This is a reprint from "Legal Rebels". A perfect article for this sad week.My first computer in Law School was a Mac. My first office was run by Macs, before anyone knew how great they are.
Home
Legal Rebels
What Law Firms Can Learn from Steve Jobs
The New Normal
What Law Firms Can Learn from Steve Jobs
Posted Oct 6, 2011 8:32 AM CDT
By Patrick J. Lamb
Email
Print
Reprints
Share
Patrick Lamb
The October issue of Fast Company contains yet another article on what the late Steve Jobs can teach us, titled, appropriately enough, "What Steve Jobs Can Still Teach Us." It is no accident that the article appears in an issue devoted to design, and the importance of design in our modern economy. The issue quotes Sohrab Vossoughi, President of ZIBA Designs, saying “This is our moment. We have made every other factor of American business as efficient as possible. Now it’s about effectiveness. And this is where design comes in.”
It is obvious that Mr. Vossoughi was not speaking of the legal business when he referred to the efficiency of American business. Progress, however slow, seems to be happening, but that is not the point of this piece. The point, rather, is to examine whether there is a role for design in the new normal.
Back to the Steve Jobs article. The author refers to Jobs 2.0 (after return from Apple exile) as a “user-experience savant.” Here’s the full description:
But the years away reportedly helped him begin ceding more responsibilities to others. He became less enamored of tech for tech's sake. He blossomed into a user-experience savant. A reporter who asked Jobs about the market research that went into the iPad was famously told, "None. It's not the consumers' job to know what they want." It's not that Jobs doesn't think like a consumer--he just thinks like one standing in the near future, not in the recent past. He is a focus group of one, the ideal Apple customer, two years out. As he told Inc. magazine in 1989, "You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."
As I read this, I wondered if there was a lawyer in private practice anywhere in the country who could be described as a “user-experience savant” in the same manner Jobs is. Probably not. The better question is whether that person is needed. It probably does not surprise you to know that my view is that such a person is needed, now, more than ever.
Jobs, who died Wednesday after a long battle with cancer, is hailed as the person who made Apple cool, who made cool packaging and ease of use essential to technology. These same features are now sought after in other business sectors. Fast Company also includes a fascinating piece on the role played by Mary Barra in her new role at General Motors as the person in charge of all things design. The car experience is a design experience.
When the rest of the business world moves in a given direction, it is a safe bet that there is good reason for the legal profession to move in the same direction. That is not to say that it will, just that it should. What would “design” look legal in the new normal? Technology that creates an easily customized dashboard showing real time spend versus a budget, or work progress versus planned work flow. Elimination of email and use of collaborative space for planning and strategizing, drafting and editing. Transparency. Easily understood fee structures. Cost benefit analysis, showing risk of not doing certain tasks versus cost of doing them. And so on. All in an easy to use, no training needed, cool “package.”
They say that the iPhone was conceived a decade before it made its debut. So offering a cool, well-designed offering is not an overnight thing. But it does take sustained effort. In a few years, will there be somebody that is recognized in the new normal as a user-experience savant, who is the mother or father of legal cool, who will have earned a measure of the respect and admiration that now flows to Steve Jobs?
I hope so.
Patrick Lamb is a founding member of Valorem Law Group, a litigation firm representing business interests. Valorem helps clients solve their business disputes and coping with pressures to reduce legal spend using nontraditional approaches, including use of nonhourly fee structures, coordination with LPOs or contract lawyers, joint-venturing with other firms and implementation of project management tools to handle lawsuits or portfolios of litigation.
Pat is the author of the the recently published book Alternative Fee Arrangements: Value Fees and the Changing Legal Market. He also blogs at In Search Of Perfect Client Service.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Friday, September 2, 2011
Ten Don't of Ethics
TEN DON’TS OF ETHICS
1. DON’T Ever Deal an Enemy a Small Blow. This principle of Machianvellian politics avoids unnecessary hostility from opposing attorneys. The better course is to strive professionally and courteously for the big blow --- a verdict in favor of your client.
2. DON’T Gloat or Do End-Zone Dances. Televised coverage of athletic events daily shows us how professional athletes in all sports have decided that self-adulation and self-congratulations are now accepted after even the smallest personal triumphs. We in this profession should avoid that appearance.
