My Law License

The Disgrace Of Supporting Harvard Against Sullivan

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Mon, 13 May 2019 16:03:00 +0000

I haven't been around here for two years. I miss it, but haven't been able to devote the time to one of my passions - writing for myself.

But today I read something that moved me to come back and say something.

Harvard removing Professor Ronald Sullivan as a Dean, because he is one of the lawyers for Harvey Weinstein, is about the most disgraceful thing I've seen an institution of higher education do.

It sends a message that one of the most respected universities in the world has a limit to respecting the rights we all share in the United States.

And let's dispense with some of the nonsense.

Yes, Harvard has a right to ask Dean Sullivan to step down. This isn't a debate about that type of right. It's a debate about what an institution of higher learning - that institution of higher learning - is teaching.

Harvey Weinstein may be lower than sewage sludge. He may be, in your eyes, the worst human to walk the earth. But when a law professor, a highly respected law professor, takes on a controversial client, yes, as Joe Patrice suggested in his article today that made me want to vomit, the "law firm" has the right to say "this is not what our clients want to see, so you're out."

Harvard is not a law firm, it's a place of teaching, and learning. It has an obligation to teach, and have people learn, that representation of the accused is an essential function of our democracy.

I would hate to see what Harvard would do if one of their professors represented an accused murderer.*

*For those that don't remember, world-renowned law professor Alan Dershowitz represented accused murderer O.J. Simpson in 1993-94, and yes, I know he wasn't a "Dean," but the world knew he was at Harvard, representing an accused double-murderer.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Ethics Law and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering.

Raquel Ruano, Massachusetts Best (Worst Marketing) Attorney

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:21:00 +0000

This crap is still going on. Lawyers hiring marketers, not paying attention to the unethical and cheesy ways they try to game Google for their lawyer-clients, and I'm done reaching out to these idiot lawyers to ask them to ask their marketers to stop. "Oh gee Brian, I didn't know they do that."

No, you didn't care, "Get me on the first page of Google" is where your ethics end.

So, as often occurs, comments pop up on old blog posts of mine, and they look like this:

Amanda Ruano commented on your blog post

Superb post, You made me remember that day when I was caught in police misconduct and cops arrested me but thanks to my friend she referred me ruanolaw.com and attorney was so experienced that she

I didn't cut off the comment, that's how it appears.

Amanda, who I guess is a relative of Ruano, isn't really Amanda, she's the fake name for a cheeseball marketer . Why, because gaming Google.

So, as usual, I went to check out the latest silly lawyer with their silly marketing skillz, and went to Ruanolaw.com.

Low and behold, I hit the jackpot. Amanda's shitty marketing doesn't end with her Google gaming paid marketer.

Let's begin with this:

Amanda Ruano? Really? This attorney's relative is her best testimonial? Does this lawyer want people to know she's representing her family members in legal trouble?

And!

She is Massachusetts BEST ATTORNEY.

Has she been practicing 30, 40, 50 years?

Attorney Raquel D. Ruano primarily focuses her practice on criminal defense and related civil litigation in state and federal courts. She is an experienced litigator with extensive courtroom experience.

After graduating of the College of the Holy Cross (BA, Cum Laude 2000) and Boston College Law Law School (JD, 2003), she became a Massachusetts Trial Court judicial law clerk for one year following graduation.

So Raquel has earned this distinction by building a practice and taking on some of Massachusetts most important cases?

Bite your tongue.

Raquel then became "Assistant Corporation Counsel for the City of Boston in the Litigation Department. There she handled various civil cases ranging from personal injury to civil rights violations (ex: cases involving excessive force by police). After 2012, she continued her civil practice as the First Assistant City Attorney for the City of Lawrence. In addition, at the City of Lawrence, she briefed appeals in the Massachusetts Court of Appeals and United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit."

So Raquel has been Massachusetts BEST ATTORNEY after being in private practice for.... maybe 5 years?

Question: Why does Massachusetts BEST ATTORNEY need to hire a marketer to leave spam comments on my little blog out of Miami?

Maybe since my blog is so attractive to Raquel's practice, Google will pick up on this post to help market her as the BEST ATTORNEY IN MASSACHUSETTS.

Located in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, Brian Tannebaum defends lawyers before the Bar when he's not defending those charged with criminal offenses in state and federal court. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering.

United Airlines Conduct Was "Totally Legal"

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Tue, 11 Apr 2017 12:38:00 +0000

When you saw the video of that guy being dragged off the United Airlines flight, I trust your first thought was "man, that's terrible."

My first thought was "man, someone is going to defend that."

And so it developed, like every other video on the Internet: 1. initial shock, 2. eventual apologists for the people engaging in the "shocking" conduct.

"He should have just gotten up and left the plane."

"The others got up."

"This is what happens when we don't do everything the cops say."

"What was United supposed to do?"

And my personal favorite:

"You know, what United did was totally legal."

Let's focus on that last one.

I'm a lawyer, and as a lawyer, I will say this:

What United did was totally legal.

They did nothing illegal. They will not be charged with a crime. They violated no laws. They called the police because someone (who was first allowed on the plane (watch for that argument in the civil suit)) did not comply with the totally legal random process of asking for volunteers.

It was totally legal. IT WAS LEGAL, PEOPLE. LEGAL!!!

Let me tell you what else is legal:

1. Refusing to apologize when you unintentionally bump in to someone.

2. A restaurant refusing to comp your meal or give you a free dessert when they screw up your order.

3. Forgetting your anniversary.

4. A hotel starting housekeeping service 5 a.m.

5. Failing to extend condolences.

6. A prosecutor seeking the maximum penalty on every case.

7. Being home on Halloween in a neighborhood full of kids and refusing to open the door and give out candy.

8. Telling people to drop dead on Christmas.

9. Taking your kids to Disney World and telling them they cannot ride anything or see Mickey Mouse.

All the above is "totally legal."

Located in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida, Brian Tannebaum defends lawyers before the Bar when he's not defending those charged with criminal offenses in state and federal court. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering.

The Day The President Said My Client Wouldn't Die In Prison

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Wed, 18 Jan 2017 03:27:00 +0000

In my estimation, there are five things that are icing on the cake for any lawyer who practices criminal defense. 1. An acquittal in a death penalty case; 2. A reversal of a death sentence on appeal; 3. An invitation to argue before the United States Supreme Court; 4. A declaration of the client's innocence after conviction; and 5. A Pardon or Clemency from either a Governor or President of the United States.

All five are rare occurrences, and a lawyer can go through their entire career, never doing any of the five, and have the reputation as one of the best.

President Obama wanted to review the sentences of federal prisoners who were given lengthy sentences for non-violent offenses, mainly drug offenses. (No, I'm not interested in a debate over whether drug possession or sale is a violent offense.) As a result, Clemency Project 2014 was created.

This was an "all hands on deck" operation. In the end, 16,000 petitions for Clemency were reviewed by the Pardon Attorney, and as of today, a little over 1300 have been granted. Clemency is not always a Pardon, in fact in most cases it is a commutation, meaning a reduction in sentence. The conviction remains, it's just that someone sentenced to life, may instead serve 15 or 20 years. Under President Obama's grants, some had to enter drug rehabilitation.

Although it's a fear-mongering argument made by the ignorant, clemency is not about letting violent criminals back on the street. President Obama's Clemency Project 2014 had strict parameters including: the offense for which the defendant is in prison can not be a violent offense, there can be no prior significant violent offenses, the defendant must have served at least 10 years, and must have good behavior in prison.

I'm not going to name my client here, but he is on the list of 209 commutations granted today, January 17, 2017. I just want to tell the story of my participation in the Clemency Project.

In August of 2015 I was asked if I would take on "one of these" Clemency Project 2014 cases. I was told it was a matter of obtaining the client's Pre-sentence Investigation Report, filling out a form, preparing an "Executive Summary" and gathering whatever information I could about the client's family and conduct in prison. I would have to watch some videos and certify that I had been "trained." Seemed fairly organized and cookie cutter.

I had to get the client to agree to allow me to represent him, which took no effort. I didn't imagine someone serving life in prison, sentenced to die in a cage, would have any issue if a lawyer, for free, was going to try and get him out.

That was the last easy part of the representation.

The Government is not big on handing out Pre-sentence Investigation Reports, and so that took some "higher-up" conversations. Once I got it, I realized there were issues that required documents from old files. There were questions to be asked of the client (made easy due to email access to federal prisoners).

