This post is barely coherent, and if I took more time, I could probably make it make sense. One of the things that has struck me about the Trayvon Martin story is that it seems too many (mostly white) people are refusing to see one of the real issues in this case. A black boy who was doing nothing wrong was basically chased by a man who thought he was doing wrong based on an irrational fear. Although I understand that there may have been some illegal activity in the area in the past, this man chased this boy down instead of allowing law enforcement to check the boy out. The boy was guilty only of walking to the corner store to buy a snack in the rain, and wearing a hoodie to do it.
This police department failed both the victim and Zimmerman by failing to treat the investigation as a homicide until the defense of self-defense was proven. Self-defense is just that - a defense to a killing. The investigation should have been conducted as if there was a homicide, and leave it to the DA or a jury of Zimmerman's peers to determine if there is a sufficient self-defense argument to determine if the case should be thrown out. This police department acted as a jury and accepted the credibility of Zimmerman on the scene instead of collecting evidence. Now Zimmerman is being tried in the court of public opinion, which is never a good court to be tried in. Martin was failed by the police department because he was treated differently than another victim would have been treated.
One thing that I think that most white people do not understand is how they react when they see a black man or teen walking around them. Do you pull your purse closer to yourself when you see a black man but not when you see a white man? Do you automatically assume that a black person walking through your neighborhood is up to no good but do not think twice about the white person? Those actions are based on irrational fears of a person who is different from you. If you are a white woman living in the South, a black man is very rarely going to do anything to you because they understand that it would be a max sentence if they did. You do not need to fear "them." They may speak to hit on you, so just politely respond declining the advances. Do not fear someone just because of their race! It is ok to watch someone you do not know in your neighborhood to make sure they are not up to something, but it is not ok to track them down with a gun so that an altercation ensues and someone ends up dead. It is ok to be vigilant, but not ok to have irrational fears that someone is up to no good because they are dressed in a hoodie or any other way.
I realize that I come from an entirely different perspective than most people I know because of my life experiences. I cannot help but think though that one of my innocent boys (and I have a few of those) could easily be Trayvon. My boys look like him. My boys walk to the corner store for snacks like him. My boys even wear hoodies in the rain like him. My boys would probably fight if they were followed like him. The police department probably would not do as thorough of an investigation if they were shot like him. If the tables were flipped and one of them followed Zimmerman and acted as Zimmerman did, there is not a doubt in my mind that a proper investigation and arrest would have occurred at that time. Our society values certain lives above others, and you can see it the most when those who are valued least are victims instead of perpetrators. It is time to do a reality check as a whole and start addressing the irrational fears. I think some are learning from Trayvon, and at least his death will not be in vain if some change their irrational fears. Justice will not be served because we are humans living in a fallen world. However, maybe change will come in the way that certain victims are treated and how some laws are applied. And maybe we can overcome some of our irrational fears and not take matters into our own hands.
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Friday, April 22, 2011
Things I never thought I would say or do as a lawyer
I may or may not have recently told a client that donating plasma is a great way to raise money to buy a bus pass so that transportation would no longer be an issue. And to donate around court time so that a taxi could be hired.
I may or may not have recently said to a judge, "Please don't tell me that my client tried to use a whizzinator!" Judge's response, "Well, close. They made their own." [If you look up whizzinator, beware - don't say I didn't warn you! I first learned about these in a drug education course, so someone else had already looked it up!]
I may or may not have recently said that I was not going to starve no matter how good the person's case was just because they could not pay me the low price I was asking.
I may or may not have recently argued custody of a dog in a CPS case ... and won. Even worse, the parent was more upset that the custody of the dog was decided than that the temporary custody of the children was decided.
I may or may not have recently attempted 16 hearings in two counties on the same day. Although I prepared for 16, I ended up handling only 12 in two counties on the same day. Still an exhausting day!
I may or may not have recently decided to take a nap during the middle of the day, resulting in the need to work until 8 or 9 that night. Self-employment rocks!
I may or may not have recently said to a judge, "Please don't tell me that my client tried to use a whizzinator!" Judge's response, "Well, close. They made their own." [If you look up whizzinator, beware - don't say I didn't warn you! I first learned about these in a drug education course, so someone else had already looked it up!]
I may or may not have recently said that I was not going to starve no matter how good the person's case was just because they could not pay me the low price I was asking.
I may or may not have recently argued custody of a dog in a CPS case ... and won. Even worse, the parent was more upset that the custody of the dog was decided than that the temporary custody of the children was decided.
I may or may not have recently attempted 16 hearings in two counties on the same day. Although I prepared for 16, I ended up handling only 12 in two counties on the same day. Still an exhausting day!
I may or may not have recently decided to take a nap during the middle of the day, resulting in the need to work until 8 or 9 that night. Self-employment rocks!
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Dealing with the Pro Se Opponent
While at the firm, I ran across pro se litigants very rarely, in part because I was not doing as much family law. Now I am running into more and more pro se parties on the other side. I think there are certain rules that need to be communicated to those who want to have themselves for a client:
(1) Rule #1: Do not expect everyone else to do your work for you. It is your job to draft, your job to read what is sent, your job to understand it. If it has legalese in it, go look it up in a legal dictionary. If it quotes a statute, go look it up because most statutes are online for free. If you are not going to hire an attorney, you need to be prepared to put in the work that an attorney would put in because no one is going to do the work for you.
(2) Rule #2: Opposing counsel is not there to do you favors. Just because you think the outcome is wrong does not mean you should call the attorney on the other side and try to change their minds. In fact, the outcome was probably pretty favorable to the attorney's client, and it would be malpractice for the attorney to suddenly take your side. It is the Court you have to convince, not opposing counsel.
(3) Rule #3: Do not call during the height of your emotional outburst. You are not thinking rationally, so it is impossible for the attorney to communicate with you. I get that you are mad, feel like the system failed, feel that Goliath beat David, feel that I used my influence to push things through, but there is nothing I am going to do about it. In fact most of the time opposing counsel will start trying to use a rational argument with the pro se litigant, then give up and resort to either yelling or silence. Silence is my tactic of choice.
(4) Rule #4: Do not lie about something that can be independently verified. Attorneys specialize in paperwork. Chances are the attorney has the paperwork to prove that you are lying. It is also quite possible that the attorney has the credibility with the Court necessary to just show the paperwork.
(5) Rule #5: Read what you sign. You cannot use the defense, "well s/he told me that signing this would make such and such occur." Have you ever considered that the person giving you this advice is going up against you in the matter?
(6) Rule #6: Stop quoting this mysterious "lawyer" who is supposedly reading the paperwork and giving you advice. For one, this person rarely exists. Making up a "lawyer" is not going to cause the lawyer to start questioning his or her capability on a case. If the person does exist, they are probably giving free advice and therefore, not that great of advice. Just because a person has a JD after their name does not mean that they know all the nuances of the area of law you are asking them about. Bankruptcies attorneys may know nothing about family law except what they learned in law school 20 years ago and vice versa. (Same thing goes for doctors too!) Also, if you are not paying them for research, they probably are not researching your issue to find out if what you are saying is correct. Finally, they probably have not heard the whole story because that would probably take a minimum of an hour to tell, and most of us are too busy to give an hour. When you quote the mysterious "lawyer," this is what I am thinking and I am sure other attorneys are thinking the same thing.
(7) Rule #7: Come to Court. I follow the rule that even if a waiver is signed, I give notice of hearings. I also, when the person is not represented by an attorney, try to make that waiver as favorable to the pro se litigant as possible. Why? Because the pro se person never comes to Court, and is always unhappy with what the judge decides because they were not their to tell their side. The State of Texas tells me that when you sign a waiver, I provide you notice, you do not agree with the proposed order, and you do not show, then I can proceed and my client is going to be able to talk about whatever s/he wants to talk about which may or may not result in an order that is less favorable to you than the one I sent to you. The main place this comes up is child support. If there is no agreement, there is going to be child support entered because I am not going to present the evidence as to why child support should not be entered. Doing so might result in my client having a complaint against me, and I am there to represent my client. This can all be avoided if the pro se litigant would just show up to Court.
