Practice while suspended – bad idea even for “corporate lawyer” — Supreme Slap-down? Bottle of Red? — What Do the Prosecutors Think?

Get a License

Some corporate lawyers forget that they are required to be licensed in the state where they practice law. Indiana has a special rule for that.

In Ohio, David Troller was suspended from practice for failing to register as a lawyer. So after that, he kept practicing law, did not meet the requirements for a suspended lawyer, forgot to get reinstated, and recently got a new two-year suspension, with six months withheld, and was ordered to stay in the Lawyers Assistance Program of Ohio.. As a corporate employee he might have gotten away, but he claimed the title “Chief Legal Officer” which means you are a lawyer.

H/T Andy Perkins.

***

Scalia Slapdowns are the worse

Lawyers spend their lives dreaming of taking a case to the US Supreme Court. Some make it, a few wish they hadn’t.  Steven Lechner was arguing his first case in the Court, before the nine justices. He was trying to make the points needed by his client when out of the blue, J. Scalia says: “Counsel, you are not reading this, are you?”

Lechner froze, because he was.  J. Breyer said: “It’s all right.” and broke the silence.

Scalia is a lightning rod for criticism anyway, and the bolts hit fast.  Scalia was lambasted, and supported.  Finally the issue was more or less decided that Scalia was right, if not kind, to hold Lechner to the Supreme Court Rule #28, which says in part: “Oral argument read from a prepared text is not favored.”

***

 Bottle of Red, a Bottle of White, Charged with a Crime, the lawyer must now Fight!

We have written about lawyers doing illegal things a few times, but wine smuggling?  Philly lawyer Art Goldman is now charged with Selling Wine without a License, after an undercover investigation showed that he had high-end wines, not found with the state seal, or available in the state-run liquor stores.  The police seized about 2,400 bottles of wine, with a value estimated at $200,000.  Multiple misdemeanors could result in fines of over $200,000, if he is convicted.

***

Blog for Prosecutors and those who deal with them

If you know a prosecutor who needs to read up on the issues that are critical to them, or if you want to eavesdrop on what prosecutors are talking about, you may want to link to the Prosecutors Discretion blog. Recent topics include the Brady Evidence Dilemma, and Why One Prosecutor will not Talk to Jurors.  Good reading.

Advertisements

Slap for not Following Trial or Appellate Rules; CFAF & Attorney Surrogate Issues: Outing your Client, not a good thing: Let’s Party

Lawyers Need to Know (or read) and Follow Rules

It seems to be painful to be a stickler for rules (which appellate judges often are) and read some appellate submissions.  From time to time the Court of Appeals will send a subtle message to the Bar about the quality of advocacy, but subtly was not the tool used in Judge Bradford’s opinion in Duensing v. Johnson.  The appellate lawyer was 3 for 3 in footnotes admonishing him for rules violations or for confusing the court. A couple other chiding comments come through over the weakness of the arguments submitted.

Appellee lawyer also took a shot for citing a NFP opinion as authority for an argument as well.

Read the case and remember that some trial judges also expect the lawyers to know the difference between different kinds of motions made at different times in the trial.

****

Hamilton the Birdman – Two Lessons in One Headline:  What do you know about CFAF? How are you with the Attorney Surrogate Rule?

Bradley Hamilton, a Kokomo lawyer appears to have closed shop and fled to Australia.  He had some notoriety in the Howard County area for his willingness to “flip the bird” to news cameras.  The story reports that several clients had paid funds to Hamilton, and may have lost their retainers.  No criminal charges have yet been filed.

Local Kokomo lawyer Brent Dechert is stepping up to help the clients of Hamilton.  He filed a Petition for Appointment of an Attorney Surrogate* to allow him to access the files and trust account of Hamilton.  The Petition was granted and Dechert has given public notice of the appointment.  This results in the clients getting their files back, or transferred to a new lawyer who will work with them on their matters. Dechert said that he does not handle the kinds of cases Hamilton did, so there is little likelihood that he will take over many of the cases.