3. DON’T Have a Prejudice Against a Class of Lawyers. There are so many prejudices now against lawyers that we should avoid within-group prejudices, such as against plaintiffs vs. defense attorneys, trial vs. office lawyers, etc.
4. DON’T Be a Slave to Fees. Many bar complaints derive from fee disputes. Strive to be so successful that fees do not enslave you.
5. DON’T Be a Slave to Winning. Although we are told in other endeavors that “Winning is everything,” we should try to remember that we are in a business where truly “Justice is everything.”
6. DON’T Talk Dirty or Unprofessional. In this day and time of widespread availability of electronic devices, we will very often be recorded when we do not expect to be so. Therefore, we should all maintain the highest possible professional tone and content in all of our conversations.
7. DON’T Build a Practice on Trickery. This reputation, once established, is practically impossible to shake. Instead of trickery, use talent.
8. DON’T Resent a Client’s Questions. It is important to remember that most of our clients are somewhat frightened of the legal system. We should not resent their questions, and should be willing to give of our time freely to be certain that they understand the process in which they find themselves.
9. DON’T Be Frivolous. “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous….” “The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.” Rule 3.1, Rules of Professional Conduct. Id., Comment.
10. DON’T Ignore the Contributions of Other Professionals. Many law school professors have left us with the impression that our profession is the only socially worthwhile or intellectually adequate profession. We need to acknowledge the contributions made by others to our civilizations. Never believe that we have some corner or intellect or worthwhile contributions.
Reprinted with the permission of John Kurts.
John Kurtz 1718 Walnut Kansas City, Missouri 64108 jkurtz@MoKanLaw.com Direct: 816-467-1776 Toll-Free: 877-535-1163 Fax: 816-472-5464
1. DON’T Ever Deal an Enemy a Small Blow. This principle of Machianvellian politics avoids unnecessary hostility from opposing attorneys. The better course is to strive professionally and courteously for the big blow --- a verdict in favor of your client.
2. DON’T Gloat or Do End-Zone Dances. Televised coverage of athletic events daily shows us how professional athletes in all sports have decided that self-adulation and self-congratulations are now accepted after even the smallest personal triumphs. We in this profession should avoid that appearance.
3. DON’T Have a Prejudice Against a Class of Lawyers. There are so many prejudices now against lawyers that we should avoid within-group prejudices, such as against plaintiffs vs. defense attorneys, trial vs. office lawyers, etc.
4. DON’T Be a Slave to Fees. Many bar complaints derive from fee disputes. Strive to be so successful that fees do not enslave you.
5. DON’T Be a Slave to Winning. Although we are told in other endeavors that “Winning is everything,” we should try to remember that we are in a business where truly “Justice is everything.”
6. DON’T Talk Dirty or Unprofessional. In this day and time of widespread availability of electronic devices, we will very often be recorded when we do not expect to be so. Therefore, we should all maintain the highest possible professional tone and content in all of our conversations.
7. DON’T Build a Practice on Trickery. This reputation, once established, is practically impossible to shake. Instead of trickery, use talent.
8. DON’T Resent a Client’s Questions. It is important to remember that most of our clients are somewhat frightened of the legal system. We should not resent their questions, and should be willing to give of our time freely to be certain that they understand the process in which they find themselves.
9. DON’T Be Frivolous. “A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous….” “The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client’s cause, but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure.” Rule 3.1, Rules of Professional Conduct. Id., Comment.
10. DON’T Ignore the Contributions of Other Professionals. Many law school professors have left us with the impression that our profession is the only socially worthwhile or intellectually adequate profession. We need to acknowledge the contributions made by others to our civilizations. Never believe that we have some corner or intellect or worthwhile contributions.
Reprinted with the permission of John Kurts.
John Kurtz 1718 Walnut Kansas City, Missouri 64108 jkurtz@MoKanLaw.com Direct: 816-467-1776 Toll-Free: 877-535-1163 Fax: 816-472-5464
Friday, July 29, 2011
TEN DO’S OF ETHICS
TEN DO’S OF ETHICS by John Kurtz
1. DO Be an Officer of the Court. The phrase “officer of the court” is often used. If all lawyers on all sides of controversies took that obligation seriously, litigation and life would be easier. Our image would be better.
