Eric Mayer provides a client alert system, suitable for framing, at The Unwashed Advocate.  I would only add that you might consider giving potential clients a  tin foil hat on the way out as an inducement to leave your office quickly.

Are you saying the Officer is a liar?

Great question for the prosecutor to ask of the defendant on cross, right? Completely improper, of course, but as questions with impact go, it’s a doozy.

There are, of course, some excellent responses that can counter the implication that in order to believe the defendant’s testimony, which directly contradicts that of the prosecution’s witnesses, the jury must believe the latter to be lying liars who lie.  And of course, maybe they are, but it’s always hard to get twelve people to accept the notion that police would lie.  After all, they’re our protectors. They’re heroes. They have no reason to single out the defendant, of all the people in the world, and lie about him. Why would they do such a horrible thing?

Because they can. Because they think the defendant is guilty and will say whatever magic words get the jury to agree with them. Because they think this is the way the game is played, that the ends justify the means, that a little lie takes a bad guy off the street. That in the grand scheme of things, it’s more important that make their bust stick then be slaves to truth. Whatever. There are a million possible reasons, and if one isn’t inclined to stick to the truth just because they swore to do so, there’s no harm in straying for what one decides is the greater good.

Tommy Washington learned the hard way what it’s like to be asked whether he’s saying the prosecution’s witness is a liar.  On trial for assault, he didn’t much like it, especially when the jury convicted him.  It would have been enormously better for him had his lawyer mustered an objection to the questions. Why he didn’t can’t be explained. Maybe he didn’t know better. Maybe his cuticle was particularly fascinating. Who knows. But it didn’t happen.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the improper questioning, lack of preservation notwithstanding.  The Fourth Department held :

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]), gang assault in the second degree (§ 120.06) and assault in the second degree (§ 120.05 [2]). Defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial based on the prosecutor’s improper questions on cross-examination concerning whether the prosecution witnesses were lying or were liars. That contention is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant failed to object to those questions (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We note, however, that such questions were improper (see People v Paul, 229 AD2d 932; People v Paul, 212 AD2d 1020, 1021, lv denied 85 NY2d 912; People v Edwards, 167 AD2d 864, lv denied 77 NY2d 877). As this Court stated over 20 years ago, “[o]n numerous occasions, we have forcefully condemned prosecutorial cross-examination which compels a defendant to state that witnesses lied in their testimony” (People v Eldridge, 151 AD2d 966, 966, lv denied 74 NY2d 808). Unfortunately, we find it necessary once again to forcefully condemn such improper conduct by the prosecutor.

Had the court merely chosen to ignore the glaringly improper questioning for lack of preservation, it wouldn’t have surprised anyone.  As much as the defendant’s right to a fair trial is at stake, and his lawyer’s screw-up, the failure to timely object, doesn’t strike many of us as a really good reason for someone to go to prison for 20 years, it’s an easy-breezy way for courts to affirms without addressing the wrong committed by the other side.  

Aside: For those who believe that lawyers are fungible, one as good as the next, and hence believe that the only detail they need to know about a lawyer is how much they charge, or how cheaply they can obtain a defense, consider that the defendant is saddled with the lawyer’s error, the missed objection or inadvertent admission or poorly conceived argument.  Even though it’s not your fault that the lawyer screwed up, you picked him to be your representative, and you bear the consequences of his failure.  Is it worth it? 

But that didn’t quite happen here, which is what makes this brief memo decision quite fascinating.  The court seized the opportunity to note the impropriety of the prosecution’s cross, forcing the defendant to call the witnesses for the other side liars. 

As this Court stated over 20 years ago, “[o]n numerous occasions, we have forcefully condemned prosecutorial cross-examination which compels a defendant to state that witnesses lied in their testimony.”

This isn’t new. This isn’t cutting edge. This is black-letter impropriety. It is so clearly, utterly, definitively wrong that the court finds it necessary to reiterate that it not only condemns such impropriety, but does so “forcefully.”  With force. Well, not quite pepper spray level force, but full of the force courts possess, meaning words.

Despite the fact that the court’s use of force more than 20 years ago has not put an end to this odious question, and despite the fact that Tommy Washington’s lawyer neglected to object, the court nonetheless levels its judicial shotgun and

Unfortunately, we find it necessary once again to forcefully condemn such improper conduct by the prosecutor.

