Thanks, Mom, for all the big and little things you’ve done to show your love over more than a half century. Talk about patience! You’re great and I’m lucky.
May 9, 2004
to: Mama G, with Love
American Values Unleashed?
I can’t get out of my mind a story in the news a decade ago, here in Schenectady: A 14-year-old boy forced a naked schoolmate to crawl on his hands and knees around the neighborhood of their public school, on a leash. At the time, I was horrified, and thought “Where could he have learned something so degrading? And, how could someone so young be so cruel?” A very kindly older lawyer, who served as the boy’s law guardian in Family Court, later told me what a nice teen he appeared to be.
I’m tempted to say the young man might have a good future in army intelligence. However, he’s currently serving time for a murder he committed a few years ago, after his release from a junvenile detention facility. When he was arrested for the murder, his outraged mother was interviewed on television. She looked the camera in the eye and righteously claimed, “He’s a good boy. He’s never been in trouble with the law before.”
- I don’t know where I’m going with this, or what conclusions to draw, but I felt a need to share my troubled thoughts.
Comments Off on American Values Unleashed?
May 8, 2004
Mother’s (Moving) Day
In 21st Century America, most skirmishes in the Gender Wars are merely humorous or tedious — but, sometimes they’re dangerous. The batttle cries shouted in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s child custody relocation decision last week — Navarro v. LaMusga (04-29-04) — suggest that some advocates are willing to sacrifice the interests and needs of children to the supposed “rights” of one gender over the other.
Having represented hundreds of children in custody cases, and mediated many divorces, I believe the LaMusga Court’s emphasis on the child’s right to have an ongoing, meaningful relationship with both parents is not just eminently reasonable, it is mandated as the core mission of family or marital courts. The child’s relationship to the other parent must be a significant part of any decision whether to move away,
To the extent that the California decision eight years ago in the Burgess case gave the impression — adopted thereafter by many other states — that the custodial parent has the presumptive right to move away, the LaMusga “refinement” or clarification is late but welcomed.
Shrill statements like those from Kim Robinson (attorney for the mother in LaMusga) are far more inflammatory than enlightening. Lawyer Robinson is quoted saying “Fathers can move away with kids, mothers cannot,” and that “By giving trial judges so much discretion, the court permitted ‘any reason at all, no matter how whimsical or flimsyi to stop a mother from moving with her children.”
Robinson seems to have forgotten that the trial court had in fact permitted her client to move to Arizona (where the father was able to maintain frequent physical contact), but concluded that a move to Ohio was simply too likely to harm the children relationship with their father — especially given the mother’s antagonism toward the father.
An article in The Recorder notes that the LaMusga decision “sharply divides children’s rights advocates” (Divorced Parents Must Consider Ex if Moving Away, 05-03-04):
While some children’s advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for kids and a reaffirmation of trial court judges’ broad discretion, opposing groups, such as the California Women’s Law Center, called it “a huge step backwards.”
Davis, Calif., solo practitioner Tony Tanke, who represented the mother in the case, went as far as calling Thursday “the worst day for children in the history of California.” “California’s custodial parents — most of whom are mothers,” Tanke said in a prepared statement, “have lost the presumptive right to make decisions to better their lives and the lives of their children.” Judges can deny relocation, Tanke added, if the moving parent wasn’t “sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse.”
The debate now turns toward the state Legislature, where Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, is pushing a bill aimed at preserving custodial parents’ presumptive right to move. The bill, amended Wednesday, says that courts should not frustrate that right with “undue delay.”
The Christian Science Monitor declares (“A legal boost for noncustodial parents,” 05-03-04) that the LaMusga decision “is setting the stage for a national shift on one of the most contentious areas of divorce law. By keeping a mother from moving to Ohio with her children against the father’s will, the court is sending legal tremors across the US.” It continues:
The decision comes at a time when the fathers’ rights movement has been gaining momentum in state courts and legislatures. But California’s ruling stands as perhaps the strongest endorsement yet of the idea that the balance of power between divorced parents has swung too far toward mothers – and that judges and lawmakers must try to stake out a new middle ground.