2. DO Help Your Fellow Attorneys. This may even include your opponent --- so long as you are not acting adversely to your client’s interest.
3. DO Be Humane. We may all have opportunities to be humane and give consideration for professional or personal problems that another lawyer has or that a party or witness has. We should exercise every chance we get to do that.
4. DO Challenge “the Law.” The reporters certainly contain some incredibly wrongheaded decisions by judges who were deemed to be absolutely brilliant in their time. Plessy v. Ferguson. Remember that such terrible decisions were only superseded through the efforts of new lawyers.
5. DO Expedite Litigation. “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” Rule 3.2, Rules of Professional Conduct. “Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Id., Comment.
6. DO Disclose Adverse Authority. It is a lawyer’s affirmative obligation to “disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.” Rule 3.3(a)(3), Rules of Professional Conduct.
7. DO Refuse to Offer False Evidence. “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” Rule 3.3(a)(4), Rules of Professional Conduct.
8. DO Be Diligent. “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.3, Rules of Professional conduct. “A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor.” Id., Comment.
9. DO Respect the Judge. We undermine our system whenever we display our own personal contempt for a judge. The better course is to reverse a bad decision on appeal.
10. DO Keep Information Confidential. “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after a consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation.” Rule 1.6 Rules of Professional Conduct. All lawyers should re-dedicate themselves to the principles of preserving confidences and a client’s privacy.
1. DO Be an Officer of the Court. The phrase “officer of the court” is often used. If all lawyers on all sides of controversies took that obligation seriously, litigation and life would be easier. Our image would be better.
2. DO Help Your Fellow Attorneys. This may even include your opponent --- so long as you are not acting adversely to your client’s interest.
3. DO Be Humane. We may all have opportunities to be humane and give consideration for professional or personal problems that another lawyer has or that a party or witness has. We should exercise every chance we get to do that.
4. DO Challenge “the Law.” The reporters certainly contain some incredibly wrongheaded decisions by judges who were deemed to be absolutely brilliant in their time. Plessy v. Ferguson. Remember that such terrible decisions were only superseded through the efforts of new lawyers.
5. DO Expedite Litigation. “A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of the client.” Rule 3.2, Rules of Professional Conduct. “Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” Id., Comment.
6. DO Disclose Adverse Authority. It is a lawyer’s affirmative obligation to “disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.” Rule 3.3(a)(3), Rules of Professional Conduct.
7. DO Refuse to Offer False Evidence. “A lawyer shall not knowingly offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.” Rule 3.3(a)(4), Rules of Professional Conduct.
8. DO Be Diligent. “A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client. Rule 1.3, Rules of Professional conduct. “A lawyer should pursue a matter on behalf of a client despite opposition, obstruction or personal inconvenience to the lawyer, and may take whatever lawful and ethical measures are required to vindicate a client’s cause or endeavor.” Id., Comment.
9. DO Respect the Judge. We undermine our system whenever we display our own personal contempt for a judge. The better course is to reverse a bad decision on appeal.
10. DO Keep Information Confidential. “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client consents after a consultation, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation.” Rule 1.6 Rules of Professional Conduct. All lawyers should re-dedicate themselves to the principles of preserving confidences and a client’s privacy.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
SEX IS AN ISSUE
SEX IS AN ISSUE
Judge Sonia Maria Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing was conducted while I was drafting this manuscript. ( My second book) There were questions surrounding her comments regarding the knowledge of a Latino woman having more knowledge that a white educated male. Those opposed to her confirmation asked, “What did she mean by that statement? Was she not going to follow the letter of the law or was she going to use her own personal judgment.” No male candidate would have been question like that. Her nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate in August, 2009 by a vote of 68-31. She became the third woman to set on the United States Supreme Court. Clearly, the topic of sex continues to be relevant.
While this book has been written (the second book written while blogging), a second female Supreme Court Judge had been sworn in, which means there are three woman on the Supreme Court bench. Justice Kagan was the Dean of the Harvard Law School prior to being sworn in. Lady Justice is blind, however, she can hear.
