ISO Lawyers: Japan Bar Required
It's hard to imagine anyone wishing for more lawyers. But apparently, that's what is happening in Japan, which has set a goal to add more lawyers (Chicago Sun Times 8/21/06). According to the article, Japan has roughly 22,000 lawyers -- one for every 5,790 people, compared with one for every 268 in the United States. Under the old bar exam, to be scrapped in 2011, fewer than 1,500 people (roughly 3 percent of all takers) are allowed to pass every year. But that will be changing soon. From the article: In the most sweeping reform of Japan's legal system since World War II, the doors are opening wide for a flood of new lawyers to handle cases in an increasingly litigious society.Experts say the reforms underscore a big shift in social attitudes that is forcing Japan to change its policy of keeping the number of lawyers low.''People are beginning to take more and more of their troubles to court,'' said Hideaki Kubori, a corporate lawyer. ... Economic necessity is the driving force behind the push for more lawyers. Kubori noted that filings for personal bankruptcy have jumped more than fivefold over 10 years. Inheritance and divorce disputes are also going to court. Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 21, 2006 at 02:23 PM | Permalink Attrition in Associates Leads to Attrition in Law Firm Marketing
Interesting post from Larry Bodine about how the associate attrition problems that I blogged about last week are taking a toll on lawyer marketing efforts. Apparently, because few lawyers see themselves as making partner or don't care about partnership as a goal, they're not particularly interested in marketing. To quote Bodine, "It's impossible to market a service that you don't want to perform." Bodine also writes about the tension between different generations of associates when it comes to marketing: Generation X, associates aged 27 to 41, are loners who question authority, can be cynical, pessimistic, think in short time horizons and have a "prove it to me" attitude, according to author and consultant Cam Marston, of Marston Communications in Charlotte, N.C. Add Generation Y to the mix, aged 26 or younger, who are "adultolescent" individuals who have never known hardship, yet stressed, at a young age, and may have huge goals but are clueless on execution. They don't want to be like the people who are in charge of the firm, the Baby Boomers who have a strong work ethic, are competitive, optimistic and show success visibly with trophies and plaques. And Baby Boomer lawyers are becoming increasingly frustrated about the younger generation's reluctance to step up to the plate and take on res ponsibilities that Boomers had at their age -- including marketing. Much of Bodine's post makes sense to me. But law was also different when the Boomers started out: Back then, hard work would get lawyers a partnership and lawyers weren't required to market as much. Are Boomers' demands of the younger generation sensible? Or are they expecting younger lawyers to more than was required of Boomers when they started their career? And more broadly, is the practice of law at large firms harder today than it was 20 or 30 years ago -- and if so, why? Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 21, 2006 at 02:22 PM | Permalink How Not to Correct Appellate Error
Mike Cernovich of Crime and Federalism posts here about recent appellate error -- committed by an attorney, not the judges. Attorney Kevin Carlucci filed a notice of appeal in a criminal case and learned from the court that the notice was defective. Here's what happened next: When the District Court notified him of a possible error, however, Carelock's counsel acknowledged that he took no immediate action that corrected the problem. He stated that upon receiving notification of an error from the Court, he reviewed a printout copy of the notice of appeal (the one that bore Carelock's name and information) and concluded that there was nothing wrong. At this time, Carelock's counsel neglected to review the document that he had actually electronically filed with the District Court. According to Cernovich, Carlucci's mistake was fairly easy to make, the equivalent of a typo. Apparently, he filed the cover sheet from another case with the court. But Carlucci didn't fix the error until 90 days later, when it was too late -- and too bad for the client, whose appeal was apparently dismissed. Cernovich's lesson: Always listen to the clerk, before a tiny mistake causes big problems. Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 21, 2006 at 02:19 PM | Permalink Blawg Review #71
Pop quiz: Where can you find Blawg Review # 71? This week, it's at Quiz Law, a site that endeavors to provide the general public with a free and easy-to-use resource for finding understandable legal information without all the "legalese." And Blawg Review #71 has a quiz-inspired theme, providing you with answers to a variety of scintillating questions, such as, Is it true that virgins don't make good egg donors?, Is there a right to be seen if you're posting an ad on a California billboard? or Can I start a fantasy football league without violating the law? Finally, what grade does this week's Blawg Review rate? An A+! Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 21, 2006 at 02:16 PM | Permalink If Macs Are This Good, Shouldn't More Lawyers Be Using Them?
Grant Griffiths of Home Office Lawyer, in a guest post debut at Future Lawyer, shares this interesting statistic about Macintosh computers and their resistance to viruses: By the end of 2005, there were 114,000 known viruses for PCs. In March 2006 alone, there were 850 new threats detected against Windows. Zero for Mac. While no computer connected to the Internet will ever be 100% immune from attack, Mac OS X has helped the Mac keep its clean bill of health with a superior UNIX foundation and security features that go above and beyond the norm for PCs. If this is true, it would seem that there should be a greater push within the legal community towards Macintosh usage. I know that one of the impediments is that programs like Word Perfect, still dominant amongst lawyers, are not compatible with the Mac's Operating System. And the Mac still costs slightly more than other types of computers. Are there are reasons why more lawyers haven't transitioned to the Mac? I'll admit that my preference for Word Perfect has kept me tethered to an MS operating system, even though my first machine in law school, back in 1987 was a Mac (it was destroyed in a flood a few years later, and I couldn't afford a new one). Or, should Apple do more to capture the lawyer market by making Macs available at low prices to law students to get them addicted to Mac (just as they are addicted to Lexis or Westlaw)? Posted by Carolyn Elefant on August 21, 2006 at 02:14 PM | Permalink |
