I recently won my first motion for judgment during a modification for visitation hearing. It wasn’t the win that had me on cloud nine — it was my client’s level of gratitude. Her appreciation is why I work for Legal Aid.

She has been dealing with her custody case for nearly a decade. I can’t imagine the emotional and physical stress she has been through over the years. I made several attempts to reach out to opposing counsel in attempts to settle the matter, but he refused. As time passed, it became clear that I had a strong argument to support a motion for judgment.

I had a slight setback at the beginning of the trial when the judge decided that he wasn’t going to hear from the child, now a teenager. But things started looking brighter after my oral motion to limit the scope of the testimony and evidence to a specific time period was granted over the other side’s objection. The plaintiff’s lawyer finished his direct in about 30 minutes and offered no evidence.

My cross was even shorter. I made my motion shortly after and all I had to say was “under Wagner v. Wagner, the plaintiff has failed to meet his burden that there has been a material change in circumstances…” The judge abruptly cut me off and asked the plaintiff to respond — and that is when I started feeling good. After a brief dialogue between the plaintiff and the judge and my quick rebuttal, the judge granted my motion.

I immediately leaned over to my client and said, “It’s over.” I wanted her to finally have peace of mind. I didn’t realize how emotional she had become until we were outside of the courtroom. She was still processing the fact that this issue was finally over and she was overwhelmed. She was so grateful for the services of Legal Aid and showed her gratitude by giving my supervisor, two of my colleagues and me tight hugs.

Knowing that I’ve impacted someone’s life in a positive way is extremely rewarding. I wouldn’t trade that feeling for anything. That is why I decided to become a lawyer. I might not make a lot of money, but I do have the satisfaction that I provide a much-needed service to an underserved population in my community. I provided my client with thousands of dollars worth of legal services for free. I can honestly say that I believe I zealously advocated on her behalf.

I know that I won’t have favorable outcomes all the time. But this win validates that Legal Aid is the right place for me. Although it has its challenging moments — and sometimes I could use a larger paycheck — those moments are outweighed by the smiles on my clients’ faces at the conclusion of their cases.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

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, 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™

On any given day in any given trial courtroom across Maryland you can find folks wearing a wide array of apparel, including T-shirts, jeans, tank tops, sweatpants, and even pajamas. While court is in session, sheriff’s deputies beseech gallery observers to cease conversing and canoodling. And at the end of a busy day, the courthouse hallways are adorned with soda cans and gum remnants, and the gallery benches are emblazoned with new graffiti.

Since when did we start treating courtrooms like our living rooms?

While members of the bar did not commit many of the aforementioned offenses, I’ve seen lawyers come to court in business casual, deposit garbage on the floor and chew bubble gum at trial table.

Put it all in the blender and it creates an environment where it feels OK to say and do whatever you want without consequences. Worse, it gives the impression that the courtroom and those occupying it don’t deserve respect. It becomes abundantly apparent when people curse during victim impact statements, refer to the judge by just her last name and loudly snicker at opposing counsel that we are not in Kansas anymore.

Where has all of the formality gone? I realize that we are in a time where casual is king (you don’t even have to wear a jacket at The Prime Rib anymore!) but a courtroom is an important place where important decisions are made and it should feel important to the people who walk into it.

If we as lawyers expect others to take our profession seriously, we have to start taking it seriously. Lawyers give cues to their clients and witnesses about how to act in a courtroom by their own behavior.

Much as been written about Generation Y-ers and their inability to conform to a professional environment, but even as a member of Gen Y, I wouldn’t dream of coming to court bare-armed or in a too-short dress a la Lindsay Lohan.

All that being said, perhaps my fellow young lawyers don’t feel the same way as I do. Are you OK with a more casual courtroom? If not, who should be the impetus for change?

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™

It was 1:30 p.m. on a Tuesday when the judge took the bench for the incarcerable traffic docket. The doors had opened a half-hour earlier to allow the witnesses to check in.

These cases are officer-driven; generally, the officer makes a traffic stop for a traffic infraction which leads to the discovery of more serious offenses such as driving under the influence of alcohol, driving on a suspended license or driving without a license.

For the most part, officers are neutral when it comes to the outcome of their cases, leaving it in the ASAs’ hands. Many just want to make their overtime pay for court appearances and leave because they have more pressing obligations and scheduling conflicts. You win their hearts the faster you get them out of court.

Defendants often don’t realize they can go to jail for citations for driving on a suspended license or without a license. The state will often drop the charge if the defendant has no prior convictions for the same offense and if they’ve come to court with a valid license, absent some aggravating circumstance.

On rare occasions, like that Tuesday, I encounter an officer who is particularly excited about the driving suspended citation he issued. Officer Mussoll had stopped Julie Smith for speeding and discovered her license was suspended. In looking through her MVA record, Smith’s license was suspended at the time for failing to pay a ticket which she immediately corrected the day after the officer stopped her. She had no other prior infractions on her record.

By 1:30 p.m., I was well into my wheeling and dealing. I decided to give Smith the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the MVA didn’t send her notice that it was going to suspend her privilege to drive. After all, the MVA has a lot of people to account for and could have made a mistake.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™