Look at Bill Clinton’s punishment for misstating the true. He received a five year suspension from the practice of law; for saying he didn’t have sex with that woman, and all the after math of his actions. Did he receive five years because he was male or because he was President? There were no criminal charges against President Clinton.
Michael Vick was one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL. In 2007 he was implicated in an illegal interstate dog fighting ring. He plead guilty on state and federal charges. He spent 21 months in prison and 2 months on house arrest. After he was released from prison, he was given permission to return to the NFL and returned to play football with the Eagles. Vick appeared to be sincerely sorry and had forgiven himself. At the end of the season his team awarded him the Ed Block Courage Award for 2009.
Eliot Spitzer was the Attorney General for the State of New York. He was nationally known as the “Sheriff of Wall Street”. As he ran for governor, he promised to change state politics. He took office as New York’s governor in 2007. He resigned on March 12, 2008 in the middle of a sex scandal. Mr. Spitzer spent more than $100,000 on prostitutes. He resigned in an attempt to save himself from having criminal charges filed. No charges were filed. Spitzer is a television commentator for CNN, teaches undergraduates at the City College of New York and is a guest speaker at Harvard on ethics.
Would a woman have been treated in the same manner as Clinton, Vick or Spitzer? Would a woman have been at their level to begin with? Do woman recover as men do after a fall from grace?
Family issues were and are different for men and women. The way men and women are perceived is different. It is difficult to be an aggressive, powerful, woman and not be considered a bitch.
In The Mitgator: A new way of looking at the death penalty by Jeffery Toobin, Toobin writes about Danalynn Recer and her death-row defense strategies. His description of her could be said about many female lawyers, “Danalynn is difficult. Her peremptory manner and abundant self-confidence are familiar traits among entrepreneurs, and they are generally more often forgiven in men than in women.” Toobin states it correctly, “traits more often forgiven in men than in woman.” The issue is- how can women be successful, without losing their female traits or viewed as “******”.
In an interview with Missouri Lawyers Media legal secretaries said, they preferred to work for male associates and male partners. The secretaries said female attorneys were emotional, demanding with “more to prove” and “put on airs”. Working for a woman exposes some very complex class dynamics. This interview questions additional issues; the superwoman complex, save the world, supermom , super attorney and the need to prove more and to put on airs. What are your thoughts on the male/female issues?
Judge Sonia Maria Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing was conducted while I was drafting this manuscript. ( My second book) There were questions surrounding her comments regarding the knowledge of a Latino woman having more knowledge that a white educated male. Those opposed to her confirmation asked, “What did she mean by that statement? Was she not going to follow the letter of the law or was she going to use her own personal judgment.” No male candidate would have been question like that. Her nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate in August, 2009 by a vote of 68-31. She became the third woman to set on the United States Supreme Court. Clearly, the topic of sex continues to be relevant.
While this book has been written (the second book written while blogging), a second female Supreme Court Judge had been sworn in, which means there are three woman on the Supreme Court bench. Justice Kagan was the Dean of the Harvard Law School prior to being sworn in. Lady Justice is blind, however, she can hear.
Look at Bill Clinton’s punishment for misstating the true. He received a five year suspension from the practice of law; for saying he didn’t have sex with that woman, and all the after math of his actions. Did he receive five years because he was male or because he was President? There were no criminal charges against President Clinton.
Michael Vick was one of the best quarterbacks in the history of the NFL. In 2007 he was implicated in an illegal interstate dog fighting ring. He plead guilty on state and federal charges. He spent 21 months in prison and 2 months on house arrest. After he was released from prison, he was given permission to return to the NFL and returned to play football with the Eagles. Vick appeared to be sincerely sorry and had forgiven himself. At the end of the season his team awarded him the Ed Block Courage Award for 2009.
Eliot Spitzer was the Attorney General for the State of New York. He was nationally known as the “Sheriff of Wall Street”. As he ran for governor, he promised to change state politics. He took office as New York’s governor in 2007. He resigned on March 12, 2008 in the middle of a sex scandal. Mr. Spitzer spent more than $100,000 on prostitutes. He resigned in an attempt to save himself from having criminal charges filed. No charges were filed. Spitzer is a television commentator for CNN, teaches undergraduates at the City College of New York and is a guest speaker at Harvard on ethics.