And then the court does . . . nothing.  As the passage above makes clear, the court had the power to exercise it’s “interest of justice” discretion to review the unpreserved error. It didn’t.  The court could have named the prosecutor who engaged in questioning that was so improper that it compelled the court’s forceful condemnation.  It didn’t.  The court could have done something, anything, to make its words mean something. It didn’t.

Rarely has a forceful condemnation been so unforceful and uncondemning. The mantra in writing is “show me, don’t tell me.” And in fact, the Fourth Department did exactly that.  It showed that the impropriety of asking such glaringly improper questions of a defendant on cross examination results in absolutely no negative consequences.  No exercise of discretion in the interests of justice just to reach the issue. No stinging reversal for depriving the defendant of a fair trial. No public exposure of the individual engaging in improper conduct. Nothing.

The worst that comes of it, the very harshest thing to happen, is a stern wag of the generic finger.  And that’s what this court considers “forceful.” And it wonders why more than 20 years after such questions have been forbidden, they’re still asked.

H/T Brian Shiffrin at New York Criminal Defense

Down South Carolina way,  Bobby Frederick writes about another lawyer lost to the smurfing gods.

Not reporting payments of greater than $10,000 is a sure way to bring the attention of the federal government to your law practice – one purpose of the requirement to report large payments is to prevent money laundering, there is no good reason to not report unless there is something to hide, and breaking money up into smaller amounts to avoid reporting is a separate crime called structuring.

No idea if this is how attention came to Attorney Brian Young in Virginia, but he has been disbarred and was sentenced to two and a half years in prison after pleading guilty in federal court to conspiracy to commit money laundering. Just a guess, but I think his clients and others involved in the scheme probably received a significant time cut for debriefing and offering to testify about Young’s activities.

My old pal “Don’t Worry” Murray sat me down in a deli in the Bronx many years ago and explained that lawyers should never do wrong and expect a client to cover. “They’ll always drop a dime before doing one,” Murray told me. He always had something colorfully pithy to say.

Structuring is the official name for smurfing, breaking up large amounts of cash into smaller amounts that fly under the reporting requirement.  It’s illegal. Bobby explains that “there is no good reason to not report unless there is something to hide.”  I assume that Bobby is relating the government’s official view, because no criminal defense lawyer takes this position.  It’s been so since my old suitemates from the 80s, Paul Goldberger and Larry Dubin, argued that while they had no problem disclosing the receipt of cash fees, disclosing the source of the fees was a big problem.

The problem is that criminal defense lawyers sometimes represent, well, criminals. Of course, they’re entitled to representation too, and their right to counsel (and counsel of choice) directly relates to their ability to retain a lawyer. If the payment of a fee in cash (because some criminals engage in cash transactions. No really, they do.) , then disclosing this in Form 8300 to the government tends to compromise their right to counsel or their right not to bear witness against themselves. You see, the fact that they have a bundle of cash to pay for lawyers is frowned upon by the government.  So when the lawyers fill out the forms and names names, they’re giving up their own clients. Something has to give.

To avoid disclosure under section 6050-I, they need only pay counsel in some other manner than with cash. The choice is theirs. None of the appellants has advanced a legitimate reason why payment other than in cash cannot be made. Statements such as “[s]ome clients may not have non-cash assets” are somewhat less than persuasive. Equally unpersuasive is the argument that a would-be client might elect to take his business to an unscrupulous lawyer who would ignore the reporting requirements of section 6050-I. Although the unscrupulous lawyer might not be the client’s first choice, the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the client the right to his first choice.

Easy, right? Since no one has a right to be a criminal, and earn criminal proceeds, and use those proceeds to hire lawyers to defend them against charges of being a criminal, no harm, no foul.  That there are legitimate reasons why people have and use cash, or that the rights afforded by the Constitution might trump the government’s desire to compel lawyers to give up their cash paying, criminal accused clients, because it’s a really great way to ferret out criminal proceeds while simultaneously denying them access to lawyers to defend themselves, is of little concern. 

Regardless, the 2d Circuit’s decision was in 1991, eons ago.  It’s long settled that the identities of clients who pay lawyers more than $10,000 in cash (or cash equivalents) must be disclosed.  And it’s long settled that you can’t avoid the requirement by smurfing the cash.  And it’s long settled that criminal defense lawyer incomes suffered greatly because of this, as did the quality of drug dealer defense, which (along with the draconian sentencing guidelines) precipitated a mad rush to the United States Attorney’s office to cooperate.  Ah, good times.

