I recently had a case that was settled for much less than the client or I would have wanted. What started out, by all appearances, to be a strong plaintiff’s case unraveled as unexpected evidentiary issues plagued us. To say this outcome was a disappointment would be an understatement. I felt terrible that I was not able to do more for my client.

Yet I took some relief in knowing that I kept my client fully advised throughout my representation, that my client knew that this could be the outcome, and that I did everything I could do to advance my client’s case. I reminded myself that, despite my efforts, we simply cannot win them all.

Oftentimes our clients want us to tell them what the outcome of their case will be. They want to hear that they have got a slam-dunk case and that everything is going to go their way. They believe that, by virtue of retaining a lawyer, they are going to obtain the relief that they seek. They believe that, because they are on the “right side” of the case, justice will prevail.

Yet, lawyers don’t have crystal balls or magic wands. The fate of a case rests with a judge or jury and with what you can prove. Thus, the vast majority of cases settle because the client is able to maintain control of settlement negotiations and the ultimate outcome. Most clients are simply not willing to “roll the dice.”

We have all been before a judge or jury who we thought got it wrong, whether legally or factually. We have all had cases that looked to be an easy win that turn out to be anything but easy.

There is a mantra in the business world to under-promise and over-deliver. Yet, if we under-promise too much, we run the risk of losing the client to an attorney who expresses more optimism about the case. Conversely, if we over-promise, we run the risk of proceeding with a client who has an unrealistic view of the case. This may cause unintended consequences, like a client who will not accept a fair settlement offer and insists on going to trial, certain the million dollar verdict is a foregone conclusion.

So how do we realistically manage our clients’ expectations without losing business? How do we toe the line between being a counselor and being a business person?

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

As I’m sure most of you animal lovers already know, the Court of Appeals opinion has imposed strict liability on pit bull owners if their dog attacks someone.

In most cases of a dog attack, owners are only liable if they had reason to know that their dog was dangerous. But after this opinion, the attack victim only has to show that the dog was a pit bull or even part-pit bull and the owner will be automatically liable.

I read the opinion and am a bit confused why the court didn’t find liability based on vicious propensity considering the dog in question had exhibited vicious tendencies before this attack.

The law resulting from this ruling falls into the category of “breed-specific legislation.” Maryland is not the first state to have such laws and this isn’t even the first law against pit bulls in Maryland — pit bulls are banned in Prince George’s County. Other states have taken different legal approaches, for example requiring pit bull owners to complete a special registration of their animals and prove that they possessed a certain amount of liability insurance.

The American Kennel Club takes the stance that dangerous dog legislation must be nondiscriminatory. Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand why pit bulls are considered dangerous and I feel for anyone who is the victim of a dog attack. I realize it is extremely traumatic and the injuries can be devastating. I don’t have a pit bull myself and do sometimes feel guilty/ hypocritical about having a different type of dog instead of a rescue pit. I didn’t think I’d be able to handle a bigger dog on my own living in the city without a yard.

But I hope I’ll have the resources to adopt larger breeds that need help. There are a lot of great organizations in the Baltimore area helping pits, such as BARCS, and I don’t think people need any disincentive to help this breed that desperately needs our help.

Check out this website if you want more information on the problems with breed-specific legislation.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

To law school that is. I saw a short article this morning about the value of a law degree in a divorce case. A judge held that a wife’s J.D. added $126,000 to her earning power. (I’m not sure about the wife’s age or experience or what kind of law she practices, but it seems the court valued her degree less than what she paid for it.)

I know I’ve written about this before, but I’m thinking about it again as I continue my job search/ hiatus. What value does my law degree have now, and what value will it have 20 years from now? I feel like it’ll all be worth it, but I must say the dream of a life without loans is a sweet one.

Most entry-level attorney jobs (besides big-firm jobs) don’t pay that much more than the starting salary at a non-lawyer job. The earning potential is more with a law degree, but if you’re smart enough, put your time into working your way up and don’t act like a jerk then you can have similar earning potential.

But it wouldn’t be the same. People are still going to law school in droves and I believe having a J.D. increases your earning capacity, even as society’s view of what it means to be a lawyer changes and even though the payoff can seem impossible now.

Most law graduates are still finding employment even if it is in a “non-lawyer” type positions, like working for their law school in some capacity. And while some may bash these positions, they sound pretty good to me; decent hours and salary while gaining legal experience. The J.D. may not be “required,” but let’s face it — it would be a hard feat to get these jobs without a law degree.

