THE INTERNET AND THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
August 1, 2011 § 3 Comments
It’s no secret that I am at least dubious about the efficacy and advisibility of lay persons representing themselves in court. My distaste for the practice rests primarily on the fact that most often it results in self-inflicted harm. Secondarily, I am concerned that lay litigants are unencumbered by any ethical or professional obligation of candor to the court and fair dealing with the other party.
Many lay-lawyers download forms from online vendors. The purveyors of these forms claim that they enable lay people to handle their own routine legal matters for less money than it would cost them to pay a lawyer.
My problem with that approach is two-fold:
First, how does a layperson decide that a legal matter is routine without some advice? How does a layperson know what the hidden pitfalls are if she has no one but a form to ask? Sure, she can check box A on the computer-downloaded form, but would box B be far more advantageous?
Second, is not the providing of legal forms in itself providing legal representation? The Mississippi Supreme Court answered the question in the case of Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Jenkins, 725 So.2d 162, 167 (Miss. 1998), in which the court stated:
” This Court defined the practice of law to include ‘… the drafting or selection of documents, the giving of advice in regard to them, and the using of an informed or trained discretion in the drafting of documents to meet the needs of the person being served. So any exercise of intelligent choice in advising another of his legal rights and duties brings the activity within the practice of the legal profession. Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows, Inc., 233 Or. 80, 377 P.2d 334 (1962).’ Darby v. Mississippi State Bd. of Bar Admissions, 185 So.2d 684, 687 (Miss.1966).”
There is a class action lawsuit pending in Missouri raising the issue of unauthorized and inadequate practice of law by Legal Zoom, an online seller of legal advice via forms. The thrust of that lawsuit is that the company’s activities are inherently harmful to consumers because they violate the state’s public policy against unauthorized practice of law, which protects consumers. The trial judge has already overruled the company’s motion for summary judgment, and the company is mounting an ad campaign in the state to scare people into believing that their right of self-representation is under threat, and that lawyers are out to get their money.
We have seen our share of Legal Zoom-type documents and other internet lawyers in this district, but that’s not by any means all. We have shadowy individuals in the area who sell “secretarial services” in the form of complaints for irreconcilable differences divorces, PSA’s and judgments. Those clerk-typists are beyond a reasonable doubt unqualified to give legal advice. So what possibly qualifies them to prescribe the forms appropriate for a person’s legal problems, and to determine the appropriate content?
Caveat emptor, you might say. I answer: bull. Neither the legal profession nor the courts should countenance unqualified persons preying on unsuspecting laypeople. I wonder what the state bar and the district attorneys are doing to rein this in? After all, there is a state law making it a crime to practice law without a license.
As I have said before, I am all for self-representation. But I hate to see self-destruction. And I hate even more to see someone on the path to self destruction believing that they are protected by a piece of paper they bought off the internet or from a “secretarial service” with no legal advice to back it up.
This is not all about protecting lawyers or making it easier on the judges. This is all about making sure that the legal process produces as fair a result as possible, and that all who are involved in it deal with each other and the court with integrity and are fully informed of their rights and the ramifications of their actions.
THE LAWYER’S MISSION IN LIFE
July 13, 2011 § Leave a comment
The Mississippi Bar Association annual meeting commences today in faraway, sunny Florida. I thought this would be a propitious time to look back more than a hundred years at the proceedings of the association in its earliest days.
On May 5-7, 1908, the Mississipi State Bar Association held its third annual meeting in Meridian.
Various papers were presented, among them “Railroads and the People,” Suggestions of Error, Legal and Otherwise,” “Reminiscences of a Few Mississippi Lawyers,” and “The Power of the Courts.”