Bad as this scenario may be, for the good of the country and our revenue stream, not to mention legitimate cash payers whose funds would be seized for forfeiture within a few days of Form 8300 being filed to make sure they couldn’t defend themselves and get convicted, thus proving they were criminals after all and justifying the prior seizures, this is the world in which we operate.  These rules may suck, but they’re the rules of our game. Play be them.

Criminal defense lawyers are peculiarly situated to be sucked into bad things.  Whether we engage in them or suffer by mere proximity, the smell of the criminals around us tends to stay with us. If a prosecutor gets a whiff, they will take enormous pleasure in bringing us down.  Without us, their job would be so much easier, and many find it impossible to believe that we serve a purpose other than enabling the downfall of society to the hands of criminals.  Yes, we are very much the problem.

Stay clean. Stay extra clean. We may defend criminals (along with the occasional innocent), but we are not criminals.  We cannot be criminals. We cannot come anywhere near being criminals unless we want to share a cell with them.

We are targets at all times. The other team may, intellectually, realize that we’re a necessary part of the system, and they may not hate us individually, but as a group, they despise us. They can’t help it, as we make their lives unhappy, especially if we do our job right.  Few things make a prosecutor drool more than a dirty criminal defense lawyer.  And by dirty, I mean bearing any whiff of wrongdoing.

It’s not easy. Temptation is around us all the time. Even things that are perfectly lawful, completely proper, can give rise of the appearance of involvement in a conspiracy. Our proper duties bear the faint odor of enabling, and our zealous representation reeks of it.

As Bobby says, few things will get us in trouble faster than messing with money, which really sucks since most of us need to make money to pay for stuff.  You just can’t make it illegally. Remember what “Don’t Worry” Murray said. He knows.

The American legal system is in crisis.  I know because the first line of a  New York Times editorial says so, and if it’s in the paper, it must be true.

American legal education is in crisis. The economic downturn has left many recent law graduates saddled with crushing student loans and bleak job prospects. The law schools have been targets of lawsuits by students and scrutiny from the United States Senate for alleged false advertising about potential jobs. Yet, at the same time, more and more Americans find that they cannot afford any kind of legal help.

It’s not a great scenario by any stretch of the imagination, but a crisis?  The country’s economy remains in deep trouble as the price to be paid from living the unearned dream and profligate spending.  Sure, law schools turn out more lawyers than the economy can absorb, and neither the ABA nor the schools themselves want to admit this or deal with it.  We’ve known this for a while, yet neither law students nor their parents had the good sense to do the legwork of figuring out that one shouldn’t go to law school unless one really wanted to be a lawyer,

The claim of crisis, however, turns on the argument that Americans can’t afford legal help.  That likely has something to do with the fact that they don’t have jobs, real earnings are in the toilet, we’re a litigious, over-regulated and over-criminalized society. 

We could take all those underutilized lawyers and hook them up with the unrepresented litigants, except it wouldn’t do much to pay off their student loan debt or feed their babies, on the lawkids side, or provided competent representation, on the poor litigant side.

Some might see this as a crisis, and maybe it is.  Certainly, the young lawyer with neither job nor expectation of one is having a crisis.  Similarly, the poor litigant with neither competent representation nor ability to fend off his accuser is having a crisis.  For that matter, we’re having a crisis in history majors in college. Philosophy too, unless they get credit for employment in the food service industry.

But law schools aren’t having a crisis. They’ve maintained their position of cash cow in the university structure.  They are educational Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich to give to the poor. They have to, or the American promise, a nation where there are only corner offices, cannot be fulfilled.

Somehow, the NYT relates this crisis to Langdellian method. 

Instead of a curriculum taught largely through professors’ grilling of students about appellate cases, some schools are offering more apprentice-style learning in legal clinics and more courses that train students for their multiple future roles as advocates and counselors, negotiators and deal-shapers, and problem-solvers.

While there’s much to discuss about the way to produce competent and client-safe lawyers, whoever drew the connections between this and the crisis hasn’t got the slightest clue about lawyers.  From what I can tell, the theory is that if law school was less expensive and produced more competent new lawyers, the excess would be able to go forth in the world and make a living representing people who can’t afford legal services.  Problem solved, right?