Legal scholars are still parsing the 6-to-1 decision to determine exactly what the court intended. The general consensus is that the language of the decision is far from revolutionary; the court itself says that it is merely fine-tuning the 1996 so-called Burgess ruling.
But the court’s actions tell a different story, some analysts say. By preventing the mother from moving with her children over the objections of the father, the analysts suggest, the court is essentially overthrowing a decade of jurisprudence. In general, mothers were allowed to move for virtually any legitimate reason – ranging from a new job to a new spouse.
Custodial parents may indeed have to forego moves that would unduly interfere with their child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. However, the LaMusga opinion does not prevent all moves (often the parties will be able to agree upon new arrangements), nor even all moves that are detrimental to the children (many noncustodial parents will not have the resources to fight a move, and others won’t have strong enough arguments to stop a move).
Everyday in America, men and women decide for countless reasons not to move great distances — despite the lure of better jobs or climate, or a wish for a fresh start. Not moving because your children need a meaningful relationship with their other parent should not be thought of as an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom. Rather, it’s an obligation of responsible parenting.
Being remarried should not be an automatic “get out of state” card, either. The divorced parent has “baggage” (obligations) that can’t be left behind by the new couple.
When divorced or estranged parents disagree about a move — whether the custodial parent is the mother or the father — it’s better to have the determination of its appropriateness made by a responsible court than by an irresponsible or hostile “ex.”
Comments Off on Mother’s (Moving) Day
Mother’s (Moving) Day
In 21st Century America, most skirmishes in the Gender Wars are merely humorous or tedious — but, sometimes they’re dangerous. The batttle cries shouted in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s child custody relocation decision last week — Navarro v. LaMusga (04-29-04) — suggest that some advocates are willing to sacrifice the interests and needs of children to the supposed “rights” of one gender over the other.
Having represented hundreds of children in custody cases, and mediated many divorces, I believe the LaMusga Court’s emphasis on the child’s right to have an ongoing, meaningful relationship with both parents is not just eminently reasonable, it is mandated as the core mission of family or marital courts. The child’s relationship to the other parent must be a significant part of any decision whether to move away,
To the extent that the California decision eight years ago in the Burgess case gave the impression — adopted thereafter by many other states — that the custodial parent has the presumptive right to move away, the LaMusga “refinement” or clarification is late but welcomed.
Shrill statements like those from Kim Robinson (attorney for the mother in LaMusga) are far more inflammatory than enlightening. Lawyer Robinson is quoted saying “Fathers can move away with kids, mothers cannot,” and that “By giving trial judges so much discretion, the court permitted ‘any reason at all, no matter how whimsical or flimsyi to stop a mother from moving with her children.”
Robinson seems to have forgotten that the trial court had in fact permitted her client to move to Arizona (where the father was able to maintain frequent physical contact), but concluded that a move to Ohio was simply too likely to harm the children relationship with their father — especially given the mother’s antagonism toward the father.
An article in The Recorder notes that the LaMusga decision “sharply divides children’s rights advocates” (Divorced Parents Must Consider Ex if Moving Away, 05-03-04):
While some children’s advocates hailed the ruling as a victory for kids and a reaffirmation of trial court judges’ broad discretion, opposing groups, such as the California Women’s Law Center, called it “a huge step backwards.”
Davis, Calif., solo practitioner Tony Tanke, who represented the mother in the case, went as far as calling Thursday “the worst day for children in the history of California.” “California’s custodial parents — most of whom are mothers,” Tanke said in a prepared statement, “have lost the presumptive right to make decisions to better their lives and the lives of their children.” Judges can deny relocation, Tanke added, if the moving parent wasn’t “sufficiently friendly toward an ex-spouse.”
The debate now turns toward the state Legislature, where Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, is pushing a bill aimed at preserving custodial parents’ presumptive right to move. The bill, amended Wednesday, says that courts should not frustrate that right with “undue delay.”