Not reported in the article is the existence of the Clients Financial Assistance Fund, of the Indiana State Bar Association.**  The fund, created by the  ISBA several decades ago, provides a partial remedy to those clients who have had funds stolen from them by their lawyer.  An individual client can recover up to $15,000 with a standing cap of $50,000  total reimbursement for all client losses due to the acts of a single lawyer.

The CFAF committee meets as needed (and fortunately it is not needed too often) to consider and investigate claims.  The funds in the CFAF are a part of the annual dues of ISBA members. The claim application is available.at the ISBA website here.

*  I am chair of the ISBA Special Committee on Attorney Surrogate Rule

**  I served more than ten years as a member of the Clients Financial Assistance Fund Committee for the ISBA.

****

Sharing evidence on YouTube can get you suspended.

An IL lawyer thought his client was entrapped by police in a drug bust, so he posted the undercover video taken by the police online.  He titled the video  “Cops and Task Force Planting Drugs.”

By doing so he exposed a confidential informant of the police department, and he violated the client’s confidentiality without informed consent. The Disciplinary Counsel also accused Jesse Raymond Gilsdorf of Mount Sterling, IL with implying police wrongdoing without evidence to back up the charge.

Apparently he watched the video on a small monitor and thought it showed entrapment, but after posting the video, and then seeing the recording on a large screen monitor realized it proved the client’s guilt. She took a plea, he got charged.

The IL Hearing Board recommended a five month suspension of Gilsdorf’s license.  We will see what happens.

**

Party in Rochester, courtesy of PWP

This Friday, the Peterson Waggoner & Perkins law firm will host “A Grand Night for Music III.” It is an occasional celebration for clients and friends of the law firm  The Atlanta Music Hall Band, straight from Atlanta Music Hall in Atlanta IN, will perform Swing and Jazz standards, and the dance floor will be out. Love to have you here. Call the office for tickets.

How Stupid is that Other Party?; Should I Push that Client?; Extra Punishment for Public Officials; Ogden Update

Legal writing experts tell lawyers to be careful with tone and expressions of disdain or dismissive attitudes towards opponents in motions and briefs.  And lawyers understand (usually) that what might work in traffic court should not be tried in Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals.  And lawyers who represent big clients, like State Farm Auto ought to expect extra scrutiny from courts and judges (mostly due to the respect courts often are suspected of giving to the biglaw lawyer types who represent the big companies.

Imagine what the discussion with General Counsel for State Farm was for the lawyers in Bennett v. State Farm earlier this week.  The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (one level below the US Supreme Court in the judicial hierarchy) mocked the insurance company’s lawyers for their brief opposing the efforts of the Bennetts to get what they had coming from Mrs. Bennett being struck while walking her dog.

The opening sentence of the opinion states:

There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s
argument “ridiculous,” which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett’s principal argument here. The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away (especially when, as here, the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief); and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, “the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.”[citations omitted]  But here the biggest reason is more simple: the argument that State Farm derides as ridiculous is instead correct. (emphasis is added).
Oops.  That qualifies as a slapdown.  Now we don’t know which lawyer of the team of Richard M. Garner or Gregory H. Collins, both Ohio lawyers, gets credit for the brief, but the other probably had an opportunity to say “maybe we ought to read our client’s insurance policy before we ask the court to ignore the definition plaintiff is asking for.”

****

Clients in dissolution cases can be difficult. they are going through a stressful time in their lives. They often have to deal with their lawyer, the spouse, the spouse’s lawyer, and maybe the kids.  you expect them to lose their cool on occasion.

Lawyers are to be the professionals, even when our client is not dealing well with matters.as well as we want.  Kokomo lawyer Dan May, a long time practitioner, forgot for a moment.

