LOSING: NOT THE NEXT BEST THING TO WINNING
December 28, 2010 § 1 Comment
This from Philip Thomas’s excellent blog Mississippi Litigation Review & Commentary. If these thoughts do not resonate with with your experience as a litigator, you might consider some tamer undertaking …
Losing Sucks
Posted on March 3, 2010 by Philip Thomas
You heard me. Losing a trial sucks. On multiple levels. Sorry if you don’t like my vocabulary.
Even worse, a win does not even out a loss. Tennis great Andre Agassi described it as well as anyone that I’ve heard even though he was talking about tennis and not trials:
Now that I’ve won a slam, I know something that very few people on earth are permitted to know. A win doesn’t feel as good as a loss feels bad, and the good feeling doesn’t last as long as the bad. Not even close.
Shortly after I started my first job as a lawyer I heard veteran trial lawyer Natie Caraway say basically the same thing. It took personal experience winning and losing trials to understand it.
For me a loss on appeal does not feel bad as a loss at a trial. And the loss of a bench trial does not feel as bad as the loss of a jury trial. The loss of a jury trial feels the worst because you hang it all on the line for twelve people who you don’t know and you are shattered when you find out that you could not convince them. And if you believe in your clients case–and most lawyers do–you think that the jury got it wrong. That makes it worse.
I have no answer for the best way to deal with a loss. But I agree with Chicago lawyer John Tucker on this point:
Courtroom lawyers and people who play sports are engaged in an endeavor where there is a winner and loser of every contest, and no matter how good they are, sometimes they lose.In fact, in both endeavors it is often true that the better they are the harder their contests and the more often they will lose. You don’t have to like it-in fact, you had better not-but you won’t last long if you don’t learn to get over it, or at least put it far enough behind you to go on to the next case.
Some lawyers lose a big trial and never recover. They are habitually afraid to re-enter the courtroom for fear of losing again. The best lawyers get over it and seek the adrenalin rush of going back in and putting it all on the line again.
IT’S TIME FOR YOUR YEAR-END PROFESSIONALISM CHECK-UP
December 22, 2010 § 1 Comment
The Christmas lull, that blessedly quiet period in the few days before and after Christmas, is a perfect time to catch up on matters that you kept shoving to the back burner for the past few months.
Like reassessing your professionalism. Where you are in your practice and where you want to go. How you’re doing. Your strong and weak points. What can you do to do a better job?
So set aside a few minutes and ponder your own professionalism. Here are a few points to start from:
- “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.” That’s the oath you took to practice law. Ever stop to think why lawyers take an oath and folks in other lines of work do not?
- I posted the Lawyer’s Creed and Aspirational Ideals here. Re-read them and even keep a copy handy in the middle drawer of your desk. Pull them out and read over them every now and again and assess how you’re measuring up. You can find and print out or download them at the Mississippi Bar website.
- Re-Read the Rules of Professional Conduct from time to time.
- Check out the bar’s resources for professionalism.
- Take stock of where you are professionally. Are you making your clients’ lives better, or are you just doing what it takes to get by? Are you becoming the kind of lawyer you idealized when you decided to become a lawyer? Are you adding something to your profession? And are you treating your practice as a profession, or is it just another job?
- If you have been practicing five years or less, have you found a mentor who is a competent attorney to rely on that attorney’s guidance and advice through thorny areas where you have doubts about how to do what you think needs to be done?
- What are your ideals, and what are you doing to accompish them?
And here’s a thought for young lawyers: Set aside an hour or so and thoughfully write the eulogy for your funeral. Yes, the eulogy you’d like to have delivered at your funeral. Include all the accomplishments and admirable traits you’d hope to have mentioned when your gone. Stick it away in the back of a desk drawer and then set out to achieve those accomplishments and develop those admirable traits. Why should you do this? Because you are writing your own eulogy every day you live anyway, and you might as well be intentional about it. Next year around this time, pull out that scrap of paper and reassess where you are. Re-draft it if you like.
And what about the day-to-day practice of law?
