{"id":7553,"date":"2007-04-26T23:36:01","date_gmt":"2007-04-27T04:36:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/04\/26\/turn-offs-and-turn-ons\/"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:53:49","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:53:49","slug":"turn-offs-and-turn-ons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2007\/04\/26\/turn-offs-and-turn-ons\/","title":{"rendered":"turn-offs and turn-ons"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0My biggest turn-off by far this week comes from the self-serving California lawyers who are opposing a proposal that would merely require lawyers to tell clients whether or not they have malpractice insurance. [It’s estimated that a third of all lawyers carry no malpractice insurance.].\u00a0 As you know, I\u00a0have to hold my nose whenever I smell\u00a0groups of lawyers acting like guilds<\/a> — protecting their own financial interests rather than putting their clients’ interests first —\u00a0so, I’m forced to type this posting with just one hand.\u00a0 The State Bar of California<\/a>‘s Task Force studying the issue supported mandatory disclosure last year<\/a>.\u00a0 Despite receiving mostly negative responses from the profession, it is expected to release a final proposal for comment tomorrow (Friday, April 27, 2007) again<\/em> recommending mandatory malpractice insurance disclosure.\u00a0(See Calif. Bar Still Wants Insurance Disclosure Rule<\/a>, The Recorder\/Law.com<\/em>, April 23, 2007)\u00a0\u00a0See our prior post<\/a>\u00a0supporting mandatory disclosure, which discusses a very good piece in GPSolo<\/em><\/a> magazine\u00a0(April\/May 2003) presenting a debate on\u00a0the pros and cons.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

\"PhantomMask\"\u00a0James Towery, who chairs the CalBar Task Force, supports the disclosure and wrote in the GPSolo<\/em> article that the issue is: “When a client hires a lawyer, is the lawyer’s lack of insurance a material fact that the client is entitled to know?<\/em>”\u00a0\u00a0Virtually all clients\u00a0simply assume every lawyer carries malpractice insurance — and would very much want to know otherwise.\u00a0 Towery correctly states: “It is difficult to fashion a persuasive argument that clients are not entitled to that information.”\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Given their position as fiduciaries and their constant assertions of putting clients first, you’d think lawyers — or at least their leaders — would agree with Towery and the Task Force\u00a0(even if reluctantly).\u00a0 Nonetheless, many bar groups in California have fought hard for years to remove a prior disclosure requirement and to block it from being reinstated.\u00a0 Leading the charge against the disclosure rules are several “voluntary” bar associations, including: a) the former state Trial Lawyers Association, which now has the nerve to call itself Consumer\u00a0Attorneys of California<\/a> (and soon perhaps the California Justice League); b) the Los Angeles County Bar Association<\/a>, whose ethics committee chairman weighed in against the proposal; and the umbrella-group Conference of Delegates of California Bar Associations<\/a>, which once had a\u00a0website accessible<\/a>\u00a0to the public, but now apparently only wants members to know what they’re up to.\u00a0\u00a0 Why the fight against the State Bar?<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u00a0\u00a0 CalBar\u00a0is a “unified<\/em>” or “mandatory<\/em>”\u00a0bar\u00a0organization: It is a “statuatory public corporation in the judicial branch of state government.\u00a0 As a unified State Bar, it “unifies” both the regulatory licensing activities applicable to the practice of law as well as the association activities of a professional association. In a unified bar, “membership” is mandatory for all attorneys who must pay “membership” or licensing fees to maintain their license to practice law.” (from Martindale.com profile<\/a>) Of course, unified bars take anti-client positions at times but, with the right leadership, they can often stand up against the worst mob-psychology of organized groups of fearful lawyers.<\/li>\n
  2. \u00a0\u00a0 About two-thirds of all state bar associations are “unified.”\u00a0 Most state bar associations in the northeast and midwest are “voluntary<\/em>” organizations (see ABA map<\/a>), as are\u00a0all<\/em> county, city and national bar associations. (The pros and cons of voluntary and mandatory state bars are discussed in this Wisconsin Bar Journal<\/em> article<\/a>)\u00a0 Because no lawyer is required to join a voluntary bar association,\u00a0and thus be required to\u00a0pay\u00a0their dues and subscribe to their rules of conduct, voluntary bar association must “earn their keep” by providing services and results that their members like.\u00a0 Despite doing many good deeds (especially for the poor and various “victim” groups), far too many voluntary bars attract\u00a0and keep members by fighting to\u00a0enhance lawyer income, stifling competition and innovation, and concocting horror stories and fairy tales to justify opposing rules and laws that protect their clients.\u00a0\u00a0It’s not surprising, then, that the voluntary bars of Arkansas (see this post<\/a>) and Massachusetts (discussed here<\/a>)\u00a0have voted down proposals to require malpractice insurance disclosure.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \"WolfDudeN\"\u00a0It will be interesting to see whether\u00a0(as suggested by Law.com<\/em><\/a>),\u00a0the CalBar task force has watered down their proposal to appease all the angry attorneys, who don’t want the pressure to purchase malpractice insurance or the embarrassment of telling clients they don’t have it.\u00a0 In our prior post<\/a>, you can see some of the specious, scary and unprofessional arguments made by the opponents of disclosure.\u00a0 Another posting<\/a>, tells of the status of disclosure rules across the country.\u00a0 The legal reform group HALT supports mandatory insurance disclosure<\/a> , but would prefer mandatory malpractice insurance coverage<\/a>\u00a0for all lawyers.<\/p>\n

