Last week, my cell phone started ringing incessantly. By “incessantly,” I mean every two seconds. The numbers that came through were not 10-digit numbers, but sometimes 15-to-20 digits. When I answered, the call disconnected.

I called Verizon and was told there was nothing they could do about it, that a machine was likely dialing my number and that it would take 24-hours for them to get the real 10-digit number behind the calls rather than the fake numbers showing up on my phone. (Verizon can only block 10-digit numbers.)

I had a gut feeling that a scam was underway but Verizon assured me that no one could hack into my phone just by dialing it incessantly. After three calls with Verizon, I turned my phone to silent and hoped that the calls would eventually stop.

I then got a call from a woman named “Maria” who claimed that she was from Verizon and apologized for the technical difficulties. She asked me to turn off my phone. I asked her for her name again and a call back number. When she hesitated in giving me the call back number, my suspicions that she was a scammer were solidified.

I could not imagine what would happen if I turned my phone off but I knew I did not want to do what “Maria” asked. I kept my phone on until the battery drained from all of the calls and it shut off.

I had been checking my bank accounts periodically online throughout the day. For some reason, I had hunch that the scam was going to be on one of my accounts. I have the Bank of America app on my phone and, although Verizon assured me that no one could get that information simply by repeatedly calling me, I still felt uneasy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

In just a few short months I’ll be getting married, and that means I’m in full-on planning mode. Turns out that planning a wedding is basically a full-time job, so when I’m not at the courthouse, I’m emailing my caterer, buying out Michael’s, and of course, re-pinning every genius idea I find on Pinterest.

While the majority of wedding planning is really fun – cake tastings, anyone? – there is one formidable task: the guest list. Of all the decisions we’ve made so far, cutting people from the guest list has been our least favorite. A particularly hairy issue brides and grooms encounter is whether to invite co-workers.

Most young lawyers spend more time with their co-workers than with their own family. Provided you actually like your co-workers, it seems natural to invite them. The problem arises when deciding where to draw the line: if you invite another associate, do you need to invite all of the associates? If you invite one partner in your practice group, should you invite all of them? The whole firm?

The obvious answer is that you should only invite co-workers who will give you really great gifts. Just kidding (sort of). While there are no etiquette rules directly on point, it seems to me that the most important factors to consider are the size of your venue and budget, whether there is the potential for hurt feelings, and whether you are comfortable with a colleague listening to the best man’s speech about your raucous college adventures.

For me, it was an easy decision: I consider my chambers co-workers to be friends, and there are only 2 of them. My boss is officiating, so that was a no-brainer, too. It seems, however, that if I were still at the firm or in a different work setting, who to invite would be a difficult choice.

So I pose some questions to you, blissfully married Generation J.D.ers – when you got married, whom did you invite from work, if anyone? Did anyone have hurt feelings? What would you do differently?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I admit it. I am a complete nerd when it comes to grammar, usage and spelling. It’s an honest obsession. After all, both of my parents are English teachers, and I taught high school English for ten years. As you can probably remember from your own high school English class, any teacher who spent time on grammar was a complete nerd.

So what’s the point? The point is that as I have made my way in the legal world, I have noticed that not many attorneys really care about grammar. I routinely receive pleadings, motions and discovery responses that contain glaring errors.

For example, I recently received a Motion to Continue from opposing counsel that began like this:

Comes now, Plaintiff, Jim Smith, by and through his counsels, John Doe, Esquire, Jane Doe, Esquire and Doe and Doe, LLC, and submit this Motion to Continue. In support thereof, Plaintiff submits the following:

“Counsels”? That’s a verb. The grammatically correct plural of counsel in this instance is counsel. What about the lack of subject-verb agreement in the first sentence? The Plaintiff submit? This is basic stuff, made worse — in my opinion — by the proper subject-verb agreement (Plaintiff submits) in the subsequent sentence. I am a self-admitted nerd, but I find this lack of attention to detail infuriating.

Similarly, I often encounter documents from opposing counsel littered with improperly used semicolons. Full disclosure: this was one of my favorite subjects as an English teacher, so I have great affection for the semicolon. I also empathize with those who misuse it, as it is not the easiest form of punctuation to use. However, I would be remiss in a post (mild rant?) about grammar if I did not offer some guidance.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

One of the benefits of striking out on your own is that you can finally have the law firm you’ve always wanted. All of those experiences from prior jobs can be distilled into your firm’s philosophy, used to create your ideal work-life balance and inform the technological purchases you make.

Actually, it might be more accurate to say that you can eventually build the law firm you’ve always wanted. So many of those first decisions are based on necessity.

One of the common complaints from BigLaw lawyers is that the only option is a work-life imbalance weighted heavily in favor of work. The culprits are common enough: long commutes, heavy billing requirements and a need to impress the higher-ups in hopes of access to the partnership track. In that type of culture, it can be difficult to ask for time off or to suggest some type of alternative working arrangement (like once-weekly telecommuting).

I think smaller firms tend to have a better track record for some things — telecommuting seems a little more common, for example. All of my past firms have been understanding on the time off issue. My biggest concern has long been the ability to get two days off with almost zero notice when we get foster care calls. Fortunately, it has never been a problem.

My second concern, as most parents know, is being able to call out on days when the kids can’t make it to daycare. Somehow it always worked out, but I can’t help but feel a bit guilty about taking unplanned time off.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I recently had the pleasure of hearing a keynote speech from Robert Grey, a partner with Hunton & Williams LLP in Richmond, Va., and a board member of the Legal Services Corp., which administers grants to indigent legal service organizations throughout the country. He is also a former president of the American Bar Association, one of only a few African Americans to hold that position.

Clearly, he is a man of much success. But the words he had that night for an audience of young (and not-so-young) attorneys was that such success did not come without a willingness to take chances and to strive to achieve more.

Inevitably, when you take risks you will have some failures, but in trying you learn for the next time and you also serve as an example and steppingstone for someone else.

Mr. Grey was in that position when, after running and losing an election for mayor of Richmond, he was asked to speak at a local middle school. It was enough for the school and its children that here was a man that had accomplished much and yet still strove for more. It was of no consequence that he had not succeeded; he was a positive example nonetheless.

I think part of the lesson is that success begins with one’s attitude, and Grey reminded me of the following “Ten Commandments of Attitudes” I found somewhere as a kid:

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Last week, opposing counsel and I went back and forth regarding a discovery dispute about a document that I believed was subject to discovery and should have been produced. I drafted a “good faith” letter, drafted a subpoena to a third party and spent several hours researching the issue.

But counsel and I also scheduled a conference call to discuss the dispute. Within minutes, we were able to strike a compromise and the letter, subpoena and research were no longer necessary.

I learned a valuable lesson — play nice and try to work it out. Despite what people often think of lawyers, most of us are reasonable and want to avoid spending countless hours fighting over something that can be resolved.

Even if the issue ultimately is not resolved, it may establish some goodwill between the parties that at least an attempt was made to work it out.

Powered by Bookmarkify™