Lawyers are busy these days. Too busy, maybe. Today’s financial demands, compounded by spiraling overhead and household expenses, put tremendous pressure on attorneys to take on more and more work until they feel they can only succeed by adopting an assembly-line, boilerplate approach.
What concerns me about it, though, is that it seems to me that lawyers are less and less familiar with the law and the rules, relying on forms and old information to get by. Sometimes I will call a rule to the attention of a lawyer and will find that the lawyer was not even aware of it. Or I will point out a case and the lawyer is surprised that it exists. There have been times that I am convinced that the lawyer knows nothing more about the procedure he or she is invoking than what is set out in the pleadings (that often are copied from someone else or are dredged up from the bowels of the lawyer’s own computer with little additional thought). I know I’m painting with a broad brush here, but bear with me if you think this doesn’t really apply to you. You may find a few nourishing morsels if you’ll take a few minutes out of your busy schedule to read the rest of this.
Granted, the pressures of time for today’s practitioner are great. Caseloads are far heavier, and the law has become more complex over time so that what used to be a “simple divorce” now requires much more attention. Time has become more compressed for the family law practitioner. The fourteen hour workdays and weekend work so common in my early career have given way to a more sane eight-to-ten hour day and fewer weekends that allow for time with and attention for spouses and children, but the compression of time means more concentrated demands.
Have you noticed how many times on this blog that I mention the importance of reading and keeping up with changes to the code, case law and the rules? I hammer away at it because it is not only essential to your success as an attorney, but also to the benefit of your client. Too often we think of professionalism as ethics, but I challenge you to think of professionalism not only in ethical terms, but also in terms of competence and how you present yourself and represent clients.
Given all of this, I contend that it’s time to consider a few changes to the way you do business that will make you a better lawyer and make your clients more pleased with your performance. And if you are doing one or all of these, more power to you. Here they are:
- Before you file your next probate matter, read the rules and look over the applicable statutes. You will be amazed what you will find. If nothing else, you will be shocked to see what a heavy load of responsibility you are taking on by signing and filing those pleadings.
- For that matter, look back at the code the next time you file some familiar pleadings and look for changes you might have missed or some other little twist in the law you may have always overlooked.
- Carefully read over every pleading before it’s filed. Be honest: you let your secretary do most of your pleadings, don’t you? Do you know that they’re right? Are they up to date? Remember that everything you produce is a portrait of yourself.
- Read the appellate court decisions each and every week without fail. Court of Appeals hand downs are on Tuesdays after lunch, and Supreme Court’s are on Thursdays after lunch. As you run across case law that will help you in pending cases, print out the decisions and put them in those files for use in court.
- Read the rules. Lawyers who know and follow the rules generally impress judges as better lawyers because, quite frankly, they are better lawyers, and better lawyers can get better results.
- Read the statutes. Before you file that habeas, read the law. If you’re wondering how to sell a parcel of real property in an estate, look for a statute in the code. The answer to how to record and enforce a judgment is in the code.
- Use your brain. It seems to me that too many young lawyers want to get by with a fill-in-the-blank practice. No innovative approach, no novel arguments based on sound research, no extra effort. It’s so refreshing as a judge to see lawyer come into court with a soundly-prepared approach to a legal problem that is well supported by authority.
- Advise your client. If you simply do what the client says to do, you are not a lawyer, you are merely your client’s alter ego with a license; you are a tool. Guide your client in the right way to go. Influence what your client wishes to do with your judgment and knowledge. If your client demands you to do something unethical or questionable, try to persuade him or her to take another course, and if they refuse, file a motion to withdraw. Tell your client up front what the chances of success are. Never take on the cause of a client who is seeking vendetta as opposed to legal redress; the former is malicious, and the latter is justice.
These are merely a starting point. As a lawyer you have a duty not only to your client, but also to advance the profession. It only takes a little time and devotion each day. And if you are not devoted to your profession, perhaps you need to find something else to do.
Professionalism requires not only that you zealously represent your client, but also that you do it competently.
Take advantage of this quiet time and take a look at yourself and your career. It will be a rewarding investment of your time.
TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR REDUCING STRESS
December 20, 2010 § 1 Comment
This from a judges’ meeting a couple of years ago.
I Thou shall not be perfect or even attempt to be.
II Thou shall not try to be all things to all people.
III Thou shall not leave undone things that ought to be done.
IV Thou shall not spread thyself too thin.
V Thou shall learn to say “no” without guilt.
VI Thou shall schedule time for thyself.
VII Thou shall have something to look forward to every day.
VIII Thou shall sometime be slack, idle and inelegant.
IX Thou shall keep thyself happily fit.
X Thou shall embrace the present and let go of the past.
CHILDREN AS WITNESSES
December 16, 2010 § Leave a comment
Lawyers who practice in my court are familiar with my prejudice against calling the children of the parties as witnesses in domestic cases. As the Supreme Court has said, ” … parents in a divorce proceeding should if at all possible refrain from calling any of the children of their marriage, of tender years at least, as witnesses, and counsel should advise their clients against doing so, except in the most exigent cases.” Jethrow v. Jethrow, 571 So.2d 270, 274 (Miss. 1990).
As for the definition of tender years, “[A] child is no longer of tender years when that child can be equally cared for by persons other than the mother.” Mercier v. Mercier, 717 So.2d 304, 307 (Miss.1998). A child over four years of age may no longer be considered of tender years. Copeland v. Copeland, 904 So.2d 1066, 1075 (Miss.2004). There is a rebuttable presumption that a child under the age of twelve is of tender years. Veasley v. State, 735 So.2d 432, 436-37 (Miss. 1999).
Jethrow does make it clear, however, that there is no per se rule against calling children of the parties as witnesses, and the case prescribes a procedure for the court to examine the child to make a determination whether the child is competent as a witness under Mississippi law and whether testifying is in the child’s best interest.
It is always within the trial judge’s discretion whether to allow the testimony of a child, and the line that I usually draw is to allow the child to testify only where omission of such testimony would be harmful to the child’s best interests. Even then, the court must find after a Jethrow examination that it is in the child’s best interest to testify. It is a weighing test, with the possible harm that may result to the child’s best interest from not testifying on one side of the scale and the possible harm from testifying on the other. Every case is different, and slightly different facts may yield radically different results.
As an attorney, you should counsel your client on the ramifications of calling a child as a witness. It pits the child against one of the parties, puts the child under incredible pressure, and subjects the child to cross examination that may confuse and intimidate the child.
Never, ever, tell your client that the child will definitely be allowed to “talk to the judge” or testify in chambers or out of the presence of the parents. Not only is that misleading and setting the child and the clients up for disappointment, it is not the law. The only way that the law allows the court to take substantive testimony (other than the Jethrow examination) outside the presence of the parties is with their express agreement on the record. MCA § 93-5-17 mandates that divorce proceedings be had in open court. MCA § 93-5-21 allows the court to exclude persons from the court room during a divorce trial ” … except the officers of the court, attorneys engaged in the case, parties to the suit and the witness being examined.” The rule should apply in modifications and contempts, since they are no more than an extension of the divorce trial. Moreover, the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that a party not be excluded involuntarily from his or her own trial.
If you need the child’s testimony to prove a crucial element of your case, ask to make an offer of proof on the point before the court undertakes its Jethrow examination so that the judge will know what it is you are trying to prove and how much weight it carries. If there are other witnesses who can establish the same facts, opt instead to call them.
A FEW POINTERS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CHANCERY TRIALS
December 14, 2010 § 8 Comments
A few thoughts that might help:
Facts, not impressions. Okay, you’re the judge and you have to decide whether the defendant assaulted the plaintiff. Here are two different versions in response to the question “Please tell the court what you observed when you entered the room.”
Version One: “The defendant was going crazy. I mean he went mental. Kaflooey! And I couldn’t believe it. Never saw anything like it. Mmm, Mmm, Mmm; I mean to tell you. Crazy. And, Lordy, such language. I didn’t know which way to turn. Didn’t really scare me, though — I was in Viet Nam. But it might have scared the others.”
