Practice of Law

The Ten Rules of Lawyering

Rule 1: Get Paid Up Front
Rule 2: Don’t Win The Ethics War, Avoid the Ethics War (Foonberg the Great)
Rule 3: 90% of Law School is a Waste, but Which 90%?
Rule 4: Never Believe Career Services, Especially When They Tell The Truth
Rule 5: Law School Is a Terrible Investment; Make the Most of It
Rule 6: It’s Impossible to Kiss Up to a Court Clerk Too Much
Rule 7: “Garbage Law” Doesn’t Exist; It’s All Garbage and It’s All Gold
Rule 8: Swim With a Buddy
Rule 9: Flakes Gonna Flake (aka Screw-Ups Screw Up)
Rule 10: Integrity Is “Good Selfish”

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in Legal Ethics, Practice of Law, 0 comments

Adam Reposa, Attorney at Law….

This report shows how attorney Adam Reposa of Austin has gotten jailed for contempt of court for using a lewd gesture at a prosecutor during a trial, made crazy ads and now created stickers bearing the seal of the City of Austin marking businesses as for “white people only” and affixed them to businesses in gentrifying neighborhoods in Austin, Texas.

Previously I suggested that attorney marketing by means of vulgarities was not so wise. Mr. Reposa’s “www.dwibadass.com” impresses me neither, both because it promises something not objectively verifiable and it’s also just tacky, crude and lawyer-centered, not client-centered. Of greater concern is Mr. Reposa’s “Why Hire Me” page, in which Mr. Reposa states:

“Then once you are convinced that I will give you as good of a chance, if not a better chance, of beating your case as any lawyer alive, my staff will work with you to make a workable fee schedule.”

This is the sort of unverifiable claim that attorney ethics rules discourage – ESPECIALLY when made with the specific intent to persuade a perspective client to hire (as the title of that page suggests.”

The State Bar of Texas reports that Mr. Reposa underwent a “fully-probated suspension” for three years. Because the Maryland Bar does not use a disciplinary status, I do not know precisely what that means. Mr. Reposa was admitted to the Bar. Mr. Reposa was admitted to the Bar in September 2003 and graduated from the respected University of Texas School of Law in June 2001.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in Legal Ethics, Practice of Law, 0 comments

To avoid: calling your client, in written correspondence to her, an obscene name

Sometimes I can be downright grouchy, truth be told; I have many faults and, sometimes, that’s one of them.

But I haven’t yet lost my cool so badly as to write a letter to a client calling her an obscenity in print, wishing her malice and insulting her progeny.

From page one of AGC v. Basinger:

After learning that Keys had denied that she had retained him, Basinger mailed to Keys letters in which he called Keys “A TRUE C[**]T” who had “finally f[***]ed up one time too many”; called Keys “a reprehensible human being” with “worthless progeny” and a “pathetic and dysfunctional world”; accused Keys of being lazy and dishonest, engaging in “defamation” and “absolute evil behavior[,]” and “trying to weasel [her] way out of paying the full amount of [a funeral chapel]’s bill”; suggested that Keys perhaps was responsible for her grandson’s death; stated that, if he ever saw her again, “it [would] be too soon”; and wished Keys “only the worst from here on out.”

If you are that unhappy with a client, you should simply terminate the relationship (in a manner consistent with, and to the extent permitted by, applicable Rules.) Some clients deserve to be fired and a few rare ones deserve to be chastised; none deserve to be hit with obscenities.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in Legal Ethics, Practice of Law, 0 comments

Poor Advocacy Choices: “I am the [*******] lawyer”

Scene: Essex (“of course”, said every Baltimore area practitioner to her/himself), afternoon docket. I am there with my client, about whom I will make no comment.

The Court heard a “not guilty agreed statement of facts” (tantamount in general to a guilty plea) for a woman (not my client) who was accused of drunk driving and hit-and-run violations, in colloquial terms. The narrative was that she tied one on at a eastern Baltimore County bar (“of course”), tapped/scraped one or more cars on the way out and went home without doing a proper job of inspecting/notifying the owners.  Officer “responded to the scene” (“of course”), investigated the scene replete with witness statements and paint scraped, determined a suspect’s identity and home address and drove to that suspect’s home.  On the officer’s arrival, the suspect regaled the officer with a lot of helpful information, such as “I don’t have to f****** talk to you” (true) and “I am going to get off on this, I work for a f****** lawyer” (proven false in this case.) The officer ultimately arrested the defendant.  The Court found the defendant guilty of the lesser of Maryland’s alcohol charge, essentially by plea, and the attorney proceeded to mitigation.

The first words out of the attorney’s mouth were, in substance, “Your Honor, the defendant works for me; I am the f****** lawyer”, without euphemism. The Court was visibly taken aback and ultimately deferred sentence to near the end of the docket, citing her discomfort with the nature of the language used in court.

Why is this bad? Well, here’s why….

1) If you are the “f****** lawyer” to whom the defendant makes reference in her drunken tirade, and your employee/prospective client asserts you as the reason why she will not face consequences, don’t take the case.  Refer it out.  At a minimum, it has the spirit of a conflict if not a black-letter rule conflict, in that your own interest in keeping your good name as a working may conflict remotely with the client’s liberty interest. Refer it out.

2) If you do take the case, against advice, do not refer to yourself as the “f****** lawyer.” Why? Because it tells the Court that you find what happened funny when you shouldn’t. Because it’s a terrible thing to say in open court. Because you want the Court to FORGET that your client said that, and being that lawyer and reminding the Court of her words is directly counter-productive. Because your own dignity as an attorney mandates that you define yourself in professional terms, not the terms of your drunk client. Because your lack of dignity tells the Court that you don’t care enough about your client’s case to do even a minimally sensible job, and therefore perhaps your client deserves some severity. Because it proves that you are stupid when your stupidity doesn’t advance the interest of your client.

Don’t know what the Court ultimately did to the client or the attorney – had to step out with my client – but it was embarrassing.

Posted by Bruce Godfrey in News, Practice of Law, 0 comments