What do you think? Is law school still a good investment or is it a road to nowhere, tempting people who want to feel a sense of accomplishment but who are unprepared for the real world come graduation?

Powered by Bookmarkify™

On any given day, I may be in court. After enough trips, the process has become somewhat routine. I make sure that I am prepared, I arrive before the scheduled time (which allows me to talk with opposing counsel or go over any last-minute details that may have come up with my client), I wait to be called by the court and then we are off to the races.

I am also fortunate because the clients that I usually represent (businesses and their owners with any disputes that arise throughout the life of their companies) usually have some familiarity with the legal process. Essentially, for the most part, they already understand the legal process or understand the process after a brief explanation.

Unfortunately, for others, the legal system is a foreign concept shaped by two- or three-minutes clips from the daily news and hour-long legal dramas (a la “The Firm,” “Law & Order,” “Boston Legal,” “Ally McBeal” and “L.A. Law,” to name a few). These misconceptions of the practice of law (which make for good television) run contrary to the work performed everyday by each member of the legal system, including judges, lawyers and courthouse staff.

During my clerkship in Baltimore City Circuit Court, I was interviewing with the  state’s attorney’s office, public defender’s office and a private, civil defense law firm. During my interview with the PD’s office, I was asked, “Will you have any problems with representing a client who allegedly committed one or more terrible crimes?”

After a short pause, my response, which I still believe to this day, was: “All attorneys have a commitment to zealously representing their clients. In addition to representing your client, an attorney is a member of the judicial system.  Public defenders protect individuals and their rights. They protect against self-incrimination and unlawful searches.  On the flip side, state’s attorneys protect the rights of society. They help make sure that there is law and order. Without both, the system does not work and justice fails.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I had the pleasure of moderating a Maryland State Bar Association Young Lawyers Section Education Committee panel presentation Thursday night. Our topic: “Navigating Discovery as a Young Lawyer.”

It was a great panel, if I do say so myself. The organizers of the event did a great job of picking panelists —Magistrate Judge Charles Day and attorneys Kathleen Howard Meredith, Michelle Lipkowitz and Lisa Hall Johnson. And we had a great turnout.

The panelists were full of great tips on how to get a case started on the right foot. Some of the ones that I wrote down included:

• Take the time to outline all of the claims and defenses in the case at the beginning of the case, before starting to delve into discovery.
• Again, before starting discovery, take the time to get to know the client, how the client does business, where and how the client generates and stores documents and who the key people are (both in terms of the facts of the case and in terms of the client’s operations and document management systems). Visit your client’s place of business, if possible.
• Bring and use a translator — have someone who speaks the client’s language (or your IT contact’s language) with you at the beginning of the case.
• Get documents organized from the very start. Most panelists recommended keeping documents in both electronic and paper format, Bates labeling meticulously and making sure your electronic copy of documents is OCR’d.

In addition to the sample documents that we passed out, panelists noted some helpful resources:

• Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

I was in Greenbelt on Monday for a motions hearing in U.S. District Court as local counsel in a patent and trademark case. Counsel from California argued the motions.

I viewed my presence at the hearing as necessary procedurally but generally unnecessary. Aside from introducing myself to the court, I was as quiet as a church mouse during the hearing.

Yet, as the hearing got underway, I realized I had the rare opportunity to observe a seasoned litigator argue without being on the other side of the trial table.

It was surprisingly pleasant to watch a skilled attorney practice our craft without sweating bullets and wondering if I would be able to adequately counter his points. It also took me back to the “good old days” of clerking in Baltimore County Circuit Court.

There were two points I took away from the proceedings I hope to make part of my practice moving forward:

1. Counsel was intimately familiar with the details of his case. Without looking at the exhibits, he was able to cite to specific paragraphs of specific documents. Keep in mind that there were three motions before the court and, for each motion, counsel had a thick binder full of documents. His ability to refer to documents and quote verbatim was nothing short of impressive.
2. Counsel had read and re-read the Rules of Procedure prior to the hearing. This seems like an obvious task; yet, it is not something I do routinely, unless there is a specific Rule at issue in the case.

I realized there are often unanticipated opportunities to learn and develop our trade. It is important to recognize those opportunities when they are presented and to actively seek to learn from others.

Powered by Bookmarkify™