I’m a native Coloradan, transplanted eight years ago to Charles Village, and re-transplanted this past spring to Hampden. My wife and I were sad to leave our beloved Charles Village—we still miss our regular walking route, the vitality imported in each fall by the Hopkins’ kids (and the accompanying relief every summer when we export that particular resource), and all of our regular hangouts (Chipotle, anyone?).

So, when our family started growing, and we needed a larger living space, we found a nice new construction home in Hampden that had been sitting vacant for a few years. Interest rates were low and the price was right. But, it gnawed at me a little that I was moving to Hampden.

I don’t have anything against Hampdenites (is that what we’re called?), I just never understood the whole “hon” thing. As far as neighborhood cultures go, I felt a sense of belonging in Charles Village. Hampden’s death-grip on its 1950’s-to-1970’s persona (28 of those years being before I was born) seems much ado about nothing.

Especially after moving here, I’ve come to realize that most people here do not address people as hon, and it’s rare to see a beehive or those outdated eyeglasses, outside of the annual flamingo-filled Honfest.

The whole “hon” thing is now being recognized as a “Hon” thing, with a capital “H.”  It seems that no one really noticed about 18 years ago when Café Hon owner Denise Whiting trademarked specific uses of the word “Hon.” Last week the media covered the issue, and Hampdenites, and other Marylanders, took up sides with Ms. Whiting, or against her.

I’m not a patent and trademark attorney. I don’t even play one on TV. I have no idea if that was a legitimate and legally binding trademark. Off the top of my head, I see problems trademarking a generic word that is part of a culture that existed long before the trademark, and became part of the identity of a specific group of people.

On the other hand (I admit that I don’t know what “Hon” qualities Hampden had immediately before the 1992 trademark), it is inarguable that no one person has done more to bring local and national recognition of the Hon-identity than Ms. Whiting. She owns Café Hon, Honbar, Hontown, and she founded Honfest. As a recent transplant, I suspect that she has kept the whole thing alive, and people probably only care about Hampden’s history because she resurrected it.

I don’t fault Ms. Whiting. She has a good business sense, and was able to create something. That takes work, and she deserves credit for it. And, she’s probably not even enforcing her rights as much as she could.

When the Maryland Transit Administration started a new ad campaign centered on the Hon-philosophy, she didn’t ask for any money, just the right to approve or veto specific advertising. I’m sure that’s so she can preserve the identity in a way that it has been preserved, and prevent unflattering portrayals of Hons (which assumes that the existing Hon portrayal is flattering, I suppose).

So, in an editorial that makes me proud to be a Hampdenite, something that has not happened up until now, Ms. Whiting wrote, “Well, even if you’re angry at us, you’re welcome to come down to see us for some pie. Just be nice to the waitresses!” That’s the epitome of the Hampden culture—hard work and a friendly smile.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Despite the fact that lawyers are stereotypically adversarial, I have met few fellow lawyers who actually enjoy confrontation. I think this is particularly true for most younger lawyers. But, like it or not, confrontation is part of our job. It is also an opportunity.

A blogger at Forbes Woman recently posted an article entitled “How to Combat Confrontation at Work.” The article reviews a recent book on conflict resolution skills written by an attorney mediator, and makes some excellent observations, including that “[h]ow you handle confrontation in the office may be as important as networking and technical skills.” She also gives a variety of tips, most of which are gleaned from the book, on how to respond to confrontation within the workplace.

But reading between the lines, the key to dealing with confrontation is the same whether you are dealing with your own personal confrontation at home or in the workplace, or advocating for a client in a professional confrontation. The key is — as it is in every aspect of this profession — preparation. Anticipate the confrontation. Understand the situation and your part in it. Arm yourself with the facts. Be aware of the personalities and points of view involved. And prepare a response to the inevitable biting comment every now and then. Because it will happen. And you can’t always avoid it.

The Forbes blogger gives a great example of a young attorney stopping by another attorney’s office on her way out from work to ask if there was anything she could do to help the other, obviously overwhelmed attorney. Instead of welcoming the kind offer of assistance, the stressed attorney snapped back at the young attorney, accusing her of not doing her job.

Now, the young attorney had just returned from maternity leave and was leaving the office that day at 5 p.m.  The other attorney had been working around the clock to prepare for trial in a huge case. Obviously, the young attorney could have avoided the situation by not offering to help the other lawyer for fear of getting snapped at. Or, the young attorney could have taken a moment to think about how the harried attorney would likely perceive her schedule. She then could have offered to help anyway, but with a response prepared to the foreseeable stress-fueled, knee-jerk response.

Certainly, avoidance would have maintained peace (at least for the time) and the status quo. But the latter approach could have helped resolve an unspoken problem (the perception — justified or not — that the young attorney was not pulling her weight) and would have spoken volumes about the young lawyer’s character.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The Daily Record has posted a few stories on the recent carbon monoxide trial featuring lawyers from the legendary Murphy Firm. A Baltimore City jury compensated 20 restaurant employee plaintiffs in that case with $34.3 million dollars. Plaintiffs argued that a hotel hot water heater leaked dangerous carbon monoxide into the Ruth’s Chris restaurant.

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless and tasteless gas that can cause a range of physical complications, including headaches, nausea, vomiting, weakness, disorientation and death.  Over the long-term, it can harm memory and brain function. The amount of leaked carbon monoxide was over seven times the amount that requires evacuation of a building.

