D.C. Madam Trial -- All About the Male, er, Mail
The Blog of the Legal Times is offering up-to-the-minute coverage of the trial of D.C. Madam, Deborah Palfrey.
Early accounts suggest that prosecutors downplayed some of the salacious details in their opening statement to get jurors focused on RICO, the legal issue at the center of the trial. In short, as Catherine Connolly said, the case is about the mail (not the male).
Still, the trial will necessarily delve into the facts because jurors will need to determine whether Palfrey's operation involved unlawful prostitution. Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, a former client of Palfrey's service, has been listed on the witness list. And I just heard a report on the local ABC affiliate that jurors heard testimony from two local lawyers today -- one from D.C., one from Rockville, Md. -- who testified that they used Palfrey's escort service 50 and 100 times, respectively. Both lawyers received immunity in exchange for their testimony -- though I wonder whether their admission of participation in unlawful activity could trigger the interest of a bar grievance committee. I certainly hope not.
Sphere: Related Content Posted by Carolyn Elefant on April 8, 2008 at 03:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Where There's Smoke, There's Flames
A blogger's posting about a lawyer-couple's lawsuit against their neighbor for her failure to abate cigarette smoke seepage from her apartment into a common hallway ignited a swarm of flames against lawyers for their aggressive, obnoxious and money-grubbing ways. The firestorm started with Simple Justice blogger Scott Greenfield's post criticizing John Stossel's commentary that lawyers are parasites ruining America. As evidence of lawyers' bullying ways, Stossel cited a lawsuit by lawyers Jonathan and Jenny Selbin against their co-op neighbor, Galina Huff, demanding that she cease and desist from causing smoke to enter the common hallway. Greenfield initially agreed that the Selbins seemed unreasonable, though he later learned from an e-mail from the Selbins that they had made several attempts to negotiate with Huff before filing the suit. But disclosure of that information didn't do much to allay the swarm of nasty commentary, causing Greenfield to ponder why lawyers have such a bad rap.
However, perhaps the public has good reason to criticize the Selbins themselves -- albeit, not the entire legal profession. New York magazine suggests that the Selbins weren't as reasonable as they depicted themselves; among other things:
• They introduced the lawsuit by slipping a note under the neighbor's door that read: "As you may not be aware, we are both lawyers and both litigators, for whom the usual barriers to litigation are minimal."
• In the complaint, they referred to the neighbor, Galila Huff, a quirky restaurant owner with a Chihuahua named Boo-Boo, as "evil."
• They complained that Huff had Boo-Boo urinate on their son's stroller in retaliation for their complaints.
• When ABC News pointed out that this was in fact New York City -- "There are lots of chimneys, and exhaust fumes from cars, trucks, and buses. How pristine does the air have to be?" -- Jonathan Selbin retorted, "Have you asked Ms. Huff how she would react if we put dog poison in the shared hallway?"
You might think that the suit was destined for trial with this kind of back and forth. However, this morning, the New York Times reported that the lawsuit has settled -- no thanks to either party. According to the Times:
Within days of publicity over the lawsuit, a company called Aerus, formerly known as Electrolux, offered to install a free air filtration system in both the Selbins' and Ms. Huff's apartments that the company said would clear the smoke. Joe Urso, CEO of Aerus, said that the filtration system had been installed and that he believed it was instrumental in driving the settlement.
So basically, it took an air filter to clear the air between these feuding parties.
Unfortunately, it's the outrageous stories like this one or the $65 million pants suit brought by administrative law judge Roy Pearson against his dry cleaner that gain so much press and, ultimately, tarnish the reputation of all of us lawyers.
Sphere: Related Content Posted by Carolyn Elefant on April 8, 2008 at 03:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Still Two Sides of the Bar in the Legal Profession
Two lawyers walk into a bar ... One orders a round of drinks for the house. The other one puts on an apron and serves it.
Is the above quote just another silly lawyer joke -- or is it an accurate reflection of the current state of the legal profession? That's the issue that Greg Burns tackles in this lengthy piece in Sunday's Chicago Tribune.
Burns argues that the upper fourth of earners in the legal profession have continued to prosper, while the bottom three-fourths have lost ground. At the top of the spectrum, mega law firms with their millionaire partners and -- at least up until the past few recessionary months -- their ever-increasing associate paychecks continue to grow, with many corporate counsel still willing to pay large firm rates. At the other end, it's harder for those who don't find large-firm jobs to make a living because the rising cost of legal education means that smaller paychecks don't stretch as far. Most graduates who accept lower-paying jobs in public interest can barely pay their bills after meeting student loan obligations -- a point well illustrated by Jen Wrenn's experience, who tends bar on the weekends to supplement her prosecutor's salary. And at all ends of the spectrum, there's dissatisfaction. Lower-earning lawyers stress about finances, while those earning big paychecks stress about long hours or lack of meaningful work.