(8) Rule #8: Dress appropriately. If you are representing yourself, it is probably smart to dress the part. A suit is a good idea. Caring enough to wear a suit gives the appearance of preparation even if you do not know what you are doing. This goes even for clients who are represented by counsel because club attire is not appropriate for Court. Also, undergarments should be worn to Court.
(9) Rule #9: Do not talk back to the Court. It is amazing how disrespectful some pro se litigants are towards the Court. The person in the black robe is not like your mother and father who you could run all over. S/He is not like your teacher at school who was confined to certain discipline methods. S/He can throw you in jail. S/He can take away your access to your children. S/He can fine you money. You had better be nice to the Court!
(10) Rule #10: Since you are not my client, I do not have to talk to you every time you call. This may be more of a personal rule than an across the board rule. I try to be respectful and call you back, but when the conversations are not productive, cost my client money, and start numbering three to four a day, I am going to start ignoring one or two of them. You can correspond with me in writing if you want to get your point across because thirty minutes of ranting or arguing just waste my time. My duty is not to you.
I understand that lawyers are pricey. I truly believe that a citizen can go into court and represent themselves if they are willing to put the time and effort into being an expert on their case. It is probably more advisable to have a lawyer because the law is technical. There is a reason that I had to go to extra school and pay thousands of dollars. If you make the choice to represent yourself, understand that legal work is time consuming and requires research and paperwork. Be willing to put forth the effort so that you are respectful of the Court and opposing counsel. The statutes can be found for free on the Internet so start with those instead of a general legal help site that is not state specific. Whatever you do, if you are going to say that opposing counsel or the Court is wrong, be ready to back it up with statute or evidence following the correct procedure instead of complaining once the order is complete. These are just a few tips for those brave enough to represent themselves so that they do not also represent a fool.
(1) Rule #1: Do not expect everyone else to do your work for you. It is your job to draft, your job to read what is sent, your job to understand it. If it has legalese in it, go look it up in a legal dictionary. If it quotes a statute, go look it up because most statutes are online for free. If you are not going to hire an attorney, you need to be prepared to put in the work that an attorney would put in because no one is going to do the work for you.
(2) Rule #2: Opposing counsel is not there to do you favors. Just because you think the outcome is wrong does not mean you should call the attorney on the other side and try to change their minds. In fact, the outcome was probably pretty favorable to the attorney's client, and it would be malpractice for the attorney to suddenly take your side. It is the Court you have to convince, not opposing counsel.
(3) Rule #3: Do not call during the height of your emotional outburst. You are not thinking rationally, so it is impossible for the attorney to communicate with you. I get that you are mad, feel like the system failed, feel that Goliath beat David, feel that I used my influence to push things through, but there is nothing I am going to do about it. In fact most of the time opposing counsel will start trying to use a rational argument with the pro se litigant, then give up and resort to either yelling or silence. Silence is my tactic of choice.
(4) Rule #4: Do not lie about something that can be independently verified. Attorneys specialize in paperwork. Chances are the attorney has the paperwork to prove that you are lying. It is also quite possible that the attorney has the credibility with the Court necessary to just show the paperwork.
(5) Rule #5: Read what you sign. You cannot use the defense, "well s/he told me that signing this would make such and such occur." Have you ever considered that the person giving you this advice is going up against you in the matter?
(6) Rule #6: Stop quoting this mysterious "lawyer" who is supposedly reading the paperwork and giving you advice. For one, this person rarely exists. Making up a "lawyer" is not going to cause the lawyer to start questioning his or her capability on a case. If the person does exist, they are probably giving free advice and therefore, not that great of advice. Just because a person has a JD after their name does not mean that they know all the nuances of the area of law you are asking them about. Bankruptcies attorneys may know nothing about family law except what they learned in law school 20 years ago and vice versa. (Same thing goes for doctors too!) Also, if you are not paying them for research, they probably are not researching your issue to find out if what you are saying is correct. Finally, they probably have not heard the whole story because that would probably take a minimum of an hour to tell, and most of us are too busy to give an hour. When you quote the mysterious "lawyer," this is what I am thinking and I am sure other attorneys are thinking the same thing.
(7) Rule #7: Come to Court. I follow the rule that even if a waiver is signed, I give notice of hearings. I also, when the person is not represented by an attorney, try to make that waiver as favorable to the pro se litigant as possible. Why? Because the pro se person never comes to Court, and is always unhappy with what the judge decides because they were not their to tell their side. The State of Texas tells me that when you sign a waiver, I provide you notice, you do not agree with the proposed order, and you do not show, then I can proceed and my client is going to be able to talk about whatever s/he wants to talk about which may or may not result in an order that is less favorable to you than the one I sent to you. The main place this comes up is child support. If there is no agreement, there is going to be child support entered because I am not going to present the evidence as to why child support should not be entered. Doing so might result in my client having a complaint against me, and I am there to represent my client. This can all be avoided if the pro se litigant would just show up to Court.
(8) Rule #8: Dress appropriately. If you are representing yourself, it is probably smart to dress the part. A suit is a good idea. Caring enough to wear a suit gives the appearance of preparation even if you do not know what you are doing. This goes even for clients who are represented by counsel because club attire is not appropriate for Court. Also, undergarments should be worn to Court.
(9) Rule #9: Do not talk back to the Court. It is amazing how disrespectful some pro se litigants are towards the Court. The person in the black robe is not like your mother and father who you could run all over. S/He is not like your teacher at school who was confined to certain discipline methods. S/He can throw you in jail. S/He can take away your access to your children. S/He can fine you money. You had better be nice to the Court!
(10) Rule #10: Since you are not my client, I do not have to talk to you every time you call. This may be more of a personal rule than an across the board rule. I try to be respectful and call you back, but when the conversations are not productive, cost my client money, and start numbering three to four a day, I am going to start ignoring one or two of them. You can correspond with me in writing if you want to get your point across because thirty minutes of ranting or arguing just waste my time. My duty is not to you.
I understand that lawyers are pricey. I truly believe that a citizen can go into court and represent themselves if they are willing to put the time and effort into being an expert on their case. It is probably more advisable to have a lawyer because the law is technical. There is a reason that I had to go to extra school and pay thousands of dollars. If you make the choice to represent yourself, understand that legal work is time consuming and requires research and paperwork. Be willing to put forth the effort so that you are respectful of the Court and opposing counsel. The statutes can be found for free on the Internet so start with those instead of a general legal help site that is not state specific. Whatever you do, if you are going to say that opposing counsel or the Court is wrong, be ready to back it up with statute or evidence following the correct procedure instead of complaining once the order is complete. These are just a few tips for those brave enough to represent themselves so that they do not also represent a fool.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Excuses, Excuses
Whenever someone finds out that the part of my job that I enjoy the most is representing children in CPS cases, I am usually met with excuse after excuse after excuse. I think I am going to do a global response to the excuses, although I usually am much more politically correct when I actually respond to the person. Here is what I really wish I could say.
(1) Excuse #1: I could never do that, it would just be too hard.
I usually say, yes, it is hard. I still feel like I should do it anyway. What I really want to say is, if you think it is hard for you, think about the child that has no one to speak for them. Think about the child that has lived it. Might it be nice for that child to know that someone felt what happened to them was wrong? Might it be nice for the child to know that it is not their fault, and might you be able to tell them that? Might it be nice for the child to see that you cared enough to get involved when their parent does not even care enough to go to a few parenting classes and drug rehab? The child is going through things that adults want to close their eyes and ears to and that the child is not able to comprehend.