Well, no. Law students fight to get into school, and lose three years of their life, after four years of college, for the privilege of making it through a fairly rigorous course of study (regardless of whether that course of study does anything to really prepare them to eventually practice law). When they pop out the other side, some will chose to forego making big bucks to serve people in need, just as they always have. Others, however, want some remuneration greater than what they could have gotten as assistant manager at Dairy Queen, something they could have gotten without all this struggle.

The people who can’t afford legal services have one abiding quality. They don’t have money to spend on lawyers. This means that no matter how qualified the lawyers are, they aren’t going to make a good living representing them. Sure, if their student loans were smaller, they would be able to keep more or what they earned, but the differential doesn’t make a dent in the problem. The bulk of people who can’t afford legal services can’t afford to pay anything. Maybe they can give their lawyer a chicken, but that’s about it. They have their own children to feed, and they can barely do that. Plus, they need a new iPhone.

So the poor still won’t be able to pay lawyers, even cheap lawyers, because they’re poor.  The new lawyers still won’t be able to survive, even if law school cost less, because they are being paid squat by poor people. Even if they come out of law school incredibly competent and skilled, they will still go hungry.  And it makes no sense to go to law school, even if it was free, if you’ve going to end up earning the median income of an assistant manager at Dairy Queen.  Just head straight for the Dairy Queen, and then we can have a Dairy Queen crisis.

The problems start at the top, with our litigious, over-regulated, over-criminalized society, creating a demand for lawyers by people who can’t afford a lawyer.  If they had jobs and earned decent money, they would be better able to afford a lawyer. If politicians stopped manufacturing legal solutions for every oddball complaint, they could save their money because they wouldn’t have as great a need for legal representation as every facet of American life wouldn’t require counsel. 

If the ABA shut down a third of the law schools, we wouldn’t be pushing out 15,000 more lawyers than our economy can absorb, and those who came out would have a place to go during the day.  The displaced lawprofs would have to work for a living, but then they would gain the practical lawyering skills that would be demanded by law schools bent on using lawyers/scholars as professors rather than philosophers. Imagine law schools where experience was viewed as a positive rather than odious.

As for the cost of law school, it can be cut to near zero by charging liberal arts doctoral students what we now charge law students.  Except they wouldn’t pay it, because law students get rich and they don’t? 

If this is a crisis, and the New York Times says it is, then it’s one created by all the players, most of whom exist outside the profession and the academy.  Sure, we’ve got plenty to do to put our house in order, and plenty of resistance to change.  But our crisis came about in the context of problems created outside the law.

Fixing our internal problems won’t solve the crisis, and expecting the profession and academy to suffer the pain while the rest of society,

• the ones who demand a new law every time a child dies,


• the ones who refuse to work on the assembly line because they were promised a corner office in a society that doesn’t produce anything of value,


• the ones who want lawyers to spend years in school but work for free,


• the ones who demand free doctorates on the backs of law students,


• the ones who see no problem sucking gazillions out of our economy to bomb and rebuild countries across the globe who want nothing to do with us,


• the ones who demand law and order but refuse to pay taxes,


• the ones who will pay any price in the name of safety,


• the ones who want to micromanage every perceived societal ill,


• the ones who want to get rich themselves but decry others as greedy,


• the ones who expect to earn a paycheck but can’t understand why others want to earn a decent living commensurate with their education, effort and opportunity costs, as well,

goes about their lives as if this has nothing to do with them.  So lawyers suck and we’re all a bunch of blood sucking leeches?  Try running a society without us. Then you will have a crisis. For real.

We may argue amongst ourselves over the best way to produce the proper number of competent and honorable lawyers to serve the needs of this nation, but I’ll be damned if the rest of society can screw itself up and dump its problems on the backs of either lawyers or lawprofs. The “crisis” about which the New York Times opines stems from a badly screwed up nation, its economy, philosophy, work ethic, expectations and irrational demands.

It’s not up to lawyers to suffer for society’s sins. We’ll fix our problems. You fix yours.

The holiday season brings back memories of one of my more enduring experiences with a client many years ago who sent me a very unpleasant letter.  He accused me of everything from incompetence to misanthropy because I failed to visit him in the slammer between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I thought you loved me like your own son, and yet you didn’t even bother to visit me.

I’ve had many clients with whom relationships have grown.  We’ve become friends, outside of my relationship as lawyer.  But when I wore my lawyer hat, I was their lawyer. All the way.

There are some lawyers who drip with emotion over their clients, whether expressing some odd adoration or sharing in the melodrama of their misery.  They claim an emotional connection more appropriate for lovers than lawyers.  Sometimes, it’s as if they do love them like the defendant is their own son.