While I worked on the Petition, in came pictures of the client's family, and letters attesting to his good conduct in prison. After realizing there was a mistake in his prior convictions that had been corrected by a gracious state court judge, I had to make sure this was explained in the Executive Summary, basically a closing argument of why the client deserved Clemency.

What made this case more difficult, was understanding the odds. My client qualified for Clemency. He had served 10 years of a life sentence, was a model prisoner, had no violent past - on paper, he was perfect. But the odds. The President was getting thousands of these, why would he grant my client a second chance at life, outside prison?

As required, I submitted my Petition, and everything else to the Clemency Project.

Due to a technical issue, after completing my work, I could not get the Clemency Project to accept my Petition. The process was that the Project would review the Petition and supporting materials and forward it to the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

Fearful I would not get the stamp of approval of the Clemency Project, I contacted the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), another partner in the Project.

I was blessed to be able to reach the Executive Director, Norman Reimer. My hope was that Norman would put me in touch with someone at the Clemency Project to review my submission and propose edits. Instead, Norman said "I'm going to work on this with you." Norman made corrections, suggested edits and more work, and after a few days of work with Norman, my Petition was submitted to the Clemency Project.

It then went to the Pardon Attorney.

A couple times while the Petition was pending, my client emailed me and asked if I "heard anything." Of course there were only two things to hear, and I had heard neither. The Office of the Pardon Attorney has a website where they list every Clemency grant, and denial. Every time President Obama granted a bunch of Petitions, my heart sank. That meant there would be denials.

I kept checking, I kept searching lists by last name - occasionally finding the last name of my client on the denial lists, but..whew... a different first name.

I was told a few days ago that there were some recent denials, on January 13. I checked the list. He had to be on that list.

Nothing.

I knew I was going to get an answer this week, and before Friday when we inaugurate our next President. I was only told one thing - that the Office of the Pardon Attorney calls with the news.

Today I was out of town, having lunch with a long-time public defender friend, telling him that I hoped President Obama would decide today on his last grantings of Clemency, as I was nervous about the decision coming too close to the inauguration. That was at 1:30 p.m.

At 2:50 I received an email from my office. Attorney Sarah Black from The Office of the Pardon Attorney called and my client was granted a commutation. I was to call her back ASAP.

I called her back....and got voicemail.

A few minutes later she called me back, not knowing that I got the news, and so she told me as if I didn't know. She was happy. I was in complete shock. She asked me if I could inform my client. I said "of course, you want me to email him?" And in a first-class move, she said "well actually, we've arranged for you to be able to call your client at 3:30 today and tell him. We have a number that he will be waiting at for your call. Is that a good time for you?"

Considering I had never had a client given an Order of Commutation from the President of the United States, I told her that "yes, I can call him at 3:30 p.m." She said something to the effect of "I know this is a great day for you and your client, thank you for your work, and please call me if you need anything else."

I'm not used to having these types of conversations with lawyers from the federal government.

What was I going to say to my client? I had just called my wife and could barely get through the conversation with her, now I was going to tell him he wasn't going to die in prison because of Barack Obama? This was way too much for me.

So like Luca Brazi, I practiced. "I'm calling to tell you that President Obama...." "I have been advised...." No. "I have good news for you." No.

The clock said 3:29. Was it 3:30 at the prison and they were taking him back to his cell because "your lawyer didn't call on time?"

Then it was 3:30. I dialed, got the recording. The call disconnected. Oh no.

Two more times, recording, disconnected.

Third time, recording, dialed extension... "This is Delores."

"Hi Delores, this is Brian Tannebaum, I am..." "Oh yes, how are you Mr. Tannebaum?" Not a typical greeting from someone at a federal prison.

With a little chuckle I said "I'm doing great." "I bet you are," she said, "let me get your client, he's right here."

"Hi, It's Brian Tannebaum."

"Hi Brian, how are you doing today, how is everything?"

Such an odd, typical question. More odd than typical because I was about to tell him that he wasn't going to die in prison.

"I'm fine, I have some news for you."

"President Obama has ordered your sentence commuted."

He dropped the phone.

Delores came back on and I could hear her saying "get up, get over here, you have to talk to him."

He came back on and expressed the type of emotion you can only imagine from someone who was just told that the President of the United States has given him a second chance.

Can you imagine? Me neither.

Tonight I imagine he has told his family that he will be coming home sooner than at his death.

I have received many congratulatory messages this afternoon, and I appreciate all of them. But I have to tell you that nothing is more meaningful to me than the fact that my client was the benefit of the grace of the leader of the free world.

Yes, I filled out some paperwork, put a package together, became the messenger. But my client will be free because the Federal Defender of the Southern District of Florida, Michael Caruso, thought to ask me to take this case, because Norman Reimer at NACDL helped me, because the Office of the Pardon Attorney recommended my client be freed, and because President Obama nodded his head "yes."

If I never again have an experience like this in my career, (and statistically I won't), I can feel a great sense that someone is freed from the chains and cages of a federal prison, when he spent the last 11 years there thinking he would die there, because some stellar members of the Bar thought to assist me in asking the President to set him free.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Ethics and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice.

A Heartfelt Message About Moving On From This Election

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Fri, 11 Nov 2016 20:58:00 +0000

My girl lost and your guy won.

I accept that Donald J. Trump will be the next President of the United States. I don't like it, as I don't think he was the lesser of two evils, I think he was the evil of two lessers.

Hillary wasn't the best candidate, but she was the inevitable candidate for the Democrats, and her election at least wouldn't have school children wondering out loud in class if they were going to be deported, or homosexuals wondering if they were going to have to go back in the closet, or the unwashed public facing certain disappointment when they realize Trump won't get them a job.

And this call to come together? That's not happening. Too many feelings on our side that you hate Jews, and blacks, and gays, and immigrants. No, I know, it's not all of you, and many of you are just working class people fed up with the elites. I get it, but many of us don't care. Many of us think this election was about hate, and hate won. Argue that's not true, but don't expect any concessions.

There is but one point I really have to make right now and that is in response to this call for us to "move on," to "stop crying," and to "stop whining."

I don't begrudge your gloating, your happiness, your joy that your guy won. You deserve to enjoy the results of this election, to celebrate victory, to dance, cheer, whatever you want.

You won, but now a man who attracted supporters due to his attack on Muslims, who disparaged members of our military (including Senator John McCain), who said things about women that go well beyond locker room talk, and who showed no respect to our current President until yesterday's dog and pony show, is going to run this country for at least the next four years, and half the country is pissed off about that. Seems understandable to me that someone would shed a tear.

Because in that win, there was of course loss. When one team wins the Super Bowl, it requires the other team to lose. When the cameras pan the losing team's sideline, it shows grown men crying. So if a few little girls, women, moms, and a also dads, cry in public, express their disappointment, or want to engage in a meaningless protest - deal with it. We didn't want your guy to win, and he won. This was not an inconsequential victory.

In sum, to those that believe "we" owe "you" a "moving on" from this election, go fuck yourself.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense.

You Can't - Always Get - What You Want

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Wed, 09 Nov 2016 13:40:00 +0000

I never understood why Donald Trump ended his rallies with that song, until last night.

Last night it made sense. It wasn’t a song for his supporters. It was a song for everyone else.

This morning my 17 year old daughter was crying.

As I drove her to school and asked “so what do you think,” (not specifically mentioning the election) my 14 year old daughter suggested that if Hillary won Florida she would have won. I told her, “no, she wouldn’t have.” Texts came in from friends telling me their children too were upset. Anger on the internet has reached a point where people are wishing death on their fellow Americans.

In half the country, there is joy. A new term has spread across the airwaves – “the forgotten man.” Apparently “the forgotten man” won last night. This is the man who has spent the last 8 years angry at the government. This is the man who has been convinced that immigrants are the reason they are unemployed or underemployed. This is the man who doesn’t care that black people are killed by the police for being black people, and is tired of hearing about it. This is the man who has no Muslim friends and doesn’t believe that any Muslim is peaceful. This is the man who, based on the numbers, is a white recent college graduate, has no retirement account that plummeted last night, is deeply in debt and believes that Donald Trump will resolve that issue, and at 21 or 24 or whatever has had it with the federal government. This is the man who believes we will build a wall, kill NAFTA, have a better health insurance system, and that their life would be better if we “lock her up.”

I predict Hillary hearings will begin in January to the joy of “the forgotten man.” Millions of dollars will be spent, and the “forgotten man” won’t care. Conservatives are for smaller government, spending less of their tax dollars, unless they can be entertained. Last night, as Trump prepared to take the stage and talk about unity, his supporters were joyfully chanting “lock her up.”

