Client Pet Peeves...One Client Who Does Them All

Don't get me wrong, I love this job.  I love the practical experience I am gaining not only in terms of actually getting things written and filed, legal research, and trial preparation.  Even more so (and many of my friends can attest to the fact I need a little help in this department), I enjoy the experience I am getting having to deal with people that I would not normally associate with, but have to because they are clients. 

That being said, I can deal with a lot of annoying things they do to a point, whether it be panicking over a situation that does not warrant panicking, or even trying to take over their own case and do the job they are paying this office to do.  One thing I cannot stand however, are the clients who constantly call and assume that something is always going on with their case. 

Basically, events and filing of documents trigger responses and filing of more documents.  However, until these things are done, we are unable to do anything.  For example, how can write an opposition to a motion that has not yet been filed or given to us (even though we probably know it might be coming)? 

One particular client has called three times in the past two weeks about a number of things:

1.)  "The IRS took all of the money out of my tax return."

         -  The attorneys in this office told you that it was probably going to happen given your
             circumstances, so why are you calling about this?  You were given fair warning, and
             unfortunately we cannot help you.  The IRS is a body of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
             and we are merely a family law firm in Las Vegas, Nevada.  We aren't going to be able to
             "force" the IRS to return this money, particularly because it was taken with just cause.
             Please stop assuming that because they are attorneys, they are like God and can do
             anything you ask, especially when it involves the Federal Government.

2.)  "Please have my lawyer call me back."  "Ok ma'am, what's this regarding?" "I just need to talk to 
        him."

        -  Unfortunately, people in this office are very busy, and do not want to be bothered with
            frivilous issues.  In order to cut back on these issues which can be resolved without the
            lawyer having to contact you themselves, the information often gets passed on to me or
            one of the other assistants, and we relay the message.  Only if something big happens,
            and it is absolutely imperative that an attorney speak to you (meaning you require legal
            advice, which I am prohibited from giving you), will they call you back personally. 
            That being said, this requires you to give us a reason as to why you are calling.  The
            other assistants and I are still bound by attorney-client confidentiality, and are not going to
            share details of your case with others who do not need to know.  So please tell us exactly
            what it is you need help with in order to resolve the issue swiftly.

3.)  "I have called three times, and the attorney has not called me back.   But anyway, I got a letter
        from my ex-spouse, and he said he is taking my child for one month on this date."

        -  This had the potential to be an issue of concern that might warrant talking to an attorney. 
            However, after reviewing the decree of divorce, the "Visitation" section notes that the
            spouse without primary physical custody is allowed to take the child for a period of one
            month over summer vacation.  Now, since you are alleging abuse, we have filed the
            appropriate motion with court, and will be heard at the next hearing, which so conveniently
            happens to be before the day your spouse is coming to take your child.  Until we go in and
            tell the judge why we have filed the motion, nothing can be done.  We will see you then.

The second of these three minor annoyances is probably the most irksome.  I understand that some people may not feel comfortable sharing certain details with assistants, but I at least need to be able to judge how urgent the situation is.  Calling in a panicked voice does not help either, I listen to the content of your message, not the tone of your voice. 

I am not one to complain about work, but when these three things happened, I felt I had to share them.  Hopefully this will help anyone reading this answer questions as to why your attorney may not get back to you immediately, or even within the same day.  The short answer I can give you for that is simple:  you are not the only one going through a divorce or custody battle.  Some things need to be done in the office right away, and unfortunately have precedent over your case.  I am sorry if this upsets you, but I do things in the order I am told. 

P.S.  Please do not call back cursing at me in Spanish, I took 4 years in high school and have friends that speak it.  I know exactly what you called me, and it wasn't very polite.  Gracias.

Research In the Courtroom

When I say "research" in this sense, I am not referring to pouring over volume after volume of statutes and case law in a law library.  I'm referring to what is known as "extrinsic research," which is any supplemental research conducted going beyond the scope of testimony, statements, statutes, or case law mentioned in the courtroom.  According to Blog Law Online, the repercussions of extrinsic research differ depending on your role in a legal proceeding.

If you are a juror, you are never allowed to conduct extrinsic research and must base judgment solely upon evidence presented during the trial.  That being said, it is more acceptable for judges to use extrinisc research when rendering their opinions in non-juried trials.  This sort of makes sense, considering a judge has the legal knowledge requisite to forming a more complete opinion based upon not only evidence presented to him, but upon his own research and logically drawn conclusions.  People seem to have mixed feelings about judges doing so, particularly because a judge in a non-juried trial serves the same function as the jury.  He is to be convinced that one side is right and the other is wrong, the only difference being the fact that there is only one person who needs convincing. 