This is a disservice.  This is a mistake.  While the client may believe that’s what he wants of you, and may, at least during the course of representation, deeply appreciate the bond that develops, you do not serve him well by becoming his father or mother. 

I responded to my client’s letter by telling him that I am not his father. I am his lawyer. I do not love him, but I represent him. I will not cry regardless of the outcome, but I will do everything within the bounds of the law to achieve the outcome he wants. And because I am not his father, because I do not love him, because I will not cry over him, my eyes will remain clear to see my duty, my responsibility, my opportunity, unclouded by emotion or tears.

As for the visit, I go to jail to meet with a client when there is a reason for me to do so as his lawyer.  I expect his family to go regularly, frequently, to hold his hand and to keep him abreast of things that interest him, but my job is not babysitter or hand-holder.  I include in my retainers a provision that if a client wants me to visit him in jail when there is no need for a visit for the purpose of my representation, there will be an additional fee.  Rarely does any client want to pay the additional fee, and so rarely do they ask for an extra visit.

Is this cold?  Is this heartless?  Well, yes, to some extent it is.  It’s also what is demanded of us as lawyers.  Cold, heartless representation.  Warm and fuzzy is better provided by a puppy, but our work has very real consequences.  When our decisions, our will to act, is guided by emotional concerns rather than cold, heartless reason, we lose our detachment and allow our feelings to influence our choices.  That’s self-indulgent. 

Clients do not come to us because they want to retain a new best friend.  That they don’t understand this isn’t the point; for the most part, if they thought a bit harder, they wouldn’t need us at all.  But they do because they are in trouble, desperate straits, and we are the unpleasant profession to which they turn to save their sorry butts. 

I remember working a case years ago with David Lewis, a big bear of a guy with great wit and a winning smile.  The defendant asked David to win the case for him.  David bared his teeth, and went from teddy to polar, looking remarkably unattractive and inordinately threatening.  He told the client, “I will win your case, but for me, not you. I’ll win because that’s what I want to do for my reputation, because I have the need to win.  I would win it whether you were the defendant or anybody else. I’m not your friend. I’m your lawyer.”

It’s not that it would kill you (or me) to pay a visit to the jail to see a detained client during the holiday season. If you have the time, it would be quite a thoughtful thing to do.  There is nothing about serving your clients that preclude being civil and accommodating, engaging in the normal courtesies that humans typically extend to each other.  But this isn’t to confuse what our obligation is toward our clients, to be capable of turning cold and heartless when our duty demands it. 

Now that Black Friday is behind us, and as we move forward toward Christmas, the season of goodwill toward men (and women, and dogs, and whatever), your clients will wonder whether you love them enough, whether they are like a son (or daughter, or pet, or whatever) to you. And you will want to show them you do. We’re still human, and of the particular subset inclined to defend human beings accused of crimes.  We’re wired to care or we couldn’t do this job.

And in this age of desperation, where getting the business drives us more than winning the cases, appealing to the things that make client’s love us in return seems such a natural way to run our practices.  Isn’t the magic bullet that people do business with people they like, and so making them like us is the overarching concern for lawyers who want to earn enough to put sweet gifts under the tree for their actual children?

There are many lawyers who are exceptionally nice, likeable and caring toward their clients.  There are lawyers who will do everything within their power to represent their clients zealously, with cold, heartless detachment.  There are very, very few who can claim both attributes. There are no lawyers who love their clients and can still do their job well. 

After you win the case, you can love them all you want. Until you win their case, you are their lawyer, first and last.  Don’t let the season cloud your eyes as to why they come to you or what they truly need of you. Give them the gift of excellent representation.  Others can give them love.

The  recriminations from David Segal’s  New York Times article on law schools continue, most beginning with some variation of a disclaimer, with this being the best :

On the topic of scholarship and lawyering inspired by Segal’s NYT bile pile, I’ve mostly refrained from weighing in. But one of the recent comments however has spurred me to temporarily intervene. The legal academy has been emphasizing scholarship among its members for at least 20 years and at the top schools it has been even longer. Some of the Segal/Campos scamfans talk about law profs under this regime of intellectualism as being poorly situated to instruct the next generation of attorneys. 