The Christian Science Monitor declares (“A legal boost for noncustodial parents,” 05-03-04) that the LaMusga decision “is setting the stage for a national shift on one of the most contentious areas of divorce law. By keeping a mother from moving to Ohio with her children against the father’s will, the court is sending legal tremors across the US.” It continues:
The decision comes at a time when the fathers’ rights movement has been gaining momentum in state courts and legislatures. But California’s ruling stands as perhaps the strongest endorsement yet of the idea that the balance of power between divorced parents has swung too far toward mothers – and that judges and lawmakers must try to stake out a new middle ground.
Legal scholars are still parsing the 6-to-1 decision to determine exactly what the court intended. The general consensus is that the language of the decision is far from revolutionary; the court itself says that it is merely fine-tuning the 1996 so-called Burgess ruling.
But the court’s actions tell a different story, some analysts say. By preventing the mother from moving with her children over the objections of the father, the analysts suggest, the court is essentially overthrowing a decade of jurisprudence. In general, mothers were allowed to move for virtually any legitimate reason – ranging from a new job to a new spouse.
Custodial parents may indeed have to forego moves that would unduly interfere with their child’s relationship with the noncustodial parent. However, the LaMusga opinion does not prevent all moves (often the parties will be able to agree upon new arrangements), nor even all moves that are detrimental to the children (many noncustodial parents will not have the resources to fight a move, and others won’t have strong enough arguments to stop a move).
Everyday in America, men and women decide for countless reasons not to move great distances — despite the lure of better jobs or climate, or a wish for a fresh start. Not moving because your children need a meaningful relationship with their other parent should not be thought of as an unreasonable restriction on personal freedom. Rather, it’s an obligation of responsible parenting.
Being remarried should not be an automatic “get out of state” card, either. The divorced parent has “baggage” (obligations) that can’t be left behind by the new couple.
When divorced or estranged parents disagree about a move — whether the custodial parent is the mother or the father — it’s better to have the determination of its appropriateness made by a responsible court than by an irresponsible or hostile “ex.” May 7, 2004
empathy (and tough love) for the Instapundit
Get better, Glenn. You know Lileks is right:
Get better! Go away for a week. Blog not. You’re not a public utility! We won’t call our city councilman if the tap’s dry for a while.
No more waffling, please. No more: “Okay. Not for a week, but for a while. One quick report, though . . .”
Please get away from your weblog (and maybe all news sources) for as long as it takes to get fully healthy. Be grateful your malady is acute and not chronic. Although this weblog has only a handful of readers, its Editor understands too well the constant temptation to choose the insta-pleasures of weblogging over health needs.
skepticalEsq‘s doctor keeps shaking his head and saying, “You’re like an alcoholic who thinks he can walk into the bar and have just one drink. Your ego is killing you!”
So, listen to egoEsq: Get all better. Stop posting until your doctor and InstaSpouse give you a full bill of health. It won’t happen instantly, but think how happy the webiverse will be upon your vibrant return!
Comments Off on empathy (and tough love) for the Instapundit
empathy (and tough love) for the Instapundit
Get better, Glenn. You know Lileks is right:
Get better! Go away for a week. Blog not. You’re not a public utility! We won’t call our city councilman if the tap’s dry for a while.
No more waffling, please. No more: “Okay. Not for a week, but for a while. One quick report, though . . .”
Please get away from your weblog (and maybe all news sources) for as long as it takes to get fully healthy. Be grateful your malady is acute and not chronic. Although this weblog has only a handful of readers, its Editor understands too well the constant temptation to choose the insta-pleasures of weblogging over health needs.
skepticalEsq‘s doctor keeps shaking his head and saying, “You’re like an alcoholic who thinks he can walk into the bar and have just one drink. Your ego is killing you!”
So, listen to egoEsq: Get all better. Stop posting until your doctor and InstaSpouse give you a full bill of health. It won’t happen instantly, but think how happy the webiverse will be upon your vibrant return!
