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.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
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.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Batman May Have Been a Yale Law Grad
Batman fights good and evil every day. He is in the middle of major controversy in Gotham City. He has a civic heart and loves a good debate.
Batman May Have Been a Yale Grad- News- ABAJournal.
http;//www.abajournal.com/weekly/articles
Was Batman a Yale Law Grad?
In 1974 he was displaying a law diploma from Yale University at Gotham City.
The diploma appears on Bruce Wayne's study wall on page 16 of Detective Comics from March 1974.The comic is in on display at Yale Library, as a part of the "Superheros in Court:Laywers, Law and Comics Books.The diploma tip was credited to Judge Mark Dwyer of the New York Court of Claims and a 1975 Yale law grad.
And I speak of him in the present tense. Batman is inside each of us. The battle of good and evil is inside of each of us. Most have the battle under control. Unfortunately, several bar members, the list includes myself get lost in the varying shades of grey. Once you cross to the dark side, it is very arduous to return to normalcy. For most once the line has been crossed, it is hard to return. Most may not know the exact time the line was crossed.
My prior blogs discuss steps to take back you life.
I look forward to any and all comments .Please leave your comment below or email them to me at kkellogg123@hotmail.com
Batman May Have Been a Yale Grad- News- ABAJournal.
http;//www.abajournal.com/weekly/articles
Was Batman a Yale Law Grad?
In 1974 he was displaying a law diploma from Yale University at Gotham City.
The diploma appears on Bruce Wayne's study wall on page 16 of Detective Comics from March 1974.The comic is in on display at Yale Library, as a part of the "Superheros in Court:Laywers, Law and Comics Books.The diploma tip was credited to Judge Mark Dwyer of the New York Court of Claims and a 1975 Yale law grad.
And I speak of him in the present tense. Batman is inside each of us. The battle of good and evil is inside of each of us. Most have the battle under control. Unfortunately, several bar members, the list includes myself get lost in the varying shades of grey. Once you cross to the dark side, it is very arduous to return to normalcy. For most once the line has been crossed, it is hard to return. Most may not know the exact time the line was crossed.
My prior blogs discuss steps to take back you life.
I look forward to any and all comments .Please leave your comment below or email them to me at kkellogg123@hotmail.com
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Twenty Two Steps to Save Your Practice or Relationships
Twenty Two steps to save your practice
1. Admit there is a problem, whatever the source is long as it points to YOU.
2. Stressed out individuals don’t make good decisions. Use a legal sleep aid.
3. Eat healthy foods. Get rid of fast foods, soda, sugar, salts, alcohol and additives you can’t pronounce.
4. Cherish your body and mind.
5. Exercise – you eat every day, you brush your teeth twice a day and you should exercise every day. YOGA
6. Set boundaries.
7. Make your weaknesses your strength.
8. Remember with power comes responsibility-You are the advocate for your client. Without your client, you aren’t an advocate.
9. Love deeply.
10. Remember G-d and the Ten Commandments.
11. Laugh!!!!
12. You don’t have to save the world.
13. Life is too short, enjoy each second.
14. Ask for help.
15. Have good relationships.
16. Schedule time for your family and yourself.
17. Be true to yourself.
18. Love what you do, do what you love.
19. Do good deeds.
20. Take a deep breath.
21. Learn to tell when you are about to hit your stress level and back off.
22. Schedule Worry/Problem Time.
Kimberley Kellogg ;913-940-2646; kkellogg123@hotmail.com
1. Admit there is a problem, whatever the source is long as it points to YOU.
2. Stressed out individuals don’t make good decisions. Use a legal sleep aid.
3. Eat healthy foods. Get rid of fast foods, soda, sugar, salts, alcohol and additives you can’t pronounce.
4. Cherish your body and mind.
5. Exercise – you eat every day, you brush your teeth twice a day and you should exercise every day. YOGA
6. Set boundaries.
7. Make your weaknesses your strength.
8. Remember with power comes responsibility-You are the advocate for your client. Without your client, you aren’t an advocate.
9. Love deeply.
10. Remember G-d and the Ten Commandments.
11. Laugh!!!!
12. You don’t have to save the world.
13. Life is too short, enjoy each second.
14. Ask for help.
15. Have good relationships.
16. Schedule time for your family and yourself.
17. Be true to yourself.
18. Love what you do, do what you love.
19. Do good deeds.
20. Take a deep breath.
21. Learn to tell when you are about to hit your stress level and back off.
22. Schedule Worry/Problem Time.
Kimberley Kellogg ;913-940-2646; kkellogg123@hotmail.com
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Twenty Two Signs Your Law Practice Is In Trouble
Twenty Two Signs your practice is in trouble
1. You have missed a Court hearing more than once.
2. Your clients are complaining you aren’t promptly returning their calls.
3. You begin to avoid the office, mail, e-mail, or telephone calls.
4. Your clients appear at your office without an appointment just to talk with you.
5. You feel totally overwhelmed at work.
6. You feel if you could just work without interruptions everything would be fine.
7. You hate your job.
8. You are spending more time correcting mistakes than when you were a newbie attorney.
9. You can’t turn off the work. You don’t have any down time.
10. It's not really coffee in your coffee cup.
11. Your amount of certificated mail has increased.
12. You can’t find anything in your office, especially files-what happened to your filing system?
13. The Office of Disciplinary Administrator or Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel is sending you mail and you are afraid to open it.