Do we think the lawyers who were trained over the last 20 years at law schools under this new ‘scholarship’ regime are worse than the lawyers who were trained beforehand when scholarship was less significant in the lives of law professors? If so, what are the metrics for making that claim? Or do people not actually think that pinheaded prawfs are bad for lawyering but rather their recherche* interests simply raise the cost of legal education more than it’s worth? 

Aside: the truly misguided aspect of Segal’s article with regard to how criminal law is taught is that he complains that students are taught “plea bargaining,” as if they should bypass learning how to win and go straight to learning how to lose gracefully.  Rather than smack Segal for this egregious error, Mazzone adds:

Finally, given Segal’s complaint that scholarship lacks relevance, it is worth noting that there is a huge amount of scholarly attention to plea bargaining. Some of the best work in the field of criminal law/procedure is on the topic.

So Mazzone not only misses the chance to finally land a blow against Segal, but demonstrates the disconnect between scholarship and utility in the same breath. 

Aside: In New York, a contract for the sale of a house 30 years ago consisted primarily of a four page Blumberg form, plus a one to two page rider inserted in the middle, typed in triplicate using carbon paper between the three sheets of onion bond.  Today, a contract without a 20 page (at minimum) rider is considered prima facie incompetent.

Aside: St. John’s lawprof Marc DiGirolami , in a post reminiscent of a three year old screaming “look at me” to the grown-ups, pumps an essay of his that is tangentially related to the discussion (why not seize the opportunity to get people to read his stuff, since otherwise it might go wholly unnoticed), as the voice of quasi-experience:

A number of the differences between Anders and me are peripheral to the discussion here, but some of what my reply does is to think a little bit about what sorts of abilities the criminal practitioner possesses, based on my own experience as an ADA for a few years before I began to teach.  I certainly do not claim that my experience is typical (I did not practice long or broadly enough to be able to make anything like that claim); it reflects merely one person’s thoughts about the quality of what a criminal practitioner knows, and so what it might be useful for him or her to begin to learn in the criminal law course.

While the essay is actually pretty good, if unduly dorky, the experience to which Marc refers is a year as an ADA, and another year as a “special” ADA, and this is sufficient experience to give a theorist a decent spanking.  You can’t make this stuff up.

1. Exquisite; lavishly elegant and refined.


2. Exotic or obscure.

** Mouse-milking – adj.

    A phrase used by the late Chief Judge Charles Brieant of the Southern District of New York to describe an argument grounded in trivial, and hence worthless, distinctions that would be unconvincing regardless of whether correct.

What would the internet do without Walmart?  There’s always something special about Walmart shoppers, good for a laugh and to appreciate that you aren’t in the photo, but combining these special patrons with Black Friday is just too toxic for words.

I make no bones about declaring Black Friday to be the  worst symptom of our diseased consumerist society.  It’s just sick.  But that doesn’t mean it can’t get sicker, and here’s this year’s flavor.

A woman shot pepper spray to keep shoppers from merchandise she wanted during a Black Friday sale, and 20 people suffered minor injuries, authorities said.

Police said the suspect shot the pepper spray when the coverings over the items she wanted were removed.

“Somehow she was trying to use it to gain an upper hand,” police Lt. Abel Parga told The Associated Press early Friday.

He said she was apparently after some electronics and used the pepper spray to keep other shoppers at bay.

If she had a taser (or maybe a handgun, as is her fundamental right), she could only nail one competing Walmart shopper at a time. That would never do.  She could never reload fast enough to keep the other shoppers away.

No doubt whatever piece of electronics she sought was very important to her, and likely at an exceptional price.  It would make someone a wonderful gift. Really, she was just trying to make a loved one happy at an exceptionally good price, and would happily harm anyone in her way.

It’s a disease, and this is just a symptom of a sick society who will harm another human being for a gadget.

Happy Holiday.

In one of the most absurd fact patterns, Grant County, Wisconsin, District Attorney Lisa Riniker decided it would be a  really good idea to prosecute a little boy, playing doctor and touching a 5 year old girl on her buttocks, for first degree sexual assault.  Riniker sent the summons to the 6-year-old, informing the child that he can be jailed for his failure to appear.

Riniker’s rationale was that “the Legislature could have put an age restriction in the statute … the legislature did no such thing.” As Radley Balko aptly notes, so much for relying on prosecutorial discretion to keep the lid on taking half-baked legislation to its logical extreme.

So attorneys for the boy have filed a §1983 action.

