Michael Vick

As a dog owner, NFL football fan and Atlanta resident, I would feel remiss if I did not comment on the events that have unfolded over the past few weeks. I will not use such words as “tragedy” or “pathetic” to describe this situation, as those words would suggest that he, or his situation, is worthy of pity or pathos. They are not. This man (and at 27 years of age, he is clearly not a naïve child) brought this upon himself and is unworthy of any emotion but scorn.

Without the full details of the plea deal, it is impossible to say just exactly to what barbaric, uncivilized, and horrifically cruel activities Vick will admit to have participated. His agreement to plead out in a court in Virginia next Monday makes one thing certain – the man is a liar who obviously displays poor judgment.

He has repeatedly lied to everyone – his employers, his fans and supporters, likely even his lawyers. When he wasn’t lying, he was simply displaying incredibly poor judgment.

There was the herpes lawsuit that introduced us all to his alter-ego “Ron Mexico.”

Then came the “middle finger” incident where he defiantly flipped “the bird” to his own fans. After which he made the now standard media apology, claiming that it wasn’t like him to do such a vulgar thing and promising he’d never betray the trust of the fans by doing it again.

And finally, the water bottle incident, where he initially refused to throw away a water bottle that had a secret compartment that contained a residue that law enforcement believed smelled suspiciously like marijuana. He was ultimately cleared of any possession charges, but in this day and age of heightened security and restrictions on carrying water on planes, why even try bring a water bottle on the plane, much less one that had a secret compartment?

When the allegations of an investigation into the activity of dog fighting on his property first broke, Vick could have quietly met with the Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell – his ultimate boss – in private, even represented by lawyers, and tried to explain his involvement. Instead, he defiantly denied any participation privately and in the press. In fact, when he denied any involvement to Goodell, Vick allegedly told him, “I love dogs.”

There will be talk of whether this “mistake” should cost an otherwise talented man his career and whether he should be able to continue playing professional football once he’s “paid his debt.” Even as much as I love dogs and detest the vileness of the activity which Vick organized, promoted and gambled upon, I can understand that many people don’t equate what Vick has done to something more heinous like rape, domestic assault, DUI or drug charges.

But this isn’t one “mistake.” It’s a pattern of behavior that disregards the rules and framework of civilized society. Unfortunately, if Roger Goodell allows Vick to play again, (and that’s a huge “if”), it will likely take little more than crying to Oprah and making a donation to PETA or the ASPCA to get him out of the doghouse.

If there is anyone to pity in this (besides the innocent dogs that were allegedly hung, electrocuted and drowned by Vick), it is the NFL owner and NFL fan who places his trust in a conniving, manipulative egomaniac who clearly cares for no one but himself.

A Seriously Funny Blog

As I clicked around Ford and Harrison’s website looking for confirmation of the story that they really had eliminated billable hours for their first-years, I came across a link to a seriously funny blog written by one of their associates called That’s What She Said.

The blog is a discussion of the HR dilemmas and potential lawsuits that might arise from the antics of the folks at Dunder Mifflin, a/k/a The Office. I’m not sure that Ricky Gervais, Stephen Merchant, et al., ever dreamed that their comic vision would provide such fertile material for a semi-serious legal blog, but I think they’d approve of Julie’s wit and humor.

Atlanta Firm Removes Billable Hour Requirement for First-Year Newbs

In a somewhat startling and extremely progressive move, Law.com reports that the Atlanta-based labor and employment firm of Ford & Harrison has eliminated its billable-hour requirements for first-year associates. In lieu of being assigned tasks that require skills, knowledge and wisdom far beyond their capabilities and churning out dubious work product for which the client shouldn’t be charged in the first place, the first-years will now spend their time “observing depositions and witness interviews and attending hearings and litigation strategy meetings.” You know, that boring practical lawyer stuff they don’t teach in law school.

The firm will hire fewer first-year associates and pay them less than the going market salary (which are ridiculously high, anyway), but they hope the investment they make in the first year will pay off with better skilled lawyers and, I presume, higher retention rates (which are hopelessly low at most of the megafirms). I wish they had such programs when I was coming out of law school. Kudos to Ford & Harrison.

Interesting Insight Into the Mind of the Plaintiff’s Bar.

Scanning Geoff Sharp’s blog (Thanks. Again.), I found a link to an interesting and short article discussing the valuation of personal injury cases. Being a former defense lawyer, I was a little skeptical about any site written by the dreaded “Trial Lawyers” a/k/a plaintiff’s lawyers. Surfing around the site, however, I found several other interesting articles and comments on a variety of topics, from “What Should Trial Lawyers Wear” to practical help with discovery requests.

It may take some time to separate the wheat from the chaff, but it might be a useful resource for the plaintiff’s lawyer and defense lawyer/insurance adjuster alike. Before you defense types say, “But its for trial lawyers“, remember your Sun Tzu, “If you know the adversary and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.”

As for mediators, especially those who focus on ADR full time, it helps to stay abreast of the most current trial techniques and legal issues.

Will someone PLEASE think about the children!?!?!?!?!

In another prime example of the nanny state gone berserk, a British supermarket clown has been told by his employer that he can’t make balloon animals “because children might be allergic to latex.” The poor sap had previously been told not to use his bubble machine lest a soapy film create a slip and fall hazard.