Burns' current description of the profession seems accurate; indeed, we've discussed these trends previously here. What's more interesting are the predictions for the future:
Academic researchers believe change is coming to the profession. John Coates of Harvard Law School, for one, has a clear vision of how economics will reshape long-standing practices. He foresees the American Bar Association and state bar examiners coming under pressure to reduce the cost of law school by relaxing rules. That could mean accrediting online programs or allowing two-year degrees instead of the standard three....Restrictions on practicing law without a license also will relax, Coates predicts, so paralegals can handle house closings, leases, simple contracts and wills. More legal work will be carried out at a discount offshore, as well...Eventually, Coates says, the great divide in lawyer incomes will divide again, this time into three categories: The super-highly-paid, a middle tier of the highly paid and, by far the biggest group, everybody else.
In my view, these future predictions overlook the way that technology is starting to and will continue to break down the barriers in our profession. Lower technology costs -- for legal research, case management, document automation and client relation software -- enable lawyers to leave their firm with a few clients and handle the same matters as they did at their large firm without losing a large portion or revenues to overhead. Technology also allows multiple solo and small-firm lawyers to team up in virtual arrangements to offer the same broad range of expertise as a large firm. While some clients will always want or need a large firm, many will find that smaller, specialized shops suit their needs. And though the bar may relax rules on conflicts, that won't solve the problem of conflicts that is inevitable with large-firm growth. After all, some clients would rather not be represented by the same firm that represents the parent corporation of the subsidiary that's suing them -- even if permitted by bar rules. Finally, technology will also help solo and smaller-firm lawyers to figure out ways to deliver lower-cost service while still making a profit. These lawyers may not earn as much as their superearning peers at the associate-leveraged, megafirms, but they'll still do quite, quite well.
So readers, you tell me. Is the legal profession on course towards an even deeper divide between the "haves" and "have nots?" Or will we lawyers find a way to unite at the bar, instead of standing separated on two sides?
Sphere: Related Content Posted by Carolyn Elefant on April 8, 2008 at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
Presidential Election Roundup
Once again, here's another installment of our presidential election roundup, with the latest tidbits on the candidates and the law-related issues in the race.
Obama the Associate. Obama has referenced his background as a civil-rights attorney at various points during the campaign. This L.A. Times story provides more detail on Obama's four years in private practice, noting that during his tenure at a small civil-rights firm, he spent 70 percent of his time handling voting rights, civil rights and employment cases. While Obama is now a superstar, back then he handled grunt cases just like any other junior lawyer -- for example, defending nonprofits in minor matters like a slip and fall or a $336 claim for reimbursement for baby-sitting services. Not surprisingly, "those were not the cases that Obama highlighted" in his first book,
"Dreams From My Father."
Hillary Uses Hogan for Taxes. Who's the lawyer behind the Clintons' recently released tax returns? According to American Lawyer, the Clintons have been using Howard Topaz, a New York-based tax partner at Hogan & Hartson to prepare tax returns for the past four tax cycles. That's a fairly significant gig for the firm, given that between 2000 and 2007, the Clintons' tax returns show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. Prior to 2004, the Clintons used an accounting firm.
Supreme Court Predictions for the Candidates. Kim Eisler of the Washingtonian is the most recent commentator to take a stab at predicting the candidates' possible Supreme Court picks. For McCain, Eisler identifies former Justice Department Viet Dinh as "an intriguing possibility" because of the Vietnam connection. McCain endured five years of captivity by the North Vietnamese between 1967 and 1973, while Dinh fled Vietnam for the United States in 1978, spending 12 days in a boa with no food or water. As for a Democratic president, Eisler describes former solicitor general Seth Waxman as "the next justice in waiting," while Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan is the "almost certain top choice replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Interesting selections, but still -- how unfortunate that even in the 21st century, we still have designated "female" seats on the court. Wouldn't Kagan make an equally suitable replacement for, say, Justice Stevens as she would for Justice Ginsburg?
Hard Growth for Soft-Money Groups. As in the 2004 presidential election, soft money groups are already expected to play a major role in 2008, reports The Boston Globe. Soft money groups -- known as 527 organizations -- came to prominence following campaign finance rules that limit individual donations to candidates to $2,300 per person per election and require candidates to disclosure contributors. By contrast, soft money groups, though prohibited from endorsing or supporting individual candidates, are not limited in fundraising and, thus, are not constrained in political spending. The Federal Election Commission (FEC) regulates 527 organizations and can assess stiff fines for violation of the rules, such as the prohibition on endorsing individual candidates. But right now, the Federal Election Commission is down to two commissioners from its usual panel of six due to congressional fights over appointments. As a result, some strategists fear that the FEC may not be able to effectively oversee 527 groups during this contentious election cycle.
Sphere: Related Content Posted by Carolyn Elefant on April 8, 2008 at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