The right perspective to have is that it is a hard job that we are called to do. The Bible makes it very clear that Christians are to be the voice for the fatherless, the orphan, the oppressed. There are not outs. It is what God requires. It is not my command, but God's. This does not mean that the only way to help the fatherless, orphans, oppressed is by getting involved in some capacity in CPS cases. What this does mean is that if you look at your life and cannot see a way that you are helping the orphan and fatherless, you might be sinning. Although I have great respect for Compassion (and support some children myself), I think that this means more than just sending a check to an agency to do the work for you. I think it means getting involved and speaking out on behalf of the oppressed. For me, it means being an attorney for the children (and parents). For you, it might look like getting involved in CASA, volunteering to be checked into for a respite possibility for a person who is housing a child, or looking into fostering. It might even look like stepping in to help a family BEFORE the state comes in and befriending that family. Take some time to teach someone how to parent. Is it tough? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes, if for no other reason than knowing that you are in God's will because His scripture commands it.
(2) Excuse #2: I would just worry about the children all the time and be unable to sleep at night
I have had very few sleepless nights as a result of my CPS work. Part of the reason is that by the time that the case gets to me, the children are out of danger. Yes, I have feared for the children when the judge put them back with a parent. I also have called a caseworker to move the kids because I feared for their safety. When you are in the case, if you really fear for the child, you are able to do something about it. I guarantee you that I would lose more sleep from the realization that I am not in God's will than I lose knowing I am at least trying to fulfill His will. My response is usually that I sleep just fine, you learn to shut your brain off. What I wish I could say is how are you able to sleep when you are doing nothing and this is going on all around you? You should be the one losing sleep!
(3) Excuse #3: I do not have the time
I am usually pretty blunt with this one and suggest that the person find a way to make time, whether it be by volunteering one hour a month at a local pregnancy center, a little more to be a CASA volunteer, or donating some time to a local group home. I always emphasize the giving of time more than money in that situation. See I usually know that the person who says it religiously watches American Idol or Biggest Loser or some other TV show that takes at least an hour of their time each and every week. I do not usually get this excuse from the young mother who really does not have spare time and is raising her children in the way that God lays out in Scripture and truly may be in a season where sending the Compassion money and donation checks is how she is able to contribute.
(4) Excuse #4: If I helped out other kids, it would take something away from my own
My usual response is a faked, obviously lying, "I understand." I compound sin by sinning myself. Really, I do not understand. This is the excuse that gets under my skin the most. The reason it does is because those who say it are usually the people that are idolizing their children. They do not see themselves as idolizing their children. However, they are the ones that are posting tons of pictures of their own children in the best of clothes with the best of stuff taking the best vacations and bragging about the accomplishments of the children. The children become the center of the parents' universe. The children become even more important than God, often made clear by the parent choosing the child's activities over religious upbringing. I am not saying that if a parent has a hard time feeding their own child, that they should take a foster child in. I am saying that when a parent spends all of their time and energy and money on their child instead of teaching the child to do without in service to others, there is a problem. The children often grow up selfish and conceited and do not have a concept of sacrificing for the benefit of others.
I propose that families should evaluate whether fostering and adopting might be a way to put the gospel on display for natural born children. Instead of saying that it might take something away from the natural born children, families should look at how children might learn about the gospel through the family's actions. Christians are God's children by adoption. Think about how great it might be to show children about how God adopts us through an earthly adoption. If adoption is not the route that can be pursued for various valid reasons, consider at least teaching your children about the needs of the fatherless and orphans and oppressed and let them see what you are doing to help. It does not help your children for you to shelter them or even try to, especially when you send that child to public school. Guess what. There is a pretty good chance that your child is going to school with another child who is being abused, neglected, talking about drugs, using curse words all before the child is a teenager. Your children are exposed to it day in and day out. Teach them to be part of the solution.
If your sixteen year old son is on drugs, yes, you probably need to focus on that child. If your children are babies and toddlers, you probably are right that it may not be best to foster/adopt at that time.
(5) Excuse #5: There might be something wrong with the child and I do not know if I can handle it
I usually say, you are right but there are ways provided for you to handle it. If you are a CASA volunteer who finds yourself in over your head, there are others who are more experienced that can step in. If you are a foster parent who finds yourself in over your head, there are opportunities to change the child's level of care so that they can get the help they need. If you are a prospective adoptive parent, you will have the child in your home for six months (at a minimum) before the adoption will go through. I also hate to burst your bubble, but your natural born child can reject the morals and values he/she was raised under, and break your heart too. It is part of the sacrifice you make when you start to actually love by thinking of the other person's well being before your own. You may have to make some tough decisions that may include the child being outside of your home, but in some situations you can continue a relationship with the child even when you are unable to provide the forever home.
(6) Excuse #6: That is easy for you to say, you do not have children
I usually get this one when I have accidentally lost control of my tongue and said any of the what I really want to say in #1-5. I usually respond to this one with all honesty by saying, "You are right. I realize that if God blesses me with children, I am going to have the temptations to make any of these excuses about why I should not get involved. I can only thank God now that He has made it clear to me that it is a command, not an option, and it is His will. I also have to pray that if I do have children, God will guard me from the temptation to use any of the excuses for not getting involved. I also pray that if I ever stray from God's will in this matter, someone will have the courage to point out to me my sin. I may not take it well, I may be offended, but I still hope someone will point it out to me."
(7) Excuse #7: I am not called to do that kind of work
Yes, you are ... by God ... in the Bible. You are called to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. You are called to help the widow, orphan, fatherless, poor and oppressed. There are no exceptions given that I have found. You want to know God's will for your life? It says it in the scriptures by the type of things we are commanded to do. Stop waiting for a direct call, and start following commandments. It is as simple as that ... and often the direct call comes from the obedience.
I fully recognize that there are other places in scripture that I am not fully following the commands that God has laid out. However, I hope that I will not use the excuse, "That is not my calling." There are exceptions in Scripture for titles, but not lifestyles of obedience. I know there are areas I need to work on. I pray that I can stop making excuses in those areas. I also pray that I can continue to follow God's will in the areas I do recognize are part of His commandments, not suggestions.
(1) Excuse #1: I could never do that, it would just be too hard.
I usually say, yes, it is hard. I still feel like I should do it anyway. What I really want to say is, if you think it is hard for you, think about the child that has no one to speak for them. Think about the child that has lived it. Might it be nice for that child to know that someone felt what happened to them was wrong? Might it be nice for the child to know that it is not their fault, and might you be able to tell them that? Might it be nice for the child to see that you cared enough to get involved when their parent does not even care enough to go to a few parenting classes and drug rehab? The child is going through things that adults want to close their eyes and ears to and that the child is not able to comprehend.
The right perspective to have is that it is a hard job that we are called to do. The Bible makes it very clear that Christians are to be the voice for the fatherless, the orphan, the oppressed. There are not outs. It is what God requires. It is not my command, but God's. This does not mean that the only way to help the fatherless, orphans, oppressed is by getting involved in some capacity in CPS cases. What this does mean is that if you look at your life and cannot see a way that you are helping the orphan and fatherless, you might be sinning. Although I have great respect for Compassion (and support some children myself), I think that this means more than just sending a check to an agency to do the work for you. I think it means getting involved and speaking out on behalf of the oppressed. For me, it means being an attorney for the children (and parents). For you, it might look like getting involved in CASA, volunteering to be checked into for a respite possibility for a person who is housing a child, or looking into fostering. It might even look like stepping in to help a family BEFORE the state comes in and befriending that family. Take some time to teach someone how to parent. Is it tough? Yes. Is it worth it? Yes, if for no other reason than knowing that you are in God's will because His scripture commands it.
(2) Excuse #2: I would just worry about the children all the time and be unable to sleep at night
I have had very few sleepless nights as a result of my CPS work. Part of the reason is that by the time that the case gets to me, the children are out of danger. Yes, I have feared for the children when the judge put them back with a parent. I also have called a caseworker to move the kids because I feared for their safety. When you are in the case, if you really fear for the child, you are able to do something about it. I guarantee you that I would lose more sleep from the realization that I am not in God's will than I lose knowing I am at least trying to fulfill His will. My response is usually that I sleep just fine, you learn to shut your brain off. What I wish I could say is how are you able to sleep when you are doing nothing and this is going on all around you? You should be the one losing sleep!