Version Two: “The defendant picked up a recliner chair and threw it through the window. Then he grabbed a beer bottle and rared back like he was going to hit the plaintiff in the head, but instead he slapped her in the face and screamed that he liked to kill her. She was all balled up on the floor crying and begging, yelling out “please don’t break my arm like you done the last time!” and then he turned and glared at me and I thought he was going to kill me.”
Version one doesn’t convey a single thought about what the defendant actually did to assault anyone. It is ineffective because it is full of impressions and adjectives. Where are the specifics?
Version two, on the other hand paints a vivid picture chock full of verbs that unmistakably conveys the violence and anger. All the details are there.
When you’re prepping your witnesses for trial (Uh — you do prep your witnesses, I hope), train them to paint a word picture of what happened instead of just babbling a bunch of labels.
Eliminate pronouns from your questions. Keep in mind that you are doing two important things while you are questioning the witness: You are telling the judge your client’s story as persuasively as you can; and you are making a record for the appellate court to use if necessary. So how does the following help your client?
Q. So when they entered the room, what did he say?
A. They was all talking loud, but he said he was going to kill her for messin’ around with him.
Q. Who else was in the room?
A. Just all them and me.
Q. What if anything did you see him do?
A. Well, he left the room and then he came with guns and then they both had guns.
Q. What did he do?
A. He started to shooting. That’s when he shot her by mistake, I guess.
Huh? Who’s on first? What’s on second? I dunno’s on third? How in the world can anybody follow that? Let’s go back and eliminate the pronouns:
Q. So when Robert, Travis and Bo entered the room, what did Bo say?
A. Robert, Travis and Bo was all talking loud, but Bo said he was going to kill Charlene for messin’ around with Billy Joe.
Q. Who else was in the room?
A. Just Rita and Charlene and me.
Q. What if anything did you see Bo do?
A. Well, Travis left the room and then Caleb came with guns and then Travis and Bo both had guns.
Q. What did Bo do?
A. Bo started to shooting. That’s when Bo shot Rita by mistake, I guess.
Clearer? It is to me.
Focus on the points you need to prove. If, for example, you are trying to modify child support, it makes no sense to take your client early in her testimony through a long, meandering history of the marriage and divorce, and then how the children are doing in school, and then get several pictures into evidence that one of the children finger-painted in kindergarten, and then a narration of the soccer tournament in Brandon, and then ad nauseam. Get into the Adams factors for child support modification, sit down and hush. Just hush. Sometimes I have the impression that an attorney has no clue about what he or she is supposed to prove because the witnesses and exhibits are all talking about something entirely different from what is at issue.
It’s your job to establish jurisdiction. Yes, it’s your job. Nevertheless, I have had to do it on more than one occasion for the attorney. Here’s the deal:
If you are trying a divorce, you have to ask your witness about residence in the state of Mississippi for the requisite time, and you have to establish venue, and of course a marriage;
if you are trying a modification, you have to establish that the court has continuing jurisdiction by virtue of a prior judgment; and
ditto for a contempt action;
if you are trying a property dispute, where on this green earth is the property located?
The pleadings are not evidence in chancery court. Don’t think just because it’s in the pleadings that it is proven. The pleadings are your template for what must be proven through competent evidence at trial. If you want the trial judge and possibly the appellate court to consider it, you must put it into the record at trial.
No corroboration = no divorce. Unless the parties lived in near-total isolation and were incommunicado, which is almost unheard of in this internet-connected, smart-phone world, corroboration is a prerequisite to a divorce. What constitutes adequate corroboration is beyond the scope of this post, but you can find what you need to know in Professor Bell’s or Professor Hand’s treatise. In uncontested cases, I will sometimes “recess” the hearing to allow a lawyer time to recoup some of his or her dignity by scrounging up some corroboration, but in a contested case, I can not do that without prejudicing the opponent, and the result is an unfortunate denial of the divorce.
Spend some time on your 8.05. A post with ten tips for more effective financial statements is here. I have seen cases turn on the 8.05’s, and the one that is clear and better-presented prevails every time.