The convention even adopted a resolution that, because their presence would “lend grace and dignity to its annual meeting and wisdom of its deliberations,” members in future were “invited to attend sessions accompanied by their wives, daughters, sisters and sweethearts as the condition may then exist.” That language of that resolution sounds patronizing to us more than a century later, but we need to keep in mind that lawyers in those days were, if not exclusively male, almost exclusively male, and their language reflected not only that reality but also the more patriarchal usages of the day, which used the masculine gender to denote the general, as the text below shows.
Another of the papers delivered at that meeting was by Meridian’s own S. A. Witherspoon, who spoke on “The Lawyer’s Mission in Life.” The language is perhaps too flowery for todays tastes, but the message is no less relevant and thoughtful now than it was 102 years ago. It is too long to reproduce in its entirety, but here are some excerpts:
- ” … if the exigencies of [the lawyer’s] professional duties do not lead him into the investigation of the truth and require the exercises of his powers in maintaining the cause of justice, and demand the aid of his influence in establishing the great law of love between man and man, then the lawyer’s life work is at war with his better nature, and deterioration instead of development must be his certain doom.”
- “… in the solution of all political, social and religious problems that affect the happiness of humanity [lawyers] have been found in the front ranks, and the cause of freedom, justice and morality has found in them its most devoted and ablest advocates.”
- “The strife, contention and never ending warfare of the lawyer’s life may conceal from the casual observer its logical relation and productive tendency toward the peace, goodwill and love among men, but it should be remembered that the legal battle which he constantly wages merely takes the place of violence and bloodshed of the barbarian, and that the lawyer in civilized life simply confines the fighting, which seems to be a necessity of humanity, within the ranks of his own profession, and this relieves his fellow men of the evils of human warfare.”
- “But the prominent feature of the lawyer’s work is the problem of truth, and his greatest difficulty is measured by its laborious discovery.”
- “And the light of his truth, streaming through all the walks of human life, as distinctly marks the lawyer’s mission as does the warmth and light that gives life and beauty to the flowers and defines the mission of the sunbeam.”
- “The mission of the lawyer is not confined to the court room and does not end when the decree or judgment of the court is placed on the minutes, but it extends into all the affairs of men, and finds its last boundary at that point where his service is not needed for the betterment of humanity.”
- “The professional duties of the lawyer develop in him a capacity for the ascertainment of truth, a power to explain and expound it to others, and the art and ability to advocate the cause of justice, and to win the triumph of right; and the possession of any power involves the duty of exercising it for the good of others. He has no right to bury his talent, or to hide his candle under a bushel. Whatever advantage and superiority he may enjoy over his fellow men is the result of his relation to society and the special privileges which it has granted him. And, therefore, I say that in all the religious, moral, social, and industrial controversies that divide the people, the lawyer is obliged to take part, and to give them the benefit of whatever wisdom and virtue he may possess.”
Excerpted from “The Mississippi Bar’s Centennial: A Legacy of Service,” 2006 by the Mississippi Bar.
CHIRP, CHIRP
July 12, 2011 § 2 Comments
Lawyer, meet stress. It’s your bane, your motivator, your constant companion, your all-too-familiar demon. It comes from clients, deadlines, judges, finances, family and ethics. It visits you on the day the bills are due, the day after those requests for admissions were unansweredly due, at 2:00 a.m., and when you walk in the court room door. It can make you sick, grumpy, sad, drunk, ineffective, inattentive, erratic and even violent. It’s part of the job. Learn to live with it or die.
So kick back and allow a respite in your busy routine to let your blood pressure subside. Here are some calming nature sounds to help salve your bruised psyche. Chill.
THE US CONSTITUTION AT LONG LAST ARRIVES FOR THE LEGAL PROFESSION IN MISSISSIPPI
May 17, 2011 § 3 Comments
Every lawyer sworn in on and after July 1, 2011, will have to swear to support not only the Constitution of the State of Mississippi, but also the Constitution of the United States. Which means that only 193 years and 7 months after Mississippi was admitted to statehood, the lawyers thereof will now be getting around to swearing (or affirming) to support the national constitution.