Personally, I see that there may be some benefits to allowing extrinsic research.  It is possible that a little extra research may help make arguments less one-sided by providing valuable information that was either left out, or slightly misrepresented by the attorney presenting it.  A good example would be the use of results gathered from gas chromotography technology which is commonly admitted as evidence in cases involving DUI's.  There are a number of factors (listed here) which can contribute to a descrepancy about how reliable such a test is.  Needless to say, the State prosecuting a DUI case will present this gas chromotography test as a fullproof, reliable method of testing blood alcohol content, when in fact its reliability may have been negatively affected by any of those factors mentioned on the Arizona Criminal Defense Attorney blog. 

Though some may see the above mentioned example of extrinsic research as a way of making a trial-by-peers more fair, I also see the disadvantages presented by jurors doing their own research.  If we accept the fact that jurors do not possess the training that attorneys and judges have in terms of drawing logical conclusions from various sources, jurors may be swayed incorrectly by a source that it less than reliable.  Further, even if the source IS reliable, there is an increase in the chance of a trial resulting in a hung jury, since each juror drew their own conclusion, based upon their own research.

As a result, I feel that it is absolutely more acceptable for a judge in a non-juried trial to conduct his own research.  A judge will more than likely to select a reliable source for any extrinsic research, and his opinion would be the only one that matters, there would be no hung jury.  Lastly, the legal training to draw logical conclusions from facts presented that "necessarily follow" goes far in justifying the use of extrinsic research in non-juried trials.   

Treat Others How You Want to be Treated

I read an interesting post the other day on a blog which I frequent, that discussed some of the often missed pragmatic aspects of practicing law.  It talked about how law school generally teaches about 80% theory and 20% practice, however this 20% fails to address practical problems with the most prominent example having to do with what is generally viewed as 'secretarial' or 'paralegal' work.  Though I am not an attorney (let alone even in law school yet), this particular post made me consider two 'rules,' if you will, that I definitely plan on abiding by when I become one.  Which brings me to my first point.

1.  Hire (and respect the services of) a skilled secretary or paralegal.

Right now, I have the benefit of being asked to perform many of these duties, and am gaining a ton of practical knowledge which many attorneys tell me they simply do not teach in law school.  Though these tasks tend to be the work of secretaries and paralegals, if they are not completed both correctly and on time, the law firm essentially ceases to function properly.  As a result, I have learned that it does not help to be condescending or overly critical (emphasis on OVERLY, being critical is part of the profession) of work completed by secretaries or paralegals.  They are the gears which keep the law firm clock running smoothly, and on schedule.

While this first principle was implied by that particular post, I noticed that this second important principle seems to have been overlooked.

2.  Treat courtroom staff like they are the Second Coming of Christ Himself!

Consider this hypothetical situation:  You are an Assistant District Attorney in a major metropolitan area, where crime is more or less a way of life.  You may have a case load of close to (perhaps even a little over) 100 cases.  Though you are accountable for your 100 cases, the courtroom staff is accountable for your 100 cases, plus EVERYONE ELSE'S 100 cases, and must handle pleadings from both Plaintiff and Defendant.  Moral of the story?  They don't have time for/do not want to put up with your attitude and crap.  While watching a certain individual we can refer to as 'X' attempt to file papers, she had about her a certain noticeably negative attitude.  By the end of the day, the court staff threatened to call the Marshall's office, and it took forever for her to get assistance, and get the job done.  Having learned from this, calling everyone 'sir' or 'ma'am,' and thanking them for even the smallest bit of advice has gone an awfully long way for me, and I often find myself done filing within an hour (wait time included).  Be polite and respectful, and the courthouse staff will be more than happy to answer your questions and give you the help you need.

In short, the so-called 'golden rule' rings true in the legal field as well.  Treat others the way you want to be treated, and it will keep the whole legal process moving much more smoothly not only for yourself, but others who appreciate your courtesy, as well.

First Motion Written From Scratch!

Yesterday, I put the finishing touches on a motion that I decided to take a crack at writing over the holiday.  I enjoyed it, to be completely honest.  Most people know that I enjoy writing in general, however legal writing is a little more challenging for me personally.  Probably because of the fact that I like to "sound smart," so to speak, and the fact of the matter is that judges are very educated, and don't care/are unlikely to be impressed by the fact that you can use "big words."  I was always taught legal writing needs to be more direct and too the point. 

As difficult as it was to not give in to the temptation of using some of my favorite multi-syllable adjectives, the final product came out pretty well.  The attorney who it was for said it was good, she added a few things (since this is after all still her case, and the picture she's trying to paint in the judges mind needs to be accurately portrayed), but most importantly, I found some satisfaction in the fact that out of all the laws I could've cited in the legal analysis, I selected the right one.

Definitely look forward to writing more of these in the future.