Comments Off on empathy (and tough love) for the Instapundit
EU Erasing Professional Services Borders
It’s Springtime, and many of us think of Paris and Rome (or Brussels), and getting away from lawyering. The best pyj can do is tell you about a new Report on developments in the European Union relating to competition for professional services. Toward a Borderless Market for Professional Services (April 26, 2004) is written by trade expert Bernard Ascher for the American Antitrust Institute. This brief but meaty summary of activity in the EU also ponders the implications for American professionals. - With Pennsylvania‘s new Rule 5.5 (described here and there) going into effect this week, and permitting out-of-state and foreign lawyers to provide temporary legal services, the aai Report seems particularly timely.
In Borderless, Ascher explains:
The European Union is moving on two fronts to improve conditions of competition for professional services and other services supplied within its market. On one front, through its Competition Directorate General (DG), the EU is pressing Member States to remove restrictions, such as price-fixing arrangements and advertising curbs, that prevent competition in professional services; on the other front, through its Internal Market DG, the EU is proposing a Directive to cut administrative burdens and excessive red tape that prevent EU businesses and professional service providers from offering their services across borders or from opening premises in other Member States.
He reports that “Following a review process initiated by the Competition DG . . . the Commission concluded that the existence of regulatory restrictions ‘is preventing the delivery of benefits to the economy and to consumers in particular.’ Thus, on February 9, 2004, the Commission announced that it is calling for Member States to abolish such restrictions unless they are ‘clearly justified by public interest’.” The study covered six professions, lawyers, notaries, accountants, architects, engineers, and pharmacists.
In Lisbon in 2000, the European Council set the ambitious goal of becoming the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.” As part of that effort, in March 2003, DG Competition launched a stocktaking exercise for professional services, to consider the justification for and effects of restrictive rules and regulations in the professions [such as fee scales, advertising restrictions, exclusive rights and rules prohibiting inter-professional co-operation].
- The EU Competition Policy and Liberal Professions webpage has details on the Conference held in Brussels 28 October 2003 and the Study . It also contains many links to key speeches and policy documents.
Ascher also notes that “Europeans have long recognized the advantages of the U.S. market with free movement of goods and services and a uniform currency. The EU has been working toward that goal for Europe.”
“By the same token, development of a more unified market for professional services in the EU could set an example for countries with multiple regulatory jurisdictions, such as the United States, Australia and Canada, to review and assess their own regulations and procedures in a systematic way, on a national level.”
There’s much more in this pithy report, including a list of competitive restrictions in various professions. Those affecting the legal profession include:
recommended prices for lawyers in Austria, Portugal, and Spain;
effective advertising prohibition for lawyers in Greece, Portugal, and Ireland (barristers);
bans on opening branch offices for lawyers in Luxembourg, Greece, Belgium, and Germany; and
eight Member States where lawyers are not permitted to form corporations
Comments Off on EU Erasing Professional Services Borders
EU Erasing Professional Services Borders
It’s Springtime, and many of us think of Paris and Rome (or Brussels), and getting away from lawyering. The best pyj can do is tell you about a new Report on developments in the European Union relating to competition for professional services. Toward a Borderless Market for Professional Services (April 26, 2004) is written by trade expert Bernard Ascher for the American Antitrust Institute. This brief but meaty summary of activity in the EU also ponders the implications for American professionals. - With Pennsylvania‘s new Rule 5.5 (described here and there) going into effect this week, and permitting out-of-state and foreign lawyers to provide temporary legal services, the aai Report seems particularly timely.
In Borderless, Ascher explains:
The European Union is moving on two fronts to improve conditions of competition for professional services and other services supplied within its market. On one front, through its Competition Directorate General (DG), the EU is pressing Member States to remove restrictions, such as price-fixing arrangements and advertising curbs, that prevent competition in professional services; on the other front, through its Internal Market DG, the EU is proposing a Directive to cut administrative burdens and excessive red tape that prevent EU businesses and professional service providers from offering their services across borders or from opening premises in other Member States.
