Sometimes I feel a little guilty about bad-mouthing lawyers — but then I read something like “Lawyer Bills for Missing Tuck-in Time” (Houston Chronicle,Aug. 31, 2004), and my conscience clears up. See Lawyers bill $300/hour for sleeping at Overlawyered.com for an overview of the over-reaching guardians ad litem in South Texas.
the thief
is just as he is…
hazy moon
by Kobayashi Issa,,
translated by David G. Lanoue
I’d have to say that this is one time when a lawyer underbilled: it’s worth much more than $1500 to tuck your children into bed every night. Those of us who’ve chosen jobs that enable us to do that have probably foregone much more than that amount in earnings, billables, etc…
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — September 8, 2004 @ 11:06 am
I’d have to say that this is one time when a lawyer underbilled: it’s worth much more than $1500 to tuck your children into bed every night. Those of us who’ve chosen jobs that enable us to do that have probably foregone much more than that amount in earnings, billables, etc…
Comment by Carolyn Elefant — September 8, 2004 @ 11:06 am
Perhaps the reason you feel bad about bad-mouthing lawyers is that it’s not always a lawyer problem per se. It’s a person problem. A person, who unfortunately happens to have a law degree, who chooses to bill for 48 consecutive hours of “travel time” is simply dishonest and unethical by nature, and will be dishonest and unethical no matter which profession he joins.
It becomes a “lawyer problem” only when this kind of behavior is tolerated by the profession. On that point, I agree with Judge Duncan that these attorneys should be reported to the state bar and made to face disciplinary sanctions. I don’t see that kind of accountability being enforced in many other professions.
Comment by UCL — September 8, 2004 @ 12:07 pm
Perhaps the reason you feel bad about bad-mouthing lawyers is that it’s not always a lawyer problem per se. It’s a person problem. A person, who unfortunately happens to have a law degree, who chooses to bill for 48 consecutive hours of “travel time” is simply dishonest and unethical by nature, and will be dishonest and unethical no matter which profession he joins.
It becomes a “lawyer problem” only when this kind of behavior is tolerated by the profession. On that point, I agree with Judge Duncan that these attorneys should be reported to the state bar and made to face disciplinary sanctions. I don’t see that kind of accountability being enforced in many other professions.
Comment by UCL — September 8, 2004 @ 12:07 pm
Of course, it’s a “person problem,” UCL [even I concede that lawyers are human beings]. I just happen to hold lawyers to a higher standard than other human beings, but find that far too often they fall short of even lowest-common-denominator ethics. (And, yes, I know there are many fine, people in the law who practice with integrity — just not enough.)
Comparisons to other professions interest me very little (I have to pick my battles and wade in where I have a bit of expertise). However, a glimpse at the resources on the ethicalEsq Discipline System Page reveals why I believe that lawyer discipline is far from adequate and far from a model for others to follow. Part of the reason is that too many lawyers spend too much energy defending or ignoring the bad conduct of their colleagues instead of calling for adequate discipline (like the Catholic Church, they fear that too much admission of bad conduct will hurt the profession’s image and therefore the majesty of the law).
The system in Texas may be even weaker than most. Before you gloat over the referral in this case to a grievance committee, please ponder that (1) the first judge granted the requested, bloated fees; (2) only one of three judges on the review panel suggested referral for discipline; and (3) as Overlawyered notes, “In Laredo the grievance committee is chaired by Marcel Notzon III, the lawyer whom Judge Vasquez awarded the most fees in this case.”
Comment by David Giacalone — September 8, 2004 @ 12:48 pm
Of course, it’s a “person problem,” UCL [even I concede that lawyers are human beings]. I just happen to hold lawyers to a higher standard than other human beings, but find that far too often they fall short of even lowest-common-denominator ethics. (And, yes, I know there are many fine, people in the law who practice with integrity — just not enough.)
Comparisons to other professions interest me very little (I have to pick my battles and wade in where I have a bit of expertise). However, a glimpse at the resources on the ethicalEsq Discipline System Page reveals why I believe that lawyer discipline is far from adequate and far from a model for others to follow. Part of the reason is that too many lawyers spend too much energy defending or ignoring the bad conduct of their colleagues instead of calling for adequate discipline (like the Catholic Church, they fear that too much admission of bad conduct will hurt the profession’s image and therefore the majesty of the law).
The system in Texas may be even weaker than most. Before you gloat over the referral in this case to a grievance committee, please ponder that (1) the first judge granted the requested, bloated fees; (2) only one of three judges on the review panel suggested referral for discipline; and (3) as Overlawyered notes, “In Laredo the grievance committee is chaired by Marcel Notzon III, the lawyer whom Judge Vasquez awarded the most fees in this case.”