The details are sketchy, but include him shoving the client over the courtroom railing, a battery charge, a diversion agreement, and now a 60 days suspension with automatic reinstatement.

As Sgt. Esterhaus used to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jmg86CRBBtw

****

We appreciate our public officials in strange ways.  We pay them less than they could make as practicing lawyers (at least that is the myth – see the SSF Conference Salary Survey report here from 2007).  Then when a public official has a bad moment, we hold her to a higher standard.

Lori Hittle is a part-time deputy prosecutor in Howard County.  She pleaded guilty to OVWI.  Took her punishment in court, got a month suspension from her job without pay, and now gets a public reprimand. That is a bit more than the normal lawyer gets for such an offense, often getting a private reprimand with JLAP provisions.

But we hold public officials to a stricter standard.

***

Finally, Paul Ogden update.

I have commented on the Ogden disciplinary case several times, like here, and here. Paul writes about it on his blog with more regularity than most would. Tuesday Ogden said that the Disciplinary Commission is seeking a one year suspension in his post here. He follows up with more commentary in Thursday’s post here.

I will let Paul Ogden speak for himself.  The issues are complex, and important. As a lawyer, you need to think about them.  If you are not a lawyer, you ought to consider where your rights to speak freely are if the lawyers lose their rights.

Lawyer’s Speech and Advertising – Trouble in the Making

Ethnic Slurs Will Not Be Tolerated

“Your client doesn’t understand what laws and court orders mean I guess. Probably because she’s an illegal alien to begin with.”

The lesson of Joe Barker is to not use this method of trying to resolve a parenting time issue. At least I hope that is the lesson, because the only other potentially “burdensome” act is to state that “we’ll be demanding she be put in JAIL for contempt of court.” (emphasis in original).

The Indiana Disciplinary Commission filed charges and the Supreme Court imposed a 30 days suspension from the practice effective Oct. 14, but not allowing Barker to undertake new legal matters between Sept. 6 and Nov. 14.

Costly outburst, for aggressive advocacy.  No prior disciplinary issues, but Barker “has no insight into his misconduct.” Charges filed in 2010, and just now being concluded.  This matter was heard by Judge Kim Brown acting as the hearing officer for the Indiana Supreme Court.  Judge Brown has her own problems now with the Judicial Qualifications Comm. and one of the charges she must answer to related to the length of time she took in completing this matter.

***

Faxing Those Canned Newsletters as a Means of Advertising 

Many of us get and a few of us have used the canned newsletters that inform our clients and potential clients that we are current on some legal topic or another.  And 25 years ago the fax machine helped make sharing our knowledge as cheap as the price of a phone call.  Now with the internet, it is even cheaper, unless!

Greg Turza, an IL lawyer got caught up in the practice of faxing newsletters to lots of folk.  He had 200 people or businesses he would fax his newsletters to.  He forgot to read the articles about the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 USC 227.  But a few of the recipients did not overlook that issue.  The federal law states that senders must have consent to fax advertising materials, and that unwanted faxes must have opt-out provisions on the materials. The penalty is $500 per fax, per recipient. Oops.

$4,215,000 penalty and judgment against Turza for 8,430 faxes was upheld in the 7th Circuit. Will he pay it?  If he does, then the opinion by J. Easterbrook takes on some interesting aspects with what happens to the damage award.  It looks like the lawyers will demand their $1,430,055.90, and lead plaintiff will expect his $7,500 for the 32 faxes (seems like it should have been $16,000).  Who after that will get paid?  Remanded to determine after the $1.437M is paid into the court.

***

Lawyer’s Speech and Paul Ogden

Anyone who cares about the boundaries of lawyers’ freedom of speech rights and the consequences of the disciplinary process in Indiana must pay attention to the ongoing saga of Indy lawyer (for now) Paul Ogden and his long battle with the Disciplinary Commission, former Executive Director Don Lundberg, current Executive Director Mike Witte, the Supreme Court, and a Hendrick County judge in a seemly private email.