Here is the oath prescribed in MCA § 73-3-35 as it is pre-July 1:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will demean myself, as an attorney and counselor of this court, according to the best of my learning and ability, and with all good fidelity as well to the court as to the client; that I will use no falsehood nor delay any person’s cause for lucre or malice, and that I will support the Constitution of the State of Mississippi so long as I continue a citizen thereof. So help me God.”
The code shows the first appearance of the oath among our statues in the 1848 Hutchinson’s Code. It’s impossible to tell from the currnt code whether the US Constitution ever appeared in the oath, or whether it was deleted. Legislative history is not included in the judges’ Westlaw subscription — at least mine — so I can’t follow that up.
I am not aware of any requirement that the pre-July 1 lawyers will have to take a new vow vis a vis the US Constitution. So does this set up the likelihood of warring factions among attorneys with loyalties divided between competing sources of organic law? Are we to conclude that all pre-July 1 lawyers are exempt from supporting the US Constitution? No, that would be erroneous, my dear friends. MCA § 73-7-37 lists among the seven statutory duties of attorneys the duty “To support the Constitution and laws of this state and of the United States,” thus allaying fears of a bar civil war.
In 1945, the president of the Mississippi State Bar, Bidwell Adam, said with respect to the US Constitution, “It is my firm belief and honest conviction that no progress can be made in the direction of undermining this great Constitution … so long as the lawyers of this state and Republic continue to contribute their time, talents, energy, training and experience as its defenders. Without the lawyers of this state and country, our Constitution would be lost to humanity and decadence would follow.” Even 66 years ago, the need for lawyers to support the US Constitution was apparent, at least to the bar association.
But why was that particular requirement omitted from the oath and yet enshrined in statute?
The judicial oath of office set out in Article 6, § 159 of the Mississippi Constitution does include both the state and the US Constitution:
“I, ____________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties incumbent upon me as ____________ according to the best of my ability and understanding, agreeably as to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the State of Mississippi. So help me God.”
I am sure there is some history behind all of this. If anybody knows why the US Constitution was left out of the attorney’s oath, I wish you would enlighten us.
THE VALUE OF THINKING LIKE A LAWYER
March 30, 2011 § 1 Comment
In law school we were taught not so much the law as how to think like lawyers. That is, we were taught to think analytically, to break complex issues into comprehensible components, and to bring creative solutions to bear using the framework of the law.
Michelle Harner of the University of Maryland School of Law has written a remarkable paper entitled, The Value of “Thinking Like a Lawyer,” which you can download here as a .pdf file. The abstract of the paper summarizes it succinctly:
The legal profession was hit particularly hard by the recent recession. Law firms laid off lawyers in record numbers, and law school graduates found few if any employment opportunities. Clients also started rethinking the terms of the lawyer-client relationship, at least in the larger law firm context. Some commentators suggest that these changes are indicative of things to come; that the legal profession is undergoing a long-overdue paradigm shift that will permanently change the nature of the legal profession. This Essay examines these developments through the lens of Larry Ribstein’s The Death of Big Law and Richard Susskind’s The End of Lawyers?: Rethinking the Nature of Legal Services. It compares and contrasts Ribstein’s and Susskind’s analyses of the profession and assesses potential lessons for lawyers, clients, and legal educators. This Essay concludes by encouraging professionals to remain open to changes that improve efficiency and client service. It also stresses the value of preserving and promoting the hallmark of being a lawyer – that is, thinking like a lawyer.
Professor Harner begins by accepting some of the premises offered by Ribstein and Susskind: that forces are at work changing the legal profession; that the legal profession is becoming commoditized and generic; and that survival as a lawyer, and indeed, survival of the legal profession, will demand evolution in the way lawyers offer and market services.
Where she ends up is with the idea that legal thinking has a marketable value, and that lawyers should evaluate the services they offer in terms of the value that their legal thinking can add, as opposed to simply doing all the traditional tasks that lawyers have assumed and which do not require legal thinking, many of which nowadays are being taken over by non-lawyers.
Her challenge is for lawyers and the legal profession to re-examine our ways of looking at the ethical framework in which we operate to determine whether it really does promote the best interest of clients and the profession.
I encourage you to read professor Harner’s paper, and to begin to think about the future of your profession.
AND THE OSCAR GOES TO …
February 25, 2011 § 8 Comments
Oscar weekend is nigh, which got me thinking about movies depicting lawyers, courts and the law. So I made a list of my own, personal favorites to share with you.
- TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. (1962) Small-town lawyer Atticus Finch accepts the almost impossible task of representing a black man accused of assaulting a white woman in 1930’s Alabama. The nobility, integrity and perserverance with which he carries out his duty as an officer of the court earn the mythical Finch universal admiration and respect. Gregory Peck is branded in our mind as Finch.
- INHERIT THE WIND. (1960) Remarkable rendering of the infamous Scopes “monkey trial” in Dayton, Tennessee, that pitted Clarence Darrow, (Spencer Tracy) aka Drummond in the movie, against William Jennings Bryan (Frederic March) aka Brady. Tracy and March were phenomenal in their portrayal of the two courtroom warriors. The trial was about the right to teach evolution in the public schools, but the movie was a fairly transparent criticism of and parable about McCarthyism.
- JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG. (1961) The courtroom scenes reverberate with drama in this depiction of the post-World War II trials of Nazi officials in Germany. Perhaps the most compelling acting is that of Maximilian Schell as a German defense attorney who raises some troubling questions about individual responsibility in the milieu of a criminal state. Spencer Tracy portrays an all-too-human American presiding judge who is singlemindedly devoted to the rule of law. Burt Lancaster, James Widmark, Marlene Dietrich, Judy Garland and Montgomery Clift all deliver powerful performances.
- THE VERDICT. (1982) Paul Newman is a boozy, broken-down lawyer on the downside of a mediocre career. He takes on a medical malpractice case hoping for a big payday, but learns as the case develops that he has a chance, perhaps the last in the twilight of his career, to accomplish something really good.
- 12 ANGRY MEN. (1957) The dynamics of jury deliberation in a murder case. Henry Fonda is the holdout who will not vote to convict, and as tension builds, with some jurors only wanting to finish their job and go home, the discussion begins to change minds. Lee J. Cobb plays a juror determined to convince the others to convict.
- MY COUSIN VINNY. (1992) Hilarious depiction of a rural Alabama murder trial that is anything but routine, with Fred Gwynne as the trial judge and Joe Pesci as the improbable, inexperienced lawyer who stays on the wrong side of the judge. Marisa Tomei won an Academy Award for best supporting actress for her role as Pesci’s cute girlfriend who unexpectedly holds the key to the case.
- ANATOMY OF A MURDER. (1959) Jimmy Stewart is a trial lawyer defending a veteran charged with murder, and as the trial unfolds, so does his understanding of his client, the man’s wife, the victim and his family. The trial judge was played, somewhat woodenly, by an actual state trial judge. You may have to suspend your disbelief at some of the court room scenes, but the drama is worth it.
- THE CAINE MUTINY. (1954) It’s a case of the victim becoming the villified in the court martial trial for mutiny aboard the USS Caine. The ship’s captain, Humphrey Bogart, becomes the one on trial for all of his flaws and lapses in judgment at sea. José Ferrar is brilliant as defense lawyer Lieutenant Barney Greenwalt, who ably and zealously defends the mutineers, even though he despises them.
- PHILADELPHIA. (1993) Tom Hanks is a young and upcoming lawyer who finds his career at an end when he is diagnosed with AIDS. One of the first Hollywood films openly on the subjects of HIV and homosexuality. Hanks, as Beckett the lawyer, finds his work being sabotaged by his homophobic colleagues, and his legal career itself placed on trial when charges are brought against him.
- A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS. (1966) Sir Thomas More, Chancellor of England in the reign of Henry VIII, has come to epitomize the lawyer who is faced with having to resolve conflicts between his duty to the law and government, and his duty to faith and his conscience. Paul Scofield gives a powerful performance as the man who would not be swayed by political intrigues and conniving men.
- THE PAPER CHASE. (1973) Once you have recovered from the post-traumatic stress following your law school graduation, you may be able to relax and enjoy this now somewhat dated look at what it is like to suffer through being a student at Harvard Law School.
- A FEW GOOD MEN. (1992) Another court martial film. Prosecutors Tom Cruise and Demi Moore have to conquer a conspiracy of silence and misplaced loyalties to win the conviction of two Marines charged with murdering a fellow Marine. Jack Nicholson is diabolical in his depiction of Colonel Nathan Jessep, who defends the soldiers’ actions.
- AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. (1979) A suicidal trial judge packing a .45, a lawyer who admits — no, insists — during trial that his client is guilty, and the unforgettable line, “You’re out of order! You’re out of order! This whole trial is out of order!” Al Pacino is a trial lawyer amidst a justice system careening crazily out of control.
- A TIME TO KILL. (1996) Violence begets violence in a racially charged Mississippi murder trial. Based on the first novel by John Grisham.
- AMISTAD. (1997) Courtroom drama set in 1839 showing the trial over ownership of a slave vessel that had been commandeered by rebellious slaves. Based on a true story, in which both Martin Van Buren and John Quincy Adams participated. Retired Supreme Court Justice Henry Blackmun played the role of Justice Joseph Story.
- THE MAGNIFICENT YANKEE. (1950) Bio-pic showing the life of Oliver Wendell Holmes from his acceptance of a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court at age 61, through the next 25 years.
- INTOLERABLE CRUELTY. (2003) George Clooney and Catherin Zeta-Jones in a zany Coen Brothers movie about a cagy divorce lawyer who sets and springs traps on opposing parties, only to find himself trapped in one of his own devices. Or is he?
- ERIN BROCKOVICH. (2000) This one is for the paralegals. Julia Roberts plays the indomitable Brockovich, who takes on Pacific Gas & Electric on behalf of an indigent woman who is powerless (no pun intended) against the energy giant. The movie crackles with energy and idealism.
- THE PEOPLE VS. LARRY FLYNT. (1996) It’s hard to find anything to like about Larry Flynt (Woody Harrelson), the publisher of Hustler magazine. Yet his battle to defend his First Amendment rights, all the way to the US Supreme Court, in which he was a victim of a crippling assassination attempt, is a fascinating chapter in American law.
- A CIVIL ACTION. (1998) John Travolta is a lawyer who starts out to clean up a local water supply only to find himself engaged in an epic battle against big business that leaves his legal career and personal life in ruins. He ultimately prevails, but was the cost worth it?
- GHOSTS OF MISSISSIPPI. (1996) Hollywood’s version of the Byron de la Beckwith trial for the murder of Medgar Evers is instructive for its glimpse into Mississippi’s ascent from the abyss of violent racism, even though the film relies on stereotypes and cliches to make its points. It’s interesting to view the film 16 years after the event knowing that the protagonist who brought the assassin to justice, Bobby DeLaughter (Alec Baldwin), would later suffer his own downfall.
- ADAM’S RIB. (1949) Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn in a farcical legal tangle. Tracy is a prosecutor, and Hepburn, his wife, is defending a woman that Tracy is prosecuting. The competitive couple use every ploy possible to prevail in the case, and the manic competition naturally infects their personal lives.
- KRAMER VS. KRAMER. (1979) It would not likely turn out the same way under Mississippi law, but in this story Dustin Hoffman gets custody of his son so that his ex-wife, Meryl Streep, can “find herself.” He later loses custody to her in a court fight based on a finding that she has indeed “found herself.” Great Academy Award-winning acting and a heart-tugging story.