Would a woman have been treated in the same manner as Clinton, Vick or Spitzer? Would a woman have been at their level to begin with? Do woman recover as men do after a fall from grace?
Family issues were and are different for men and women. The way men and women are perceived is different. It is difficult to be an aggressive, powerful, woman and not be considered a bitch.
In The Mitgator: A new way of looking at the death penalty by Jeffery Toobin, Toobin writes about Danalynn Recer and her death-row defense strategies. His description of her could be said about many female lawyers, “Danalynn is difficult. Her peremptory manner and abundant self-confidence are familiar traits among entrepreneurs, and they are generally more often forgiven in men than in women.” Toobin states it correctly, “traits more often forgiven in men than in woman.” The issue is- how can women be successful, without losing their female traits or viewed as “******”.
In an interview with Missouri Lawyers Media legal secretaries said, they preferred to work for male associates and male partners. The secretaries said female attorneys were emotional, demanding with “more to prove” and “put on airs”. Working for a woman exposes some very complex class dynamics. This interview questions additional issues; the superwoman complex, save the world, supermom , super attorney and the need to prove more and to put on airs. What are your thoughts on the male/female issues?
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Water Lilies by Monet
Agapanthus triptych or Water Lilies is one of the greatest breakups of the century. The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art greatly benefited from the split. In case you don’t know the history, Claude Monet, painted the three Water Lilies panels for eleven years. He was inspired by his pond in his Giverny garden. The three panels were 14 foot-long totaling 42 feet. The Nelson purchased the right end of the triptych in 1957 for $40,000. The Kansas City Star listed the value of the Nelson painting in millions. The St. Louis Art Museum and the Cleveland Museum of Art own the other two panels. The triptych was last seen in Kansas City in 1979. Water Lilies are the special exhibition at the Nelson. The exhibition opens to general admissions on Saturday, April 9, 2011.
The history of the paintings is quite distinguished. Claude Monet (1840-1926) purchased land in Giverny France in 1890 after renting the house for several years. Workers were to dig a shallow pond and divert water from the River Epte. The project included weeping willows, iris, bamboo, roses, water lilies, and a Japanese footbridge. At one point, six or seven gardeners were working the garden. The first painting of the bridge was recorded as early as 1892. After 1917, Monet used larger canvases for his painting of his water gardens. He used fourteen foot canvases primarily in 1919-1920 and in diptychs and triptychs. Agapanthus triptych was created.
Camille Doncieux appeared in numerous Monet paintings. Camille gave birth to a son, Jean in 1867. The couple was married June 28, 1870. Camille became ill in 1876. In 1878 she gave birth to a second son, Michael. She died of tuberculosis in 1879 at the age of thirty-two. In 1878 the couple moved in with Ernest Hoschede. After Ernest became bankrupt, he left for Belgium. His wife and six children remained behind. Alice Hoschede assisted Monet to raise his two sons. They married in 1892 after the death of her husband. Alice died in 1911 and Monet’s son, Jean, died in 1914. Alice’s oldest child, Blanche and Jean’s wife became his caregiver, after Alice’s death.
This was around the time Monet’s cataracts developed. Monet was blind just prior to his first cataract surgery. His cataract surgery was 1923. Can you image having surgery before penicillin was invented? After his second cataract surgery, Claude noticed his prior paintings were more reddish. He was able to see ultraviolet wavelengths that are normally excluded by the eye. He repainted several of his painting to include more blues. Monet continued to paint on the Water Lilies until his death in 1926. His son, Michael sold the paintings. The next owner split them. The rest is history.
The NAMA has the paintings in a single frame. Three contemporary sofas are available to sit on to enjoy the paintings. The Nelson has a visitor friendly area to examine the Monet’s Water Lilies x-radiographs. Both the Nelson’s and Cleveland‘s Water Lilies are x-rayed. The radiographs show numerous composition changes. Visitors may create their own “Water Lilies” on the touch screen painter on computers. For more information contact The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art at 816-751-1278.