Oh, and here’s something to keep in mind: If you’re in a modification of child support case, the most crucial thing to prove is that there has been a CHANGE in circumstances. Use your brain here. If you are trying to prove a change, and it involves money, what is the best tool to use to show that change? Yes! It’s the 8.05! Of course! Add a column to your current 8.05 showing the expenses and income from back in 2003 when the divorce was granted. You can ask your client to dig around and find the 8.05 from back then to base your figures on, or ask her to reconstruct those figures for you. If she does have the 2003 8.05, you could offer that into evidence to prove the expenses and income back then.
Finally, do yourself, the witnesses, opposing counsel and above all the court a favor and simply number the pages and items of your financial statement. Imagine how mind-numbing this unfortunately typical exchange is for the judge (and everyone else within earshot):
Q: So you spend $200 a month on clothes?
A: Yes. No. I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about.
Q: It’s on page 3.
A: (Flipping pages of the 8.05) No. I think that’s the equity in my house. Or maybe that’s my life insurance. Or pet expense. I’m not sure.
Q: No, look at the third page, the third page. 1-2-3.
A. Do you mean the GMAC here? That must be my church donation — Greater Meridian Adventist Church? Hmm, I don’t even go to that church.
Q: You’re looking at your car payment. Turn to the page that looks like this (Showing the witness the document).
A: I don’t see where it says that I spend money on clothes.
Q: Well, you have the figure $200 down there where it says “clothing.” What is it for?
A: Oh, clothing. I see it on line 11, but that’s the fourth page.
Q: No, it isn’t, it’s the third.
A: You’re right, it’s the third. Now what was the question?
Wouldn’t it have been more effective to direct the witness to the numbered page and to a particular line number? It certainly would save wear and tear on the judge, if nothing else. And the less wear and tear you inflict on the judge, the better your case turns out. Every time.
SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL
December 12, 2010 § 8 Comments
Curtis Wilkie’s THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF ZEUS is the story of the rise and fall of powerful trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs. It is entertainingly well written, as one would expect of an author with Wilkie’s gift for the word, and microscopically researched. Wilkie’s book complements KINGS OF TORT, Alan Lange’s and Tom Dawson’s treatment of Scruggs’ downfall from the prosecution point of view. Those of you who savor Wilkie’s keen writing and incisive journalism will not be disappointed by this book. The subject matter is a must-know for all Mississippi lawyers and jurists, and citizens as well. I recommend that you buy and read this book.
Although I commend Wilkies’s book to you, I do find it troubling that it is unabashedly sympathetic to Scruggs. Wilkie finally acknowledges their friendship at page 371, the third-to-last page of the book.
As a member of the legal profession for nearly four decades and a member of the judicial branch, I can find no sympathy whatsoever for Scruggs at this stage of his life. His flirtations with unethical conduct and illegality are legion. Even his acolyte (Stewart Parrish’s excellent descriptive), Tim Balducci, said in a candid moment that his approach to corruptly influence judge Lackey was not his “first rodeo” with Scruggs, and that he knew “where all the bodies are buried.” Big talk? Perhaps. But to me it eloquently bespeaks Scruggs’ history: His involvement at the shadowy edges of Paul Minor’s illegal dealings with Judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield; his use of stolen documents in the tobacco litigation; his use of questionably acquired documents in the State Farm litigation; and the hiring of Ed Peters to influence Judge Bobby Delaughter. Are there more?
Wilkie suggests that Scruggs’ increasing dependence on pain-killer medication led him to fall carelessly into a trap laid for him and Balducci by a scheming Judge Lackey, who had it in for Scruggs because of Scruggs’ political attacks on Lackey’s friend George Dale. He posits that Lackey created the crime, and that Scruggs had set out initially “only” to improperly influence Lackey.
The pain killers may be a contributing reason, but even a first-year law student knows that is not an excuse.
