One of the partners at my law firm is a walking legal database. Whether I need to know a case dealing with fiduciary duties of a prior owner of a company or the last case in Maryland dealing with notices for mechanic’s liens, there is a high probability that he will know the case (or have information to quickly locate the case).

We all know of these individuals (and some of the readers of this blog may be those individuals). I’ve heard of stories about recently retired Court of Appeals judge who could not only cite cases regarding various legal topics but provide footnotes and pin cites.

Alas, I am not one of those individuals. To make up for my inability to recall the specific passage and verse of every single case I have ever read, I needed to develop a system to ensure that I was up to date with each new opinion pertinent to my practice. Fortunately, as a business attorney with a focus on construction law, I do not need to read every single opinion that is drafted and published (though I enjoy reviewing some of the criminal law opinions because they made for some good story telling).

So, I’ve developed a personal law library. In order to keep track of new opinions, I initially review the Maryland Lawyer section in Monday’s Daily Record, which provides a list of all of the previous week’s cases and a handy summary for each case. I circle cases I deem important for my practice and then have my legal assistant download them from the Judiciary’s website (a process that is free and environmentally friendly).

After I review the case and make electronic notes (I’ve only scratched the surface of PDFs’ wonderful features, though John Cord has written about this), I save the electronic version of the case in a folder in my Dropbox account (a cloud account that is free for the first 2GB).

Over the past few years, I have created an online, readily-available personal law library for myself. If a legal issue comes up, I can quickly determine if it’s something I already have researched. Obviously, I make sure the law is still good, but its the start that saves me time and our client’s money.

While this method works for me, are there any other methods that you use to help organize relevant cases you use?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Why some people take pride in the fact their Facebook profile emulates an episode of Tosh.0 is beyond me. (I am not saying that I don’t watch the show and laugh hysterically. But, simultaneously, I do wonder why people put some of this stuff up on the Internet for the entire world to see.)

While Facebook has been in the news recently for its upcoming IPO, another story, about Facebook privacy, caught my attention on the radio as I was brushing my teeth this morning. Apparently, Facebook is still working on deleting photos from its servers in a timely manner nearly three years after the issue was brought to Facebook’s attention.

Have you ever deleted a horrific photo on Facebook that was posted by a “friend?” Well, you may not have really deleted it. Photos “deleted” from Facebook seemingly never go away if you have a direct link to the image file on Facebook’s servers. Just imagine the joy felt by those individuals who had the common sense or foresight to delete photos because they didn’t want retaliation from an employer, wanted to avoid family drama or uploaded a photo of a friend without permission, to name a few reasons, when they discovered the photo would remain accessible for an indefinite amount of time as long as someone had a direct link to the .jpg file in question.

A few months ago, I had to research the discoverability of information and data on a Facebook (or other social media) account and profile. From the limited guidance published by a few jurisdictions, it seems that a party would likely succeed in requesting Facebook information and data during the discovery process. The court’s interpretation of federal Rule 26(b)(2)(c) allows for an extremely broad scope of relevancy.

While Maryland courts have not ruled on this broad scope of relevancy as it pertains to social media discoverability pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(c), it has ruled on its reliability and authentication. In April 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed the conviction of Antoine Griffin, which was based on evidence gathered from a MySpace profile of Griffin’s girlfriend. The Court of Special Appeals had ruled the police officer proffered by the state as an authenticating witness was sufficient to authenticate the MySpace profile printout. (A law professor from Chicago gave a great summary of this case on his blog and I will highlight some points here.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

My old boss, Vice President Joe Biden, weighed in on “American exceptionalism” during a speech Monday. In subscribing to the idea, the former chairman of both the U.S. Senate Judiciary and Foreign Relations committees provided the unique perspective that our exceptionalism is particularly demonstrated by our “deep commitment to the rule of law.” I think he’s got a good point. And, I think it’s notable how his view was shaped.

Biden, a lawyer, is as aware as anyone of the importance Americans place on the rule of law at home and abroad. He presided over some of our nation’s most controversial judicial nominations and later, as the Senate’s point man on foreign affairs, met with countless leaders from  different countries, territories and international organizations while pushing President Bill Clinton and the United Nations to punish rulers who flouted the rule of law.