He reports that “Following a review process initiated by the Competition DG . . . the Commission concluded that the existence of regulatory restrictions ‘is preventing the delivery of benefits to the economy and to consumers in particular.’ Thus, on February 9, 2004, the Commission announced that it is calling for Member States to abolish such restrictions unless they are ‘clearly justified by public interest’.” The study covered six professions, lawyers, notaries, accountants, architects, engineers, and pharmacists.
- In Lisbon in 2000, the European Council set the ambitious goal of becoming the “most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010.” As part of that effort, in March 2003, DG Competition launched a stocktaking exercise for professional services, to consider the justification for and effects of restrictive rules and regulations in the professions [such as fee scales, advertising restrictions, exclusive rights and rules prohibiting inter-professional co-operation].
- The EU Competition Policy and Liberal Professions webpage has details on the Conference held in Brussels 28 October 2003 and the Study . It also contains many links to key speeches and policy documents.
Ascher also notes that “Europeans have long recognized the advantages of the U.S. market with free movement of goods and services and a uniform currency. The EU has been working toward that goal for Europe.”
“By the same token, development of a more unified market for professional services in the EU could set an example for countries with multiple regulatory jurisdictions, such as the United States, Australia and Canada, to review and assess their own regulations and procedures in a systematic way, on a national level.”
There’s much more in this pithy report, including a list of competitive restrictions in various professions. Those affecting the legal profession include:
recommended prices for lawyers in Austria, Portugal, and Spain;
effective advertising prohibition for lawyers in Greece, Portugal, and Ireland (barristers);
bans on opening branch offices for lawyers in Luxembourg, Greece, Belgium, and Germany; and
eight Member States where lawyers are not permitted to form corporations
Comments Off on EU Erasing Professional Services Borders
May 6, 2004
BITE-size BUTs … bag #1
Some quickie Blurbs from the yaBut guys:
Brain-Dead Nomenclature: The press, the ABA Journal, along with many bloggers, have adopted the in-apt and inept terminology Brain Fingerprinting for the process of “reading the brain’s involuntary electrical activity in response to a subject being shown certain images relating to a crime.” Even if Dr. Larry Farwell, chief scientist and founder of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, chose a catchy rather than accurate phrase to help sell his device, there’s no excuse for lawyers or journalists to aid and abet his linguistic crime.
“brain” After thinking about it for maybe a minute, skepticalEsq suggests that this appears to be image recognition testing. Wouldn’t that, or similar, terminology communicate the concept to the public more precisely, without being too arcane for acceptance in everyday language? Earlier this year, ethicalEsq complained about calling DNA identification procedures “DNA fingerprints”. The term “brain fingerprinting” seems to be even less helpful and more confusing.
Corp Law Blog‘s Mike O’Sullivan didn’t even mention this website [or its predecessor], when whining about his weblog’s comparative treatment at the hands of Evan Schaeffer. Mike, “Better Abused Than Ignored” is the motto around here (but, don’t try this at home).
Scheherazade is thinking about setting up a (tentative) imaginary lunch with Your Humble Editor. Cool. And, not even fattening.
Evan Schaeffer included ethicalEsq in his list of “useful” weblogs. See Blogging Evangelist. [Evan didn’t even complain about the frequent name changes at this website URL.]
The Federal Trade Commission is finally suing a “debt negotiation” firm for its unfair, deceptive and harmful financial “services.” The firm is also the first respondent sued for violation of the federal Do Not Call Registry. [We won’t even point out that we wrote to the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection at the end of 1997, complaining about a virtually identical debt reduction-negotiation scam. The FTC took no action against the offending “law firm,” which subsequently took millions of dollars from perhaps 20,000 financially distressed customers, while ruining their credit.]
The Grammar Goddess Diane Sandford has recently covered several topics of importance to lovers of good language and diction. For example:
“If you want a simple rule guaranteed to improve your writing, try this: Avoid the words very, really, truly, quite, and thing. Rarely do these words contribute to a sentence.”
“Skill in writing consists of having at command an array of synonyms, together with a sense of their fitness.”
