What Is Appropriate Law Firm Attire Nowadays?

A few weeks ago, I mentioned having seen a sign outside a local courtroom listing the attire the judge felt was inappropriate. One would expect that the list was for lay-people unaccustomed to the formality of appearing before the court. But an article from the WSJ (and a blog post) today suggest that such a list may have to be circulated among incoming first year associates.

Much like the blog poster at WSJ LawBlog, and many of you I suspect, I wore a suit every day for the first few years of practice. On occasion, I wore nice wool or wool blend khakis (not cotton ones from Old Navy) and a blue blazer or sport coat. The Dot-Com Explosion changed all that. Soon it was business casual Friday, then business casual all the time as 20- and 30-somethings with 6 and 7 zero venture capital funds started running companies while in their jeans. At the same time, we witnessed the rise of the celebrity culture, the return of $200 designer jeans and the relaxation of formalities and common courtesies brought on by the “instant on”, 24/7, MySpace, Facebook culture. The result now appears to be that younger lawyers wear what they want, when they want.

I wear a suit or a slacks/sport coat/tie combo to mediate cases. I couldn’t imagine showing up in jeans. I wouldn’t even wear jeans to the office on days when wearing jeans to work was encouraged (whether for charity or so-called “moving/spring clean” days). At least most of the younger lawyers I see on the days I mediate are wearing a suit or similar dress. I guess I truly am getting old.

(Of course, right now, I am wearing cycling shorts and t-shirt because I’m in my home office and plan to ride the stationary bike in a minute – but that’s different, I don’t have clients dropping over or partners to impress).

I had my first taste of the housing market “collapse” today.

It was a sad case that likely portends the future. A contractor filed sued against a landlord and tenant for repairs to a rental property. The tenant claimed that he hired the contractor at the landlord’s direction and with the understanding that the landlord would assume the cost, or that the cost could be deducted from the rent. About a month after the repairs were completed, and before final payment was made, the tenant returned home to find a foreclosure and eviction notice on the front door.

Understandably, the contractor wanted to get paid and didn’t care from whom payment came. The tenant claimed that the landlord was responsible for the repairs, despite the fact that there was a signed, written “estimate” form, and he had made a deposit to the contractor. And the landlord failed to appear.

I have a feeling that we will be seeing this more and more in the coming months. What bothered me about this case was the fact that the landlord entered into the lease with the tenant with the knowledge that the property was in foreclosure. I’m not a real estate lawyer, but I don’t think a bank can foreclose after 90 days (the approximately length of time the tenant said he was in the property).

Spanish driver sues the cyclist he killed for property damage caused in wreck.

Who says the Europeans aren’t as litigious as Americans? This guy certainly proves that theory wrong:

A Spanish driver who collided with a cyclist is suing the dead youth’s family 20,000 euros (14,800 pounds) for the damage the impact of his body did to his luxury car, a Spanish newspaper reported on Friday.

I’m not sure what his legal theory against the family is. This certainly wouldn’t fly here. And if this guy drove a roughly $80,000 Audi A8 - their flagship sedan, why didn’t he have collision insurance? Is auto insurance that radically different in Spain?

The family are understandably distraught. After taking pity on the man for his role in their son’s accidental death, they now say they are disgusted that the driver is only concerned about getting reimbursed for his property damage.

“This was the final straw, a kick in the teeth,” the youth’s mother Rosa Trinidad told El Pais.

As a cyclist, I hope the judge laughs this guy out of court. Does Spain have a “loser pays” system?

What Songs Should Be in a Mediation Playlist?

Diane Levin helped me kill an hour or two today with her post “What songs would be on your mediator’s playlist?”

Some of these might be a stretch. You might hear these words from a mediator or in a mediation from one of the parties, but here goes. (These all come from my iTunes Collection and keep in mind my tongue is planted FIRMLY in my cheek)

My Favorites:

You Can’t Always Get What You Want – Rolling Stones
I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For – U2
I Won’t Back Down – TP and Heartbreakers (but Johnny Cash’s version is chilling)
Even the Losers (Get Lucky Some Time) – TP and the Heartbreakers
Everybody’s Got Something to Hide (Except me and my Monkey) – The Beatles
Games People Play – Alan Parsons Project
Perhaps, Perhaps, Perhaps – Cake/Doris Day/Nat King Cole

Some more after the jump

Street Justice?

A judge in Ohio sentenced a man convicted of stealing a Salvation Army holiday donation kettle to spend one night, “anywhere but in a house.” In a startling show of honesty, the thief assumed responsibility for his actions:

“My initial reaction was, ‘Wow.’ But I don’t think the sentence is too harsh,” said Smith, who expected to spend Thursday night in a homeless shelter. “I can see the judge’s point because what I did, I shouldn’t have done. Now I’ve got to pay the consequences.”

I guess the judge’s thought process was because the Salvation Army feeds the homeless with that money, that making the man spend a night “homeless” was “street justice.”

Busy Week – Lazy Post

My apologies for not posting, but it has been a busy week and time flew away from me. So, I’ll pull a lazy man’s trick out of the bag and do a link round-up.

Everyone’s favorite Kiwi posted about Robert Benjamin’s piece Of War and Negotiation and even included a link to a critique of the some of the author’s other work. I found Mr. Benjamin’s concept interesting but his writing too verbose.

Diane Levin may have felt safe after knowing that her Patriots finished off Kristina Haymes’ San Diego Chargers, but the Patsy’s will have to go through my mighty New York Giants to complete the mythic “Perfect Season.”

The National Arbitration Forum blog posted a summary of an article from the Minnesota Lawyer entitled, Nine Tips to Better Negotiation Skills. While I’m typically all for bite sized nuggets of wisdom, the Minnesota Lawyer website requires a subscription to read the original article.

and finally,

Vickie Pynchon scares the hell out of me by discussing Do It Yourself ADR!. If people adopt this type of rational behavior, I may have to find another job.