You can catch up by following this link to Ogden’s blog site, the tagline Disciplinary Commission, where it appears he is telling his side of the story. He also links to the Indiana Business Journal’s editorial on the priorities that the Disciplinary Commission has shown in pursuing Ogden instead of others, including Paul Page, David Wyser and the handling of William Conour.

The current DI matter, criticizing a judge in violation of the rules. has been heard by the hearing officer who will make findings and a recommendation to the Supreme Court.  Ogden predicts that he will lose his law license.

***

Seeking Recusal as a Basis for Discipline? 

In a story that has not made local impact, except for Ogden’s blog, a pro-life website Life Site News in 2009 reported that a couple of local lawyers were seeking the recusal of a South Bend judge due to perceived prejudices of the judge’s husband, a noted advocate for abortion rights. The defendants before the judge were pro-life advocates arrested for protesting on the Notre Dame campus when President Obama spoke at graduation.

Ogden reports, and I have verified by the Clerk of the Supreme Court Docket Sheet, that disciplinary charges are on file against Thomas M. Dixon and David A. Wemhoff, the lawyers in the ND88 case.  The docket sheet does not inform the nature of the charge, but Ogden says the recusal issue, as an unwarranted attack on the judge is at the heart of the matter.

This will also bear watching, if you have a tendency to speak the truth to power, or try to protect your clients from a judge who should not hear a particular case for a particular litigant.

***

I remembered these matters last week, when I got a call from a lawyer in Indianapolis, to ask about the judicial temperament and other qualities of a certain judge in Northern Indiana.

I apologize to you in advance, but for now, if you call and ask about the character, quality or work ethics of any judge, please understand that my “walks on water” response might be code.  Or it might not.

In my opinion, lawyers must be able to state facts and reasonable (to the reasonable person standard) opinions about judges in pleadings, (especially in recusal motions) and in conversations with clients, lawyers and the courts.  Judge Witte benefitted from those kinds of comments in his time on the bench, and in moving to the Commission. Other judges should have that benefit, or if they are poor judges, that burden.  We do this justice thing for those standing before the bench, not for the one on the bench or the ones at the bar.

It is dangerous if we lawyers cannot protect the rights of our clients, under the rules, by seeking the recusal of judges who are bad fits for the clients’ cases, just like we are duty bound to seek the dismissal of a juror who has some bias or prejudice against our client.

KEEP A WATCH OUT,  as Indy lawyer Patrick Olmstead and I will be speaking on advertising and ethics at the 2014 Solo and Small Firm Conference in June 2014, at French Lick.

Neglecting Clients Here and There: Indiana; & New Jersey

Neglecting clients is a bad thing to do. Let’s learn the lesson at someone else’s experience, and not do it ourselves:

Indiana:

In 1997 Biomet, Inc. a worldwide ortho manufacturer from Warsaw IN hired Kent Frandsen, of Parr Richey law firm, to file a legal malpractice claim against Barnes & Thornburg for the way it handled a patent infringement case.  The firm filed the suit followed by, as you can imagine, lots of intrigue, including an interlocutory appeal decided in 2003.  After the Court of Appeals opinion approved the case moving forward, nothing happened on the case.

In 2006 B&T sought a Rule 41(E) dismissal that was heard, with an honest discussion of the delay at the hearing:

THE COURT: What has happened ? Why has nothing
happened since transfer wasn’t granted, sir?
COUNSEL: That’s a fair question, Your Honor. First of
all, I was stunned personally when the Court of Appeals
issued the decision it made. I was extremely busy in my
practice. This case takes a lot of time to put together. It has been one (1) of those cases where I couldn’t bring myself to dig into it enough to be ready to do what needs to be done. This is not an automobile accident case, Your Honor.This involves difficult issues that were involving patent litigation that frankly has been very uncomfortable for me and I don’t know that I’ve ever felt competent to deal with the underlying merits of the judgment that is at issue in this case. *** When that did not come, … I simply could not get to where I could take or have anyone else take the time to get into the merits of the case. I take full responsibility for it and we were in communication with Biomet. We indicated to our client that we would do things but we simply didn’t do them. We would get going on the case. Biomet seriously wants this case pursued and resolved on its merits. We’ve not been able to get that done. ***
THE COURT: … The question is if we talk about the
judicial system, why should I penalize this Defendant ?
Why should I penalize this Defendant because of what you have described as your inaction, sir ? I guess I want to try to understand that.
The court did not understand that, and the client did not either, later filing a malpractice case after the case vs. B&T was dismissed.  Biomet got a partial summary judgment v. the law firm and lawyer, and then Parr Richey appealed. The question was whether there was a duty and a breach, and it was decided (in a NFP opinion*) there was.  Other issues remained for trial.
*While NFP opinions have no precedential value in a court of law, they are great teaching tools in the hands of a blogger! 
Be careful taking on more than you and your firm are capable of handling.  Stay on the case even when things get busy or you get distracted.  The client is still counting on you.
****
New Jersey
“They are pestering me!” “Their calls got nastier and nastier, and quite frankly I did not need that.” “I fired them [the client], told them to get a new lawyer!”  NJ’s Disciplinary Review Board did not take kindly to Victor Azar’s attitude about people who had hired him, paid him money and then got neglected.  The board objected to his defensive responses to the clients’ seemingly legitimate complaints.  He also withheld their files.
The report was complimentary about his skills in getting clients and their retainers, but suggested that the follow through lacked a lawyerly precision, and he “neglected, if not grossly neglected” the client’s interest and “engaged in a pattern of failing to communicate” with his clients.
Azar is facing a reprimand at DRC’s recommendation.
h/t Vic Indiano

“Causing grief to clients” = slapdown by judge; Learn from your neighbor lawyers’ mistakes; attend your clients.

Fee Shifting is no Reason to Mishandle a Case

There are a number of statutes that allow for fee shifting, and we hear calls daily for “tort reform” that pushes that idea.  Here it caused all kinds of bad incentives, as pointed out in a 113 page trial court order on the Fee Petitions under USTA and/or ELA environmental laws. [My experience in front of Judge Goshorn in a few cases is that he is normally a judge who uses few words to make his points – this output is unlike his normal work.]

Judge Goshorn of Wells County was asked to approve fees for the plaintiffs’ lawyer in the amount of $676,986.11. He denied the request, mostly due to the conduct of the plaintiff’s counsel in the handling of the case.  Award to counsel $0. actually less, due to several contempt of court orders.

The judge said many things in 113 pages, none complimentary to Mark E. Shere, the lawyer for the plaintiffs in this case. A few direct slapdowns:

  • …Shere caused “untold grief and damage to [his] former clients”… [p.2]
  • “has been an impediment, not a facilitator, to the just resolution of this cause.” [p.2]
  • “this case has been extraordinarily and needlessly protracted…due to Mr. Shere’s fee agreement with his client.”  [p.3]
  • “… Shere drove this case off a cliff, leaving in his wake two bankrupt and divorced clients and a third client in financial trouble with its reputation sullied.” [p.5]

The judge was just getting warmed up.  He continued through 169 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, never letting up on Shere.  On page 96 he found that the Fee Agreement Shere had with his clients violated Rule 1.8(i) of the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct which states:

(i) A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the lawyer may:

(1)acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the lawyer’s fee or expenses; and

(2)contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case.

Judge Goshorn saw the fee agreement as giving Shere a stake in the case for clients Witt, to his favor and to the favor of co-client Hydrotech. He found that:

  • “… the driver of this litigation was recovery of the maximum amount of fees for Mr. Shere, not assisting the Witts.” [p.99]

But this was not a screed against plaintiffs’ lawyers, he gave some fees to lawyers who worked for Shere, ordering the payment to the Clerk, and the clerk to direct the fees to those lawyers. [p.113].

