be somebody’s fault instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen,” Paul said, who is a darling of the Tea Party movement.

It’s true that acts of nature may take over, such as the lightening strike that fells a tree right into the path of a car. One might argue that acts of nature are even more likely at sea, given waves and fog, but it is just those types of foreseeable risks that a captain must consider. Only something unexpected would allow the act of nature defense to come into play.

Acts of nature are not how most accidents occur. Returning to former President Bush, the article goes on to give this explanation:

[Bush spokesman Jim] Appleby says Bush was close to shore in low visibility when a wave pushed his boat onto the beach.

It seems to me that if he was running his boat in low visibility it really isn’t fair to blame the boat (“it ran aground”).

And that type of passive language is just the thing that plaintiffs’ lawyers should be on the look out for and ready to counteract. “It” didn’t just happen. Someone most likely made it happen.

Photo credit: jcfmbost, via Flickr

 

July 21st, 2010

John Stossel, Hypocrisy Again

The slap the led John Stossel to hire a personal injury attorney and recover a reported $400K

John Stossel is at it again, trashing lawyers. Why? Two reasons:

1. When lawyers shoot back we sound like lawyers. Thus, easy fodder.

2. He makes good money doing it. How? Well, the Fortune 500 companies and conservative “think tanks” have tons of conventions, conferences and trade shows. And speakers are nice to have and can get paid well for it.

Could he be anti-lawyer on the merits? Funny joke, I know, but some will ask anyway. No, he actually confessed in a moment of candor that, while he was a consumer advocate in the past, he makes a lot more dough running around trying to get immunity for corporations. He said once:

In what was perhaps a moment of candor back in 1996, when he was giving a speech to the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, someone asked Stossel why he had abandoned consumer reporting to bash government and trial lawyers. According to the Corporate Crime Reporter, Stossel replied, “I got sick of it. I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas.”

In his most recent attack (July 7th, Parasitic Tort Lawyers), he makes this claim, that kids have suffered because playgrounds are safer:

Even when the lawyers do help their clients, they hurt everyone else because fear of their lawsuits takes away many good things: Swimming pools, playgrounds and gymnastics programs close because liability insurance is so expensive. Kids lose their favorite places to hang out in the summer.

Now when I was a kid, there was concrete or asphalt under the monkey bars.  Kids got hurt. It was dangerous. Lawsuits were brought because there were easy, reasonable fixes. Now you see wood chips or mats. We do not have fewer playgrounds today, though we do have fewer serious injuries. And I see plenty of public pools and school gymnastic programs. Stossel is utterly full of it. According to Stossel, safe playgrounds are a bad thing. Up is down. Black is white. And all hail his Orwellian Doublespeak.

And then there is this:

Look at health care. The lawyers claim they punish bad doctors and win compensation for injured patients, and their suits add “less than 2 percent to the cost.”

This is deliberately misleading. The costs are actually less than one percent. Nice job, Johnny boy. And it’s very rare for suits to be brought against doctors to “punish,” they are brought for compensation. Maybe you’d like to pay higher taxes so the public can pay the compensation? No? I didn’t think so. Why not just give the tortfeasors immunity and screw the injured folks? Great public policy that would be, huh?

Let’s have some more Stossel fun. He lets loose with this about doctors and hospitals:

They do surgery on people who may not need it. That’s safer for the doctor, although it’s not safer for the patients.

Stossel may not have noticed it, but the medical profession has a financial interest in doing more surgeries. It isn’t a secret that they get paid more to cut than not to cut, and that doctors have the biggest paydays in America.

The funniest part was his closing, where he tries to attack John Edwards for bringing cases regarding brain damaged infants, and accuses him of self-interest:

“I’m a trial lawyer,” he said. “They turned the word trial lawyer into a four-letter word, and I’m telling you I’m the people’s warrior, and I am proud to be an American trial lawyer.”

And the money is good.

Hee, hee. That was funny. He tries to skewer Edwards because he was a financial success when the reason he himself switched over to corporate defender was because “I also now make so much money I just lost interest in saving a buck on a can of peas.” As a noted TV personality would say, “Give me a break.”

I noted his hypocrisy earlier this year (including his own personal injury lawsuit for getting slapped a couple times by a wrestler, for which he reportedly collected over $400K) in a post entitled John Stossel — You Gotta Love Him.

And so, after yet another attack piece on “parasitic” lawyers, Stossel was filleted by various bloggers. I bring you, without further ado, a few more of those criticisms:

John Stossel – The Wrestler (Jon Lewis)

How Do You Solve a Problem Like John Stossel? (The Pop Tort)

Stossel Calls Lawyers Parasites (Tort Burger – Hold the Reform)

Dear John Stossel: The 7th Amendment & Trial Lawyers Probably Saved Your Life (The 7th Amendment Advocate Blog) – added 8/4/10

 

July 15th, 2010

Confidential Means Confidential, Even In Lindsay Lohan Case (Stuart Goldberg, Esq. — Fail) – Updated

I really don’t get it sometimes. A client goes to a lawyer with a legal problem. The lawyer declines the case. And then the lawyer yaps to the press?!?  Are you kidding me?

It comes up today in the ongoing train-wreck of actress Lindsay Lohan, who apparently has had a spot of legal trouble with getting boozed up and driving, and the consequences that flowed from it.

But a headline at the ABAJournal on this actress seeking pro bono counsel caught my eye.  Is she claiming poverty that she needs free legal help? No. She just paid two others lawyers already so she thinks her third one should be a freebie. Go figure.

Anyway, this is what caught my attention and rankled me, this bit at the end of the article:

Meanwhile, another counsel candidate who says he refused the representation has already dished to People magazine.

His would-be client is “a fragile lost child” who “just doesn’t get it” concerning the seriousness of the case she is involved in, says Stuart Goldberg, a criminal defense attorney based in Chicago. When he met with the actress and two relatives, “they didn’t seem to understand the urgency and gravity of the situation.”

Why the hell is this Stuart Goldberg, apparently a Chicago criminal defense lawyer, talking about what he heard or saw in the confidence of his practice? And why would any future client ever trust him to keep a secret?

The People article has him giving a great deal of information about his supposed-confidential meeting with Lohan at her home.

More details from the visit at People:

At one point in their meeting, Goldberg, worried that Lohan “was in a dangerous state,” asked if she might hurt herself.

“She started sobbing quietly. She was genuinely in pain,” says Goldberg.

And though he advised Lohan to move out of Los Angeles, which he described as a “toxic environment for her,” the actress didn’t seem open to the idea.

“She was like Teflon to that comment,” he says. “It just slid right off her. She seemed to have some inner deep sadness that that was her fate.”

That is no way for a lawyer to act, unless Lohan agreed to let him yap to the press, which seems rather unlikely.

File this one under Attorney Ethics.

Update, 7/16/10: While I have no desire to follow the follies of stars and starlets on any continuing basis (which is one reason, I suppose, I initially mis-spelled Lohan’s first name as “Lindsey”), I do wish to add another version of why this match was not made to measure.  Goldberg claimed, apparently, that he turned down Lohan, as noted above. But it may be the other way around. According to this report:

Lindsay Lohan says that she turned Goldberg down because she didn’t like his style. TMZ gives the example of his vanity license plates which say “Snake Charmer”.

Snake Charmer. Nice. I wonder if jurors ever see him get into that car.