Enjoy.

An Employee Handbook I Can Support

Courtesy of the WSJ Law Blog.

When I read the the L.A. Times story about their new “Employee Handbook,” I wanted to stand up and cheer.  Finally, a blow for common sense and plain language.  This Magna Carta of Employee Handbooks opens with the brilliant gem of wisdom:

Rule #1: Use your best judgment.
Rule #2: See Rule 1.

Now, as far as I am concerned, it should end there.  But due to certain societal trends that has led to a more “open” and “informal” atmosphere in the workplace, some further guidance was required.  The article lists several other mandates included in the manual, such as,

4.5. Making the building too hot, banging on trash can lids or loud bagpipe music are annoyances you can complain about,” but such actions don’t constitute harassment on the basis of protected characteristics.

7.1. If you use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated. See Rule 1. Coming to work drunk is bad judgment.

7.2. If you do not use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job acceptably, you are likely to be terminated.

I really like that last one, because in certain sectors of modern corporate America, “fail[ure] to perform the duties required by your job acceptably” is no longer grounds for dismissal.  Well, it is, but only after 4 verbal warnings, 6 written warnings, 10 counseling sessions and a trip to the principal’s office.   Of course, there were lawyers quoted in the article as saying the handbook was too vague, and “made a lot of mistakes,” but a quick Google search reveals that the lawyer makes his money counseling big corporate clients on how to draft 800-page, “comprehensive” employment policies. Imagine that.

Ridiculous Lawsuit of the Month.

This story has already filtered down to that bellwether of the news industry, The Today Show, but I thought I’d mention it, too. A would be “base jumper” has sued the Empire State Building for $30 million for allegedly “endangering” his life when he climbed over the so-called “suicide fence” surrounding the Observation Deck of the Empire State Building so he could parachute off. I haven’t read the complaint, but I understand it claims he has been defamed, and alleges some theory of false imprisonment because he was handcuffed to the suicide fence.

In his defense, Ms. Corliss is apparently quite accomplished at this “activity” and has jumped from various landmarks, by permit and sometimes at the request of local authorities, including the Eiffel Tower, Golden Gate and Petronas Towers. Further, there is no specific statute prohibiting this “activity.” The Manhattan D.A., in a move worthy of the TV show Law and Order, charged him with “reckless endangerment.” A New York judge dismissed the criminal charges against him, holding that as a “professional,” he was experienced and careful, therefore, he could not have been recklessly endangering his own life or anyone else’s.

But his claims for damages and tortured theories of liability strain all logic. This morning on Today, he claimed the actions of the security team endangered his life because had his chute opened while he was cuffed, it could have ripped his torso from his arms. In all my years handling personal injury cases, I’ve never heard a jury award damages for what “coulda” happened. Imagine that argument: “If that truck was going 20 mph faster when it hit me…” or “If that other car had struck me on the driver side door instead of the rear end…” or “If the gas tank had exploded into a fireball…” or “If there had been ice on those steps…”.

He claims to have offered

to serve as a security consultant to the Empire State Building so that others, including suicidal people, would not be able to jump off.“Very small tweaks in their security will make it impossible to jump off that building,” Mr. Corliss said. “I would be more than happy to come in there and show them how to do that.”

Again, on Today, he claimed that there have been 3 or 4 successful “Base Jumps” from the Empire State, and over 30 suicides. As a mediator, I see a great solution here. I think both sides are angry, and nobody has really been hurt. (Adrenal fatigue? Sounds like a tortured attempt to show some physical harm to meet the requirements of a claim of infliction of emotional distress). The Building has a distinct interest in preventing suicides, as well as (the apparently legal) base jumps. Mr. Corliss would like to rehabilitate his “good name.” A highly public news conference announcing their partnership to “jump proof” the Observation Deck might satisfy everyone (except the publicity hound shyster that Corliss hired).

Mediation Shown to be One-Tenth the Cost of “Full Scale Litigation”

Mediators often try to sell their services based on the empirical observation that it is more cost effective than litigation. It would appear that we now have some hard data to back this up courtesy of the Boston Law Collaborative. They conducted a study of 199 divorce cases and found that

mediation, collaborative divorce and litigation all produced high rates of successful settlement. Mediation was by far the least expensive option, with a median cost of $6,600, compared to $19,723 for a collaborative divorce, $26,830 for settlements negotiated by rival lawyers, and $77,746 for full-scale litigation.

I know that selling mediation services based on its cost-effectiveness is a tricky business. Since I consider the lawyers and firms to be my clients, doing so tends to put the financial interests of the lawyer and client in direct conflict. So, I avoid mentioning that point as much as possible. When you have something like this dumped in your lap, however, it is hard not to speak on it. The good lawyers know that careers (and fortunes) are not made on cases, but on good client relationships. Most savvy businesspeople will respect the lawyer who saved them a bundle in legal fees by helping resolve a case through mediation far more than the lawyer who won the huge case but handed then a six-figure bill. And that happy client is worth his weight in referrals and repeat business.

A nod to my friend Geoff for the head’s up on the article.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, the weather outside is frightful…

Yes, it is snowing in the Deep South. Its too dark for me to post pictures, but believe me, there is snow on the ground. Its wet and heavy; perfect for snowballs and snowmen. The children on my street have all been outside shrieking and giggling.

Knowing my fellow Atlantans like I do, the evening news will be dominated by stories of multi-car pileups and there won’t be a slice of bread, drop of milk or egg to be found in any market as they will all forget how to drive and the fact that we don’t live in Colorado.