The judge did not feel particularly sorry for the defendants in the case either, denying their petition for fees from Shere or his clients. The Court found:

  • “This litigation was a caged grudge match [I like that word-picture offered by the judge] with both sides throwing punches. … The Court is concerned about the chilling effect an award of fees to defendants in a USTA or ELA action might have…” [p.111-2]

Shere gets nothing due to the way he tried the case, putting his interests above those of the client.

This case was also addressed by the Indiana Supreme Court in a March 21, 2012 opinion where Shere and his clients were held in contempt of court.  The Court, in  a 3-2 opinion agreed with the contempt finding, overturning a reversal by the Court of Appeals.

For some reason I suspect we may see another Supreme Court opinion coming out in the future concerning the actions taken by counsel in this case.

****

Learn from your Neighbors*

One lesson that is important is for lawyers to learn from the mistakes of their neighbors. It is one of the reasons this blog exists. Elden Stoops, for example, should have learned from neighboring county lawyer Jeffrey Price‘s 2009 public reprimand.  The cases as described sound surprisingly similar.  Both lawyers filed family law matters, seeking emergency relief.  Both offered proposed Orders to the court granting the emergency relief their clients sought. Neither petition cited or certified the steps made to notify the opposing parties of the filing of the emergency filing, as required under Trial Rule 65(B).  Both courts set hearings and immediately granted the emergency relief. [Query, when can parties, and lawyers, count on judges reading pleadings and knowing the law on such things?]

Later the opposing parties were notified of the actions taken.

Unlike Price, who was charged with one offense, Stoops was charged and sanctioned for two offenses. The one above was for violating Rules 3.5(b) – ex parte communication with a judge; 8.4(d) & (f) conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, and assisting a judicial officer in violation of rules of judicial conduct. Stoops second violation was a conflict of interest, when co-clients turned against each other, and he took the case of one of the former co-clients.

Public reprimand for his actions. He had a clean record, and the court accepted the idea that he was trying to protect children, were mitigating factors accepted by the court.

* A lawyer from my firm was involved in the Stoops case.

***

Take Care of the Clients

Ron Weldy has been a frequent poster on the ISBA email discussion lists.  He should have been paying attention to his clients’ matters a bit better.  The Supreme Court recently suspended Weldy for 180 days, 90 to serve and one year probation.  From the six counts, there were issues of fee agreements, client communication, case management, and knowledge of the law were problems for the respondent.  The list of rule problems is lengthy:

Violations: The parties agree that Respondent violated these Indiana Professional Conduct Rules prohibiting the following misconduct:

1.2(a): Failure to abide by a client’s decision concerning the objectives of representation.

1.3: Failure to act with reasonable diligence and promptness.

1.4(a)(3): Failure to keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter.

1.4(a)(4): Failure to comply promptly with a client’s reasonable requests for information.

1.4(b): Failure to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make informed decisions.

1.5(b): Failure to communicate the basis or rate of the fee for which a client will be responsible before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation.

1.5(c): Failure to disclose to a client the method by which a contingent legal fee will be determined.

1.7(a)(2): Representing a client when the representation may be materially limited by the attorney’s own self-interest.

1.15(e): Failure to properly secure disputed property until the dispute is resolved.

1.16(a)(3): Continuing representation of a client after the lawyer is discharged.

3.1: Asserting a position for which there is no non-frivolous basis in law or fact.

3.2: Failure to expedite litigation consistent with the interests of a client.

3.3(a)(1): Knowingly making a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.

8.4(c): Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.

8.4(d): Engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

This case is a good one to review before taking a weekend off.  Stay diligent, read the law. Be careful with your fee agreements

Want Fewer Troubles? See a small firm lawyer; Prenda Redux; Township Courts

I had a good week leading up to and at the Indiana Solo and Small Firm Conference June 6-8 at French Lick Indiana. Kudos to Marc Matheny (also of the National SSF Conf. Board and the ABATECH Show Board) who chaired the conference this year and next.