(3) Excuse #3: I do not have the time
I am usually pretty blunt with this one and suggest that the person find a way to make time, whether it be by volunteering one hour a month at a local pregnancy center, a little more to be a CASA volunteer, or donating some time to a local group home. I always emphasize the giving of time more than money in that situation. See I usually know that the person who says it religiously watches American Idol or Biggest Loser or some other TV show that takes at least an hour of their time each and every week. I do not usually get this excuse from the young mother who really does not have spare time and is raising her children in the way that God lays out in Scripture and truly may be in a season where sending the Compassion money and donation checks is how she is able to contribute.
(4) Excuse #4: If I helped out other kids, it would take something away from my own
My usual response is a faked, obviously lying, "I understand." I compound sin by sinning myself. Really, I do not understand. This is the excuse that gets under my skin the most. The reason it does is because those who say it are usually the people that are idolizing their children. They do not see themselves as idolizing their children. However, they are the ones that are posting tons of pictures of their own children in the best of clothes with the best of stuff taking the best vacations and bragging about the accomplishments of the children. The children become the center of the parents' universe. The children become even more important than God, often made clear by the parent choosing the child's activities over religious upbringing. I am not saying that if a parent has a hard time feeding their own child, that they should take a foster child in. I am saying that when a parent spends all of their time and energy and money on their child instead of teaching the child to do without in service to others, there is a problem. The children often grow up selfish and conceited and do not have a concept of sacrificing for the benefit of others.
I propose that families should evaluate whether fostering and adopting might be a way to put the gospel on display for natural born children. Instead of saying that it might take something away from the natural born children, families should look at how children might learn about the gospel through the family's actions. Christians are God's children by adoption. Think about how great it might be to show children about how God adopts us through an earthly adoption. If adoption is not the route that can be pursued for various valid reasons, consider at least teaching your children about the needs of the fatherless and orphans and oppressed and let them see what you are doing to help. It does not help your children for you to shelter them or even try to, especially when you send that child to public school. Guess what. There is a pretty good chance that your child is going to school with another child who is being abused, neglected, talking about drugs, using curse words all before the child is a teenager. Your children are exposed to it day in and day out. Teach them to be part of the solution.
If your sixteen year old son is on drugs, yes, you probably need to focus on that child. If your children are babies and toddlers, you probably are right that it may not be best to foster/adopt at that time.
(5) Excuse #5: There might be something wrong with the child and I do not know if I can handle it
I usually say, you are right but there are ways provided for you to handle it. If you are a CASA volunteer who finds yourself in over your head, there are others who are more experienced that can step in. If you are a foster parent who finds yourself in over your head, there are opportunities to change the child's level of care so that they can get the help they need. If you are a prospective adoptive parent, you will have the child in your home for six months (at a minimum) before the adoption will go through. I also hate to burst your bubble, but your natural born child can reject the morals and values he/she was raised under, and break your heart too. It is part of the sacrifice you make when you start to actually love by thinking of the other person's well being before your own. You may have to make some tough decisions that may include the child being outside of your home, but in some situations you can continue a relationship with the child even when you are unable to provide the forever home.
(6) Excuse #6: That is easy for you to say, you do not have children
I usually get this one when I have accidentally lost control of my tongue and said any of the what I really want to say in #1-5. I usually respond to this one with all honesty by saying, "You are right. I realize that if God blesses me with children, I am going to have the temptations to make any of these excuses about why I should not get involved. I can only thank God now that He has made it clear to me that it is a command, not an option, and it is His will. I also have to pray that if I do have children, God will guard me from the temptation to use any of the excuses for not getting involved. I also pray that if I ever stray from God's will in this matter, someone will have the courage to point out to me my sin. I may not take it well, I may be offended, but I still hope someone will point it out to me."
(7) Excuse #7: I am not called to do that kind of work
Yes, you are ... by God ... in the Bible. You are called to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. You are called to help the widow, orphan, fatherless, poor and oppressed. There are no exceptions given that I have found. You want to know God's will for your life? It says it in the scriptures by the type of things we are commanded to do. Stop waiting for a direct call, and start following commandments. It is as simple as that ... and often the direct call comes from the obedience.
I fully recognize that there are other places in scripture that I am not fully following the commands that God has laid out. However, I hope that I will not use the excuse, "That is not my calling." There are exceptions in Scripture for titles, but not lifestyles of obedience. I know there are areas I need to work on. I pray that I can stop making excuses in those areas. I also pray that I can continue to follow God's will in the areas I do recognize are part of His commandments, not suggestions.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Flying Solo
On November 1, 2010, I embarked on the adventure of solo practice as an attorney. What a ride the last three months have been! Here are some of my observations.
I am incredibly grateful for the five years I spent at a firm. I learned things at the firm that I could not learn anywhere else. It was not until almost four years in that I began to question whether I had a long term future at a firm. I started realizing that the work I wanted to do and enjoyed doing was not really the type of work you typically see at a firm. However, the years at the firm taught me the type of lawyer I wanted to be. I learned how to respect other attorneys. I learned how to be friendly and that friendliness can sometimes be the best way to advocate for the client. I learned billing practices. I gained a reputation. I also discovered that I do not like the greediness that is present in litigation. I prefer to work on cases that matter more than the bottom dollar. I struggled with balancing the cases that would pay the firm's bills and the cases that I perceived as being more meaningful. I will always be grateful for the time that I spent learning how to practice law at a firm.
Working from home is a good fit for me. I like the flexibility of being able to work at my own pace without someone looking over my shoulder. I like being able to roll out of bed and go to work immediately. I like wearing what I want when I want without worrying that I am not projecting the right image. My clients often prefer the dressed down look for meetings because it is less intimidating and makes them feel comfortable. Plus, my clients do not look at what I am wearing and think that I am charging the rates I do to dress nice. When you charge someone for your time instead of a product, you have to make them think that you are worth what they are being charged instead of that you are charging a certain amount because you need to support your lifestyle. I also like meeting with clients outside of an office setting. I like being able to do laundry when I feel like it, clean when I feel like it, and not being in a rush to get home each day.
It is easier for me to achieve the right amount of balance when I am my own boss. I know when I need to take a break. I know when I need some time off. I know when I am done for the day and productivity is going to suffer. I did not feel the freedom to make those decisions when I was reporting to a boss. I did not feel as if my time was my own. I did not realize how stressed I felt working in that environment. My bosses were good bosses. I just do not perform at my best when I feel like my life is out of balance. I did not feel comfortable asking the firm to allow me to participate in Vacation Bible School at my church. I did not feel like I could ask to take off to help out the preschool director if I needed to. It was not because my bosses were unwilling to give time off. It was just the personal feeling that I was not carrying my own weight. Now I feel the freedom to be more active in community activities, church, and cases that are not about the money because my time is my own and I will not be letting anyone down. I can balance more areas of my life without feeling like others are judging me for it. And if I mess up and commit time somewhere that is not in the best interest of my business, I am the only one who suffers the consequences for the decision. I like this balance.