- MICHAEL CLAYTON. (2007) George Clooney is Clayton, a lawyer whose sole job is to clean up messes made by his large firm’s clients and the lawyers themselves. When he gets too close to the truth after one of his law partners is found dead of an apparent suicide, Clayton finds himself in the crosshairs.
- YOUNG MR. LINCOLN. (1939) Lincoln the lawyer, played by Henry Fonda. The court room scenes are supposedly authentic re-enactments of the practice and procedure of the period, although the story itself is apocryphal.
There are some others that could make the list. The court room scenes in A FISH CALLED WANDA are some of the best ever, but the movie is not really about the law and courts. LEGALLY BLONDE has some great chuckles about law school, but it’s more about a young woman’s pursuit of her botfriend. And THE WAR OF THE ROSES is an outrageous tragi-comedy about the atrocities committed against each other by a divorcing husband and wife, but the lawsuit is merely the framework for the conflict.
Any other nominees?
GET BELL ON YOUR CALENDAR
February 23, 2011 § 1 Comment
If you’re practicing family law in Mississippi, you need to add professor Deborah Bell’s seminars to your calendar every year. There is one within an easy drive of where you are. This year, for the first time in my feeble memory, the seminars are in the summer. They are usually in May.
You get a book with a synopsis of every family law case decided in the appellate courts in the preceding year, a lecture focusing on the most significant cases, a bonus lecture focusing on a specific area of family law, and an ethics hour.
Save the date. Here’s the email I received:
| The 15th Annual Family Law CLE Professor Deborah Bell, Seminar Leader This year’s Family Law CLE will be presented on the following dates and locations: Jackson · Friday, July 22, 2011 Oxford · Friday, July 29, 2011 Gulf Coast · Friday, August 5, 2011 _______________ Save the dates for this annual 6 hour CLE providing comprehensive overviews of the last year’s family law developments. Includes one hour of ethics credit.
Family Law CLE
P.O. Box 40 Taylor, MS 38673 Make check payable to: phone: 662-513-0159
|
LINCOLN’S NOTES ON THE PRACTICE OF LAW
February 18, 2011 § 4 Comments
Among the many facets of his notable life, often overlooked, is Abraham Lincoln’s career as a lawyer. It’s not hard to imagine the rough-hewn Lincoln in country courthouses questioning witnesses, holding forth to the court, and regaling juries. Even though he achieved respect of his peers and some wealth in his practice in his representation of a railroad, he retained his homespun country lawyer patina.
These notes are some he roughed out for a speech on the practice of law that he never delivered. Despite the fact that they were never refined to the point of oratory, they reflect the philosophy of an everyday lawyer that we can appreciate nearly 150 years later.
I am not an accomplished lawyer. I find quite as much material for a lecture in those points wherein I have failed, as in those wherein I have been moderately successful. The leading rule for the lawyer, as for the man of every other calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-morrow which can be done to-day. Never let your correspondence fall behind. Whatever piece of business you have in hand, before stopping, do all the labor pertaining to it which can then be done. When you bring a common-law suit, if you have the facts for doing so, write the declaration at once. If a law point be involved, examine the books, and note the authority you rely on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure to find it when wanted. The same of defenses and pleas. In business not likely to be litigated, — ordinary collection cases, foreclosures, partitions, and the like, — make all examinations of titles, and note them, and even draft orders and decrees in advance. This course has a triple advantage; it avoids omissions and neglect, saves your labor when once done, performs the labor out of court when you have leisure, rather than in court when you have not.
Extemporaneous speaking should be practised and cultivated. It is the lawyer’s avenue to the public. However able and faithful he may be in other respects, people are slow to bring him business if he cannot make a speech. And yet there is not a more fatal error to young lawyers than relying too much on speech-making. If any one, upon his rare powers of speaking, shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of the law, his case is a failure in advance.