Attorneys for the parents of the 6-year-old, who is being referred to as “D,” said that Riniker has gone too far by bringing a felony sex charge against a first-grader for touching a 5-year-old girl inappropriately while playing doctor last fall.

“That behavior by a prosecutor is outrageous,” said Christopher Cooper, an attorney for the boy’s parents.

Cooper and attorney David Sigale filed the federal suit last week, alleging that Riniker wants D to sign a consent decree admitting some level of guilt.

 “We’re certainly hoping to vindicate D in the eyes of the law,” Sigale said.

The action seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to cause the Defendant Riniker to cease and desist from abridging the Parents (Plaintiffs) First Amendment rights by her pressuring the parents of “D” to force “D” to admit guilt when the boy says he did not do the act and, additionally, that the DA is demanding and pressuring the parents to sign a consent decree.

To make matters worse, the complaint alleges that the pursuit of this child is politically motivated.

[T]he girl is “the daughter of a well-known political figure in Grant County,” and her brother, who is the same age, also was involved in playing doctor but was not charged. In addition to Riniker, the lawsuit names as defendants retired Grant County Sheriff’s Sgt. James Kopp and Jan Moravits, an investigator with Grant County Social Services “whose regional supervisor…is the political figure’s wife’s sister-in-law”—i.e., the aunt of the alleged victim.

As the boy is too young to be the subject of a juvenile complaint, he  falls into the netherworld of “protection” for children:

Spend any amount of time researching the question on the internet, and you’re likely to think that anybody who doesn’t start their own firm is out of their mind.  Every lawyer with a freshly painted shingle touts how great it is, how great they’re doing, and they’ve discovered the good life. 

Sure, they’re not bringing down partner shares, but it’s positive and upbeat, plus they can spend half their day in Starbucks and the other half on the internet writing “winning” on every available social media platform, especially those dedicated to teaching, for a reasonable fee, how to market a new practice.  And then comes the New York Times.

Five and a half years ago, after spending years as commercial litigation lawyers at Proskauer Rose in New York City, Sari Gabay-Rafiy and Anne Marie Bowler decided to strike out on their own. They started Gabay-Rafiy & Bowler more as a lifestyle choice than a money-making venture. The first year in business, Ms. Gabay-Rafiy said, she made “just enough to pay the babysitter.”

And this is a success. They were making money, rather than losing.  According to the story, they learned to work lean and mean, and were able to increase their income to the point where they exceed what they were earning at Proskauer.  Whether that’s true can’t be determined, but reading a  randomly selected story from their “in the news” section of their websites suggested that the most newsworthy thing about the firm was its ability to show empathy in poverty. This isn’t exactly Proskauer’s slogan.  The problem is that every lawyer wants to make it look like their a player in the media, so anytime their name is mention, they make a big deal of it and stick it on the websites.  And hope no one clicks on the link.

The article is positive, but disinclined to puff the common lies being told.

Starting a law firm presents many challenges, especially for associates who have not had much experience running a firm. Michael Yim, Jane Chuang and a third lawyer, all former law school classmates, decided to start a firm in Manhattan last year, taking one large client with them. Three months later that client dropped them, taking 75 percent of the fledging firm’s revenue. Mr. Yim and Ms. Chuang’s third partner could not stomach the loss, and the relationship among the three became tense. He soon left, but Mr. Yim and Ms. Chuang soldiered on. “We started from scratch again, taking a long-term view of profit generation,” Mr. Yim said.

The firm became Yim & Chuang and now, a year later, business is better than Mr. Yim had projected, although marketing has been difficult. “There aren’t a lot of people who know about us yet,” he said. Still, he and Ms. Chuang decided not to take work they could not handle or simply did not want, even when it was tempting. “You can get this sense of desperation where you’ll take any paying client that walks through the door,” Mr. Yim said. “We’ve learned the best clients are people we would socialize with, because the relationship is comfortable, there is trust and it’s far more productive.”

There’s nothing like having a practice dependent on one client, then losing the client. And your third partner when they figure out there’s no money coming in the door.  Not good. As this firm at least has a working website, it was possible to see what they do, though notably their attorney profiles omit the single most significant bit of information that I look for, their year of admission or graduation, suggesting that they’re inexperienced and trying to conceal it from potential clients.  Welcome to the internet business model, 2.0. 

And what of alternative models, the forward-thinking panacea according to some?