14. A client or co-counsel is complaining and you don’t have the patience to listen.
15. You wake up at three am because you didn’t file a required pleading.
16. You are isolated from the real world.
17. You don’t remember the last non-legal book you read.
18. You can’t go to the Chief’s game without talking to opposing counsel.
19. Exercise is walking to the courthouse or office from the handicap space.
20. Your time management skills are so great, only on a perfect day do you make all your appointments.
21. You grind your teeth.
22. You are paranoid.
1. You have missed a Court hearing more than once.
2. Your clients are complaining you aren’t promptly returning their calls.
3. You begin to avoid the office, mail, e-mail, or telephone calls.
4. Your clients appear at your office without an appointment just to talk with you.
5. You feel totally overwhelmed at work.
6. You feel if you could just work without interruptions everything would be fine.
7. You hate your job.
8. You are spending more time correcting mistakes than when you were a newbie attorney.
9. You can’t turn off the work. You don’t have any down time.
10. It's not really coffee in your coffee cup.
11. Your amount of certificated mail has increased.
12. You can’t find anything in your office, especially files-what happened to your filing system?
13. The Office of Disciplinary Administrator or Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel is sending you mail and you are afraid to open it.
14. A client or co-counsel is complaining and you don’t have the patience to listen.
15. You wake up at three am because you didn’t file a required pleading.
16. You are isolated from the real world.
17. You don’t remember the last non-legal book you read.
18. You can’t go to the Chief’s game without talking to opposing counsel.
19. Exercise is walking to the courthouse or office from the handicap space.
20. Your time management skills are so great, only on a perfect day do you make all your appointments.
21. You grind your teeth.
22. You are paranoid.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Fairness Hearing for Google Books Settlement
Fairness Hearing for Google Books Settlement
The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a consolidated class action in 2005 after Google announced agreements with libraries to digitize books in the libraries’ collections. Google didn’t obtain copyright permissions before scanning the books.
The agreement is 179 pages with 16 attachments. Under the agreement Google Library Project is allowed to scan up to 20% of a book online. Google claim’s this with increase sales. The right’s holder’s permission is required for commercially available books. However, out-of –print books could be displayed without permission unless the rights holder requested removal from the data base.”Orphan works”, will be sold without permission or compensation. Google would pay 63 percent of all revenue from the commercial uses of the digitized book sales, online advertising, and institutional subscriptions to the online database. Google will pay to authors whose work has been scanned without permission at least $60.00 per book or $15.00 per insert. Google must create a not-for-profit Book Rights Registry that would compile a public database of rights holders and help locate those who are owed income.
Google will have an edge in the publishing industry. Google would receive significant and possible anticompetitive advantages. Google currently has 0% share in the book market. Microsoft, Amazon and the nonprofit Internet Archive have filed objections. The Justice Department had concerns on copyright infringement and antitrust issues. Many other persons have expressed concern over Google monopolistic control in the areas of out-of-print book sales, “orphan works”, and digitized book sales.
Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights stated, “the settlement would encroach on the responsibility for copyright policy that traditionally been the domain of Congress.” Further, “it could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets.” Both of these arguments seem very weak, given all the issues involved in the proposed settlement.
The increase of availability of books has attracted library organizations, universities and the National Federation of the Blind.
The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers filed a consolidated class action in 2005 after Google announced agreements with libraries to digitize books in the libraries’ collections. Google didn’t obtain copyright permissions before scanning the books.
The agreement is 179 pages with 16 attachments. Under the agreement Google Library Project is allowed to scan up to 20% of a book online. Google claim’s this with increase sales. The right’s holder’s permission is required for commercially available books. However, out-of –print books could be displayed without permission unless the rights holder requested removal from the data base.”Orphan works”, will be sold without permission or compensation. Google would pay 63 percent of all revenue from the commercial uses of the digitized book sales, online advertising, and institutional subscriptions to the online database. Google will pay to authors whose work has been scanned without permission at least $60.00 per book or $15.00 per insert. Google must create a not-for-profit Book Rights Registry that would compile a public database of rights holders and help locate those who are owed income.
Google will have an edge in the publishing industry. Google would receive significant and possible anticompetitive advantages. Google currently has 0% share in the book market. Microsoft, Amazon and the nonprofit Internet Archive have filed objections. The Justice Department had concerns on copyright infringement and antitrust issues. Many other persons have expressed concern over Google monopolistic control in the areas of out-of-print book sales, “orphan works”, and digitized book sales.
Marybeth Peters Register of Copyrights stated, “the settlement would encroach on the responsibility for copyright policy that traditionally been the domain of Congress.” Further, “it could affect the exclusive rights of millions of copyright owners with respect to their abilities to control new products and new markets.” Both of these arguments seem very weak, given all the issues involved in the proposed settlement.
The increase of availability of books has attracted library organizations, universities and the National Federation of the Blind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)