God calls Christians to live in the world but to not be worldly. I think that the greatest temptation in my profession is to give in to the things of the world such as money, stuff, power, and prestige. One of my greatest fears was giving in to the sin of materialism by thinking I needed to have the nicest car, house, clothes, possessions. I looked at attorneys that succeed in firms, and the nicest house, cars, power, and prestige often result from that success. But at what cost? So many of those attorneys are miserable, have horrible family lives, sacrifice their reputation, and ultimately come to the conclusion that it is not worth it. I did not want to get to my sixties or seventies and reach this conclusion. I had no desire to be the richest attorney in town or to live in the nicest house or to drive the nicest car. I only have the desire to be the best advocate for the poor, the widow, the fatherless, the oppressed - those that cannot help themselves. I want to be about reconciliation in a society that does not value reconciliation. I want to be about the gospel in a world that needs the gospel above all else. I feel like the best way for me to incorporate this into my practice is by being out on my own where I feel that freedom to share. I know that I am going to be faced with the temptation to make more money and to be the best at what I do. I believe that I can best face that temptation by reminding myself that God calls us to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with Him. That is it. If I make more, it means I need to give more. My motivation for making more should be so that I can give more.
Finally, there are a lot of things that I can live without. I am learning to live without a secretary. I think this will benefit any future secretaries because I have done the work for myself prior to them working for me. I can live without the best of the best legal research subscription. I can live without mileage reimbursement checks. I can live without a receptionist. I can live without the best letterhead, business cards, website, advertisements. I can live without the noise that comes with working in an office. I can live without the fancy office. I can live without the best and seemingly unlimited office supplies. I cannot live without a reputation. Right now all clients are as a result of word of mouth, referrals from other attorneys, or court appointments. I had to build that reputation by being nice to other attorneys and respectful of the court. I had to build that reputation by returning client's phone calls. No client is worth ruining your reputation for. Although there are plenty things I can live without, my reputation is not one of them.
I am incredibly grateful for the five years I spent at a firm. I learned things at the firm that I could not learn anywhere else. It was not until almost four years in that I began to question whether I had a long term future at a firm. I started realizing that the work I wanted to do and enjoyed doing was not really the type of work you typically see at a firm. However, the years at the firm taught me the type of lawyer I wanted to be. I learned how to respect other attorneys. I learned how to be friendly and that friendliness can sometimes be the best way to advocate for the client. I learned billing practices. I gained a reputation. I also discovered that I do not like the greediness that is present in litigation. I prefer to work on cases that matter more than the bottom dollar. I struggled with balancing the cases that would pay the firm's bills and the cases that I perceived as being more meaningful. I will always be grateful for the time that I spent learning how to practice law at a firm.
Working from home is a good fit for me. I like the flexibility of being able to work at my own pace without someone looking over my shoulder. I like being able to roll out of bed and go to work immediately. I like wearing what I want when I want without worrying that I am not projecting the right image. My clients often prefer the dressed down look for meetings because it is less intimidating and makes them feel comfortable. Plus, my clients do not look at what I am wearing and think that I am charging the rates I do to dress nice. When you charge someone for your time instead of a product, you have to make them think that you are worth what they are being charged instead of that you are charging a certain amount because you need to support your lifestyle. I also like meeting with clients outside of an office setting. I like being able to do laundry when I feel like it, clean when I feel like it, and not being in a rush to get home each day.
It is easier for me to achieve the right amount of balance when I am my own boss. I know when I need to take a break. I know when I need some time off. I know when I am done for the day and productivity is going to suffer. I did not feel the freedom to make those decisions when I was reporting to a boss. I did not feel as if my time was my own. I did not realize how stressed I felt working in that environment. My bosses were good bosses. I just do not perform at my best when I feel like my life is out of balance. I did not feel comfortable asking the firm to allow me to participate in Vacation Bible School at my church. I did not feel like I could ask to take off to help out the preschool director if I needed to. It was not because my bosses were unwilling to give time off. It was just the personal feeling that I was not carrying my own weight. Now I feel the freedom to be more active in community activities, church, and cases that are not about the money because my time is my own and I will not be letting anyone down. I can balance more areas of my life without feeling like others are judging me for it. And if I mess up and commit time somewhere that is not in the best interest of my business, I am the only one who suffers the consequences for the decision. I like this balance.
God calls Christians to live in the world but to not be worldly. I think that the greatest temptation in my profession is to give in to the things of the world such as money, stuff, power, and prestige. One of my greatest fears was giving in to the sin of materialism by thinking I needed to have the nicest car, house, clothes, possessions. I looked at attorneys that succeed in firms, and the nicest house, cars, power, and prestige often result from that success. But at what cost? So many of those attorneys are miserable, have horrible family lives, sacrifice their reputation, and ultimately come to the conclusion that it is not worth it. I did not want to get to my sixties or seventies and reach this conclusion. I had no desire to be the richest attorney in town or to live in the nicest house or to drive the nicest car. I only have the desire to be the best advocate for the poor, the widow, the fatherless, the oppressed - those that cannot help themselves. I want to be about reconciliation in a society that does not value reconciliation. I want to be about the gospel in a world that needs the gospel above all else. I feel like the best way for me to incorporate this into my practice is by being out on my own where I feel that freedom to share. I know that I am going to be faced with the temptation to make more money and to be the best at what I do. I believe that I can best face that temptation by reminding myself that God calls us to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with Him. That is it. If I make more, it means I need to give more. My motivation for making more should be so that I can give more.
Finally, there are a lot of things that I can live without. I am learning to live without a secretary. I think this will benefit any future secretaries because I have done the work for myself prior to them working for me. I can live without the best of the best legal research subscription. I can live without mileage reimbursement checks. I can live without a receptionist. I can live without the best letterhead, business cards, website, advertisements. I can live without the noise that comes with working in an office. I can live without the fancy office. I can live without the best and seemingly unlimited office supplies. I cannot live without a reputation. Right now all clients are as a result of word of mouth, referrals from other attorneys, or court appointments. I had to build that reputation by being nice to other attorneys and respectful of the court. I had to build that reputation by returning client's phone calls. No client is worth ruining your reputation for. Although there are plenty things I can live without, my reputation is not one of them.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Seasons of Change
It seems that everything around me is changing. Fittingly this season of change is starting in the fall when the leaves change and the weather changes rapidly. I have made a big change in my professional life. After five years of working for a firm, I decided that it was time for me to try solo practice. The timing just seemed right. I realized that I was not working on the cases that I like and that I am passionate about. I also realized that I could if I started my own practice. Therefore, I decided to give up the easy paycheck to work the cases that I am passionate about.
In the weeks leading up to my decision, I kept coming back to the Bible verse Micah 6:8, "What does the Lord require but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" I feel like I can best put this verse into practice by devoting the majority of my time to CPS cases and criminal law. I realized that I could maintain my lifestyle with the income from the cases that I love. I have no desire to be the richest lawyer in town. Nothing is more humbling than working with persons who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and who have no foreseeable opportunity to move forward in life. I feel that God has given me a passion for this type of law, and I trust that He will take care of me as I pursue what I feel that He would want me to do. I know that there will still be material temptations, but I never want to have to choose between a case that pays more by the hour or a case where life and death really are on the line. As of November 1, 2010, I work for Cyndia Hammond, Attorney at Law!
In the weeks leading up to my decision, I kept coming back to the Bible verse Micah 6:8, "What does the Lord require but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?" I feel like I can best put this verse into practice by devoting the majority of my time to CPS cases and criminal law. I realized that I could maintain my lifestyle with the income from the cases that I love. I have no desire to be the richest lawyer in town. Nothing is more humbling than working with persons who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and who have no foreseeable opportunity to move forward in life. I feel that God has given me a passion for this type of law, and I trust that He will take care of me as I pursue what I feel that He would want me to do. I know that there will still be material temptations, but I never want to have to choose between a case that pays more by the hour or a case where life and death really are on the line. As of November 1, 2010, I work for Cyndia Hammond, Attorney at Law!
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
I must be a nerd
I have come to the conclusion that I am officially a self-proclaimed nerd. Up to this point in life, I think that I have only heard others apply that label to me and I have chosen to use descriptive labels such as nerdy instead of the noun version. However, I am willing to embrace the nerdiness and state that I am a nerd.