P.S. It turns out you can title the motion anything you want! I had some issues with that since I know there are commonly used motions (not only in Nevada, but other jurisdictions as well), and I was under the impression that this motion had to fit the mold of one that already existed.  Meaning, if I want to file a "Motion For Opposing Counsel To Remove the Stick From Their Ass," I can, lol.   

LSAT Results...

Yesterday, the results for the June 2012 Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) were released via e-mail.  I won't post my score on here, but it was definitely much better than what I was hoping for!  The score I received was good enough so that I don't have to cross any potential schools off of my list, which is always a good thing.  I may take it one more time in October, but it's up in the air as of now.

Special thanks to my mom and dad for having faith in me to do well on the test, get me help when I needed it, and most importantly, give me the space in the time leading up to the test to study and get myself ready.  Also, a big "thank you" to all of my friends here in Las Vegas and in Iowa for all of the encouragment and positive support during this whole process!

A bit about the law firm...

For those of you who don't know, this summer I began working at a law firm in my home of Las Vegas, Nevada.  The firm specializes in family law, which is very complicated and has a tendency to get very nasty to say the least.  I would like to take a moment to discuss a few general things that I have encountered in my first month of work here.

Generally speaking, a divorce is not looked upon as a positive event.  Granted, there are all-too-frequent occasions in which a divorce is the most positive outcome for a party, with particular regard to instances of spousal or child abuse.  With the exclusion of those unfortunate circumstances, the most painless type of proceeding one can hope for is an uncontested divorce.  This generally results in a straightforward proceeding, where any community property (if the divorce is occuring in a state which recognizes community property) is divided equally, both parties may share debt incurred on joint accounts but are responsible for any debt incurred on accounts held in their own name, the (ex)-wife is able to restore her maiden name, a visitation schedule is mutually agreed upon if any minor children are involved, etc.  Unfortunately, most marriages are not so easily dissolved, and many people associated with the family court system (myself included) feel that the system tends to favor women.  I recognize that it is a natural part of our country's political and social culture to have a tendency to protect women, particularly in a legal sense.  It is however, very disheartening to see that some women use this protection to their advantage, especially in divorce proceedings.

I have had the opportunity to speak to (and work with) several male clients already in my short time working here, and none of them (one small fellow in particular) seem like they would ever lay a hand on a woman, or give their child more than a well-deserved spanking.  However, their wives use the protection of the law to their advantage, and these men have to fight their asses off in court in order to even be granted supervised visits with their children.  Of course, the judge is not allowed to make character judgments, and instead must take the conservative approach by assuming the woman's allegations may be true, and the children or spouse must be shielded from the abusive parent or partner.  It's just shameful to see the court system, which is taylored to protect women (some of whome who actually do need it), manipulated just to squeeze additional spousal and/or child support out of their ex-spouse, and even obtain sole custody of minor children.

Though the family court system is engineered to protect women, I feel the implications of a family court system without safeguards for women would be far more detrimental than the status quo.  However, surely something needs to be done about women with malicious intent who work this system with complete disregard to the man's reputation and parental rights.  

Thoughts on the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care)

Needless to say, this is a hot topic in the national news and I am yet to offer my perspective on any of the social network sites I am a part of, primarily due to the fact that people tend to get far too emotionally tied up for a number of reasons, whether it have to do with loyalty to a political party or maybe even because they simply are not my biggest fan.  Either way, I prefer to look at most things through a legal perspective, and I have a pretty rudimentary outlook on the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

To put it simply, I feel that the Supreme Court improperly exercised its authority when it designated what is, for all intents and purposes, a "penalty" to be a "tax."  The purported "tax" that is collected from those who do not purchase health insurance is inherently a penalty, and has been referred to as such by members of both the Legislative and Executive branches.  However, this penalty is collected through the Internal Revenue Service, and was thus considered a tax by the Court, which falls under the taxing authority granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  It certainly seems that the issue of intent did not play too big of a role in the Justices' decision, since no proponents of the ACA have tried to disguise the fact that this "tax" is clearly intended to penalize Americans who are taking a "free ride" on the current health care system. 

I won't go so far as to say that we are taking steps to becoming a socialist nation, however I feel that there are severe implications that may arise from this decision since it certainly expands Congress' authority with particular regard to its power to tax.  What may arise from this landmark decision remains to be seen.

Lastly, arguably the most surprising aspect of this decision was Chief Justice John Roberts casting his vote with the liberal majority.  Though this is a bit of a stretch, I find it possible that his vote may have been in exchange for Justice Sonia Sotomayor's unprecedented vote in Arizona v. United States which was critical due to Justice Elena Kagan's recusing herself from the opinion.  I know it's a stretch coming from a pretty openly conservative individual, but I would love to hear everyone's thoughts both on the decision, and about why the Chief Justice voted the way he did!