Echoing the battle cry of Helen Lovejoy,the fun sponge, er, manager of the Tesco supermarket said, “We always have the welfare of children at heart.”

Pants Judge Files an Appeal, Even AFTER the Dry Cleaners Drop Demand for Attorney Fees

Frankly, this is so sad and pathetic, I’m not sure I even need to comment.

The administrative law judge who lost his $54 million lost-pants lawsuit against a dry cleaners has filed an appeal.

Roy Pearson Jr. decided to appeal despite the dry cleaners’ decision to drop a request for $82,000 in attorney fees, Legal Times reports. The cleaners’ owners have raised more than $100,000 for their legal defense fund.

Chris Manning, the lawyer for the cleaners, said Pearson has chosen “desperate irrationality over common sense and decided to appeal, unnecessarily costing the parties more wasted time and the D.C. taxpayers more wasted money.”

ABA Journal

Man Sues 1-800 Flowers For Revealing His Extramarital Affair

A Texas man is suing 1-800-Flowers for $1 million after the company allegedly revealed his philandering ways to his wife.

When Leroy Greer’s wife filed for divorce, he began seeing another woman. When he bought flowers for his new girlfriend through 1-800-Flowers, he asked the company to keep his purchase private. After the married couple reconciled, his wife found a “Thank You” note from 1-800 Flowers in the mail. When she called the company to find out more, presumably because Leroy never sent her any flowers, The online florist then faxed her a complete copy of the receipt, including the recipient’s name, address and the romantic note on the card.

She’s now a little upset and has refiled for divorce, raising her demand another $300,000 and her child support demand another $1000 per month. What one has to do with the other is beyond me.

In the typical American fashion, Leroy claims none of it is his fault, and sued the online florist for $1 million for breach of contract and deceptive trade practices. Leroy’s lawyer claims that

This is not a moral issue. . . . The issue is, is 1-800-Flowers in the business of causing divorce or are they in the business of sending flowers and sticking to their privacy policy?

Yea, 1-800 Flowers caused the divorce. Leroy’s philandering had nothing to do with it.

To its credit, 1-800 Flowers released a statement saying, “”We take all matters relating to our customers seriously; however, we are not responsible for an individual’s personal conduct.”

Wow, personal accountability. What a novel concept.

The “Missing Pants” Judge Gets a Written Warning.

The ABA Journal is reporting that “Judge” Roy Pearson, the famous “Missing Pants” judge, received a written warning from the Committee that reviews the job qualifications of Administrative Law Judges. This is apparently the first step before he can be removed from the “bench.”

What, exactly, is confidential in a mediation, anyway?

In one of my first posts, I examined the recent California Court of Appeal decision that discussed, inter alia, what written submissions and correspondence relating to a mediation were discoverable in a subsequent malpractice action. An article from the New Zealand firm of Bell Gully examines a similar topic: what, exactly, can a participant discuss about a mediation?

It seems that in the unreported opinion discussed in the Bell Gully article, Ms. Plimmer began to have issues with her manager at the residential care facility in which she worked. In December 2004, the parties engaged in a mediation service provided by the Department of Labour. At mediation, the parties settled their disputes and entered into a “Record of Settlement.” Shortly afterwards, however, Plimmer told a colleague that the mediation had taken place. During that conversation, she told the colleague that the supervisor had “at one stage burst into tears and left the mediation room.” The manager became aware of the conversation and after an investigation, Plimmer’s employer fired her.

Plimmer claimed that she had not breached the confidentiality of the mediation and filed a claim for wrongful termination (or the Kiwi equivalent thereto). The Employment Relations Authority eventually concluded that Plimmer had not breached confidentiality and that she was wrongfully terminated. The Authority apparently concluded that the confidentiality statute that covered such employment mediations required Plimmer to keep confidential any statement or admission made in the course of mediation, but not who had attended the mediation, nor their reactions during the mediation.

I think the Authority got it correct. This case illustrates one of the common misunderstandings people have about confidentiality – that confidential means cloaked in secrecy. It is sometimes difficult to explain that the fact that a mediation occurred is not confidential but the offers of settlement made during mediation are. Even more difficult is the all-too-common belief that if a party reveals some sinister, smoking gun fact during mediation, it cannot be used at trial because it was “discussed during mediation”

As the Bell Gully article put it, people “should not expect that everything associated with a mediation will necessarily be kept ‘Top Secret’.”

**My apologies to Geoff Sharp for a) using Latin and b) discussing a case from his home turf.

Mediator, resolve thyself?

We are finally getting rid of the old couch and setting up a “proper” living room, so, we went furniture shopping this weekend. We were all fine and dandy for a while, agreeing to the style of sofa and love seat, the end tables, coffee table versus leather covered ottoman. Then, we got to fabrics and my lovely, beautiful wife picked out the following patterns:

and

The problem is: She likes both, I like neither. A particularly thorny problem. I came up with a solution, though. We agreed on a method of alternative dispute resolution. Sort of a Med-Arb. She has a few friends whose tastes and style we both respect. We will bribe them with dinner and drag them to the upholstery store and solicit their opinions. While I have not exactly agreed to be bound by any opinion, the married folks out there know that I have. I figure I have a 25% chance that they will talk her out of the ridiculously busy patterns and back onto something a little more suited for parking your butt in front of the plasma screen to watch movies and football. I’m not too optimistic, though.