I came to this conclusion when I read the transcript of the Supreme Court oral arguments from last week's Snyder v. Phelps case. I read the transcript because I wanted to know how the oral arguments went, I decided not to wait for the audio of the oral arguments to be posted, and I wanted to know what Scalia said. Now I am anxiously awaiting the opinion/concurrence/dissent of Scalia. Notice I said the decision of Scalia instead of the decision of the Court. I think that out of all of the justices on the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is the one that I agree with most. Part of the reason for this is that Justice Scalia is rarely, if ever, guilty of making a decision based on emotion instead of the Constitution.
For example, Justice Scalia wrote an opinion that I thought that I did not agree with at the time it was issued. He wrote that a rape victim has to testify in front of the accuser. Although I do not remember the facts of the case now, I am sure it was probably a child victim making the victim someone that society naturally wants to protect. However, there is a Constitutional right of an accuser to confront a victim. Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of the accused to confront the victim. At the time, I thought it was a horrible decision. The more I thought about it, the more I admired Justice Scalia for taking the facts away and looking only at the text of the Constitution.
I think that the Snyder v. Phelps case is similar. We have a constitutional right to free speech. The government can place reasonable restrictions on where the speech can occur. Those restrictions were in place at the soldier's funeral. The Phelps group was out of the eyesight and hearing of the family. The family member is the one who decided to turn on the TV to see the media coverage (which is a problem with the media, but I will not go there on this one). It was also the family member who decided to go to the website and see what was said about the son and family. Does that mean that the Phelps group should have said the things that they are saying? No. However, that does not mean that they should not have the right to say those things.
I am interested to see if the Supreme Court is going to uphold the group's right to speak in this situation. If there is ever a set of facts that the majority of Americans can get behind and say that it was not right for this to occur, protesting at a funeral qualifies. However, there is a right to protest (I should add peacefully because protesting can get out of hand and protesters can lose the right). I am interested to see what Scalia writes. I hope that he continues to uphold the Constitution. I hope that he resists the temptation to carve an exception to free speech. I think that restricting the group to a particular time and place is sufficient, but I do not think that they should have their speech stifled. I think that the world would be better off if the group would quit saying what it is saying. However, this can be said by someone about almost any group.
Interestingly, the Court will be deciding if the speech was an intentional infliction of emotional distress which is a civil cause of action. There are times when our words, although we have a right to say them, have consequences. I find it hard to pin an intentional infliction of emotional distress on someone who put a thought out there in the public discourse, but did not force the intended or unintended victim to watch. If the media had not jumped on the protesting like they did, the intended/unintended victim may have never seen the speech that harmed the victim. I guess the argument can be made that the speaker knew that the media would cover the event and the speech would be likely to reach the victim. I guess that the ultimate question becomes what speech can have financial consequences outside of threats which already have criminal/civil consequences and slander/libel which has civil consequences.
On a completely different note, I am surprised by the argument presented by Phelps' daughter at the oral arguments. She came off much more articulate and much less crazy than her father. She was surprisingly well prepared and carried herself better in the oral argument than she has in interviews since the arguments (and probably before too). Sure she had some crazy moments (repeated use of "in your grille"), but overall she presented the argument better than I expected (my expectations were pretty low so maybe it was easy to exceed the expectations).
I came to this conclusion when I read the transcript of the Supreme Court oral arguments from last week's Snyder v. Phelps case. I read the transcript because I wanted to know how the oral arguments went, I decided not to wait for the audio of the oral arguments to be posted, and I wanted to know what Scalia said. Now I am anxiously awaiting the opinion/concurrence/dissent of Scalia. Notice I said the decision of Scalia instead of the decision of the Court. I think that out of all of the justices on the US Supreme Court, Justice Scalia is the one that I agree with most. Part of the reason for this is that Justice Scalia is rarely, if ever, guilty of making a decision based on emotion instead of the Constitution.
For example, Justice Scalia wrote an opinion that I thought that I did not agree with at the time it was issued. He wrote that a rape victim has to testify in front of the accuser. Although I do not remember the facts of the case now, I am sure it was probably a child victim making the victim someone that society naturally wants to protect. However, there is a Constitutional right of an accuser to confront a victim. Justice Scalia and the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional right of the accused to confront the victim. At the time, I thought it was a horrible decision. The more I thought about it, the more I admired Justice Scalia for taking the facts away and looking only at the text of the Constitution.
I think that the Snyder v. Phelps case is similar. We have a constitutional right to free speech. The government can place reasonable restrictions on where the speech can occur. Those restrictions were in place at the soldier's funeral. The Phelps group was out of the eyesight and hearing of the family. The family member is the one who decided to turn on the TV to see the media coverage (which is a problem with the media, but I will not go there on this one). It was also the family member who decided to go to the website and see what was said about the son and family. Does that mean that the Phelps group should have said the things that they are saying? No. However, that does not mean that they should not have the right to say those things.
I am interested to see if the Supreme Court is going to uphold the group's right to speak in this situation. If there is ever a set of facts that the majority of Americans can get behind and say that it was not right for this to occur, protesting at a funeral qualifies. However, there is a right to protest (I should add peacefully because protesting can get out of hand and protesters can lose the right). I am interested to see what Scalia writes. I hope that he continues to uphold the Constitution. I hope that he resists the temptation to carve an exception to free speech. I think that restricting the group to a particular time and place is sufficient, but I do not think that they should have their speech stifled. I think that the world would be better off if the group would quit saying what it is saying. However, this can be said by someone about almost any group.
Interestingly, the Court will be deciding if the speech was an intentional infliction of emotional distress which is a civil cause of action. There are times when our words, although we have a right to say them, have consequences. I find it hard to pin an intentional infliction of emotional distress on someone who put a thought out there in the public discourse, but did not force the intended or unintended victim to watch. If the media had not jumped on the protesting like they did, the intended/unintended victim may have never seen the speech that harmed the victim. I guess the argument can be made that the speaker knew that the media would cover the event and the speech would be likely to reach the victim. I guess that the ultimate question becomes what speech can have financial consequences outside of threats which already have criminal/civil consequences and slander/libel which has civil consequences.
On a completely different note, I am surprised by the argument presented by Phelps' daughter at the oral arguments. She came off much more articulate and much less crazy than her father. She was surprisingly well prepared and carried herself better in the oral argument than she has in interviews since the arguments (and probably before too). Sure she had some crazy moments (repeated use of "in your grille"), but overall she presented the argument better than I expected (my expectations were pretty low so maybe it was easy to exceed the expectations).
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Countdown to 30: Day 6
My milestone for today is a rite of passage for lawyers - the first jury trial! It is another topic that I have covered as extensively as I should, so it is another link day. Looking back on the first jury trial now, I still cannot believe that I have conducted a trial from start to finish. I pretty much ran the entire case from start to finish, so even on short notice, I could do the trial by myself. I think that it was a good thing that I did not have much time to get worked up over it, and it is a pretty good feeling to wake up the next morning and realize it is over. That night I think I was still in a little bit of shell shock. It is also comforting to know that my Baylor education did not go to waste and I was able to prepare for trial on short notice.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Another First
Yesterday I had two more firsts in the same hearing. I participated in my first adoption prove up, and I appeared for the first time in Judge Griffin's Court, which means that I have now had a hearing in front of all of the Bowie and Miller County District/Circuit judges. An adoption is an exciting thing to be a part of for a lawyer. It is probably the one time everyone leaves the room happy (the birth mother was not required to be there). The judge can feel good about his decision. The family now has an official new member. The lawyer can feel good because you feel like the child has won and your client has won. It is probably one of the most rewarding, if not the most rewarding, type of case to be involved in. It was a special day.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
First Jury Trial
I had a right of passage yesterday - I had my first jury trial. It is a day that attorneys dream of and dread all at once. The best and worst part of it was that I had less than 24 hours notice that I was flying solo. The partner who was supposed to be trying the case had a family emergency, and the trial could not be pushed because my client is about to start serving in Iraq. I went from doing one direct to doing the whole trial, meaning I had less than 24 hours to prepare a voir dire, opening statement, cross examination of the plaintiff and her boyfriend, and closing statement. It also meant that I had less than 24 hours to worry about the fact that my first jury trial was coming up, so I did not have time to make myself sick stressing about it.