What about the idea of a trap? I leave it to lawyers far better versed in criminal law and procedure to address that. To me, the issue is finally resolved in this sentence on page 337: “But Scruggs had acknowledged, ‘I joined the conspiracy later in the game.'” Case closed as far as I am concerned. Moreover, Scruggs was not an unsophisticated convenience store owner charged with food stamp fraud. He was a sophisticated, powerful lawyer skilled in manipulating the levers of legal machinery. He was not a gullible rube who did not grasp the significance of his actions or their consequences. He was a lawyer and as such was held to the highest standard of propriety vis a vis the judiciary, a standard he trod into the mud.
As for Judge Lackey, the author skillfully excerpts quotes from the judge’s testimony to support his charge that Lackey had an animus against Wilkie’s friend, in particular the judge’s use of the term “scum” to describe Scruggs. From my perspective, I can understand how someone in Lackey’s position would view the arrogant and powerful lawyer as scum when he saw how Scruggs had seduced the star-struck young Balducci, whom Lackey liked, into impropriety and, indeed, illegality. Some of Dickie’s and Curtis’ influential and powerful friends in Oxford may buy Wilkie’s and Scruggs’ attempt to tar Judge Lackey, but I do not. Judge Lackey chose to stay on the side of right and Scruggs chose the other side. The point goes to the judge.
Scruggs’ plaint that he only intended to commit an unethical act, not a crime — in other words that the consequences were unintended — is a familiar theme in history. Henry II of England griped to his knights that he was irked by that troublesome bishop, Thomas Becket. The knights, knowing from experience how far they could go before incurring the wrath of their king, promptly rode to Canterbury and rid their sovereign of that meddlesome priest, killing him at the altar. Likewise, Scruggs’ knights, Balducci, Patterson, Langston, Backstrom and the others, knew the ballpark Scruggs was accustomed to playing in, and they set out with his money and influence to promote his (and their) interests in the accustomed manner of doing business.
Henry II did penance for the rest of his life for what he saw as the unintended consequences of his actions. Will Scruggs try to redeem himself for the damage he did to the legal profession and the legal system? Time will tell. When he is released from prison, he could find ways to devote some of his hundreds of millions of dollars to improving the courts and the legal profession and restoring integrity to the profession that made him rich. In the final decades of his lfe, he could become known as a philanthropist who advanced the law and the legal profession, with his past a footnote. I hope that is what he does.
Read this book and judge it yourself. You may see it differently than I. The story, though, and its lessons, are important for Mississippians to know and understand.
DEALING WITH CRAZY CLIENTS
December 7, 2010 § 6 Comments
The issues that bring people to Chancery Court are some of the very issues that stretch ordinary people to the breaking point. And it’s the lawyer who most often becomes the shock absorber, taking calls from worried clients in the wee hours, receiving hundreds of repetitive or accustory e-mails, being accused of all manner of things, having your judgment questioned at every turn, and even being threatened. Like we have said, some clients can make you ashamed to be a human being.
Some clients can be downright dangerous.
Mark Bennett is a Texas criminal defense lawyer who has a blog named Defending People: The Tao of Criminal Defense Trial Lawyering. He came up with a practical guide to dealing with crazy clients that he titled 10 Practical Rules for Dealing with the Borderline Personality. Here are his guidelines:
10 Practical Rules for Dealing with the Borderline Personality
- If you don’t have to deal with a crazy person, don’t.
- You can’t outsmart crazy. You also can’t fix crazy. (You could outcrazy it, but that makes you crazy too.)
- When you get in a contest of wills with a crazy person, you’ve already lost.
- The crazy person doesn’t have as much to lose as you.
- Your desired outcome is to get away from the crazy person.
- You have no idea what the crazy person’s desired outcome is.
- The crazy person sees anything you have done as justification for what she’s about to do.
- Anything nice you do for the crazy person, she will use as ammunition later.
- The crazy person sees any outcome as vindication.
- When you start caring what the crazy person thinks, you’re joining her in her craziness.
TRIBUTE TO JUDGE LACKEY
November 21, 2010 § Leave a comment
It was Judge Henry Lackey of Calhoun City whose refusal to be corrupted and courageous cooperation with law enforcement brought to justice some of the most powerful trial lawyers in this country.
