Is the study of law worthwhile? Dr. Johnson's opinions

Is the study of law worthwhile?

“The study of law is copious and generous, and in adding your name to its professors you do exactly what I always wished when I wished you best. I hope that you will continue to pursue it vigorously and constantly. You gain, at least, what is no small advantage—security from those troublesome and wearisome discontents who are always obtruding themselves upon a mind vacant, unemployed and undetermined.” [Letter to James Boswell, Aug. 21, 1766.]

Article here (via aba journal). 

Legal documents, rules, and cases: they are your friends! More novel concepts in the law

Many times when a client (or potential witness) gets some legal documents in the mail, they become overwhelmed, and don't even read them. Or they read parts of them, and blank out the other parts. This often leads a to missed deadlines, a failure to respond, and makes the case even worse. It's the "ostrich" approach to litigation (If I put  my head in the sand, maybe it will all go away). This approach isn't a very good one.

Same thing goes for attorneys sometimes: they will get some pleadings from another attorney, or a notice from court, fail to read it thoroughly, and miss something important about the case.

Ancient truth: Yes, legal paperwork is sometimes hard to read, but if you break it down into smaller parts, it's easier.

And here's the secret: when you read it, it has to contain the rules (or cases) that it's based on, and those rules are something that you will need to use to argue (with or against) to get to win your side of the case!

In other words, you have to read it all (especially if you're an attorney), to see what else you should be arguing. And most likely the judge will read all of it too.  So if you don't read, the judge will wonder why you left that out of your argument.

Let me get specific here: You're the client, and you have gotten a notice to appear on your case. It will have the case number, name of the hearing, where the hearing will be (the courthouse, room, and street address), the time and date. It will also have how to respond to it listed on that same form. You (or your attorney) will need to contact the court to do something about the hearing, like reschedule it.

Sometimes, however, the form will contain other information, like "if you do not respond by 21 days from the date of this notice, then . . . ." What's the "then?" Possible "thens" : this order will be signed by the judge,  or then you will lose your window of appeal, or then the bench warrant will be issued. That's the trigger to get you into motion.

Or, let's try a different scenario: You're the attorney, and you get a new client, who needs you to do something with the documents. Where do you start? What court are you in? Make the first step of actually reading what the client gives you. (One more hint: it might not say what the client thinks - see above, clients don't always read everything!) But at least what the client gives you will have the court on it, and something about the case so you can at least get more information.If the client doesn't have the right papers, get the copies from the court of everything else in the file, so that you know exactly where you stand right now. Otherwise, your response will not be accurate.

Now: back to Novel concepts in the law: use those same documents to get the basis that you need to start arguing. In this scenario, you're the attorney with new pleadings from the other side. Those pleading should have a rule, or case citation in them. Look at the rule (or case)! It could be that the attorney on the other side is citing the wrong thing (so you will need to mention to the court what should actually be argued), or that your client's situation is somehow different from what's cited. Then you go about distinguishing your client's case from the one cited, and try to persuade the judge that he or she should agree with your version of things. It's the old "the sky is blue, your honor, that's true, but the shade of blue it was on that day was streaked with gray clouds. So when the opposition says "blue," they should really be saying . . . " You get the idea.

Blogging: how it can help you increase your legal market (Or: Novel points in the law, part 3: write about what you know)

Blogging can be pivotal in increasing your law practice, it's true!

See this article (via aba journal).

The theory is (and this actually is fairly true) that people searching for answers use the Internet. If you're writing about an area of law that a lot of people in the general public (or other lawyers, even), don't know about, your blog will get "hits" more often, as you're the only source of information available.

This leads to new clients, more information about cases, and more renown! Give it a try!

The way that I have seen this work: use a blogger profile, in connection with a Google plus page. When you publish a blog article, it shows up in Google (because G+ wants to reward its users). It also shows up with a photo pic of the author. And of course, your Blogger page will have the short bio of you and your area of law as well.