She also offers a very good lesson in Comma Sense.
Comments Off on BITE-size BUTs … bag #1
BITE-size BUTs … bag #1
Some quickie Blurbs from the yaBut guys:
Brain-Dead Nomenclature: The press, the ABA Journal, along with many bloggers, have adopted the in-apt and inept terminology Brain Fingerprinting for the process of “reading the brain’s involuntary electrical activity in response to a subject being shown certain images relating to a crime.” Even if Dr. Larry Farwell, chief scientist and founder of Brain Fingerprinting Laboratories, chose a catchy rather than accurate phrase to help sell his device, there’s no excuse for lawyers or journalists to aid and abet his linguistic crime.
“brain” After thinking about it for maybe a minute, skepticalEsq suggests that this appears to be image recognition testing. Wouldn’t that, or similar, terminology communicate the concept to the public more precisely, without being too arcane for acceptance in everyday language? Earlier this year, ethicalEsq complained about calling DNA identification procedures “DNA fingerprints”. The term “brain fingerprinting” seems to be even less helpful and more confusing.
Corp Law Blog‘s Mike O’Sullivan didn’t even mention this website [or its predecessor], when whining about his weblog’s comparative treatment at the hands of Evan Schaeffer. Mike, “Better Abused Than Ignored” is the motto around here (but, don’t try this at home).
Scheherazade is thinking about setting up a (tentative) imaginary lunch with Your Humble Editor. Cool. And, not even fattening.
Evan Schaeffer included ethicalEsq in his list of “useful” weblogs. See Blogging Evangelist. [Evan didn’t even complain about the frequent name changes at this website URL.]
The Federal Trade Commission is finally suing a “debt negotiation” firm for its unfair, deceptive and harmful financial “services.” The firm is also the first respondent sued for violation of the federal Do Not Call Registry. [We won’t even point out that we wrote to the Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection at the end of 1997, complaining about a virtually identical debt reduction-negotiation scam. The FTC took no action against the offending “law firm,” which subsequently took millions of dollars from perhaps 20,000 financially distressed customers, while ruining their credit.]
The Grammar Goddess Diane Sandford has recently covered several topics of importance to lovers of good language and diction. For example:
“If you want a simple rule guaranteed to improve your writing, try this: Avoid the words very, really, truly, quite, and thing. Rarely do these words contribute to a sentence.”
“Skill in writing consists of having at command an array of synonyms, together with a sense of their fitness.”
She also offers a very good lesson in Comma Sense.
Comments Off on BITE-size BUTs … bag #1
May 5, 2004
The Lawyer Robbed the Right Client
The moral of lawyer Rupert Hall Jr.’s disciplinary story is clear: If you’re going to steal from a client, pick a church with a forgiving pastor. As the New Jersey Law Journal reports, Rev. J. Evans Dodds, who wrote the $3500 check for a bogus fee to Hall, “concluded his testimony to the special master with a sermon about guilt and redemption.” (New York Lawyer, Minister He Ripped Off Saves Solo from Disbarment, 05-05-04) The article, which notes that the tale began when Hall wrote another client a trust account check that bounced, states:
The minister concluded by asking for “leniency in dealing with a man whom I believe may have made some foolish mistakes.” The spirit apparently was contagious.
Prof. Yabut, who is as personally forgiving as the next curmudgeon, dislikes hearing intentional, serious ethics violations (or felonies) called “mistakes.” Despite its supposedly mandatory disbarment penalty for misappropriation, however, the Disciplinary Review Board gave Hall an indeterminate suspension, and he can seek reinstatement in five years. Yeah, but, how is the Board going to apply the rule the next time the issue arises? Defense counsel, get out your Bibles (New Testament sentiments preferred)!
Memo to Churches in New Jersey: Choose your lawyers wisely. And, look over those bills closely before your attorney a check.
Memo to Larcenous Lawyers: Try to avoid the fire-and-brimstone clients.
Should Law Schools Be More LIke Business Schools?