In 2007 Joel Kauth and two of his colleagues left Christie Parker Hale in Irvine, Calif., to start Kauth, Pomeroy, Peck & Bailey with Kent Pomeroy, a lawyer and accountant. Mr. Kauth and his former Christie colleagues did not like the traditional billable-hours structure, so they decided to give clients a flat rate for services. “Clients love us because we give them predictability,” Mr. Kauth said. “It’s not some billable black hole.”

The billing system has been profitable for the firm because its partners have enough experience to estimate their time, and they give specific prices for particular tasks. Still, once in a while, Mr. Kauth said, “if the court is being difficult or opposing counsel is crazy, the cost goes up and we just have to eat it.”

“Eat it” is a nice way of saying that you just took a hit that sucks all the profit out of a case. Bummer.

This isn’t intended to suggest that solo or small firm practice is in any way less competent or professional than Biglaw, and those who do are little more than pompous fools trying to rationalize their miserable life by denigrating others. But it is meant to say that this isn’t easy, and hardly any guarantee of wealth and prestige. 

Given the lack of jobs, many are left with no choice but to hang out their own shingle. That puts them in competition with the thousands of similarly situated lawyers, most of whom hand out business cards everywhere they go, only to have the recipients toss them in the garbage at their earliest opportunity.  Those who are sold on the marketing lies, paid for out of the Starbucks budget, hope to overcome their very real deficits, like inexperience, with some very desperate clients with enough cash on hand to cover the nut. 

Over the years, I’ve addressed the ups and downs of many aspects of solo and small firm practice here, and there are ups and there are downs.  Yet the din of liars telling every lawyer, brand new fresh faced kids and wizened veterans of Biglaw layoffs, that everybody who hangs out a shingle can count on a new BMW and dinner with the family every night continues to drown out the realities.  It’s hard work. It takes years to turn a practice profitable, and some never get there because they aren’t good enough.  You have to be pretty tough to sit in your office day after day staring at a silent telephone.

And no, creating a website and blog about how spectacularly fabulous you are, even though it’s made of outrageous lies, there’s no guarantee that you will be able to pay the rent.  You’re just one of many pathetic liars on the internet, trying to scam the same clients as the rest of your classmates.  And those clients, when they do call, are often just trying to scam you.  No, this isn’t an easy life.  No, there is no assurance that you will ever be able to afford a mocha frappucino.  And no, there is no magic bullet that will make it any easier or better.

Some will succeed, and create a great practice consistent with the lifestyle they seek.  Chances are it won’t be you.  And if it’s not, you just have to eat it.

It’s disingenuous for someone who lives a fabulous life to not express appreciation for the fabulous life we lead.  Yadda, yadda, yadda. Yes. I’m thankful. Yes, I have a fabulous life. Yes, it’s fabulous to be me.

Year after year, bloggers write introspective posts about the gifts they enjoy and say thanks to those who bestow those gifts on them. It can get awfully damn sappy. 

Some, like,  Jeff Gamso , write about how our personal opportunity to express thanks fits into the greater scheme of life and death.

Amidst death there is life.  Amidst loss, comes a glimmer of hope.

We mourn what we must and rejoice when we may.

And these times, the best and worst of times as Dickens said of the days of the French Revolution but really it could have been of any time because they’re all the best and worst.

These times, we rely on each other.  For strength, for courage, for wisdom, for patience.

Sometimes the need is professional. Sometimes personal.

Thanks doesn’t really cover it, but thanks is what we have to give.

To friends I’ve met and those I haven’t.  To clients.  To the deserving and the un.  To my colleagues in the blawgosphere.  To friends and family.  To those faithful few who actually read what I write.

Thank you.

Ditto. I’ve left the best parts of Jeff’s post out, so you have to go to his blawg to read them.

Yes, I’m thankful.  I appreciate that anyone comes to read what I write. If I am able to influence anyone making a decision about another human being, I’m thankful for the opportunity.  But I really don’t want to get all sappy about this, and when the motivation is based on a secular holiday that commands us to be sappy, it smacks of insincerity.  No, I’m not insincere, nor do I think anybody else is, but it still seems forced. 

So thank you all. Go eat turkey and be thankful you don’t have to go to Cherry Hill, New Jersey, because you got outmaneuvered on the situs of dinner by someone more manipulative than you.  Remember that no matter how miserable you are, there are plenty of people who are more miserable than you. That’s about as sappy as I can muster today.  I hope this fulfills my Thanksgiving obligation.