Here are some things I have learned:
(1) Apparently I can prepare for trial in 24 hours and still sleep (some - it was a toss and turn sleep) the night before.
(2) When you are going up against an attorney that is going to make a good, smooth presence before the jury, let the jurors know that it is your first jury trial. It forces the other attorney to be nice to you in front of the jury. It allows you to get away with nerves, awkwardness, and disorganization. They aren't expecting much from you, so anything near competent looks good. Too bad I cannot use that excuse anymore.
(3) Find the juror that looks pleasant at you and the juror the nods at everything you say, and talk to them. You might even get lucky like I did and have them sitting in different parts of the jury box so that all the jurors feel the love.
(4) There are always going to be curveballs thrown at trial. This plaintiff claimed in all medical records and at her deposition that she had left shoulder trouble before and after the accident. On the stand, she said it was her right shoulder before and her left shoulder after the accident. She said this after I had told the jury it was the left before and after the accident in my opening statement. When she said it was her right, all jurors looked at me. I had to put on a show and start stacking up papers that would disprove her statement. It made the jury anticipate my cross. Adding to the anticipation was the juror break that occurred right before my cross.
(5) Cross examination is fun, especially when Plaintiff is inconsistent between her pre-trial and trial testimony. Really fun. It made for an attentive jury. There is nothing like an adrenaline rush that comes after a successful (even though maybe not artfully performed) cross.
(6) Use statements made in voir dire in closing. I am not sure where I learned that or if anyone told me that, but in voir dire I made a statement that fit in perfectly with the cross I did of plaintiff. I read that statement, which every juror seated in the case agreed with, three times in my closing statement. Once at the beginning, once in the middle, and once at the end. It made for a nice theme to the very rough closing statement that I put on.
(7) Waiting for juries to come back is painful. Watching the look on the judge's face while he reads the verdict to himself before reading it out loud is painful.
(8) A win for a defendant is not a $0 verdict, and it is hard to explain a win to others. Plaintiff was asking for around $18,000.00 in medical expenses that she presented the bills for to the jury. When you add pain and suffering and other things like that, it could be around $40,000.00 for a potential verdict. The jury awarded Plaintiff $4,741.00. My goal was for the verdict to be between $5,000-9,000. I get to call it a win.
(9) Voir dire (or choosing the jury for any of you who are not lawyers and have not served on a jury) sucks! It is the worst part of the trial. I do not think that I will be able to ever choose my own jurors after voir dire. Fortunately, another associate in our office went with me and handled choosing the jurors, the motion in limine, and the jury charge. He picked a good jury. He helped me out tremendously! I am very grateful! He also had less than 24 hours notice that he would be helping me. He definitely stepped up to the plate.
(10) Do not underestimate the ability of anyone in trial. If someone has been practicing law for a few years, more than likely they are capable of coming in and doing a trial. They may even use their first trial as an excuse to elicit sympathy from the jury. I have only watched one other trial go all the way to a jury, yet I pulled it off. I guess I am officially a trial lawyer now!
Here are some things I have learned:
(1) Apparently I can prepare for trial in 24 hours and still sleep (some - it was a toss and turn sleep) the night before.
(2) When you are going up against an attorney that is going to make a good, smooth presence before the jury, let the jurors know that it is your first jury trial. It forces the other attorney to be nice to you in front of the jury. It allows you to get away with nerves, awkwardness, and disorganization. They aren't expecting much from you, so anything near competent looks good. Too bad I cannot use that excuse anymore.
(3) Find the juror that looks pleasant at you and the juror the nods at everything you say, and talk to them. You might even get lucky like I did and have them sitting in different parts of the jury box so that all the jurors feel the love.
(4) There are always going to be curveballs thrown at trial. This plaintiff claimed in all medical records and at her deposition that she had left shoulder trouble before and after the accident. On the stand, she said it was her right shoulder before and her left shoulder after the accident. She said this after I had told the jury it was the left before and after the accident in my opening statement. When she said it was her right, all jurors looked at me. I had to put on a show and start stacking up papers that would disprove her statement. It made the jury anticipate my cross. Adding to the anticipation was the juror break that occurred right before my cross.
(5) Cross examination is fun, especially when Plaintiff is inconsistent between her pre-trial and trial testimony. Really fun. It made for an attentive jury. There is nothing like an adrenaline rush that comes after a successful (even though maybe not artfully performed) cross.
(6) Use statements made in voir dire in closing. I am not sure where I learned that or if anyone told me that, but in voir dire I made a statement that fit in perfectly with the cross I did of plaintiff. I read that statement, which every juror seated in the case agreed with, three times in my closing statement. Once at the beginning, once in the middle, and once at the end. It made for a nice theme to the very rough closing statement that I put on.
(7) Waiting for juries to come back is painful. Watching the look on the judge's face while he reads the verdict to himself before reading it out loud is painful.
(8) A win for a defendant is not a $0 verdict, and it is hard to explain a win to others. Plaintiff was asking for around $18,000.00 in medical expenses that she presented the bills for to the jury. When you add pain and suffering and other things like that, it could be around $40,000.00 for a potential verdict. The jury awarded Plaintiff $4,741.00. My goal was for the verdict to be between $5,000-9,000. I get to call it a win.
(9) Voir dire (or choosing the jury for any of you who are not lawyers and have not served on a jury) sucks! It is the worst part of the trial. I do not think that I will be able to ever choose my own jurors after voir dire. Fortunately, another associate in our office went with me and handled choosing the jurors, the motion in limine, and the jury charge. He picked a good jury. He helped me out tremendously! I am very grateful! He also had less than 24 hours notice that he would be helping me. He definitely stepped up to the plate.
(10) Do not underestimate the ability of anyone in trial. If someone has been practicing law for a few years, more than likely they are capable of coming in and doing a trial. They may even use their first trial as an excuse to elicit sympathy from the jury. I have only watched one other trial go all the way to a jury, yet I pulled it off. I guess I am officially a trial lawyer now!
Monday, May 4, 2009
Judge Jim Hudson
The Arkansas judge that swore me in to practice law in Arkansas died yesterday after complications from surgery he had in March. More here.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Sometimes I am glad ...
... that I do not practice law in South Texas! This week there are two pretty big trials that are going on in South Texas. One thing that you learn as a lawyer is that it is almost impossible to give a good quote to the media, so you should always write it down. You have to assume that the media is not going to get what you say right or is going to take what you say out of context. Even the best attorneys can come up with pretty funny quotes when they speak instead of issue a written statement. Here are some of my favorites this week:
One of the cases in South Texas involves a federal judge who was charged with sexual assault or sexual abuse or something along those lines, and was convicted of obstruction of justice because of some lies he told investigators. Apparently, one of the accusers was someone that this judge had an affair with over a number of years, but the judges, when questioned by the investigator, did not inform the investigator of the long term affair. His lawyer offered this quote in defense of his client's actions: "Through the ages, it's been recognized that the proper course of conduct for a gentleman or a lady is to not discuss the affair of the heart," DeGuerin said. "It's no more than that."
The second case is of a guy who was charged with multiple counts of impersonating an attorney and a peace officer. Mr. Celis would travel all over the place signing up plaintiffs for attorneys when something tragic would happen. As part of this sham, he ran a law firm (which is not permitted for a non-lawyer to do) and would conduct the initial meetings/telephone calls with clients in order to sign them up for his firm. In fact, between 2004-2008, he received over $10 million in activity that can be called impersonating an attorney. He was found guilty on fourteen counts (most of which were felonies I believe) and his trial is currently in the sentencing phase. He awaits trial number two for money laundering, which needed an underlying criminal conviction or activity before being able to proceed. His lawyer offered two great quotes yesterday afternoon.