This article is unusual for my ethics post.However, water lilies are unbelievable.
Monet wanted his viewer to experience calmness. Calmness is essential for ethics.
The history of the paintings is quite distinguished. Claude Monet (1840-1926) purchased land in Giverny France in 1890 after renting the house for several years. Workers were to dig a shallow pond and divert water from the River Epte. The project included weeping willows, iris, bamboo, roses, water lilies, and a Japanese footbridge. At one point, six or seven gardeners were working the garden. The first painting of the bridge was recorded as early as 1892. After 1917, Monet used larger canvases for his painting of his water gardens. He used fourteen foot canvases primarily in 1919-1920 and in diptychs and triptychs. Agapanthus triptych was created.
Camille Doncieux appeared in numerous Monet paintings. Camille gave birth to a son, Jean in 1867. The couple was married June 28, 1870. Camille became ill in 1876. In 1878 she gave birth to a second son, Michael. She died of tuberculosis in 1879 at the age of thirty-two. In 1878 the couple moved in with Ernest Hoschede. After Ernest became bankrupt, he left for Belgium. His wife and six children remained behind. Alice Hoschede assisted Monet to raise his two sons. They married in 1892 after the death of her husband. Alice died in 1911 and Monet’s son, Jean, died in 1914. Alice’s oldest child, Blanche and Jean’s wife became his caregiver, after Alice’s death.
This was around the time Monet’s cataracts developed. Monet was blind just prior to his first cataract surgery. His cataract surgery was 1923. Can you image having surgery before penicillin was invented? After his second cataract surgery, Claude noticed his prior paintings were more reddish. He was able to see ultraviolet wavelengths that are normally excluded by the eye. He repainted several of his painting to include more blues. Monet continued to paint on the Water Lilies until his death in 1926. His son, Michael sold the paintings. The next owner split them. The rest is history.
The NAMA has the paintings in a single frame. Three contemporary sofas are available to sit on to enjoy the paintings. The Nelson has a visitor friendly area to examine the Monet’s Water Lilies x-radiographs. Both the Nelson’s and Cleveland‘s Water Lilies are x-rayed. The radiographs show numerous composition changes. Visitors may create their own “Water Lilies” on the touch screen painter on computers. For more information contact The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art at 816-751-1278.
This article is unusual for my ethics post.However, water lilies are unbelievable.
Monet wanted his viewer to experience calmness. Calmness is essential for ethics.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Update on Sex with Clients
Several weeks ago I reported there was a bill pending in Texas to determine whether or not Texas lawyers would approve the ban on having sex with clients. Texas lawyers have spoken and voted against a proposed change and the ethics code that would have barred sex with clients, The rule would have banned sex between attorneys and clients unless they are married or engaged or involved in a consensual relationship before the representation.
The ban on sex with clients was grouped together with two other proposed rules changes. Texans attorneys did not want to go for rules that were grouped together against Texas procedure. State law requires such amendments to be presented separately rather than the form of several amendments being group together. The ban was rejected by 80% of the attorney vote.
The Texas Supreme Court may adopt this rule despite the vote. The Texas Supreme Court may promulgate rules on its own. Clearly, the Texas bar states that the majority voted against this rule because of the clumping of the rules together. Several attorneys commented on the State bar rules referendum. The State Bar rules referendum was similar to Obama care. Take it or leave it. All or at least at the Texas lawyers left stating the rejection have nothing to do with sex with client it safe failed referendum. If you work with the people and listen to them they will not follow what you dictate to them. They will result many Texans pointed out that Texans make poor followers.
The ban on sex with clients was grouped together with two other proposed rules changes. Texans attorneys did not want to go for rules that were grouped together against Texas procedure. State law requires such amendments to be presented separately rather than the form of several amendments being group together. The ban was rejected by 80% of the attorney vote.