Our own commitment to the rule of law was demonstrated to the world during the 2000 presidential election in which we accepted the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore. Without a coup, civil war or violent rioting in the streets, the public and the losing candidate moved beyond the controversy because of respect for the rule of law and the greater good of the nation.

The respect may be especially profound to those entrusted with determining the rule of law in specific cases. It is a topic of Justice Stephen Breyer’s recent book and a favorite subject of Maryland Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert M. Bell.

When speaking to youth about the judiciary and separation of powers, Bell often laments the court’s status as the weakest branch of government. With the legislature possessing the power of the purse and the executive having the power of the sword, the courts have only the power left to it by the willingness of the public to accept its judgments. The fact that we regularly do is truly exceptional.

Talk of American exceptionalism often seems tinged with arrogance, and this perception can be counterproductive when trying to collaborate with foreign governments. But I think Biden’s perspective gives us something to be very proud about when comparing ourselves to the rest of the world and something both sides of the political spectrum can embrace.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Almost every national CLE program I attend has something about voir dire. I remember one in particular — about a year after I passed the bar — where some hotshot lawyer from another state was regaling us with stories about how voir dire took two days for a medical malpractice case.

He described tactics — how to begin laying the case theme in voir dire, the ability to use voir dire as a preliminary opening statement and what questions were crucial for discovering those jurors who could not decide cases fairly. I worked on a few cases in other states, and the voir dire process was long and drawn out and seemed to require days of preparation.

Fast forward to my first experience with a Maryland-style voir dire. It’s best described as short. In some cases I’ve since been involved in, it can be done in less than an hour. Some of the longer ones have lasted about 3 hours.

The hardest part (although not that hard) is understanding the process of counting in order to make strikes as effective as possible. Other than that, there is little that a trained monkey can’t understand.

Here in Maryland, our judges typically ask all of the questions. The parties submit proposed voir dire questions before the trial. The judge will look them over, decide what he/she wants to do, and if you’re lucky, might ask for some oral argument on the more unusual questions proposed by counsel.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The word “solo” means “alone.” The definition itself can be good reason for a lawyer to avoid it — it implies all of those things that humans as social animals try to avoid.  From the primitive need for security in larger numbers to the modern need for a ridiculously high number of Facebook friends, we are designed to seek out others.

Done right, going solo should be more communal than working in a big law firm. Modern technology gives us the benefit of email, listservs, instant chat and video chat. Networking lunches are more important for solos, who rely on others for business referrals. Bar association CLE classes and meetings provide a lifeline to similarly-situated lawyers. Family and friends boost us up and make the solo dream a reality.

And the best reason for going solo? Autonomy. The chance to create something, to apply life’s lessons to your firm, to set your own priorities. That’s why I’m striking it out “on my own.” As any solo will tell you, the work ranges from the mundane (filing articles of organization and opening an IOLTA account) to the exciting (starting a website and that first meeting with a potential client).

Coming on the heels of Michael Siri’s post Friday detailing the disappointing lack of donated food to the Maryland Food Bank this holiday season, my first official priority is to help turn that around. For every “Like” my new Facebook business page gets between now and Dec. 31, I will donate $1 to the Maryland Food Bank.  I’d be pleased if other lawyers or local law firms make the same offer — let us know in the comments section below.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I am a commercial litigator. My firm’s clients range from small to mid-sized businesses to larger companies to start-ups to individuals. They hire us to solve problems, resolve disputes, negotiate deals and make sure that they are acting in compliance with the law.

In most cases I handle, the opposing party hires an attorney to solve their problems, resolve their disputes, negotiate their deals and to make sure that they are acting in compliance with the law.

Occasionally (but with more frequency), the opposing party will decide they do not need (or cannot afford) to hire an attorney and instead decide to represent themselves. What to do with a self-represented litigant?

I am always torn with how to handle myself. On one hand, I want to use all of my skills and abilities to swiftly resolve the case. On the other, I fear appearing as if I’m taking advantage of the fact the opposing side does not have an attorney.

Essentially, I need to zealously represent my client while still being an officer of the court and ensuring the matter is handled fairly and justly. Unfortunately, weighing both of these considerations can be extremely frustrating.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™