I said months ago, as I listened to Donald Trump spew red meat at his supporters, that they would be the most disappointed if he was elected. He has many ideas, and no plan. Not a single plan for a single idea, and it doesn’t matter. Politicians have had plans, and no success. That’s what his supporters knew – it doesn’t matter what he says because they are all liars and he is our liar.

The theme of his campaign amongst his supposed Constitution loving supporters, besides “lock her up,” (for whatever she was never convicted of nor charged with), was “we don’t care.” Nothing he said mattered. Hillary had an email problem and that was enough.

So now you have your man, you “forgotten man.” This country is more divided than anyone imagined. Yes, this is a victory for white America – the white America that wants America to be whiter. The white America that wants more people in prison, the white America that believes a Black president is to blame for their lot in life.

I see people wishing Donald Trump “success.” I do not wish him success in the way the “forgotten man” wants him to have success. Donald Trump has given a voice to those that hate what America is today, and they hate their fellow Americans. The retort is always that “Donald Trump does not hate,” but it doesn’t matter. He has given a voice to people who hate those that are not white like them, and that support has made him President.

I didn’t support Donald Trump because I don’t hate what America is today.

Whenever you have 300 million people living within borders, you will have problems. But the problems defined by “the forgotten man” are their problems with people who aren’t like them and can only be “fixed” by returning us to a time to which I don’t want America to return.

This election was the end of the mainstream media’s credibility. By allowing paid “surrogates” from each campaign to sully the airwaves with whatever lie would help their candidate, they lost any objectivity. They should be ashamed of becoming nothing more than modified reality shows for the purpose of ratings. The new media is social media, and Donald Trump proved that over and over again.

Make no mistake, you may be happy this morning that the corrupt email bitch didn’t become President –and let’s be clear-she was a weak, flawed candidate for the Democrats - but we have sent a man in to the White House that has promised to make America white again, and in doing that, we have to go back to the politics of the 1950’s.

When I saw my 17 year old daughter this morning, she was crying. I gave her a hug and said “I’m sorry.”

Because I am.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice.

The One Reason Donald Trump Should Never Be President

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:01:00 +0000

This has been the worst Presidential campaign in my lifetime and likely in America’s history.

Let’s assume - for the purpose of preventing heads from exploding – that Hillary Clinton is a criminal, a liar, is responsible for the killing of people including a U.S. Ambassador, and is married to a former (impeached) (womanizing) President. For any of those reasons alone, I understand you may not want her to be President and you will not vote for her. OK? We good there?

The reason I wrote the above (other than it is reasonable) is because the “BUT WHAT ABOUT KILLARY, SHE LIED AND PEOPLE DIED AND EMAIL AND EMAIL” is not an appropriate response here.

Donald Trump is not qualified to be President of the United States.

And I know, he’s 35, he was born here and so yes “he’s qualified.”

Donald Trump is not qualified to be President.

I know, you don’t care. Plenty of “qualified” people have become President and disappointed you, so why not vote in this guy? Why not use the power of the internet to convince people to blow up the system? We have the power to do that.

We can control who buys what from where, who gets fired, and who gets elected. Let’s put this guy in office.

There are many reasons why you should care. Donald Trump knows little about the responsibility he wishes to undertake, and what he does know is not going to help you.

So stop telling me that he’s going to let you keep your gun(s) and that he’s the best President for Israel. Donald Trump is going to do nothing but disappoint you, especially when you are still wondering why that wall that will help you get a job hasn’t been built.

And yes, I said there was “a” reason Donald Trump should never be President.

The reason is that he is running as a Republican, the party that claims to have the franchise on respect for our military.

Donald Trump should never be President because when the Muslim father (who has always voted Republican, until now) of a dead Muslim soldier (both Americans) stood at the podium at the Democratic National Convention, questioning whether Donald Trump had read the United States Constitution, and claiming Donald Trump had not sacrificed, Donald Trump responded that he has indeed sacrificed by having “worked hard” and questioning why the dead soldier’s mother stood quietly by her husband’s side (intimating that as a Muslim she is forbidden from speaking.)

Note: Ms. Kahn has responded to Donald Trump.

Of course Donald Trump wants his supporters to think that never in the history of men speaking in public - with their wives standing by – has the wife remained silent. No, this is an appeal to the other Muslim haters out there besides Donald Trump who are willing to believe that Captain Kahn’s grieving mother silently stood by her husband’s side while he, a lawyer, addressed the millions of people listening, because she was forbidden from speaking, because in Donald Trump’s world, Muslims are bad people and this was another bad Muslim moment.

To my Jewish brethren claiming Trump is Israel’s best friend in this election, or unemployed Americans believing that a wall is going to get them a job, or anyone watching the news convinced that Donald Trump is going to keep them safe, you are ignoring who this man really is.

You cannot respect our military while disrespecting the families they left behind.

You cannot claim to be a member of the party that believes it is the only party that supports the military, and elect a man who just did to Captain Kahn’s family what Donald Trump did. You can claim that you don’t care what he says, but what he says is what he thinks, and what he hopes you think, and unfortunately, what some of you actually do think.

Yes, Donald Trump could shoot someone on 5^th Avenue and not lose voters, he can say anything he wants and any attack on his statements will be seen by his supporters as trying to take away the power of the people to vote for him.

Donald Trump is not about the end of political correctness. The enemy of political correctness is not attacking the family of a dead soldier. There is nothing political or correct about accusing a grieving mother of a dead soldier of standing silently by her husband because she is Muslim. That, is not only incorrect, it is despicable.

The reason Donald Trump should never be President is because what he did to the Kahn family shows that he doesn’t respect what America stands for, and this is true no matter how much you hate Hillary Clinton.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice.

On Fatherhood

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Sun, 26 Jun 2016 15:55:00 +0000

Yesterday I dropped my oldest daughter off for a month away on a college campus. It’s a summer program. She’ll be back in 30 29 days. Back in the house, back for me to see every day, back to tell me where she’s going and when she’ll be home. Back to breeze by me on her way in from one thing to change her clothes and head off to another.

In this era where every moment of our lives is plastered on social media (as are my thoughts now), we are used to seeing kids at the airport going off to college or camp, or venturing away to a foreign country for an extended period of time.

These are pictures. They never portray the feelings behind the camera. For years I’ve heard “it goes by quickly.” I always heard that as a message that I would feel sad when my kids were no longer living at home.

But yesterday I didn’t experience the feelings of separation, or wondering how much I would miss my daughter. I had one prevailing feeling.

Was I a good father?

This thought, feeling, came to me because a phase of fatherhood ended yesterday. My first-born is grown up. She’s not 10 years old and going to summer camp, she’s not going away for a week with friends. She’s in a program with other girls from all over the world. None of her friends are there. We are 1,500 miles away.

I am not sad because I miss her already, although I do. I am sad because I question whether I have been a good father to her. I’ve never thought about this until yesterday.

I know I have been. I know. I’ve provided for her, went to her dance recitals, her school events, allowed her to stay out late, explained politics and law to her. I know. I’ve been lucky to be self-employed and be with her when I chose.

But this trip is different. I now realize that her next long trip will be the beginning of college. I know that then she’ll be away for months at a time, and then, after graduation, she may wind up living far away, and seeing me a few times a year. I know that this is something parents live with and it’s part of life.

Parents raise children. Children are supposed to grow and flourish and run off to make their goals and dreams come true. I’ve never wanted my kids to stay home, or close to home, and in theory I am excited for them to move on.

Yesterday, though, I realized that she no longer needs me to walk her across the street, or carry her, or be with her daily. She has grown up, and while I know she’ll need her “Daddy” in her life, as I will need my first born, it is not for the same reasons as before. It is those thoughts that cause me to hope that I have done everything I was supposed to do.

I am not unhappy that my oldest no longer needs me in the same way she once did, I am sad. There is a difference. I cannot escape the fear that I have not taught her everything I was supposed to teach her, or that I missed an opportunity to be with her and it may now matter.

I know that she will meet incredible people at this program, and that everything she learned so far will benefit her over the next 29 days. She will talk politics and law, and learn about life in foreign countries. She will come home with new friends and thoughts and ideas and likely be much different than when she said “goodbye” yesterday. I just wonder if anything I’ve done – good or bad – will be a motivator for her in her thoughts or actions.

I told her that I am proud of her, my voice crackling so much that I don’t know that she heard me.