There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief — resolve to be honest at all events; and if in your own judgment you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation, rather than one in the choosing of which you do, in advance, consent to be a knave.
Discourage litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be business enough.
Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than one who does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually overhauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be infused into the profession which should drive such men out of it.
The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of bread and butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a general rule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a small retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortal if you can feel the same interest in the case, as if something was still in prospect for you, as well as for your client. And when you lack interest in the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in the performance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. Then you will feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do your work faithfully and well. Never sell a fee note — at least not before the consideration service is performed. It leads to negligence and dishonesty — negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail.
Thanks to Legal Ethics Blog.
THERE ARE WORSE JOBS THAN BEING A LAWYER
January 14, 2011 § Leave a comment
CareerCast has rated 200 jobs for 2011, ranking them from best to worst. You can read the complete ranking here, and their methodology is here. The jobs are ranked and assigned an overall score using a combination of criteria, including salary, hiring outlook, stress, physical demands and work environment.
I’ve gone through the list and selected some jobs of interest to the legal profession, some directly law-related, and some purely for comparative purposes. The number in parentheses before each job title is the job’s rank. The number following each job title is the job’s stress factor, which I have included so that you can compare your profession’s to others.
The top three most desirable jobs are (1) Software Engineer 10.400, (2) Mathematician 12.780, and (3) Actuary 16.040.
The highest law-related job is (13) Paralegal 12.650. Next comes Court Reporter at (31) 18.560.
And another legal job does not show up until the 50’s, where Judge 21.390 pops up at (53).
(82) Attorney 36.110 is the next and last job of the legal-judicial field.
Some jobs rated above attorney are:
(10) Dental Hygienist 12.070
(18) Parole Officer 12.550
(32) Chiropractor 13.580
(68) Clergy 21.26
Some jobs rated lower than Attorney are:
(83) General Practitioner Physician 25.650
(92) Psychiatrist 24.420
(94) Registered Nurse 30.140
(101) Surgeon 16.32
(114) Senior Corporate Executive 47.4
(121) Commercial Airline Pilot 59.530
(140) Bartender 13.070
The worst three jobs are (198) Lumberjack 40.90, (199) Ironworker 31.270, and (200) Roustabout 26.430.
I did not find Chancery Clerk on the list. Does that mean that that job is ranked lower than 200 (Roustabout)?
It was no surprise to me that the stress level for Attorney is as high as it is, even higher than a general practice physician. But cleaning plaque from people’s gums and rooting around in their mouths is rated higher than any legal job? Sheesh.
COLLATERAL DAMAGE FROM THE FALL OF ZEUS
December 30, 2010 § 2 Comments
Hinds County Circuit Judge Swan Yerger yesterday dismissed with prejudice Eaton Corporation’s lawsuit against Jeffery Frisby, et al., based on a finding that counsel for Eaton knew that Ed Peters was clandestinely attempting to influence the then trial judge, Bobby DeLaughter, and sanctioned Peters’ actions for their client’s benefit.
Judge Yerger found that dismissal of the billion-dollar suit was necessary to protect the integrity of the judicial system. Philip Thomas comments on it here, with links to much more information on the suit. Tom Freeland adds his thoughts here.
The demise of Eaton’s suit is collateral damage from the Scruggs judicial scandal, which shed the light of day on Ed Peters’ activities vis a vis Judge DeLaughter in Scruggs’ legal battle with the Wilson law firm and gave reason to scrutinize his actions in Eaton. If Balducci’s efforts to corrupt Judge Lackey had succeeded or never been reported, what is the likelihood that the improprieties in Eaton would ever have been uncovered? And if Peters had gone undetected, would the defendants have suffered a billion-dollar miscarriage of justice? Thankfully, we will never know for sure.
The Better Chancery Practice Blog 