So my advice (back to novel points in the practice of law) is to write about what you know! If your practice area is intellectual property, focus on that. It will help increase your own knowledge, and other people - legal professionals and potential clients - will be drawn to that.

But you knew this already, right? Study: you are wasting way too much time checking email

Smart phones, tablets, etc. etc. It never ends! Why don't we give up already? (But you can probably include blogging, voicemails, and texting in this survey as well).

We will never get out from under this email burden, however, if we don’t stop checking our email all the time, everywhere, all day (and all night) long. Adobe did a survey looking into our email habits, and surprise! we are all terrible.

Article here (via the lawyerist). 

Practice tips: don't be afraid to look at a rule book, or read a few cases

Novel thoughts in the practice of law: Number 532 - Know the law.

So it might be a good idea, if you're a practicing lawyer, to know the law from time to time. Or know that, before beginning an argument, you might need to point the judge to the fact that you know it exists.

Here's another way to look at it - knowing the law is a way to win cases and make your clients happy. If you can show the judge "hey, here's the law" and then show the judge "but here's the facts of my case" you have a better chance of winning an argument. Which means more cases, and more clients, since happy clients will refer other people to you.

In other words, cases, laws, and rules are your friends. Here's the thing - cite the law, case, rule, statute, what have you. The judge needs to know that you know it. Besides, you went to law school for a while, then passed the Bar exam to practice, and you are probably proud of that fact. Then argue that -for certain reasons - your case is unique, so the law, case, rule etc. shouldn't apply, or that it applies in the way that you and your client want it to.

Make it easy for the judge to agree with you!

Also - if you have somehow become an attorney who doesn't do this, this small fact gets known. It's easy - and maybe a little lazy - to jump right into arguing, and repeat facts to the judge and ask the judge to rule your way - but if the law's not on your side, or you can't argue that it should be, that is the first thing that opposing counsel will point out to the judge, and the thing that they will point out to their client.

Here's a good place to start - Michigan Rules of Court (MCR). (via Michigan Courts).

Six legal technologies that should be obsolete

The list: copiers, fax machines, dictaphones, typewriters, Blackberrys, and Windows XP.

I must confess that I rely on #1 - copiers - on a daily basis.

I also must confess that I sort of miss typewriters, or at least the process of using a typewriter to write. (Now, I do have access to a typewriter in my office - it's an IBM Selectric - to type on forms that I can't get a PDF of online). But back to the writing process: Typewriters were sort of permanent, like an early PDF. In order to use one, your thought had to be pretty complete, or you knew you'd have to edit the pages you types, and then re-type them.

I hand wrote all my exams, which made the writing process more interesting, since I couldn't use "copy, paste" to re-organize my thoughts, while other exam takers with their laptops could edit while typing. But I think the handwriting process was important: It made me write a short outline on the exam book or note paper, then fill out the outlines as I wrote. If I'm stuck now, while writing a brief or whatnot, I will still resort to writing longhand, then typing (but not on a typewriter) the notes I wrote. I know it's very old school, but the multi-step process seems to solidify my thoughts better.

Article here via the lawyerist.

Is understanding technology a lawyer's job? Or the paralegal's job?

Lawyers are often behind on technology. It's a fact.

It’s not our fault, though — law school taught us from the very beginning to focus only on the theory of law as if practical skills never existed. Just look at the bar exam and ask yourself how many times have you or anyone you have ever known ever had to challenge POTUS’s ability to appoint major Cabinet members without congressional approval? How many of you practice criminal law and live in a state that has adopted provisions of the Model Penal Code? Those are mandatory law school classes and a good portion of the MPRE and possibly essay portion of your bar exams.

On the other hand, how many times have you had to draft billing entries so they aren’t cut by the client?

Article here (via Above the Law). 

If you're an attorney and think you can "get away" with just shoving technical responsibilities onto the shoulders of your support staff, think again. The ABA has changed the Model Rules to include technical know-how as part of the attorney's job.

What makes a law firm fail?

U of California Hastings Law Dean Frank Wu did a study on why law firms fail. It has nothing to do with the academics of the lawyers involved.