    \n

    hidden in shadows\u00a0
    \na laughing mouse\u2026
    \nNew Year\u2019s inventory<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    \u00a0
    \n\u00a0
    \nmidday\u2019s mosquitoes
    \nhidden behind
    \nthe Buddha of stone<\/p>\n

    \n

    ……….. by Issa, translated by David G. Lanoue\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    fortune-telling machine
    \nI re-pocket
    \nmy quarter<\/p>\n

    \n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    \n

    …………. by Carolyn Hall – Acorn<\/em> #18 (2007)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\"WolfDudeN\"……..\u00a0 You can always get the straight scoop from lawyer-haijin Roberta Beary<\/a>, like in this domestic haibun, from Hermitage 2006:<\/p>\n

    \n

    blue room<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    it is 6:30 a.m.\u00a0 my boy has overslept for school again\u00a0 i am his alarm
    \nclock\u00a0 for a few more months at least… by this time next year\u00a0 he
    \nwill be gone\u00a0 please god\u00a0 not in that faraway war but under a blanket
    \nof textbooks and rock music in the snowy heart of his homeland<\/p>\n

    \n

    empty house
    \npencil lines streak
    \na blue wall<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    ————————————————————————–<\/p>\n

    \u00a0<\/p>\n

    \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"TVTurnOffLogo\"\u00a0 To my surprise, I’m turned on<\/em> by TV-Turnoff Week<\/a>, which is April 23 to 29, 2007.\u00a0\u00a0Frankly, I’ve often been annoyed by the “won’t-have-a tv-in-my-home” crowd, who seem just a wee bit too self-congratulatory in their presumed cultural and intellectual superiority, and rather ignorant of the good programming to be found on occasion on the tube.\u00a0 Nevertheless, my reaction is quite positive to the TV-Turnoff project, which is organized by the\u00a0Center for Screen-Time Awareness<\/a>.\u00a0 (That may be because of my own creeping addiction again to sitting at my computer engaged in weblog punditry.) The Center’s\u00a0approach seems intelligently moderate: they stress all the good things that can be done with\u00a0our non-screen time; advocate that we (especially our kids) greatly reduce screen time;\u00a0and\u00a0hope that a week [or, if you’re starting late, a few days] without tv and similar devices will help us realize just how addicted we are to television.\u00a0 \u00a0There are a few enjoyable quotations on their quotes page<\/a> (along with some ponderously preachy ones):<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. “The remarkable thing about television is that it permits several million people to laugh at the same joke and still feel lonely.” -T.S. Eliot<\/li>\n
    2. “I really didn’t like TV-Turnoff Week except I did notice that my grades went up and I was in a good mood all week.” -Drew Henderson, 2nd grader, Donora, Pennsylvania<\/li>\n
    3. “The one function TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were.” -David Brinkley<\/li>\n
    4. “I\u00a0 find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book.” -Groucho Marx<\/li>\n
    5. “Television is a chewing gum for the eyes.” says Frank Lloyd Wright.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Speaking of Frank Lloyd Wright, and not watching tv,\u00a0click here<\/a> to see a haiga based on one of his creations, at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City:<\/p>\n

      \n

      \"HaigaLightShowS\"\u00a0 orig. haiga at Magnapoets<\/em><\/a>\u00a0(April 25, 2007)\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      light show
      \nbehind eyelids —
      \nfree admission<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      poem: DAVID GIACALONE
      \nphoto: ARTHUR GIACALONE
      \n\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \u00a0\"TVTurnOffLogo\"\u00a0 Any haijin can tell you, there’s a world of things to do communing with nature, detached from television, computers and Blackberrys.<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      vastness of the stars
      \nswallowing
      \nmy gum<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      a deep breath
      \nof mountain air
      \nshooting stars<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      soft earth\u00a0 \"seesaw\"\u00a0
      \nI might risk
      \na cartwheel<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      ………… by John Stevenson<\/a>\u00a0
      \n“vastness of the stars” – Hermitage<\/em>, Vol. 2, 2005
      \n“a deep breath” – Geppo<\/em>, Jul\/Aug, 2005
      \n“soft earth” – Acorn<\/em>, No. 14 (2005)<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      \u00a0dwindling heat
      \na butterfly lengthens
      \nthe rosevine<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      park bench\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \"sunglassesG\"\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0
      \nan old man slips deeper
      \ninto his dream<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      unveiling i listen hard\u00a0 for spring rain<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      …………………………………… by Roberta Beary<\/a>\u00a0– Hermitage<\/em> 2006\u00a0<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n

      \n

      the boy casts\u00a0\u00a0 \"HaigaLightShowSN\"\u00a0
      \nfarther than his father–
      \nfine spring rain<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      ………………….. by Carolyn Hall –\u00a0Acorn <\/em>#18 (2007)<\/p>\n

      \u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0My biggest turn-off by far this week comes from the self-serving California lawyers who are opposing a proposal that would merely require lawyers to tell clients whether or not they have malpractice insurance. [It’s estimated that a third of all lawyers carry no malpractice insurance.].\u00a0 As you know, I\u00a0have to hold my nose whenever […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[3298,555,3513,900],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7553","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-haiga-or-haibun","category-haiku-or-senryu","category-lawyer-news-or-ethics","category-viewpoint"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1XP","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7553","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7553"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7553\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12552,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7553\/revisions\/12552"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7553"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7553"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7553"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}