Chuck Newton

My Mirror Image Is Online

Ella Fitzgerald - Bewitched , Bothered & Bewildered

!!

Also, Beyonce does not like the term "boodylishes".

!

Kevin O'Keefe believes blog posts should be short.

It Is Not Just About The Money, Stupid

Enrico Schaefer at Traverse Legal has an interesting post on his blog, The Greatest American Lawyer, entitled If I paid you $500,000 a year, would you be happy?  The post deals with the work/life Dilemma that face those wanting to work for Big Law, and Big Law propensity of throwing money at the bright and beautiful in order to gain their allegiance.

Practicing law should not be about just making money.  Lord knows I want to make a ton of money.  I cannot believe that a newbie lawyer does not have plans to conquer the World, and that really means make truck loads of money.  But, taking this money is sometimes like selling your soul to the company store, is it not?

Here is my advice to the newly initiated:

You Do Not Have To Limit Yourself To An Office

In the day, as my kids like to say (meaning I suppose when I started practicing law), you could not (at least cost effectively) reach the efficiencies that you can meet today.  Information was not available to you online. Broadband did not much exist.   If it was available to you online, you could not review the Court's file.  If you had a meeting, seminar or conference it reasonably required your presence in some diverse location.  While on the road you could review physical files, but little else and then only if someone else was driving.  In short, it was all a logistical nightmare compared to our situation today.  But, the Third Wave has changed all of that for us and it has done so in a cost effective manner.

The question now is how can you justify an office away from your home for your ordinary work and tasks (possibly apart from meeting with clients)?  It is hard to see how it is anything more than folly and hubris.  To say that it is not necessary is an understatement.

Take today, for example.  Apart from mourning my old friend, I drafted some pleadings and filed them with the Court online.  I even uploaded the proposed orders for the Court to consider.

I found myself a little short on my CLE requirements and needed 1.5 ethics hours before the end of the month.  So, I got online this morning, paid my $50.00 and participated in a 2 hour seminar on legal ethics.  I even emailed a couple of questions to the panel of speakers during the Q&A. 

I accepted several referrals from bankruptcy attorneys concerning litigation they thought needed to be pursued.  Most of this was taken care of by email.  One was by a phone call in which the attorney and I discussed the case while I reviewed the docket and actual PDF pleadings on file with the Bankruptcy Court on my computer. 

In each case I was referred, I uploaded the case information and relevant file documents, with notes, to Basecamp so that all of the lawyers in my group would be notified of the case and the necessary specifics of the referral.  It also allowed me to assign the various tasks that needed to be accomplished in each case, as well as set reminders to everybody of the deadlines involved.  These notes and assignments were automatically sent to the attorneys by Basecamp for each to review and comment on as well. 

I had several clients email me questions or items, and I responded in kind, making comments on Basecamp along the way to keep the lawyers in my group and the bankruptcy attorneys aware of what is happening.

In an attempt to settle litigation, I also traded offers and counteroffers with attorneys today, all by email.

Of course, I blogged a little.  I accepted and responded to some comments to my past posts and communicated with several of my fellow bloggers via email as well.

And, although a few business days ago, by way of example, I participated in a telephonic hearing without even driving to the courthouse.  The proposed order had been uploaded previously from my computer, and I was provided the signed order and the Court's notes of the hearing over the computer later that same day.

Because I had a splitting headache this morning, I did not do as much as I normally do.  So, in and amongst all of this, during lunchtime I took a couple aspirin, laid on my couch with a heating pad to the back of my head and recuperated.  This was made possible by the fact that I did not have to commute to and from work -- to or from court -- to or from the legal seminar -- to or from a meetings with the bankruptcy attorneys who referred me cases.  An hour and a half later, and I was better, thank you.  Although still a little down by my friend's passing.

All in all, I only took one telephone call today, but participated in a 2 hour seminar, filed documents at court, communicated with clients and attorneys, communicated and shared documents with my legal group, coordinated work on cases on which we are working, communicated with my blog readers and fellow bloggers, and I did almost all of it online, without an outside office or staff.  And, I had a much needed opportunity to take a nap and nurse a headache.  In fact, I only printed off one thing today, and that was a scheduling order the Court sent to me via the Internet, which I am required to physically mail to the Defendant.

Now I am fixing to begin my long commute from my office, across my living room and to my kitchen for dinner, and talk about all things important in the day and lives of my children.  This might take me a minute (the commute and not the conversation with my kids).

I am still not feeling up to par, so I plan to just sit in front of the television tonight and veg out knowing that, although a little under the whether, and the fact I had to attend a CLE seminar, I was still productive.  And, I was productive in a way that did not require overhead and the frustrations of an outside office.

So, the question is really, with the cheap technology that is before us today, why do you commute every day?  Also, why do you insist in hanging your hat at a traditional office?

George Lemon: My Friend

George Lemon was my mentor.  George Lemon was my friend.  George Lemon was one of the most decent and good men that I have ever known.  George Lemon was a lawyer from Winnsboro, Texas that passed away on Friday, February 23, 2007.  He was 74 years old.  He was a solo practitioner.  He was involved in a auto accident while doing his job as a lawyer in rural East Texas.