The Texas Supreme Court may adopt this rule despite the vote. The Texas Supreme Court may promulgate rules on its own. Clearly, the Texas bar states that the majority voted against this rule because of the clumping of the rules together. Several attorneys commented on the State bar rules referendum. The State Bar rules referendum was similar to Obama care. Take it or leave it. All or at least at the Texas lawyers left stating the rejection have nothing to do with sex with client it safe failed referendum. If you work with the people and listen to them they will not follow what you dictate to them. They will result many Texans pointed out that Texans make poor followers.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Basic Ethics Overbilling and Sex with a client
Legal Ethics American Bar Association
Ex-Big Law Partner Disbarred for Bogus Time Entries, Expensed Meals for Internet Dates
Posted Jan 12, 2011 10:21 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
• Email
• Print
• Reprints
•
The New Jersey Supreme Court has disbarred a former BigLaw partner for creating phony time records, having sex with a client and submitting expense vouchers for dinners with women he was dating.
The lawyer, Kenneth Denti, had worked at Fox Rothschild and Margolis Edelstein, according to the disciplinary review board opinion recommending disbarment. The disbarment order, attached to the end of the review board opinion (PDF), is dated Jan. 11. The Legal Profession Blog has the story.
Denti made “bogus” time entries at both law firms to justify his continued compensation, the opinion says. He also had sex with a divorce client at Margolis Edelstein and billed Margolis Edelstein for meals with other women he was dating, including two women he met through the Internet, according to the review board.
“We conclude that respondent engaged in an extensive and extended scheme to defraud the Fox Rothschild and Margolis Edelstein law firms,” the opinion concluded. “He submitted fictitious time sheets for more than two and one-half years, encompassing more than $350,000 in fees.”
Denti and the divorce client had both denied a sexual relationship, but flirtatious e-mails told a different story, according to the opinion. The document goes through a series of questions presented to Denti during the ethics hearing and his denials, including this question: “Let's talk about your e-mail. What are you talking about with a whole case of raincoats and using them all in one night?”
“I think I’m joking,” he replies, and then says it probably refers to the client's husband.
The review board said the relationship with the divorce client was unethical because she was attempting to reconcile with her husband.
Comments by Kimberley Kellogg
Wait a minute; it has never; been ethical to have sex with a client or to have a relationship with a client, unless the consensual sexual relationship predated the attorney client relationship or a spouse. It just seems like forever ago, when the American Bar Association adopted the model rule in 2002. Most states have adopted the rule within the next year or two. The minority of states like Texas has not adopted this or any other rule on sexual conduct between attorneys and clients.
Or when was it ethical to overbill or bill for dinner with friends? I can answer the overbilling issue. It is never okay to overbill your client, even if they agree. If you hesitate, or have a moment that is appears okay. It is not. My client asked if I learned anything on the seminar that helped on his case. We reviewed the hours at the seminar that I thought were applicable to him. I billed for those hours. I was wrong. Kevin Denti was wrong for overbilling and sex with his client.
Texas has been “working” on adopting the 2002 Model Rules for seven years. The Dallas Morning News calls the failure to ban such relationships “one of Texas' longest-running legal dramas.” It took lawyers acting on behalf of the state supreme court seven years to draft proposed ethics revisions, but the client-sex ban is “the biggest sticking point,” the story says. The proposed rule bars lawyers from having sex with a client whom they are “personally representing,” Texas Lawyer reports. Exceptions permit representation if the client is a spouse or a person with whom the lawyer had a pre-existing consensual sexual relationship. Or your law partner may represent your sex partner. What are they thinking? The goal of the rule is to protect the client from attorney abuse. Not to provide attorneys an ethical exception to have sex with their clients. Divorce clients are very venerable. In many cases, it takes a divorce client two years to work through the drama.
In July 1991, California began working on a code provision that banned coercing or demanding sex with clients. The burden would be on the attorney to prove sex was consensual and the representation was competent. In 1982, an Oregon advisory opinion stated during a divorce it was unethical to have sex with the client. Prior to 1991 there were two cases that mentioned sex with clients. In, Suppressed vs. Suppressed 565 N.E. 2d, 101(1990), the court rejected a client malpractice suit based on sexual relationship. In Barbara A. and John G., 145 Cal.3d 369(1983), the court refused to rule on the ethics issue regarding attorneys having sex with a client.