That’s all.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice.

Professor Jeff Jarvis, The Joke

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 15:31:00 +0000

"Jeff Jarvis, a national leader in the development of online news, blogging, the investigation of new business models for news, and the teaching of entrepreneurial journalism, writes an influential blog, Buzzmachine.com. He is author of the books What Would Google Do? and Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live as well as the e-book Gutenberg the Geek."

And like those who have tied themselves to the internet for their career, I've never heard of him outside the internet. I never heard of him before I had a twitter account.

I do know the fake Professor Jeff Jarvis. He's someone who has a twitter account and tweets out the most ridiculous, funny exaggerations about the role of the internet in our lives. Stuff like this:

Happy Friday to everyone with Klout >70!
— Prof. Jeff Jarvis (@ProfJeffJarvis) April 22, 2016

and this:

New post on @LinkedIn: 8 Lessons the Cement Industry Can Learn from Prince
— Prof. Jeff Jarvis (@ProfJeffJarvis) April 21, 2016

and this:

Are you #passionate about something? And are your opinions your own? Then why not mention both these things in your bio?
— Prof. Jeff Jarvis (@ProfJeffJarvis) April 4, 2016

He takes the stupid phrases of the internet-centric and shows us the sillyness of it all.

This is Professor Jeff Jarvis.

This is the fake Professor Jeff Jarvis.

Can you tell the difference?

Well yesterday Esquire did a satire piece (now removed as you'll read below) on the good Professor.

The Real Professor Jeff Jarvis got mad. He had enough. He had enough, again, according to his whiny pathetic piece that contains this aw poor baby passage:

It was personally upsetting. My anxiety was pushing my heart back into afib for the first time in a few years. Oh, joy, this bozo is going to send me to the hospital. Enough.

No, really. that's in the piece, read it. He's had it. There will be no SNL skit on Professor Jeff Jarvis, mainly because no one knows who he is, and if they did, SNL wouldn't want the headache of this crybaby who claims to be teaching, of all things, journalism.

Thankfully no journalists will ever have to deal with satire. I mean, could you imagine if there were satire videos of someone like, let's say CNN's Wolf Blitzer all over the internet?

There is no bigger honor than making good fun of someone. It's called parody. It's called satire. Every politician, movie star, musician, and famous person prays that they will appear ridiculous and made fun of on Saturday Night Live or elsewhere. When I say "good fun," I mean harmless jokes.

When you read Professor Jeff Jarvis' whiny retort to the satire on Esquire, you will shake your head. If you don't, well, hello Professor Jeff Jarvis.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering

Florida Court: False Online Review Of Lawyer = Libel

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 21:23:00 +0000

A Florida lawyer got some big damages in a libel case, and yesterday the Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld them, with a great opinion.

The case is Copia Blake and Peter Birzon v.Ann-Marie Giustibelli, P.A., and Ann-Marie Giustibelli,individually.

The lawyer sued for damages due to false online reviews. After briefs were filed, one of the appellants filed a notice withdrawing the appeal. The other did not. The court began their opinion by stating that "even if she had, we would not have dismissed the appeal."

Usually not a good sign for the appellant.

The court noted that "one issue Blake and Birzon raised involves the application of free speech protections to reviews of professional services posted on the internet."

We lawyers call those "Yelp" or "Avvo" reviews.

The court understands this is an issue in the legal profession:

"We affirm in all respects, but this issue merits discussion as it presents a scenario that will likely recur, and the public will benefit from an opinion on the matter."

The facts?

Giustibelli represented Blake in a divorce case against Birzon. Things deteriorated between Giustibelli and Blake, so Blake (and as the court noted "oddly, Birzon as well,") posted defamatory reviews of Giustibelli.

Giustibelli sued for libel, as well as breach of contract.

Some of the offending statements:

"She misrepresented her fees with regards to the contract I initially signed. The contract she submitted to the courts for her fees were 4 times her original quote and pages of the original had been exchanged to support her claims..."

"No integrity. Will say one thing and do another. Her fees outweigh the truth."

"Altered her charges to 4 times the original quote with no explanation."

The client and her husband admitted they posted the reviews and "both admitted at trial that Giustibelli had not charged Blake four times more than what was quoted in the agreement.

Result: Giustibelli won, and got $350,000 in punitive damages.

Blake and Birzon claim "that their internet reviews constituted statements of opinion and thus were protected by the First Amendment and not actionable as defamation."

The court held that:

"...all the reviews contained allegations that Giustibelli lied to Blake regarding the attorney’s fee. Two of the reviews contained the allegation that Giustibelli falsified a contract. These are factual allegations, and the evidence showed they were false."

The court also noted that the argument "that libel per se no longer exists" due to the Gertz case in the United States Supreme Court, doesn't apply as after Gertz, "the Florida Supreme Court recognized that, with respect to a libel action against the media, it is no longer accurate to say that ‘“[w]ords amounting to a libel per se necessarily import damage and malice in legal contemplation, so these elements need not be pleaded or proved, as they are conclusively presumed as a matter of law.’”

What the court noted about this argument was that the lawyer here, is not a media defendant, so libel per se still applies.

Obviously this case applies to Florida Lawyers (and any other state that has the same laws on libel). There were reviews that were verified, and verified to be false. Most of the time you have anonymous reviews that are nothing more than protected opinion and all you can do is cry about it.

Congratulations to Giustibelli. Those were some expensive false online reviews.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice.

Last Minute Wine Gifts TO AVOID For The Wine Lover

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Sun, 20 Dec 2015 18:20:00 +0000

I've lost count of the wine-gifts-for-the-wine-lover posts in the last few weeks. Seems as if there's a perception that people who love wine, love nothing else.

First piece of advice, that's not true. We like books, (i.e., Amazon gift cards), we like music, (i.e. iTunes gift cards), and some of us drink other things (i.e. Starbucks gift cards.)

But if you're focused on wine stuff, and desperate for a gift, let me help you with things that I've seen in some of these posts, that you should avoid.

1. This Wine Thermometer

Let's talk for a minute. Let's say your giftee is a serious wine drinker. I promise you this will be in a drawer, forever. The following scene will never occur: "Hey honey, I'm going to open this great Cabernet. Wait, it seems like it may not be 57 degrees, could be 54 degrees, let me check, where's that thing Joe got us?"

Serious wine drinkers use their hand to determine the temperature of wine. Novices couldn't care less.

2. Any wine club

I've seen these ads for "12 bottles of wine for $99," or "6 for $60."

Why do you think those wines are under $9 and sold through newspapers and hotels and other touristy sounding names like "The California Wine Club?"

It's because they suck. And the wines you will be sending your wine loving friend every month will suck as well.

It's because no one else will sell those wines. No, the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Hilton Hotels, don't spend their time putting together great wines for their wine clubs. They are for people who think they are getting a deal for under $100. Avoid them.

3. Bottle Stoppers

Take a wild guess how many bottle stoppers I have. Wait, don't do that. Take a guess how many ziploc bags of bottle stoppers I have? We, the wine drinkers of the world, have enough bottle stoppers, and we never use them.

The only exception, are ones you bought from some artist in some foreign country, or that are festive, or have something on them that are unique - like a favorite sports team football helmet or monogram.

4. This Bike Wine Rack

We're wine drinkers, not alcoholics (hopefully). We ride bikes for the same reason you do, because we want to exercise, because we want to be healthy, because we drank too much wine last night. We don't need to carry a bottle everywhere we go, or ride.

5. Merlot Infused Coffee

So let me see if I have this correct, after a night of drinking wine, we want to wake up - and instead of some Hazelnut Cinnamon Coffee - we'd like something hot and caffeinated that tastes like wine?

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering.

Here's Your Thanksgiving Wine Post

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 12:41:00 +0000

This post is written for the following two types of people:

1. You are in a panic about what wine in your house to serve tonight at Thanksgiving; or

2. You are in a panic about what wine to serve tonight at Thanksgiving and you're going out today, on Thanksgiving, to buy the wine.

First, let's be honest.

No one gives a shit.

The most important thing to do before panicking about wine is to close your eyes.

CLOSE THEM

Now think about your guests.

Aunt Judy from Ohio? She's just going to be disappointed that there's no jug wine.

Uncle Joe, who has promised not to do his "I'm telling you, Trump's going to build that wall and kill ISIS for us," no matter what he drinks, he's going to ask "this a cabernet?"