In the first quote, as soon as the jury came back with the convictions but before the sentencing phase began, his attorney announces "Mr. Celis intends to appeal the verdict." Let's just say that I would never say that prior to sentencing because (1) I do not want to make the person who is sentencing my client mad, and (2) why state the obvious. Everyone knows you are going to appeal. It is inevitable when you have a client that is paying an astronomical amount of attorney's fees already.
In the second quote, speaking about potential sentences, the attorney said, "Probation is the only logical outcome of the verdict." What? Are you kidding me? Unless I read that incorrectly, your client was just convicted of fourteen counts of something that the state considers a crime. Each individual count carries two to ten years of time, although you do get the benefit of it running concurrently. I am pretty sure that if you have fourteen counts of a crime with each carrying two to ten years, you are going to be spending at least two years in jail. Plus, why would you appeal probation? Oh, that is right. Because the conviction for the fourteen things your client did wrong forms the basis of the money laundering trial that is coming up. Still, probation?
One of the cases in South Texas involves a federal judge who was charged with sexual assault or sexual abuse or something along those lines, and was convicted of obstruction of justice because of some lies he told investigators. Apparently, one of the accusers was someone that this judge had an affair with over a number of years, but the judges, when questioned by the investigator, did not inform the investigator of the long term affair. His lawyer offered this quote in defense of his client's actions: "Through the ages, it's been recognized that the proper course of conduct for a gentleman or a lady is to not discuss the affair of the heart," DeGuerin said. "It's no more than that."
The second case is of a guy who was charged with multiple counts of impersonating an attorney and a peace officer. Mr. Celis would travel all over the place signing up plaintiffs for attorneys when something tragic would happen. As part of this sham, he ran a law firm (which is not permitted for a non-lawyer to do) and would conduct the initial meetings/telephone calls with clients in order to sign them up for his firm. In fact, between 2004-2008, he received over $10 million in activity that can be called impersonating an attorney. He was found guilty on fourteen counts (most of which were felonies I believe) and his trial is currently in the sentencing phase. He awaits trial number two for money laundering, which needed an underlying criminal conviction or activity before being able to proceed. His lawyer offered two great quotes yesterday afternoon.
In the first quote, as soon as the jury came back with the convictions but before the sentencing phase began, his attorney announces "Mr. Celis intends to appeal the verdict." Let's just say that I would never say that prior to sentencing because (1) I do not want to make the person who is sentencing my client mad, and (2) why state the obvious. Everyone knows you are going to appeal. It is inevitable when you have a client that is paying an astronomical amount of attorney's fees already.
In the second quote, speaking about potential sentences, the attorney said, "Probation is the only logical outcome of the verdict." What? Are you kidding me? Unless I read that incorrectly, your client was just convicted of fourteen counts of something that the state considers a crime. Each individual count carries two to ten years of time, although you do get the benefit of it running concurrently. I am pretty sure that if you have fourteen counts of a crime with each carrying two to ten years, you are going to be spending at least two years in jail. Plus, why would you appeal probation? Oh, that is right. Because the conviction for the fourteen things your client did wrong forms the basis of the money laundering trial that is coming up. Still, probation?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
TYLA Newsletter
I am the secretary of the Texarkana Young Lawyers Association, the local affiliate of the Texas Young Lawyers Association. One of my responsibilities as secretary of the organization is to put together and publish a newsletter each month. This months newsletter was posted on the Eastern District of Texas blog, which happens to be one of the most read blogs by patent attorneys and attorneys practicing in the Eastern District of Texas. This is a pretty big accomplishment for our local affiliate!
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
It’s Nice to be Nice
Brother Martin, long time director of the Carver Center in New Orleans, would walk around saying, "It's nice to be nice" over and over again to the kids. I have taken this same phrase and each year teach it to a new group of little league basketball players lucky enough to be chosen for my team J. I think that I need to start doing the same thing with lawyers from two of the three largest cities that are within three hours of Texarkana. Niceness and professional courtesy go a long way in the legal field, but lawyers from the two large cities (and not the closest one to Texarkana out of the three) seem to have forgotten that it is nice to be nice. Fortunately they also forget to take their big city attitude out of letters in small town cases, and although judges might be impressed with the attorney's knowledge of the rules and rudeness in the big city, judges outside of the big city fortunately do not share the same view. That is another reason that these lawyers should learn that it is nice to be nice – I am more worried about my letters being read by a judge than an attorney, and I write my letters accordingly. Over the past few days our office has received a few that we cannot wait to show a judge!
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
What our week has been like ...
I will let Summer, Cory's wife, share the news with you about our week. Just a little background information. I was attending trial as Cory in our office tried his first case on his own (meaning without the partner present). The outcome was good for our client, and, well, let's just say that Cory "moved" one of the potential jurors on the panel.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Really Random Thought # 3
Most weddings cost thousands of dollars. Most divorces cost at least a thousand dollars. A marriage can be dissolved in a matter of minutes. A divorce proceeding usually lasts less than ten minutes from start to finish. During that ten minutes, a judge decides what is in the best interest of a couple he has not met and a child that he barely knows the name of. Contested custody is worse. The parents leave it up to a judge that has never met the child to decide what is in the best interest of the child because the parents aren't capable. Sad.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Jury Duty
I had jury duty this morning. The joke around the office is that if I touch a case, it settles. I have only made it through two days of trial before the case settled - none of the cases I work on have gone to the jury. Apparently that holds true even if I am a potential juror. Too bad it didn't settle before I had to drive to the courthouse.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Leapholes
Leapholes by James GrippandoMy review
rating: 3 of 5 stars
I received this book as part of the advertising bag at the recent Texas Bar Leaders Conference that I attended a week ago. This book is published by the American Bar Association and is for teenage readers. I guess that the story was engaging enough. It did take a while for the author to get into the story, which made the last half of the book seem a little rushed. Also, it purports to take you through great cases in history, but really gives only a paragraph on many of them. Still, it would be a decent read for someone who is wanting to become a lawyer. I do not think that it is a modern classic though.
* The edition I read had quite a few typos in it. I think that it is sad that so many publishing companies are rushing to print and not spending extra time making sure that what I read is virtually error free. I can handle one mistake, but this book had mistakes throughout such as missing quotation marks, use of "than" instead of "that", missing periods, etc. Those kinds of mistakes can be quite annoying, and make me leary of the publisher.
View all my reviews.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Fox News
I was curious the other day and decided to type in Guy's name to see how far the story had gotten and what was being said about his murder. Surprisingly, his story ended up on FOXNews.com (here). Of course, the news story links his death to his testimony at the murder trial. I guess the argument can be made that if the police had provided him with protection following the trial, it would have been harder for the other neighborhood to shoot at him. It is obvious that everyone read about the death being linked to the testimony, and people don't remember that the day after it was reported to be unrelated to the testimony (although it is related to similar neighborhood feuds that led to Shaver's murder and Guy's murder - just different neighborhoods).
On another note, David Bonds, the one tried and acquitted for Shaver's murder and whose trial Guy testified in, is wanted for attempted murder because of a shooting that occurred over the weekend. Hmmmm. Wonder how that jury feels. One person held out refusing to convict him. I wonder which juror. I especially wonder if it was the alternate since one juror had to be dismissed after seeing the defendant make a gun with his fingers and point it at one of the witnesses. With all of the press coverage and outrage from the murder verdict, I think there is a good argument for transfer of venue for any future Bonds trial because it is going to be hard for him to get a fair trial on the current charges instead of being convicted on what he was acquitted for. I am glad I don't have to sit on any juries in New Orleans!
Friday, January 18, 2008
Yes, this is real
Yes, this is a real junk mail item that was received by our firm. Some lawyers will use anything to promote themselves and their firm.
(Sorry that it is sideways. I thought it would take too much time to try to turn it the right direction.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)