Stay Clueless or go Cluetrain? Are law students too inexperienced about life and business? Should they enter law school with real work experience and learn more business school lessons and skills? As an article in today’s New York Law Journal asks: “If the law is becoming more of a business, should law schools become more like business schools?” (NYLJ, Law Schools Steal a Page From Business Schools, by Anthony Lin, 05-05-04 )
This being academia, you can expect the wagons are being circled, to keep the oxen of the various faculties from being gored, and to protect the traditions that many feel are sacrosanct.. John P. Heinz, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago, points out that many law schools have already “responded to perceived changes in the marketplace and set a goal of training lawyers who better understand the world of business and can more easily put themselves in the shoes of clients.” According to the NYLJ article,
“The team-based, case-study approach to instruction pioneered at business schools is now commonly found at law schools.”
“Where law schools once based admissions solely on grades and test scores, some are now stealing another page from business schools and considering applicants’ work experience as well.”
It is no surprise, though, that some law professors “warn that wholesale adoption of business-school practices risks producing less capable lawyers” – arguing that learning law is far more subtle than learning business skills (through the business case method). Professors also worry that accepting law students based on their life experience will lower the pure acedemic capability of the students, turning out less capable lawyers.
On the other hand, Dean David Van Zandt, of Northwestern Law School argues that “the emphasis business schools place on work experience rather than grades means business school students generally have a maturity and focus lacking in law students. The latter, he said, frequently enter law school directly from college out of fear of actually embarking on a career.”
Last month, Harvard Law School launched a Program on Lawyers and the Professional Services Industry, headed by Professor David Wilkins, a specialist in the legal profession. “Wilkins said the program will benefit from the participation of faculty from Harvard Business School as well as lawyers in private practice.”
. .
Dean David Van Zandt, Northwestern’s law school has also sought to boost the number of its students who earn business degrees. Perhaps most controversially, Van Zandt has made applicants’ work experience a major factor in the law school’s admissions process, along with grades and standardized test scores. He said that as many as 70 percent of the school’s current students have worked for some period before entering law school.
Van Zandt argues that “the emphasis business schools place on work experience rather than grades means business school students generally have a maturity and focus lacking in law students. The latter, he said, frequently enter law school directly from college out of fear of actually embarking on a career.”
Similarly, “Stanford Law School Professor Deborah Rhode said law schools, with far fewer entrance requirements than medical or business schools, provided fresh college graduates with the professional “‘degree of least resistance’.”
“A lot of students are pretty clueless about the profession and what their lives are going to be like after they graduate,” said Rhode. “They think they’re going to save the world on Wall Street salaries.”
But she noted that many law schools would be wary of adjusting admissions criteria to take greater account of work experience. She said Stanford experimented in the 1990s with admitting some students based primarily on their life experiences but stopped after some faculty expressed concern that the average test scores of Stanford students would drop.
In contrast, Yale Law School’s Jonathan Macey said it is good for students to have work experience but “added that law schools should not underestimate the value of pure academic excellence.”
This debate is just starting. One major benefit from having so darn many law schools is that there can be a lot of experimentation, perhaps resulting in numerous successful models to suit the needs of invidual lawyers, clients and industries.
Comments Off on Should Law Schools Be More LIke Business Schools?
May 4, 2004
Suspended Hammer
It’s a wee bit anticlimactic, but paper lion lawyer, Jim “The Hammer” Shapiro, has been suspended from practice in New York State for one year. According to New York Lawyer, “Shapiro said from his Florida home that the ruling is ‘unfair and unconstitutional’ but has little effect. He sold his Rochester-based law firm six months ago, he said.” (AP/New York Lawyer, Lawyer Known for Ads Suspended, 05-03-04)
The Hammer’s braggadocio has been described here, and at Overlawyered. com. This time, his transgressions involve a solicitation letter to a comatose hospital patient and a series of ads filled with swagger and the promise of more swagger. As noted by New York’s 4th Department appellate division, in Matter of James J. Shapiro (April 30, 2004) (emphasis added):
“[W]e conclude that any reasonable attorney would know that a solicitation letter sent to a hospitalized comatose patient in the days immediately following a collision between her automobile and a train would reach the patient and her family at a time when they were unable to exercise reasonable judgment in retaining an attorney. Respondent, who had actual knowledge of the condition of the accident victim, will not be heard to argue that the disciplinary rule required him to be a “mind and body reader” in order to determine whether his solicitation letter could be sent.