Post-trial motions for the defense were unavailing — they filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on two parts of the claim, a motion for new trial, and a motion to reduce the verdict per the statutory cap ($695,000 per plaintiff for non-economic damages). The reports indicate that the judge denied all of these motions — the most interesting here is the judge’s refusal to apply to cap, likely because the plaintiffs argued, and the jury found, intentional conduct. The cap doesn’t apply to intentional torts because it was designed to reduce the cost of liability insurance, which does not typically provide coverage for intentional torts. Plaintiffs argued that the defendants purposely removed a safety device that would have prevented leakage of the carbon monoxide.

Clearly, this is the type of high-profile case about which people will have strong opinions. Being a plaintiffs’ lawyer, even though this was not a case that I was involved in, I’m glad the injured victims received a good outcome following their day in court. I’m sure there are defense lawyers out there who think the outcome was ridiculous. And, there are probably non-lawyers who have every opinion in between.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The first leg of my summer vacation involved a 14-hour drive to Florida with just me and a golden retriever. (Don’t ask.) The conversations tended to be a little one-sided, but 95 South is painfully efficient, and we made it in one piece.

You have a lot of time to think on a trip that long, coupled with interesting radio choices on the FM dial. One thing is for sure: The lower-numbered FM stations are more likely to make you a better person, either by force or osmosis. It’s all jazz, NPR-type broadcasting or religious songs and preaching.

This is especially true when you hit North Carolina and points south. Frankly, it gets a little too “Children of the Corn” for me at times, but that tends to focus the driving a bit. As in please-don’t-run-out-of-gas focus. I could have sworn Malachi sold me a Frosty outside Savannah, Ga., though. Thank God for Miles Davis.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The Baltimore Sun reported on Friday about the admirable actions of the Ottobar owners. The Ottobar is billed as “Baltimore’s premier venue for live sub-mainstream music.” Here’s what happened: at a show at the Ottobar about two years ago, a patron dove off of the stage into the crowd, presumably expecting to be caught so he could “crowd surf.” Crowd surfing is a dangerous activity with a history of causing injuries to surfers and others.  At any rate, this surfer injured an unsuspecting patron, causing her to incur medical bills and lose time from work to the collective tune of about $30,000.

The patron made a claim of some sort to the Ottobar, which in turn notified its insurance company, United America Insurance Group. UAIG then refused to defend the claim, contending that the injury is more properly labeled “assault and battery.”

One of the Ottobar’s co-owners even said:

I would like to see this young lady get compensated.  I don’t have any beef with this woman pursuing the time she missed from work and some of her medial bills.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Apparently, the Maryland Court of Appeals has something against entrepreneurs and common sense.

The most recent example comes from an unbelievable decision that should send shock waves through the business community and the law firms that represent them.

In Allen v. Dackman, a 5 to 2 decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Baltimore City Circuit Court and the Court of Specials Appeals by holding that an LLC member could be held personally liable to a lead paint plaintiff, even though that member (1) didn’t know the plaintiffs/squatters were illegally living in the row house at issue, (2) had no lease with them, (3) never stepped foot in the house, and – this is important – (4) was acting on behalf of a business entity actually called a limited liability company when the property was bought at a tax sale.

The ruling was based on a peculiar interpretation of a section of the Baltimore City Housing Code. The practical result is that Mr. Dackman may have his life savings and related assets seized to satisfy a judgment.

Umm, honey, about that college tuition and wedding fund ….

Regardless, the decision is as scary as it sounds from a business perspective, and at least two judges agree. Read it here, especially the dissenting opinion.

The scariest part of the ruling is the holding that a member of an LLC may be held liable for torts that he or she “personally commits, inspires, or participates in, even though performed in the name of the LLC.” What does “inspiring” a tort mean, by the way? Also, notice the word “intentional” does not appear before “torts,” meaning good ole’ negligence comes into play.

So here’s the hypothetical: Mom and Pop own a store under an LLC. Have insurance. Work hard, save money. Egg shell plaintiff is injured in the store. Plaintiff files negligence claim against LLC, Mom, and Pop. Jury likes plaintiff and awards big money, in excess of insurance. Garnishment letters, writs of attachment, and door knocks from the sheriff follow.

Who said the American Dream is dead?!

Bottom line? If you own investment property via an LLC anywhere in Maryland, be careful. If you own residential investment property via an LLC in Baltimore City, evict everyone, bulldoze it immediately, move to Fiji, and pray that a process server doesn’t hunt you down. [Note: Author’s jokes not to be taken as actual legal advice.]

For those unfamiliar with LLCs, corporations and the like, a crucial role is that they are allowed to exist as separate legal entities, with the ability to buy and sell property, get insurance, sue and be sued, pay taxes, etc. And because societies benefit from business and commerce, entrepreneurs who form entities like LLCs usually are shielded from personal liability if the business gets sued. It’s a reward of sorts for those with the stones to start their own business.

For example, if I slip and fall at an Apple store, I can’t sue Steve Jobs individually and ask him to pay the judgment. Instead, I would sue the Apple business entity responsible for that store, which presumably has insurance and assets to satisfy a judgment or pay a settlement. In other words, the business entity shields the owner/director from personal liability, but the aggrieved party still has a company from which he can collect.

In Maryland, typically the only way you could get to an individual business owner or director — i.e. “pierce the corporate veil” — was by proving fraud or “paramount inequity.” Evidence burdens are necessarily higher to do so.

The Dackman case, however, flies in the face of that longstanding tradition and leads Maryland down the slippery slope of personal liability for those who merely act on behalf of a company even when there’s no fraud or malice. If the Dackman ruling gets expanded, the chilling effect on entrepreneurs and especially small-business owners will be substantial.

Powered by Bookmarkify™