Your guest list is not the sommeliers of your local restaurants. Scroll Facebook for a minute, no 12 seconds, and you'll see pies, sides, and the "I'M FRYING THAT BITCH" claims.

It's about the food, and trying to have a discussion with people that help you understand why things are the way they are. (No, ISIS is not walking around in UPS uniforms they bought on Ebay.)

So I'll make it simple.

The problem with pairing wine with Thanksgiving is 1. too many foods with various flavors, and 2. too many people who normally don't drink wine or if they do, they drink garbage.

So relax.

Thanksgiving is not a wine tasting for most, nor will your family be excited that the wine you served "costs $80 a bottle." They'll want to run out and buy that $15 wine they sucked down all night while telling you how much they love the new Adele album. "You know she's only 25, that's why she called her album '25.'" "No, she's 27." "Well I just love that 'Hello.' You sure she's not 25?" "No, she was born in 1988, she's 27." "OK, can I have some more of this wine?"

Here's what not to serve:

1. That heavy Cabernet you drink with steak. You are not having steak at Thanksgiving.

2. I know, you, are having steak, or lamb, or brisket. In that case, still, don't serve cabernet. I trust you are not having just vegetables with that meat. You still have a variety of foods and need wine that will compliment all of it.

3. Pinotage. I mention this because most people have never, thankfully, had Pinotage. It is a popular wine in South Africa and every time I get the chance to tell people that it is the worst wine I've ever had, I do. It is available in America, is not that expensive, and I've heard that it's been recommended when people go to a wine shop looking for something "different." No matter what you do, never drink Pinotage. The movie "Sideways" missed the opportunity to kill off this horrible wine.

4. Speaking of "Sideways," I wouldn't be serving Merlot either. It's a big, heavy wine.

Here's what I would serve:

1. Whites. Lots of them. I know, that's going to cause people to ask for reds. I'm not saying don't serve reds, I'm saying have a good amount of whites, and not Chardonnay. Serve Riesling (Dr. Loosen's entry level is about $13, Trimbach is very popular, although I don't know why.), Chablis (there are several between $19 and $25 that are very good). Other whites worth trying tonight - Viognier, Albarino, Sauvignon Blanc.

2. The primary reds I would serve are Pinot Noir and Zinfandel. (NO, NOT WHITE ZINFANDEL) It's hard to find great ones for $10, but for $20, you're in business. Meomi, made by Caymus, is still the best under $20 Pinot Noir around. It's also a screw top for ease of quickly shutting up annoying guests. For cheap Zinfandel, look for Cline, Ravenswood. If you want to spend around $20 for a Zin, look for Seghesio. If you're feeling charitable and want to spend 30-40, pick one of the many made by Ridge.

3. I would also serve Malbec. For about $20, Catena is a great one. Not cheap enough? Find Alamos. A great value at about $10.

4. The best option if you just can't deal with this, go to the wine shop, give the nice man or woman your budget and what you are looking for, and have some faith.

Me, what am I serving? I haven't decided yet, because it really doesn't matter. Just make sure you tell everyone on Facebook what you are grateful for, and why you hate/love Obama.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering.

Matthew Chappell, Please Read The Rules Of Professional Conduct

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Thu, 19 Nov 2015 17:01:00 +0000

"Young" lawyers are an interesting bunch. Bright eyed, full of hopes and dreams, and sometimes one or two have a thought that scares me to death as it evidences their lack of understanding that this is a profession with a code of ethics, not a lead-generating scheme to make money (despite what the marketers want us to believe).

Speaking of schemes, meet Matthew Chappell of Texas. Matthew is a "young lawyer," but not a young man. He's 42. He's a "young" lawyer because he's been practicing less than 5 years. Actually, less than 3.

Seems Matthew, understandably, is a bit impatient. It happens. Sometimes those pesky requirements of "5 years" minimum as a practicing lawyer gets in the way of being on certain committees, or being appointed to other positions, or in Matthew's case, being eligible to receive work from Fidelity Investments.

Not wanting to wait the extra few years, Matthew sent this email around to his Texas brethren:

I’m going down the list of Board Certified Texas Attorneys to find a solo attorney with 5 or more years of experience to make this offer to. I have 2 years experience, graduating from STCL in 2013.

I have family friends at Fidelity Investments who promise me AT LEAST one new client a week (Estate Planning) if I were able to get on their Preferred Attorney’s List; however, I have to wait a three more stupid years, as Fidelity now requires 5 years of experience to be placed on this list (which wasn’t always the case).

I need to find someone with 5 years who my friends can nominate; the business would be filtered through that someone, but wouldn’t be intrusive AT ALL(I will set up a separate email acct or Google phone number for these clients).

There is absolutely ZERO liability or accountability or responsibility on your part. In exchange, I’m willing to either offer you a share of the clientele or to subsidize your malpractice insurance to bring it up to 2 million/per incident (usually around $3600/yr), which, in addition to the 5 years, is another Fidelity req to be on the list. I already have this type of policy myself.

Let me know if you’d be interested, and I’ll put you in touch with my Fidelity contact who can explain further. Like I said, I’m going down the Board Specialization list of names one by one and sending pretty much the same email. First come, first served.

Thanks, and all best,
Matthew Chappell
Attorney At Law
723 Main Street
Suite 700-07
Houston, Texas 77002
email@mcattorney.net
713-384-8700

Mark Bennett, not a "young" lawyer, thought it would be beneficial to reach out to Chappell by email:

Not no, but hell no.

Is there any chance I can, old dog to young pup, persuade you to stop now and not pursue this fraudulent course of action?

Please let me know before noon.

Thanks,

MB

Now this type of interaction is something "old" lawyers frequently discuss. "Should I reach out to him?" "Is he going to take it well or tell me to screw off?" Most "older" lawyers just want to say "hey, I don't think that's such a good idea," as Bennett did here.

But Chappell argued with Bennett and refused to retract his unethical proposal.

So Bennett decided to write about it:

As Bennett correctly analyzed:

So, lawyers. Let’s imagine what happens if you sign on as Matthew Chappell’s nominee, the strawman to whom Fidelity will refer cases, which will then be funneled to Chappell with no involvement from you.

It looks a lot like you’re participating in a fraud against Fidelity. Maybe Chappell’s “Fidelity contact” can explain this in some way that makes it non-fraudulent. Maybe it is fraudulent and Fidelity never finds out. Maybe Fidelity doesn’t care. But suppose that “your” clients start complaining to Fidelity about “your” service. How long do you think it’s going to take them to figure out what your arrangement with Chappell was?

Chappell, not interested in a lesson, doubled down:

And now you’ve committed a handful of torts, including libel by taking my words out of context and tortious interference with business.

Enjoy the lawsuit I’m in the process of filing against you, psycho, arrogant, inferiority complex-ridden moron.

Matthew Chappell

Attorney At Law

723 Main Street

Suite 700-07

Houston, Texas 77002

713-384-8700

Now I don't practice in Texas, but I checked, and yep, I was right, they have this Rule that we have in Florida:

Rule 4.01. Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly: (a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or (b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act or knowingly assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client.

I dunno. Sounds kinda problematic for a lawyer who wants to do what Chappell wants to do.

Chappell of course hasn't filed his lawsuit, but he did send Bennett a certified piece of garbage which has already received a response from Bennett's counsel, Marc Randazza (both here).

Chappell's letter states in part:

Accordingly, please compose a written apology to Mr. Chappell in which you agree to, first, issue a clarification and retraction on your "blogsite", and second, remove the blog that refers to Mr. Chappell and/or any other media associated with Mr. Chappell's name and/or law practice. AGAIN, YOU HAVE TEN DAYS, SIR.

I'm sure Mark Bennett isn't looking for a calendar to count when those TEN DAYS SIR start, but while we all wait for the failure of a lawsuit that will do nothing but again bring Matthew Chappell's stupid scheme to the forefront of his young legal career, I also have some advice.

Matthew, your proposal is unethical and possibly criminal. You are attempting to use your license in a way that I trust the State Bar, and maybe a prosecutor or two would find objectionable. Don't do it. Don't defend it. You were wrong, and your strategy here of trying to resolve your hurt feelings won't work. When you have been a lawyer 5 years, you can try to get work with Fidelity. Maybe they'll have forgotten about this by then.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering .

How To Navigate The Starbucks Wine List

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Thu, 20 Aug 2015 02:15:00 +0000

I know, it's a blog about law and ethics. But it's my blog, and this Starbucks wine thing is more important to you anyway..