The ABA Model Rule protects both the public and the attorney. The ABA model rule is clear, simple to follow and there are no exceptions. The Texas rule doesn’t go far enough to protect the public and the attorney. Texas is making a mockery of its self by taking seven years to draft and not adopting the ABA model rule.
Ex-Big Law Partner Disbarred for Bogus Time Entries, Expensed Meals for Internet Dates
Posted Jan 12, 2011 10:21 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
• Reprints
•
The New Jersey Supreme Court has disbarred a former BigLaw partner for creating phony time records, having sex with a client and submitting expense vouchers for dinners with women he was dating.
The lawyer, Kenneth Denti, had worked at Fox Rothschild and Margolis Edelstein, according to the disciplinary review board opinion recommending disbarment. The disbarment order, attached to the end of the review board opinion (PDF), is dated Jan. 11. The Legal Profession Blog has the story.
Denti made “bogus” time entries at both law firms to justify his continued compensation, the opinion says. He also had sex with a divorce client at Margolis Edelstein and billed Margolis Edelstein for meals with other women he was dating, including two women he met through the Internet, according to the review board.
“We conclude that respondent engaged in an extensive and extended scheme to defraud the Fox Rothschild and Margolis Edelstein law firms,” the opinion concluded. “He submitted fictitious time sheets for more than two and one-half years, encompassing more than $350,000 in fees.”
Denti and the divorce client had both denied a sexual relationship, but flirtatious e-mails told a different story, according to the opinion. The document goes through a series of questions presented to Denti during the ethics hearing and his denials, including this question: “Let's talk about your e-mail. What are you talking about with a whole case of raincoats and using them all in one night?”
“I think I’m joking,” he replies, and then says it probably refers to the client's husband.
The review board said the relationship with the divorce client was unethical because she was attempting to reconcile with her husband.
Comments by Kimberley Kellogg
Wait a minute; it has never; been ethical to have sex with a client or to have a relationship with a client, unless the consensual sexual relationship predated the attorney client relationship or a spouse. It just seems like forever ago, when the American Bar Association adopted the model rule in 2002. Most states have adopted the rule within the next year or two. The minority of states like Texas has not adopted this or any other rule on sexual conduct between attorneys and clients.
Or when was it ethical to overbill or bill for dinner with friends? I can answer the overbilling issue. It is never okay to overbill your client, even if they agree. If you hesitate, or have a moment that is appears okay. It is not. My client asked if I learned anything on the seminar that helped on his case. We reviewed the hours at the seminar that I thought were applicable to him. I billed for those hours. I was wrong. Kevin Denti was wrong for overbilling and sex with his client.
Texas has been “working” on adopting the 2002 Model Rules for seven years. The Dallas Morning News calls the failure to ban such relationships “one of Texas' longest-running legal dramas.” It took lawyers acting on behalf of the state supreme court seven years to draft proposed ethics revisions, but the client-sex ban is “the biggest sticking point,” the story says. The proposed rule bars lawyers from having sex with a client whom they are “personally representing,” Texas Lawyer reports. Exceptions permit representation if the client is a spouse or a person with whom the lawyer had a pre-existing consensual sexual relationship. Or your law partner may represent your sex partner. What are they thinking? The goal of the rule is to protect the client from attorney abuse. Not to provide attorneys an ethical exception to have sex with their clients. Divorce clients are very venerable. In many cases, it takes a divorce client two years to work through the drama.
In July 1991, California began working on a code provision that banned coercing or demanding sex with clients. The burden would be on the attorney to prove sex was consensual and the representation was competent. In 1982, an Oregon advisory opinion stated during a divorce it was unethical to have sex with the client. Prior to 1991 there were two cases that mentioned sex with clients. In, Suppressed vs. Suppressed 565 N.E. 2d, 101(1990), the court rejected a client malpractice suit based on sexual relationship. In Barbara A. and John G., 145 Cal.3d 369(1983), the court refused to rule on the ethics issue regarding attorneys having sex with a client.
The ABA Model Rule protects both the public and the attorney. The ABA model rule is clear, simple to follow and there are no exceptions. The Texas rule doesn’t go far enough to protect the public and the attorney. Texas is making a mockery of its self by taking seven years to draft and not adopting the ABA model rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)