What is remarkable, he says, is that many failed firms were made up of superlative “lawyer’s lawyers” with excellent credentials and envied clients. Observers wonder how a law firm made up of the best lawyers can fail.

“And that makes my argument,” Wu writes. “Smart people overestimate the importance of being a smart person. To be the best lawyer, or the best collection of lawyers, is not enough; it doesn’t even guarantee you stay in the game.

Article here (via ABA journal). 

In other words, you don't have to be "smart" in the measured, academic way to be successful at the legal profession.

Lawyers and tattoos - they don't mix (or at least they don't mix well in these examples).

Ok, there are tattooed lawyers out there, of course. I know a few.

But here (article via the Lawyerist) are some law-themed tattoos that are, well, weird to say the least.

My favorite: the Marbury v. Madison quote. Yes, I am that nerdy.

New lawyers: don't be intimidated by the tactics of the older, wiser lawyers

I think this article is spot-on, and gives a lot of good advice. Yes, a lot of lawyers will see you as "easy bait" once you get out of law school, and attempt to intimidate you into some position by appearing to know more about the case than you do. But stick to your guns, and don't be afraid to advocate for your client as well as you can. 

Law school does not teach you all the dirty tricks opposing counsel will use to throw you off your game.

By nature, many lawyers are bullies. Think of an experienced lawyer as the senior jock in high school. When that jock sees you walking down the hallway in suspenders and carrying a Trapper Keeper, your lunch money is as good as gone.

Just like those jocks, some lawyers rely on their tough image to get things done. Don’t get me wrong; the power of persuasion (in any form) is certainly a tangible skill. And to be fair, the best lawyers I know make the most of their specific talents. In many situations, attempting to scare a young attorney is their best leverage.

Article here (via the lawyerist).

Don't copy clients on emails: law practice notes

From the Lawyerist, some real practical practice advice. 

As a general rule, you should not CC your clients on emails.

First, because it gives every other recipient a chance to communicate directly with your client. In fact, it looks like an invitation to do so. 

I can see where this might be a temptation, as an attorney, to show your client what you've been working on, or to make sure the client feels "included" in the conversation But there are other ways to do this - like 4 way meetings, or mediation, without sacrificing your client's personal information. Also, it's best to leave some discussions to be done outside the client's hearing, whether in person, on the phone, or via email. 

Did you ever wonder why lawyers are so expensive? ?

Lawyers are expensive because you get a lot for your money. You get someone who will abandon their precious supercar — or regular car — in rising flood waters so he can attend your hearing. You get someone who will lose sleep worrying about your legal problem so you can finally get some rest.

Article here (via the Lawyerist). 

Or, as my Civil Procedure professor put it: Lawyers are like garbage men: we take your problems, put them away for you, so you don't have to do it yourself. He liked to use graphics and props in class, so sometimes he had a toaster, stuffed animal, garbage bag (or maybe I am misremembering that part, it was 9am on a Sunday when I took that class), or other thing to demonstrate what he was explaining. I didn't score very high in that class but I do remember a lot of it quite well, thanks to his graphics and explanations.

Law school hypotheticals, and "cautionary tales:" Do they make you freak out?

Oh yes, you remember this scenario. You're doing the reading for class (way ahead of time, of course, because you were a good law student). And part of the reading includes this hypothetical that seems, well, bizarre. There is no way, you tell yourself, that this is based on an actual case. But once you attend class, the professor tells you, lo and behold, it's based on a case the professor actually knew about! Sheesh, you tell yourself. How odd the real world is.

Fast forward to the next class, where the prof tells you that "It was a mistake in the brief" that caused this whole problem. Yikes, you think, I am going to be sooooo cautious once I get into practice.

Then fast forward to 2 years in the future. Law school is in the rear-view mirror, you passed the bar and are now practicing (gulp) law! And your mind is beset by those hypotheticals, and "cautionary tales" of what to do. And you're overcome by indecision and insecurity. What happened? You're supposed to be decisive and a natural leader once law school was over with.