I was ready to pounce, hard, when I read that Starbucks is now serving wine. I was ready to laugh, ready to see a list of garbage.

I was shocked to see that the selection is actually pretty impressive, for a coffee shop. I'll go as far as to say it's impressive for one of those restaurants where you wouldn't expect a decent wine list.

I like that all the wines on the list are available by the glass, and by the bottle. I don't like that the online menu has no prices, but I would expect that these wines would sell in the $7-$13 range by the glass. You'll let me know if I'm right. The calorie count is kind of comical, as who really gives a shit how many calories are in wine. If you're on a diet, drink something else.

I don't know if this is the list at all Starbucks serving wine, but here's some specifics for you Starbucks Lawyers that want to impress a potential client:

ERATH PINOT GRIS

Pinot Gris (pronounced Pinot Gree) is a underrated, inexpensive white. Erath is a good producer and they also make a good Pinot Noir. So for a white, I would try it. I know you love Prosecco and Chardonnay, but expand your life a bit. It won't kill you.

FERRARI-CARANO CHARDONNAY

I generally hate Chardonnay, but Ferrari-Carano is no slouch when it comes to wine. It's good mid-range California wine. I'm surprised to see this in Starbucks, and I predict it is likely a pricey white compared to others on the menu. It's a good splurge though, if you're looking for a decent Sonoma white.

APOTHIC RED BLEND

People love this easy-drinking-fruit bomb. I think it sucks. Don't buy it if you're with someone that knows wine.

ALAMOS MALBEC

I was shocked to see this one. This is the best $10 Malbec on the market. I doubt it's $10 a bottle at Starbucks, but it's good,

The other wines I've either not had, or they are mass produced average stuff not worth your money, or my writing. I mentioned Apothic because I hear the excited masses cheering about it.

I trust Starbucks is not going to be using good crystal wine glasses (which yes, does change the taste), but hey, at least maybe you can buy a bottle of wine and have someone write your name on it with a Sharpie.

Enjoy. Don't feel bad about not inviting me, I'm good.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering

The Tech Train Missed The Courtroom Lawyers Stop

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Tue, 05 May 2015 00:15:00 +0000

The legal profession has given themselves to the tech vendors. Their influx to everything lawyer has been successful, causing anyone in state Bar and Bar association leadership to advocate that we all must "embrace technology or die." It's embarrassing, but there's nothing I can personally do about it. I've tried to argue that relationships and ethics are at the core of better lawyers and lawyering, but that has done as much as cause the Law Practice Management Section of the ABA to decline to have anything to do with my book. My balance-tech-with-other-lawyer-qualities is bad for business.

End of soapbox, for now.

One thing I've noticed about everyone in Bar leadership jumping on the tech train is that it doesn't seem to stop at every courthouse door, effectively leaving lawyers - who do strange things like go to court - out of the loop.

Question to the tech train - if you are going to do the tech vendor's work trying to convince every lawyer they need to "get on board," where is the effort for a national tech policy for lawyers who don't practice from their pajamas, but actually have to put on suits and go to those old fashioned places known as courthouses? You do know those lawyers, the ones not sitting at home selling documents, still exist?

I looked on the internet for the latest on this important issue, and found only one article from 2011.

It begins:

The American public loves the convenience of their wireless communication devices—PDAs and laptops, smart phones and earpiece devices, among others. It’s estimated there are 285 million cell phone users in the United States.

However, the same devices that provide convenience in communications may raise security concerns in federal courts and possibly disrupt proceedings. Courts have responded with a variety of access policies.

Apparently, in response to various courthouse tech policies that drive lawyers crazy:

...the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, in consultation with the Information Technology Committee and the Judicial Security Committee, has issued revised guidance for courts to consider that updates how new technologies could be used and what this may mean for courts."

That's right, to try and resolve this issue, we have the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, working with the Information Technology Committee and the Judicial Security Committee. The quickest way for any good idea to die is to send it to a committee, or three.

So according to this article, back in 2011:

About half of district courts allow the public to bring electronic devices into the court, usually with some restrictions on their use.

Of these districts, one-third prohibit the public from bringing the devices into the courtroom, two-thirds allow the devices in the courtroom but they must be turned off or in silent mode—unless the judge gives permission to use them.

About half of district courts ban all devices in the courthouse, except by judges, clerk’s office and chambers personnel, and probation and pretrial officers. Anyone entering the building is required to either store the device with court security officers, or leave the building to store it elsewhere.

Some exceptions are permitted with a judge’s permission, e.g., attorneys are usually allowed to bring in laptops and other audio-visual equipment for the presentation of evidence at a court proceeding.

And their recommendation?

...courts are urged to adopt a policy that can be applied on a courthouse- by-courthouse basis because of the unique needs and circumstances of each location. Thus no uniform national policy is recommended.

So on one side we have the tech train trying to convince lawyers to grab every device they can get their hands on, along with any and all software that can automate the practice of law, and on the other side we have some courthouses that don't allow any of these devices.

An example. In my home federal district (Southern District of Florida) we (now) can bring devices in to court. In the Southern District of New York, you can bring in one device, but if you are not a member of the SDNY Bar, you have to file a motion to bring in your one device. Pick your poison - cell phone, iPad, laptop. I know someone is going to tell me they filed a motion and got to bring in two, but that's not the policy, and the once device policy is strictly enforced. So decide what's more important - keeping in touch with the office, witnesses, opposing counsel, clients, or having your documents available electronically and the ability to type.

And I know, security is at the forefront of any government objection to electronic devices in courthouses. The parade of horribles is always describing pictures being illegally taken of witnesses, or court personnel, or clients getting a hold of phones and making illegal calls, etc.. etc...

But lawyers are being driven to practice electronically, and if they are bringing these devices to court, likely they are doing so to practice law. Lawyers are accountable to their state Bar regardless of where they are practicing.

If we told every lawyer they could bring one phone, one tablet, and one laptop to court, that wouldn't work? If we promise to be good?

Can we try?

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering .

Should Asian Women Stick To Massages? UPDATED

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Sat, 02 May 2015 15:21:00 +0000

Dan Hull apologizes here.

Lawyer Jeena Cho (Asian woman pictured) is a San Francisco Bankruptcy Lawyer involved in the "Mindfulness" movement for lawyers. I have no interest in the "Mindfulness" movement and have no problem making fun of whatever it is.

I recently met Jeena and when introducing her to others, and hearing people ask "Mindfulness?" I responded "flowers and birds." Jeena has a book coming out in September. I'm going to buy it and read it and hope to connect her with someone I know who is involved in this movement - he's one of the most respected federal judges in Florida.

Right now Jeena is traveling the country, meeting others interested in "Mindfulness" and writing at my former home, Above The Law.

Yesterday was Law Day and Jeena wrote a post about civility. Nothing earth shattering, nothing real new, and not one of the best posts I've ever read. It didn't change my life, and I don't think it will do much for the profession. It was Jeena's thoughts on civility related to her "Mindfulness" stuff.

Enter Dan Hull. (White guy pictured). Dan is a lawyer whose message is that the clients are what is important in the practice of law. I agree with him. I think we need lawyers to remind lawyers of the importance and perspective of clients.

Dan wrote a post in response to Jeena and basically said it was the worst thing he's ever read in the history of Dan Hull reading anything. He hated it.

There was one thing Dan noted that he liked about the post, and that was a comment by a serial Above The Law commenter and typical fraud posing as a former lawyer "Partner Emeritus (PE)."

The most on-point remarks given the circumstances, however, were arguably by my friend Partner Emeritus. Certainly, his comments were the funniest assuming that, like me, you still value wit and the First Amendment, and you deplore PC culture. Consider PE's approach to having the author of the article consider other lines of work.

Ms. Cho, your people are very good at imparting relaxation techniques. Back when I was a practicing lawyer, there were times I would exit the complex on Centre Street with knots on my shoulders and other limbs. I would take a stroll up to Mulberry Street and an Asian woman would be able to bring me instant stress release in 5 minutes. It was the best $20 I ever spent as a New Yorker. Alas, these establishments were eradicated in the wake of the Giuliani Era. Ms. Cho, if you are ever in New York, please contact me as I may require your services. Namaste Ms. Cho.

Dan calls PE his "friend," but I don't know if that's internet friend, or friend.

Yes, I deplore the PC culture, but being politically correct is a bit different than one lawyer telling another lawyer that she should maybe stick to what her people are "good at" because, you know, Jeena is Asian, and Dan doesn't like her writing. Dan used the term "politeness police" in the title to his post, indicating his hatred of the post didn't require him to be polite (which is correct), but the opposite of polite doesn't require being a total fucking dickwad.