Comment by David Giacalone — September 8, 2004 @ 12:48 pm
Sometimes I wish folks did use emoticons on this site, Carolyn. I’m going to assume that, while you correctly value tucking in your little angels at well above $1500, you’re winking here and believe getting paid $1500 for the loss of the privilege is outlandish. If I assume wrongly, please let me know.
non-emoticonally yours,
david
Comment by David Giacalone — September 8, 2004 @ 12:54 pm
Sometimes I wish folks did use emoticons on this site, Carolyn. I’m going to assume that, while you correctly value tucking in your little angels at well above $1500, you’re winking here and believe getting paid $1500 for the loss of the privilege is outlandish. If I assume wrongly, please let me know.
non-emoticonally yours,
david
Comment by David Giacalone — September 8, 2004 @ 12:54 pm
“Part of the reason is that too many lawyers spend too much energy defending or ignoring the bad conduct of their colleagues instead of calling for adequate discipline”
Are you mixing “bad conduct” with “unethical conduct”? Because there is a significant difference, and most of my clients do not wish to spend their hard-earned dollars on cosmetic surgery for the legal profession, i.e., on their lawyers spending time pursuing “bad conduct litigation” for the sake of making lawyers look like noble, majestic knights in shining armor. A lawyer also has a strong duty to represent the client’s interests, after all. Litigating ethical issues is an entirely different matter of course, but you specifically refer to “bad conduct”.
I know you personally hold yourself to higher standards, and I hold myself to higher standards, and I admire others who do the same. But is it generally fair to hold the legal profession as a whole to higher standards than other professions? No, it’s not. Why are we different than medical doctors, politicians, journalists, police officers, or any number of skilled professions, to such a degree that you object to my using them to compare with us?
Comment by UCL — September 8, 2004 @ 3:02 pm
“Part of the reason is that too many lawyers spend too much energy defending or ignoring the bad conduct of their colleagues instead of calling for adequate discipline”
Are you mixing “bad conduct” with “unethical conduct”? Because there is a significant difference, and most of my clients do not wish to spend their hard-earned dollars on cosmetic surgery for the legal profession, i.e., on their lawyers spending time pursuing “bad conduct litigation” for the sake of making lawyers look like noble, majestic knights in shining armor. A lawyer also has a strong duty to represent the client’s interests, after all. Litigating ethical issues is an entirely different matter of course, but you specifically refer to “bad conduct”.
I know you personally hold yourself to higher standards, and I hold myself to higher standards, and I admire others who do the same. But is it generally fair to hold the legal profession as a whole to higher standards than other professions? No, it’s not. Why are we different than medical doctors, politicians, journalists, police officers, or any number of skilled professions, to such a degree that you object to my using them to compare with us?
Comment by UCL — September 8, 2004 @ 3:02 pm
UCL, in general, please give me the benefit of the doubt: it’s rare that I suggest things that are absolutely silly (especially if they cost clients money). Thus, I was referring to unethical conduct and lawyers not “calling for adequate discipline.”
The laxity or comparative strictness of professional conduct rules and enforcement for other professions is, at least to my little brain, irrelevant to whether lawyers are being adequately policed and disciplined for unethical conduct.
Here are some of the reasons why lawyers ought to be held to a higher standards than other professions:
the profession is almost totally self-regulated and works very hard to stay that way
the profession is entrusted with and is the gatekeeper for the justice system
trust in the adversarial model of justice requires that lawyers be above reproach
the lawyer-client relationship is the paradigm of the fiduciary relationship and trust is its currency
a very large percentage of lawyers work with virtually no supervision
the profession gets special protection from competition, due to strict licensing and entry barriers
the profession constantly professes to put the client’s interests first
the profession constantly states that it holds itself to the “very highest standard of ethics”
Comment by David Giacalone — September 8, 2004 @ 11:43 pm
UCL, in general, please give me the benefit of the doubt: it’s rare that I suggest things that are absolutely silly (especially if they cost clients money). Thus, I was referring to unethical conduct and lawyers not “calling for adequate discipline.”
The laxity or comparative strictness of professional conduct rules and enforcement for other professions is, at least to my little brain, irrelevant to whether lawyers are being adequately policed and disciplined for unethical conduct.
Here are some of the reasons why lawyers ought to be held to a higher standards than other professions:
the profession is almost totally self-regulated and works very hard to stay that way
the profession is entrusted with and is the gatekeeper for the justice system
trust in the adversarial model of justice requires that lawyers be above reproach
the lawyer-client relationship is the paradigm of the fiduciary relationship and trust is its currency
a very large percentage of lawyers work with virtually no supervision
the profession gets special protection from competition, due to strict licensing and entry barriers
the profession constantly professes to put the client’s interests first
the profession constantly states that it holds itself to the “very highest standard of ethics”
Comment by David Giacalone — September 8, 2004 @ 11:43 pm
Surely you will not require me to list every single characteristic about the medical profession and other professions which give equally and often more compelling reasons why they should be held to higher standards than the others? Surely, being the reasonable lawyer that you are who doesn’t fight every commonly accepted fact, you will simply concede the point?
Comment by UCL — September 9, 2004 @ 5:26 pm
Surely you will not require me to list every single characteristic about the medical profession and other professions which give equally and often more compelling reasons why they should be held to higher standards than the others? Surely, being the reasonable lawyer that you are who doesn’t fight every commonly accepted fact, you will simply concede the point?
Comment by UCL — September 9, 2004 @ 5:26 pm
I concede that it would be impossible for you to find a profession with equally compelling overall circumstances and, like the Law or the Legislature, I am far too reasonable to demand a futile thing.
Comment by David Giacalone — September 9, 2004 @ 7:44 pm
I concede that it would be impossible for you to find a profession with equally compelling overall circumstances and, like the Law or the Legislature, I am far too reasonable to demand a futile thing.
Comment by David Giacalone — September 9, 2004 @ 7:44 pm