As lawyers, we can get as wrapped up as anyone else in the latest media-hyped news. Often the news is law-related, giving us the chance to consider what lessons we can draw from these events.

The story surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin is one example. A couple weeks ago, lawyers for George Zimmerman, the man now formally accused of second-degree murder, publicly withdrew their representation in a press conference. Such a “noisy withdrawal” may have costly consequences under the Maryland Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct.

Specifically, Rule 1.6 prohibits a lawyer from disclosing client confidences. And, Rule 1.16 outlines the reasons a lawyer may terminate representation and mandates that a “lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interests of the client.”

Many reasonable people might make a negative assumption about a lawyer’s withdrawal from a case without any statements he or she might make as part of the action. Zimmerman’s attorneys arguably took this danger much further. The (arguably) negative portrayal of Zimmerman and the public revelation of unfavorable details about their attorney-client relationship could have a devastating impact on his case.

Zimmerman would have been better painted as someone who is confident, alert, and interested in his defense. Instead, they have arguably painted a picture of someone unstable and running scared and, as a result, potentially helped to taint the jury pool should the case go to trial.

In contrast to Mr. Zimmerman’s situation, former presidential candidate John Edwards’ case has seen a lot of turnover during its pendency. But each defense lawyer withdrawal — about four at this point — only came with a court filing, never a press conference. As a result, it seems that despite many very unfavorable details, the outcome of Edwards’ case still seems unpredictable. In any event, we’ll learn the fate of both men soon.

As we get caught up in the latest headlines and become “talking heads” with our friends or loved ones at home, we might step back and consider how these situations might inform our own cases. And, before making any important decision impacting our clients, make sure we consult the Rules.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

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™

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™

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™

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™

I understand that many people have a love/ hate relationship with their GPS. It can be a godsend for the directionally-challenged, but it can be an endless source of frustration when it loses its signal or only gets you in the general vicinity of your destination. (I’ll admit I’ve experienced mostly the latter, as recipients of my frantic emergency calls can attest.)

It looks like our legal system is going to have a similar relationship with the technology; the Supreme Court ruled Monday the use of a GPS device to track a suspect’s behavior and location qualifies as a search under the Fourth Amendment.

However, the justices left it an open question as to whether it’s an invasion of privacy to use GPS devices to track people through a device that comes installed with a GPS, such as a cell phone. The justices hinted that they might have to modify their ruling if GPS devices were used in this manner in order to protect privacy rights.

I know phone records can be subpoenaed in cases and these records can also show the location of the calls, or at least what tower the cell phone call is routed through. But it’s interesting to think that law enforcement could have the capability to monitor your every move through the GPS device on your phone.

Considering that it’s a virtual necessity, if only for safety reasons, for adults to carry a cell phone, this means just about anyone’s location could be tracked at anytime.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™