With the challenges of training behind me, I still felt no relief running dockets on my own. I had relied too heavily on the guidance of my trainer in fashioning plea offers.

There is no formula to it; rather, a plea offer is determined by a series of factors — the strength of the evidence, the credibility of witnesses, the injury to the victim and, of course, the draw of the judge that day. The last factor often controls.

Often retired judges from circuit court make their cameos in district court. Today, I drew a retired judge, who was known to be tough on DUIs. I remembered this judge well from my clerkship when I assisted him during a docket. He was polite and pleasant with parties, but his patience wore thin in the face of cowardice and injustice.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

The scene: Closing arguments in an auto negligence case, being tried on liability first. Plaintiff’s attorney (me) goes first:

“Your honor, the defendant’s story that my client was making a U-turn on a road with one lane in each direction just doesn’t make much sense,” I said. “My client testified that he was turning left, which is consistent with his testimony about where he was going. A U-turn under those circumstances would be just about impossible — he was driving a huge Ford F-150. I drive a small Saturn and I couldn’t have made that U-turn.”

“Most attorneys would be embarrassed to admit that they drive a Saturn,” the judge interjected.

“Judge, I’m just not the Beamer-type,”  I replied.

That started a conversation about car preferences that had absolutely nothing to do with the case. After it was over, the judge ruled that she found my client credible and ruled for him on liability.

The judge said she would postpone the damages portion of the trial for 30 minutes so the parties could see if it were possible to work it out. It wasn’t, so my client testified for a few minutes about his injuries and medical treatment and the judge determined that his damages were worth $15,000. We filed for a maximum of $15,000, and I was surprised at the verdict, expecting maybe $7,000 on a good day.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

After months of work, Baltimore finally hosted the Grand Prix. Those of us who live here have survived the road work and other preparations — minor inconveniences. The past few days, however, we faced the major inconveniences.

One of the legal listservs I subscribe to had a number of comments from Baltimore-based firms on Thursday, most of them following a simple formula: “It usually takes me X hours to get to work in the morning, and today it took me X+2 hours. We’ve closed the office for tomorrow.”

I live in Hampden and usually go through the city to get to my office in Columbia, but since Thursday I’ve taken back roads to get to I-70, then to Route 29. Out of my way, but better than dealing with traffic.

I hope Baltimore got a lot of money out of this deal, because there has certainly been a lot of lost income for businesses in the city. I’m sure we will come out ahead, especially with all the construction and the good advertising our city is getting.

I feel a little bad I wasn’t more interested in the Grand Prix. On Saturday, my family fled the Baltimore (by an alternate route, of course), and went to the D.C. zoo with a stop by the Bethesda-version of Georgetown Cupcakes (shorter lines and oh-so-worth-it). I caught the last 30 minutes of the qualification (or whatever they call it) on TV when we got home. Sunday, I spent an hour watching it, really trying to look for a reason to keep watching.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

One of the most controversial issues facing the United States is the topic of immigration. Making the topic so difficult to discuss rationally is the complexity of the issue: Who deserves to get in? Who doesn’t? What do we do with those who are here and undocumented? Should we say “undocumented” or “illegal”? What do we do with the parents of American children? Should citizenship be acquired merely by birth in the United States?

As a whole, Americans are welcoming of those who wish to enter the United States for a better life. It’s hard not to be when these same aspiring citizens are so optimistic about our nation. In a time of bleak financial uncertainty, riots, famine and turmoil, it’s flattering to hear someone say nice things about our country.

Still, there are exceptions to the welcoming attitude of our citizenry, largely against those that “broke the rules” and entered without documentation/inspection. But even within that group, distinctions can be made.

In a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center several months ago, participants were asked how they would like the government to address illegal immigration. According to the poll:

Forty-two percent believe the priority should be to tighten border security and more strictly enforce immigration laws, but at the same time also create a way for people here illegally to become citizens if they meet certain conditions. Somewhat fewer (35%) put priority only on better border security and stronger enforcement, while 21% say the priority should be to find a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens.

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

It was a simple district court case. Minimal damages, but hotly contested liability. I had my client and a witness. The defendant corporation brought their store manager to trial. Like many cases, this one boiled down to a single issue. In this case, it was whether the defendant knew or should have known that there was a dangerous condition on their premises.

None of the defendant’s records, most produced at the 11th hour, backed up our claim. It was tough case, but I had my witness. My witness who was going to testify that she spoke to a store employee immediately after the injury. That store employee told my witness that the store had been having the same problem before my client’s injury.

My witness gets to the stand. I lay the foundation–she was at the store, she saw someone putting product away, that person was dressed in the uniform bearing the logo of the defendant. I asked my witness if she talked to that employee. Yes. I asked my witness what that employee said.

“Objection. Hearsay.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Technology should make our lives easier. I have only used typewriters a handful of times in my life, but I love hearing from older attorneys about how difficult it was to type up a pleading — make an error, and that page had to be redone. Make an error and find out about it ten pages later, sometimes eleven pages had to be redone.

Which is why Rule 2-341(e) of the Maryland Rules, had it been in effect in the 70s, would have been a big hassle. That rule requires:

Highlighting of Amendments.  Unless the court orders otherwise, a party filing an amended pleading also shall file at the same time a comparison copy of the amended pleading showing by lining through or enclosing in brackets material that has been stricken and by underlining or setting forth in bold-faced type new material.

Curiously, this rule, based on Local Rule 103(6)(c) of the Rules of the United States District Court of the District of Maryland, applies to circuit court cases, and there is no counterpart for district court cases. Perhaps the Rules Committee figures that district court practice is too fast-paced to warrant this protocol. I bet if they knew how easy it was to comply, they would change their tune.

Some people try to do this manually — going through a pleading, selecting a portion to be excised, right-clicking it, selecting “font,” and then clicking “strikethrough” to show a deletion. Try doing that in a 100-paragraph pleading. If you want an easier way, this is it (for Word 2010 users):

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™