Blame law school! Here's an article about how law school hobbles you for future practice.

The importance of typing well for lawyers

I know I've been droning on and on about how note-taking is better done by hand. But this is about how to write your thoughts from what were hand written notes into something you would submit to court. Which must be done on a keyboard aka touch typing.

Article here.(via the lawyerist)

From the article:

For lawyers and anyone else who makes a living from words, the ability to type fast is an essential — not optional — skill. Unlike notetaking, which is better done by hand, one of the keys to writing well is eliminating any bottlenecks between your brain and the page.

Fashion news: Professional bags for female lawyers

Another great article from the Lawyerist on the delicate "balance between professional, functional, and not too frumpy or too sexy" bag for female lawyers.

 . . . .  (this balance) makes it a challenge to find a briefcase or bag. The recommendations from the lawyers I surveyed were mostly a variation on the traditional briefcase or tote. There were also many suggestions for rolling bags, which are especially helpful if you have to carry a lot of weight and negotiate high heels at the same time.

Want to lose your case? Here's how.

Another great article from the Lawyerist (I love that blog!)

How to Lose, tip #1: Forget about citing relevant authority. If you want to lose, you don’t need to support your arguments with authority. Your judge has hired law clerks to research authority and to figure out whether it is relevant to the disputed issues. And your court has already paid for a subscription to LexisNexis or Westlaw. As an economics major, I highly value efficient research and understand why you wouldn’t want to duplicate the efforts of the clerks. After all, efficiency beats winning any day.

Or:  do a variation on #1, which is to create relevant authority. I mean, c'mon, as an attorney you've read enough appellate level opinions to be able to write them in your sleep, so why not give it a try? (Tempting, I know, but wrong! See MRPC Rule 3.3)

(please note: for those of you who've lost a sense of humor after 3 or more years of law school, this column is intended as satire! It's a joke, so loosen up!)

Thinking about working as a free-lance attorney? Get your agreement in writing.

Get it in writing (when you can) is the gist of this article from the Lawyerist.

From the article:

The question of whether the work of a freelance attorney requires a written agreement seems obvious at first glance — “get it in writing” is the golden rule, after all. In practice it is not always that simple. There may be situations, depending on the client, project, or timetable, where getting a written freelance work agreement is not possible or necessary.

Yours truly worked for a law firm on the other side of the state after taking the Bar exam & before getting licensed and starting my own firm. It was a great way to get exposed to a "real life" practice and away from Bar exam questions. But we didn't have any agreement in writing for what we were doing, which I regret.

I really enjoyed doing freelance work. It was mostly legal research and some drafting of pleadings. I had a bit of experience, but I didn't have as much risk as the attorney who was taking in the work. On the downside, it was very come and go. When I got a new bit of work, it was red hot, and I'd work over the weekend to get it done. But once it was done I might go for three weeks without any new work.

How much easier is it for a top-tier law school grad to find work? A lot.

The unemployment rate for graduates from the top 50 law schools in the US is more than 60% lower than the unemployment rate for everybody else, according to a study by the ABA. (article here, via Wall Street Journal law blog).

About 5% of class of 2013 graduates from a top 50 school were still looking for work in February, about nine months after spring 2013 graduation. Meanwhile, 14% of graduates of schools below the top 50 were searching for a job.

Law Firm Finances: Everything you need to know

This is a good article about finances, cash flow, and law firm practices. (from the Lawyerist).

Legal Technology: What a solo law practice needs

What does a solo law practice need, in terms of technology?

Read this article for one lawyer's opinion (via the Lawyerist). It's a fairly complete list, and covers a lot of law-specific technology needs

My office set up ideally has: 2 cell phones (I have one for work and one for non-work); a printer, a wireless connection, a laptop, some spreadsheets (I am trying to move to Quicken but haven't yet), some specific software (I bought Marginsoft's "Support 2014" to calculate child support & spousal support), and (eek!) some notebooks for tracking my time (not recommended, I know.)