Dan mentioned in his post that he commented too, and posted this intelligent comment:

A spectacularly naive and lightweight piece--and one of the worst and frankly misleading writings you could see in the growing category of "it's all about the lawyers" profession literature. The author needs to take a deep breath and re-think the nature and goals of this law thing. It's sad to see an article like this in ATL. Would be wonderful to see more feature stuff on lawyering--its gritty and often difficult details--and serving sophisticated clients.

But for some reason, Dan left out part of another comment he left at Jeena's post in response to his friend PE:

"me love you long time, sir."

I'm just glad Jeena is not black, Muslim, Jewish, or anything else other than a fair skinned white American who wrote something that possibly sucked.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of The Practice: Brutal Truths About Lawyers And Lawyering .

Your Contribution To Lawyer Suicides

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 15:04:00 +0000

I was surprised that an article about why so many lawyers are killing themselves generated an actual real-live thoughtful discussion. While I'm sure in the annals of the internet there are a fair share of comments of "who cares," and curiosity of how we get more lawyers to put a bullet in their heads, the discussion I've seen has been relevant and thought-provoking.

But it doesn't go far enough.

Long-time New York Criminal Defense Lawyer Scott Greenfield, who practices in an area, geographical and legal, that can stress out the best of them, gives his two reasons for the problems of today's lawyer::

From my perch, two things seem to permeate the problems suffered by lawyers: First, good, hard-working lawyers are not earning enough to enjoy a sufficiently comfortable lifestyle for themselves and their family to justify surmounting the barriers to entry and the headache of the job. Second, the arbitrariness of the law. Non-lawyers think the law is somewhat reliable, and if a lawyer does good work, they will prevail. We know better, and it makes us nuts.

Money, and the uncertainty of the law.

OK, I'll put those on the list.

Greenfield also mentions a couple others that have weighed in on the guessing festival of why a lawyer may not want to wake up tomorrow:

At Stephanie West Allan’s Idealawg, Colorado Senior District Court Judge John Kane attributed it to the pressure of gaining and keeping “success”:

As for lawyer suicides — and I’m not trying to be flippant— I think they are billing themselves to death. The constant pressure to generate income by billing on an hourly basis is far more stressful for a trial lawyer than trials. In fact, less than 1% of cases now go to trial. The courts have become settlement bazaars.

Pressure to bill (i.e., make money) is more stressful than practicing law. OK, money again.

The other mention by Greenfield goes to Dave Shearon at Positive Psychology News Daily who says it's due to four things:

1. Lawyers deal with the toughest conflicts

2. Lawyers must deal far more regularly with zero-sum situations than other professionals, and zero-sum conflicts elicit negative emotions.

3. The adversarial skills in which attorneys are trained are “negative” communications.

4. Lawyers are required to perform “necessary evils” — the exercise of professional skill to inflict physical or emotional pain on another in service to a higher good — more regularly than almost all other professions, and to do so with a skilled advocate on the other side arguing against the necessity, the manner, or both.

So lawyering is hard, we have to do things to hurt people, and that type of behavior permeates our lives, and we've become way too obsessed with money.

No doubt these are factors in why lawyers may be killing themselves.

Of course we cannot discard the darker issues - depression is not a state of mind - it is a disease, one that is often undiagnosed, and can creep up and literally kill someone. There's alcoholism and drug addiction, both caused by some of the issues mentioned above, and there are lawyers facing the power of the government, whether criminal prosecution or otherwise, who believe they and their families are better off with them gone.

The reasons lawyers kill themselves are the same reasons others kill themselves - the belief, true or not, that waking up tomorrow is a bad idea.

But the issues mentioned above are somewhat unique to the legal profession, especially today.

There's no longer 10 lawyers in the community who do what we do, charge about the same, and all know each other. Now there's thousands. Some existing mainly on the internet, with offers of "free" this and "guaranteed" that, and charging less money for an entire case than some charge for a couple hours.

There's technology, that wonderful and horrible thing that is making our practices easier and more difficult at the same time.

And there's us. The lawyers, judges, judicial assistants, clerks, everyone that works in the system. There's also the clients.

One thing I've heard over the last few days since this important article appeared on CNN was talk about what "bar associations" were going to do."

Bar Associations?

Let me guess.

There's going to be committees, seminars, discussions, mentor programs, all the same stuff that Bar Associations do (and often do well) all the time, in an effort to discover the issues and possibly help some lawyers.

Great. Go forth and work, bar associations.

But in the interim, before the big seminar, before the local Bar Association president writes an article about the issue, before whatever we in the system are waiting for to happen, happens, what are we going to do?

What are you, going to do?

I have some thoughts.

Why don't we stop using technology for the purpose of being an asshole?

Stop emailing lawyers at 6:30 p.m. to demand things by tomorrow. Actually, let's just talk a little more than email (I know, the horrors). Maybe if you called a lawyer about a discovery issue you could resolve it, or at least learn that your proposed email demanding compliance from opposing counsel "immediately" was going to take a back seat to his wife's medical appointment?

I know and you know too, that every lawyer has their phone, with email, with them at all times. This includes vacations, days off, at their kid's recital, and Sunday mornings at 7 a.m. Let's pretend that's not the case. Let's pretend that it doesn't matter if we give someone 24 hours to respond. Let's stop emailing, and at the same time, texting, calling, stalking, lawyers to let them know that we just became the most important thing in their lives. Back the hell off. Work on another case.

How about every time you do anything, think of course of your client first, but add a couple thoughts:

a. Am I doing something to be an asshole?
b. Do I need to do a?

Judges, I know your calendar is important, but so is my family. Some of you understand that, some of you even talk about that. I remember a judge once telling me he was tired of lawyers lying about why they wanted continuances. He said "just tell me it's your kid's soccer game, just tell me it's a family thing, I'll grant it."

Lawyers wont do that though. They are embarrassed, thinking that putting family events (other than the buzz words of a "pre-paid non refundable oh-God-Judge-please-let-me-go vacation) before a trial is seen as weakness. So lawyers adjust their litigation lives to comport with appearing "tough" in practice. These are the "I don't go on vacation," lawyers. It's not that they don't want to go, but they just won't prioritize their lives in a way that has them filing motions to do silly things like be with their kids.

And so by now I'm hearing a judge say "so Brian, lawyers are committing suicide because I routinely deny motions for continuances based on vacations?" Or a lawyer is saying "the result of me being a hard ass is suicide?"

No.

Probably not. Hopefully, not.

But what I am saying is that if the legal profession is part of the problem (the article is not titled "why are people killing themselves") and we are part of the legal profession, why is it OK to do nothing?

The "gee, that's terrible" line is enough for you? You can't do anything?

There is nothing any of us can do to stop being a part of the problem except wait for our local bar association to offer a free sandwich and a lecture? Is it that the law is "tough," so "too bad?" Is giving a lawyer a break such a problem?

Judge, next time you add a taped piece of paper to your door with a policy, how about "motions for continuance for vacations and stuff with your kids will be granted." Oh, the fear of abuse. I know. Give lawyers an inch.... C'mon Your Honor, you can regulate this. Lawyers know they have to miss a thing or two at home in the world of law.

On that note, next time there's one of those meetings to change the "local" or procedural rules, maybe take a vote on whether "this proposal makes it easier or more difficult to practice law?"

I don't have the answers. I also don't have any concept of not wanting to wake up tomorrow. I do know that I do, and will continue to do my part to not be a part of the problem.

There's a reason that civility codes are appearing throughout the country. Our behavior is tied to the pressure to make money, and that pressure is sometimes too much.

Maybe we all, all, need to take a step back.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Blawg Review 325.5

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Mon, 04 Nov 2013 05:00:00 +0000

This week I, along with many other blawgers (slang for "law bloggers") were saddened to hear of the passing of "Ed," the editor of Blawg Review. My condolences to his family.

As usual in the blogosphere, when something important happens, bloggers get together and write. As soon as the news spread of Ed's passing, word went out to write a last Blawg Review, #325, in parts assigned to various blawgers. I got part 5.

This is quite an honor, writing part of the last Blawg Review alongside some of the great legal bloggers. Some of them I consider close friends - friends because of our writings that turned in to emails, that turned into meals, that turned in to conversations about the most personal aspects of our practices, and our lives.