I was inspired this morning by the WSJ Law Blog's reporting on Stanley Sporkin starting a solo practice at the age of 75.  It reminded me of conversations with George in the last year.  He had thought about winding down his solo practice and transferring his title agencies because he was worried about his age and the health of those in his family.  He asked me if I was interested in taking them over.  I told him I would be honored if that is what he wanted to do.  But, I did not want to push him.  I did not want to change the relationship from one that had been based upon friendship and admiration for nearly 20 years to one that appeared to be motivated by some sort some of opportunistic business sense.  I knew he would have a lot of attorneys and people who wanted to deal with him in this sense, but he did not need this from me.  I was determined not to push.  Besides, I could tell that as much as he thought about the practicalities of the situation, he did not, in his heart, want to stop practicing.  My advice to George was that he still had it in him to represent and help people, and he only needed to stop if he truly wanted to do so.

With that backdrop, let me tell you what I know about George.  He was not a lawyer that was adversarial.  He believed in solutions.  He believed in remedies.  He believed in redemption.  Whether feeling poorly and good he always had a smile on his face.  He was always kind.  He was always courteous.  He felt blessed to be where he was in life.

When I started practicing law, and did not know what I was doing, I ran into George at the courthouse.  He became a mentor to me of his own volition.  He mentored me in his kind and quiet way about law, but he more mentored me in how to get along and deal with people.  How to comport myself properly.  How to accept what was before me.  More importantly, he taught me about the importance of family, friends and faith.

George was and is a blessing.

In the old days (and until I moved to the Houston area) we would always have the huge dockets at the bankruptcy courts in Tyler and Plano, Texas.  About twice a month George and I (sometimes with a group) would go to lunch, or sometimes just sit on the antechamber bench at the courthouse.  But, we always had this time to share.

Most often we would talk about family.  We both had large families.  His was larger and older than mine. We spoke often about the importance of religion in raising children.  The trials and tribulations of running a practice and tending to the more important needs of family.  Most importantly we spoke about faith and the need not to get so wrapped up in the trappings of success.  He spoke from experience.  As I think back about it, I should have listen harder to what he was saying.

Since moving to the Houston, Texas area I have not gotten the opportunity to sit and share with George like I would have wanted.  And, I miss it.  In his quiet and gentle voice he always gave me subtle advice that I dearly needed.  Not always legal advice.  Sometimes personal advice.  Fatherly advice.  But, it was always related.  My phone calls with him were too infrequent after I moved.

Some part of me thinks that I lost a wonderful opportunity by not pushing him on his offer for his practice and title agencies, but I do not care.  The wonderful opportunity I have lost is just sitting and sharing with George about our large families, our faith, the practice of law in rural East Texas, the differences you can make in the lives of people, and how to live decent and respectable lives.

To that extent I wanted you all to know just a little about George Lemon..my friend and mentor in life.

Thank you George.

Stupid Judges

Judges at trial court level are called "judges" and judges at the appellate court level are called "justices."  This just goes to show you that there is no justice in the trial courts and there are no judges on the appellate courts.

That would be a funny enough joke if it were sometimes not true.

As reported by Legal Juice, in Grisham v. State, 319 So. 2d 130 the trial judge nullifies the accepted law for no better reason than it is "dumb", and the appellate court affirms the decision, with one judge dissenting.

Now there seems to be a number of reasons a court may get away with essentially nullifying a law.  It violates the constitution of the state of federal government.  It violates basic rights.  But, "dumb" would not seem to be one of them.  After all, from whose B.S. antenna is the court operating?

In Florida, William Grisham was charged with assault and he was committed to a mental hospital. During that time of his confinement the 180 days within which a trial is required to take place expired. Grisham's attorney told the judge that, according to a recent Florida law, his client must be released because his right to a speedy trial was violated, and pointed out that the law specifically states that people committed to mental hospitals do not lose their right to a speedy trial.

To this the Judge says, "That may be the law but ...if it is, it's a dumb law and I will deny your motion. I will let you take it up on appeal."

So much for applying the law. The case is appealed and the Court of Appeals affirms the trial court's "the law is dumb" decision.  Only the Chief Judge Rawls dissented, stating:  "While the subject statute may well, as characterized by the trial judge, be '. . . a dumb law . . .', nevertheless, it is a law and it is our duty to abide by it as written."

I wonder if we can use this case as precedent for our client's benefit by simply telling the judge that if the law is "dumb" he has a duty to ignore the law.  Maybe I can bring in a whole bunch of teenagers as experts to tell him that "it is stupid".

Solo Lawyer: The New Blog On The Block

There is a new blog on the block advising solo attorneys and those who want to go solo.  Rick Georges, publisher of the ever popular Future Lawyer, has developed a companion specifically geared to us loners, Solo Lawyer.  I have been asked to, and I have, contributed to this site with a detailed post called, Going Solo:  Do You Have What "It" Takes?  My post, which includes my ugly old mug, tries to offer you much useful and practical advice in going out on your own, and especially in moving or starting your practice at home.  Please stop by and read my post and review Rick's new site.  There just cannot be enough resources for attorneys who wish to start or continue with solo practices.  Thank you Rick.

Visit My Political Page

You cannot much comment on the practice of law and the Third Wave without being at least someone attuned to the politics of the day.  Everything it does effects us in so many ways.  This is especially true of solo practitioners and Third Wave lawyers.  Health insurance issues, retirement, the issues concerning access to the Internet, telephony, are all subjects and debates raging right now that dramatically impact our practices.  It is difficult to discuss one without the other, for it does not matter what you want to do if there are politicians, parties and groups out there trying to deprive you of the tools necessary to practice as you wish.  You do not have to agree with me on political issues.  That is not the point.  It is the debate that is important, and I want at least something to do with that debate.  I want to put my two cents in from time to time.  That said, I have tried not to do so much on this blog because that is not the direct purpose.  Therefore, I have created My Political Page for this purpose.  I encourage you to visit it.