“We also agree with the finding of the Referee that the television commercials aired by respondent contained false and misleading statements. The commercials depicted respondent as an experienced, aggressive personal injury lawyer who was prepared to take and had taken personal action on behalf of clients.”
“[R]espondent has not been actively engaged in the practice of law in this State since 1995.”
- “In contrast to the image of respondent depicted in the commercials, respondent has never tried a case to its conclusion and has conducted approximately 10 depositions.”
- We reject the contention of respondent that his television commercials consist of constitutionally protected hyperbole. The statements in the television commercials aired by respondent are false; they do not consist of hyperbole.
As a mitigating factor, the Court did note that Shapiro “consulted counsel concerning the language in his solicitation letters.” Wouldn’t you love to know the name of that legal ethics expert?
Small Claims Courts: Still Slackers
It’s too bad we can’t ground state legislators until they significantly improve our small claims courts. Yesterday, the legal reform group HALT issued its 2004 Small Claims Court Report Cards for each state. As with its 2002 report cards, the results are disappointing. This time, Georgia and California were at the top of the class, while Kentucky and Missouri received the worst grades. In describing the 2004 results, HALT notes:
The 2004 Small Claims Report Card graded states in six categories: dollar limit, self-help, convenience, mediation, expedited collection and injunctive relief. Grades varied from the “B” range for top-ranked Georgia and three other states, to failing marks for Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi and Missouri. No state received an “A” grade.
The 2004 report card emphasizes the urgent need to raise jurisdictional dollar limits on small claims courts-as low as $1,500 in some states, which makes these courts a venue where only conflicts of nominal value are resolved. The report card also reveals the necessity of implementing reforms to make these courts a more consumer-friendly, accessible alternative to traditional litigation.
The National Summary of Grades shows the overall grade of every state, plus the grade in each category. A press release covering each state is available at the HALT site, along with the state’s Report Card. The Report’s summary notes:
“Small claims courts – which use simplified procedures, require plain English, provide consumer aids and often prohibit lawyers – have tremendous promise as a means of empowering ordinary people to take charge of their own routine legal needs. By reforming these courts to fulfill this promise, state lawmakers can show a commitment to opening up the legal system to all Americans.”
Here is a summary of the grades received:
“a Key” none “b Key” five states
“c Key” 23 states “D key” 19 states “f Key” four states
the Ten Best List: 1) Georgia; 2) California; 3) Colorado; 4) Utah; 5) New Mexico; 6) Tennessee; 7) Wisconsin; 8) Minnesota; 9) (tie) Alaska; 9) (tie) New York
the Ten Worst List: 1) Kentucky; 2) Missouri; 3) Wyoming; 4) Louisiana ; 5) (tie) Indiana; 5) (tie) Oklahoma; 7) Michigan; 8) North Carolina 9) Alabama; 10) (tie) Connecticut; 10) (tie) Kansas; 10) (tie) Massachusetts; 10) (tie) Rhode Island
Last-placed Kentucky allows claims only up $1500 in its small claims courts. First-placed Georgia permits claims up to $15,000 (but gives little help collecting awards). As a frequently-astute pundit noted back in 1999:
[O]ur lawmakers could give a big chunk of the civil justice system back to the people by simply increasing the dollar limits allowed in small claims courts. By permitting claims up to $20,000 in these user-friendly “people’s claims courts,” we could greatly increase access to justice, and greatly decrease the time and money spent to resolve the everyday disputes of consumers and small businesses.
Meanwhile, skepticalEsq keeps suggesting that it is the legal profession that is blocking efforts to reform small claims courts.
Comments Off on Small Claims Courts: Still Slackers