This tribute from the Calhoun County Journal:
Judge Lackey is truly one-of-a-kind
“There are two things you need to be a judge,” Judge Henry Lackey said. “A lot of gray hair to look distinguished and hemorrhoids to look concerned.”
Judge Lackey was speaking to a large gathering at the Oxford Convention Center that turned out to honor him upon his upcoming retirement after 17 years as circuit court judge and even longer as public servant.
Judge Lackey is less than two months away from entering retirement, but one look at this week’s Journal and you would see he’s busier than ever.
He was “roasted and toasted” at the Oxford Convention Center last week shortly after being honored by the Mississippi Supreme Court for his years of service on the bench.
Another reception is planned for Dec. 10 at First Baptist Church in Calhoun City.
This Thursday, Judge Lackey will once again be auctioning off Christmas items at the City Sidewalks Celebration at the Methodist Corner on the Calhoun City Square. Saturday night he is the featured entertainment at the Vardaman Sweet Potato Festival Banquet.
In between all of this he is still managing his day job as Circuit Court Judge for District Three. He’s spent all of this week holding court in Holly Springs.
The honors for 75-year-old Judge Lackey continue to pour in due in part to his role in one of the biggest legal crackdowns in recent history – the downfall of famed trial lawyer Dickie Scruggs and several of his colleagues.
“I’ve received praise and accolades that I don’t deserve,” Judge Lackey told me a few months back. “It’s like praising the sheriff for not stealing. It’s your job.”
Judge Lackey’s “integrity and intrepidness” in the case are well documented in Curtis Wilkie’s new book “The Fall of the House of Zeus” – a must-read according to my wife Lisa.
But as all the attention still pours in, and rightfully so, Judge Lackey still thinks of himself as the simple, “country lawyer” who still lives “within 300 yards of where he discovered America,” and that’s why he is so treasured here in Calhoun County.
A visit with him and you hear no mention of Dickie Scruggs. He talks of his “wonderful upbringing” in Calhoun City, working at his family’s business – the Ben Franklin 5 and 10 Cent store on the Calhoun City Square – and the endless list of fascinating people he grew up with such as Clarence “Dummy” Martin, Ray “Funnyman” Tolley, John Pittman, Mr. Mac, Monk and Big Dog.
I’ll never forget sitting in his office and him telling me of his experience when Robert Wardlaw, the world’s tallest man at 8’9″, visited Calhoun City.
One of the best story tellers I’ve every known, Judge Lackey is always worth the price of admission at any event he’s attending. I certainly wouldn’t let an opportunity to enjoy his tales or company pass me by.
The homespun Judge Lackey deserves our accolades. As it is with Judge Lackey, I hope it will be said of all of us at the end of our careers that we adhered to the highest ethical principles and upheld the honor and dignity of the law.
Thanks to Tom Freeland for the link to this tribute.
IF BUSINESS IS SLACK, YOU MIGHT TRY CHANNELING
November 19, 2010 § Leave a comment
Channeling is communication with spirits. Some people claim to be able to communicate with the dead or others in the spirit realm, and share the communications with those here on the terrestrial plane.
That’s what an Arizona lawyer did. She convinced at least one client that she could “channel” messages from his dead spouse in the deceased spouse’s estate. She told the client that she was receiving communications from the deceased directing them to take this action and that, and she was so convincing that she continued to represent the client for three years.
Things got a little more complicated after she persuaded her client that his deceased spouse wanted the attorney and client to have sex, and they did. The client filed a bar complaint charging that the lawyer was exercising undue influence.
You can read what the Arizona courts did discipline-wise here.
Now, I am not suggesting you carry channeling beyond the bounds of propriety, assuming that channeling is itself, after all, within the bounds of proriety.
I am merely mentioning another possible career enhancement, not too far removed from the common practice of Mississippi lawyers to try to predict what the chancellor will do by hitting the ouija board with their clients. Uh, most of you still do that, right?
If you are going to get into the channeling business, please try to make it obvious to the court that your behavior is channeling and not imbibing.
And another thing you need to keep in mind: there are risks involved in channeling. There is always the danger of out-of-control séances:


