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™

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™

A few weeks ago, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that language software maker Rosetta Stone could proceed with its lawsuit against Google over whether an Internet advertising program creates brand confusion.

In 2009, Rosetta Stone sued Google in the federal court claiming  Google’s AdWords advertising program unlawfully allowed the use of trademarks in the text of ads that accompany Google search results. Rosetta discovered that Internet consumers were purchasing counterfeit versions of its software.

Rosetta Stone’s counsel said pleased with the ruling and that it set a very important precedent. Google’s AdWords advertising program offers companies the opportunity to buy advertisements that run with a Google search engine’s results. Companies “purchase” certain keywords that trigger the inclusion of the their advertisement.

In 2009, Google began allowing the limited use of trademarks in advertising text, which it had earlier prohibited. While Google expected increased legal expenses stemming from future disputes with owners of trademarks, the company also anticipated a boost in revenue.

Rosetta Stone sued on claims that included direct trademark infringement. The company’s case-in-chief presented survey and anecdotal evidence that would-be customers were buying fake Rosetta software via Google advertisements. It will be interesting to watch this matter go to trial.

What are your thoughts? How will this affect monetization not only on a large-scale platform such as Google, but on smaller platoforms, such as blogs?

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™

On the heels of my last post, I had to take advantage of some of that solo flexibility I was talking about. Our youngest daughter, 17 months old, came home early from daycare two weeks ago with a fever and then spent a Thursday and Friday home with Daddy. She’s a late bloomer as far as teeth are concerned — we are just now seeing an onslaught of incisors — and we initially thought the fever was related to teething. But then we noticed the blisters and spots, so we made an appointment with our pediatrician.

Apparently, the ominous-sounding hand, foot and mouth disease had struck our little girl. The doctor told us that she would likely be fine by Monday and, as long as the blisters were gone, she wouldn’t be infectious and could return to daycare (meaning also that Daddy could return to his daily routine).

Some new law grads sometimes ask me what I think about working from home. I thought about that option before I went solo, but with two kids who get home at 4 p.m. every day, the reality is that it is just impossible to get work done. (I mean, how can you not be distracted by the cutest kids in the world?) Work on the weekends is means nap times and a post-8 p.m. bedtime.

If you don’t have kids and you can set up a nice little home office away from all distractions, I’m sure it could work. Otherwise, the temptation to help out is just too great. Of course, if you can’t afford an office, the decision is made for you.

While the baby was sick, she napped for long-stretches during which I was able to be productive (all you need is a phone, a laptop and Internet access). But when she was awake, my time was spent soothing her, cleaning and watching DVR’d “Star Trek” movies. As far as productivity goes, the day was a net loss. But with a few extra days (and nights) of work, I was able to catch up.

Once again, the flexibility of a solo practice saves the day.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

Since January 1, I have been a partner at Bowie & Jensen LLC. As I previously posted, this is the promotion that I have worked for since starting at the firm in 2004. When asked to join the partnership, there was no doubt in my mind that I would accept. I realized that there would be some additional work, but knew that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

Fast forward four months. Partnership is not simply a couple of additional meetings a month or a new title. Partnership is ownership.

In addition to handling all the duties of a full-time litigation attorney, I am now dealing with managing others and managing the firm. Part of my job is to make sure that the firm is running efficiently and effectively. I spend more time thinking about the future of the firm, looking to increase our client base and making sure the lights stay on. The difficulty that I have faced is the balance between real legal work (i.e. billable time) and firm management. In an attempt to resolve the balance, I have been simply working longer hours. This, however, takes away from hours with family or friends or much needed personal time.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy being a partner and part of the decision making process. I have a larger role in choosing the direction of the firm. I enjoy being a part of management.

But for those that are up for partnership this year, here are a couple of things that I believe will help the transition:

Read the rest of this entry »

Powered by Bookmarkify™