Indiana’s conference was its largest yet, and I chaired the new series of courses called STAFF TRACK, which added to the knowledge and skills of law firm staff members.

Why do I say if you want fewer troubles see a small firm lawyer? Last month AM LAW, a leading legal publisher came out with an article on the latest big law survey by Altman-Weil Co. on where the law and practice is headed.  Steve Harper, an author and blogger interpreted the AM LAW article here.

His topic sentences are “The Troubling Big Picture; Group Stupidity; Lateral Incompetence; Institutional Ineptitude; and, Cognitive Dissonance” finding the focus of the leaders of the big firms as wrongheaded:  When asked to identify their greatest challenges over the next 24 months, most managers cited “increasing revenue.” The rest of the list is, in order: new business, growth, profitability, management transition, cost management, and attracting talent. If you’re wondering where clients fit—other than as a source of revenue and profits in items one, two, and three—“client value” finished eighth.

He summarizes the report of the responses by 250 of the largest 800 firms, as follows:

•Managing partners know that change is coming and clients are demanding it, but firms aren’t revisiting their basic strategies or business models.

•Growth and profits finish far ahead of enhancing client value as most law firm leaders’ top concerns.

•Leaders view aggressive lateral hiring as critical to law firm growth, but when laterals don’t produce, most firms don’t do much about it.

•Succession planning is problematic because senior partners don’t want to relinquish compensation that is tied to their client billings.

•As senior leaders continue to pull up the equity partner ladder on the next generation, morale plummets and managing partners worry about the absence of midlevel talent to serve clients in the future.

Client Value comes in Eighth? (One commentator was surprised the clients made the top ten at Biglaw!)  No wonder the mood at the SSF Conference was upbeat. Our “big” siblings at the Biglaw Firms are now leaving the good clients to those of us who care.

H/T Patrick Olmstead.

***

More on Prenda Law.

A few weeks ago, I mentioned a federal judge is ticked-off at the Chicago law firm Prenda, that was pursuing copyright violations against folks it alleged had viewed internet pornography in violation of the copyright law.  Tying the copyright violation with the fear of exposure for that private act, lots of folks were settling the claims, and others who did not do so prior to the suit quickly settled before court notices were out.

In the earlier reports the judge said from the bench that something was not right. Well now he has unloaded on the lawyers, with this Order of the Court.  In an eleven page order he finds violations of Rule 11, (requiring lawyers to know the facts that they are alleging have some basis in fact) and acts of fraud upon the court.  He orders the firm to pay $81,000+ to the Court in 14 days to repay the John Doe defendant in the order for costs and attorney fees. The judge doubled the fees requested by the lawyers, due to the egregious acts of the Prenda firm.

The judge also reports the two lawyers in his case to the Disciplinary Committee of the State of California, plus every other state where they practice, and every court, both state and federal, where the lawyers have cases pending. He says they suffer from a moral turpitude that should not infect the bar.

Just to top things off, he sends his report to the US Attorney’s office to consider RICO charges and to the IRS for investigation of every lawyer in the law firm.

Moral of the story: Federal Judges do not play games with scoundrels.

H/T Vic Indiano

***

Marion County Township Courts

More coming on this issue soon. Will the Legislature or Supreme Court do anything? I have recently had a chance to read the Small Claims Task Force Report: Report on the Marion County Small Claims Courts, authored by Court of Appeals Judges John Baker and Betty Barteau, Sr. Judge.

Some solid recommendations that went no place in the Indiana Legislature.  What will the Supreme Court do?  Will the Legislature do anything?

Is it all on WTHR 13 News to push the changes? I had a conversation on fees, ethics, and lawyer and judge discipline with Sandra Chapman this week.  It will be interesting to follow this story.