The Practice

Are different testing requirements unconstitutional?

A graduate from the University of Oklahoma law school has sued the Wisconsin Bar. His problem? Wisconsin requires out of state law school graduates to take a test and allows in state students to become members without taking an exam.

Hey, news flash. Every state does something like this. In California, some students have to take a "baby bar." Some states let you waive in if you are admitted elsewhere and make you test in if you come from other states. And its not just the bar exam.

States are allowed to regulate the practice of law. There is no constitutional requirement that every person be treated the same. However, this is a great example of how lawyers, or law students, look at the extreme of a situation.

If you want to practice in a state, check the requirements BEFORE you go to law school.

New Resource for Trial Attorneys

Are you a trial attorney wondering what happens after trial? Have you ever thought about an issue and said "Hmmmm....I wonder how it works on appeal?" Ever curious about what goes on at the appeal stage of a case?

If you are curious, there is an interesting new blog out by Donna Bader, An Appeal to Reason. Her topics include how appellate attorneys fit into the picture, the role of appellate attorneys and why recycling your post trial briefs is a bad idea.

This is a great resource and an interesting look into the role of the appellate attorney. Take a look at it.

Great New Book: The Party of the First Part

I just finished reading this new book from Adam Freedman. He is the "Legal Lingo" columnist for the New York Law Journal Magazine and author of the website by the same name as the book.

This is a great, quick read. The book provides a history of legal terms that you use everyday in your law practice. He then provides a plain English meaning of these words. What a relief! I wish I had this when I was in law school.

Interestingly, I think the book will also help you be a better writer. I know I try to avoid legalese at all costs in my writing. But, I know some gets left in. After reading this book, I am going to redouble my efforts to get all of that nonsense out of there whenever possible.

Go out there and give the book a read. And post a review here.

Interesting new blog

I admit it is not law related, but this is a cool blog that I came across.  The blog is written by an Econ professor at Sac State. (I have an Econ degree from Sac State, but none of my professors were cool enough to have a blog. Of course, back then, we didn't have blogs!)

I think it is interesting because a professor has her blogged linked off of her school website page. This makes it accessible to her students. And, guess what? She comes across like a real person! Her students get to know her. And, I am guessing they really like her.

This is just another example of one of my mantras: be yourself. Now, as an attorney, you may not want your practice blog to be this familiar, but you should be yourself in your blog and let your personality come through.

Practical Advice

No, not practical advice from me. I give you enough of that. But, practical advice TO people.

See, the law is a framework with which to resolve problems. But, too many lawyers get caught up in the law. What happened to practical advice?

For example, if someone comes to you over a $1,200 dispute, you may know that legally they are right. But, if they will spend $5,000 to collect $1,200, does the law really matter? Are you going to tell the client that they are right and you should sue to collect $1,200? Or, are you going to be practical and say "Look, you can collect your $1,200 but it will cost you $5,000. That just doesn't make sense to me."

Part of being an attorney is giving advice to your client. Make sure you give practical advice, even if it means not getting a client. In the long run, it will pay off.

Angels fly........

because they take themselves lightly. At least, that is what The Razor on KNBR tells us at the end of every show. Attorneys, on the other hand, sink because they take themselves too seriously.

Face it, most of us are not dealing with life or death issues. Sure, we may be dealing with a client who was injured. Or a contract dispute. Or an employment matter. But, most of our clients are not going to die over what we do.

I have two cases that I can think of where opposing counsel apparently thinks that this is a case of such great importance that they need to be a*******. I don't get it. They are disputes about money. That's it. Either they win money or I win money. End of story. What is so important about money? Sure, it helps, but its just money.

Remember not to take this too seriously. It is important, but it is not life and death.

Who needs law school?

California Lawyer magazine has an interesting article on California's Law Office Study Program. It is an alternative to law school. It requires 4 years of study under the personal supervision of a judge or California attorney. Of the 436 people who signed up for this program since 1980, only 64 had earned their license this way.

Now, I am all in favor of alternative forms of education. I went to night law school. I have a friend who works at an internet law school. I know the ABA approved law school route is not the way for everyone. But, this program seems to be pushing the envelope.

Face it - law school does not teach you how to be a lawyer. It teaches you how to think like a lawyer. Heck, law school doesn't even teach you how to file a complaint!! But, the experience of being in a class, of the socratic method, etc... has some value.

I don't know where I come out on this, but with a success rate that is about 15%, maybe this is a program that needs to be rethought. (Apparently, you can do this in NY too.) If any of you have done this type of program, please let me know. I would love to hear your experiences!

Litigation by the numbers?

Yes, it exists. Holy cow! Litigation by the numbers is a California book that walks you through litigation. It starts with the filing of the complaint and goes through enforcement of your judgment.

Now, I don't normally recommend products. Remember, my list is very short. And this makes my list. Of course, it helps that my friend Eugene Lee recommends it. Since Gene is so much more eloquent than me, here is what he writes:

"I had to do a fax filing of a demurrer yesterday.  I flipped to the right section in your book and, voila!  Everything was right there, with simple, easy-to-understand and comprehensive step-by-step instructions.  I have to say, I honestly think your book is even more valuable than Rutter and CEB.  No lawyer should be without it.  This book should be at the top of the list of gifts to give any budding lawyer who has just pased the bar.  It's the gift that keeps on giving!  Julie, many thanks for writing this book!  You've helped lawyers everywhere!"

Look, if you are a law student or a new lawyer who actually litigates, you need to read this. Where else are you going to get one book to tell you everything you need to know? Oh, and the price is right!

The book is written by Julie Goren. I think this is something that you need to take a look at. It is a great book written by an excellent attorney (who happens to be very nice).

Oral Arguments: What not to say

I was listening to oral arguments last week in court. The judge had issued a written tentative ruling. I had read the ruling (it wasn't one of my cases) and the ruling made sense. The losing side requested oral arguments. The argument went something like this:

"Your honor, you don't cite any case or rule that supports your position. We want to know the authority for your decision."

Judge: "Counsel, you can argue your case, but you cannot get argumentative with the court. Do you have any argument about the merits of your motion?"

(I took the liberty of not citing this word for word.)

The message here: if there is a tentative ruling that you belive is wrong, argue the merits of the motion. Do not tell the judge that he/she is wrong. Judges make mistakes, but that is why we have an appeal process. Unless this is some bizarre situation, you will be in front of the judge again. Don't make enemies over one ruling that you may not like.

You need another reason not to talk to the media?

I have been a proponent over here of not talking to the media. I don't think anything good can come of it. And, now, more evidence of that.

The DA in the Duke lacrosse rape case has been charged with ethics violations arising out of his comments to the press. Apparently, some of the comments he has made may have been "improper." At least one person thinks the defense attorneys may have also made improper statements.

Look, you never want to try a case in the media. You won't win. No one really wins. Let your lawyering speak for itself and if you absolutely MUST make a statement, make it as boring as possible. Try something along the lines of "We will let the legal system determine the outcome of the case." It is not sexy, but it will avoid you worrying about ethics charges down the road.