While many lawyers today see blogging as nothing more than a marketing tool, there was a time, not long ago, where lawyers blogged for the simple purpose of putting thoughts to screen. As with any internet site, lawyers quickly ran to blogging as a platform to make money instead of quality writing.

It was in this light that we all met "Ed." To this day I don't know if his name was Ed. I always thought he used that as short for "Editor" Blawg Review was the almost weekly round-up of legal blog posts, hosted by "blawgers.," No one who ran a marketing blog was ever a part of Blawg Review, nor probably ever read any of them.

Ed paid attention to blawgers. He used to chide me for my constant criticism of social media as a marketing tool. But he also noted my interest in wine, often sending me private messages with links to articles about the wine industry, or just a cartoon involving wine or social media. Ed and I didn't speak often, but the communications were always interesting and valuable.

I hosted one Blawg Review - #298. It was on Valentine's Day, 2011. Ed specifically asked me to do it on Valentine's Day with the following tongue-in-cheek message:

Hey, sweetheart, would you like to host Blawg Review on Valentine's Day? We think you'd do a great presentation of link love to law bloggers

I enjoyed putting it together, but one secret I can now tell you about Blawg Review is that anyone who was asked to write one, sensed a tremendous fear of embarrassment. Blawgers looked forward to the Monday Blawg Review, and no one wanted to write a substandard one. I remember a couple weeks where Blawg Review was late in posting, or the host didn't write it, and the other blawgers would start screaming - "where is Blawg Review?" "Who's hosting this week?"

Blawg Review is no longer, but truth be told, it died well before Ed. I am one of those bloggers that found other things to do, other places to write, got a little busy and left my blog to rot. Ed saw the blogosphere change, diminish, and stopped asking people to host Blawg Review. So again, I'm honored to come back here for the purpose of honoring Ed.

Now let's do some Blawg Review:

When I first saw some scuttlebutt on Popehat about a police chief in South Carolina named Ruben Santiago, I thought the controversy was that there was a police chief in South Carolina named Ruben Santiago. Nope, seems Interim Police Chief Santiago is spending his interim time patrolling the News Feed of Facebook to warn those that don't think Marijuana is a big problem that he "will find you."

I don't "Like" that.

Either does Scott Greenfield:

Dear Interim Chief Santiago,

Like Brandon Whitmer, I don’t think well of you. In fact, I think the war on drugs sucks, and since you’re proud of your warrior role in it, I think you suck. Rather than pick on Whitmer, try me.
Just so you know, I hang around with people accused of crimes all the time. I eat with them. I drink with them. I sometimes go to their homes and meet their families. And get this, Santiago. I like them. But I don’t like you.

And I think you’re ugly. Butt-ugly. And that’s why girls never liked you.
Who am I? I’m a guy with a bulge in my waistband where my clip-on holster is positioned. I’m a guy who wouldn’t hesitate to walk down the street in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood because the people hanging out are my friends. These are guys with lot of drugs, bad, evil drugs, who have my telephone number in their pockets. Some of them sell drugs. The same ones call me. What does that tell you, Santiago?

There's more where that came from...

Volokh has the greatest story of the week, maybe the year, and possibly the decade. Small-town Tennessee criminal defense lawyer, aptly named Drew Justice, opposed the ~~Government's~~ State's Motion Not To Be Called The Government Because It's Derogatory, Mean, Bullying, And Causes A Sad:

The government has moved to ban the word “government.” The State of Tennessee offers precisely zero legal authority for its rather nitpicky position, and the defense can find none. The Plaintiff has failed to carry its burden on this motion. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s proposed ban on speech would violate the First Amendment. The motion should be denied.

Should this Court disagree, and feel inclined to let the parties basically pick their own designations and ban words, then the defense has a few additional suggestions for amending the speech code. First, the Defendant no longer wants to be called “the Defendant.” This rather archaic term of art, obviously has a fairly negative connotation. It unfairly demeans, and dehumanizes Mr. D.P. The word “defendant” should be banned. At trial, Mr. P. hereby demands to be addressed only by his full name, preceded by the title “Mister.”

Alternatively, he may be called simply “the Citizen Accused.” This latter title sounds more respectable than the criminal “Defendant.” The designation “That innocent man” would also be acceptable.

Moreover, defense counsel does not wish to be referred to as a “lawyer,” or a “defense
attorney.” Those terms are substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Rather, counsel for the Citizen Accused should be referred to primarily as the “Defender of the Innocent.” This title seems particularly appropriate, because every Citizen Accused is presumed innocent.

Oh just read the whole thing, it has all kinds of awesome.

What does the lawyer who filed the motion have to say?

Rettig couldn’t be reached to comment on her motion or Justice’s response because she was in court Thursday.

I wonder what arguments she was advancing Thursday? Maybe that Judges shouldn't wear a black robe because it's demeaning to small dogs?

The District Attorney, throroughly embarrassed that she employed an assistant so capable of wasting the court's time, attempted to deflect any attention towards her office as the laughing stock of the entire legal community of the planet, and because she had to say something, did:

Her boss, Williamson County District Attorney Kim Helper, said her prosecutor was just trying to make sure the focus stayed on the facts of the case.

Uh, Ms. Helper (heh), I don't think that motion did what it was intended to do.

“We’re a little disappointed at the response that talked about ‘Captain Justice, Defender of the Realm,’ ” Helper said. “From my perspective, it seemed a little bit — I don’t know what the right word would be. The response did not appear to be in good faith.”

I think Ms. Helper isn't helping the situation, as it wasn't the response that did not appear to be in good faith.

Speaking of the demise of the blogosphere into a sewer of lawyer marketing, Joshua Slayen at Law Insider, tells of his journey since his graduation of law school in '09. He soon left BigLaw to try a start up that failed, and then....wait for it, decided well, he would just be a lawyer (and have a social media consulting business on the side of course). So for all you lawyers out there looking for social media consulting, some of Josh's consulting will help you:

Maintain a constant and vibrant twitter presence

Joining and participating in Facebook and LinkedIn groups

Creating iniovative and intelligent postings (I think it's "innovative," but maybe spelling is an extra fee.)

Displaying creative pictures that have the ability to go viral

Creating up and engaging in meaningful conversations.

So if you're looking to pay for some of this advice, call Josh, operators are standing by.

I see that Lawyerist is still around taking money to show pictures of Alexis Neely, and Sam Glover is still talking crazy about the possibility of having a law practice where lawyers do silly things like network by talking to people. Sam has developed a scientific formula for this idea that is as follows:

So what kind of things should you get out and do with people? Anything. Eat breakfast. Drink beer. Go to a game. Volunteer (not necessarily doing lawyer things). Play kickball. Have a barbecue. Go to a fundraiser. In other words, do normal things.

Kickball. Never thought of that. Who's up for a game?

Speaking of Kickball, Keith Lee over at AssociatesMind has a book coming out this week. I'm not supposed to say anything about it yet, so I won't. I'll probably just go read it again if I have the time.

Speaking of time, gotta go. Time to see what Ken at Popehat has for us at 325.6...

Rest in Peace Ed.

California Lawyer Christopher J. McCann's "Guest Post."

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:41:00 +0000

A few months ago, actually many months ago, actually shit, it was over a year ago (April, 2012) I received my 389085th request from some one-named marketer on behalf of a lawyer. That lawyer is Christopher J. McCann, who sounds like he's getting ready to sue the internet (sound familiar?). He tells Matt Brown this:

You have insulting me by clearly portraying me in a false light. As a private individual, that is actionable. I demand you remove any reference to me from that post and my comment.

If you do so, I’ll leave it at that. If not, I am going to explore my legal options against you and your partner who is cc’d on this communication.

Matt has insulting him. Terrible.

This all started with the typical silly request for a guest post. The request is always the same, "do you accept guest posts?" What this is, is that the lawyer is trying to gain an internet presence and either doesn't have a blog or their blog sucks so bad that no one is reading it. In comes the one-named marketer to fix everything. "Let's find lawyers that have blogs people actually read and ask them if we can ride shotgun."

It's a sad, desperate existence.

I've been blogging for some time and I've allowed a total of one guest post. It was from a lawyer who called me and asked me to write on his blog. I did, and then many months later I asked him to write on mine. There were no marketers, no promises of wealth and fame for each other, and no request for links so that our respective SEO juice could overflow.

So Christopher J. McCann's webmaster, Nader (no relation to Ralph I don't think), contacts me. I respond by writing a post about this cheesy disgusting pathetic stupid worthless marketing tactic. So did Matt Brown (who, despite his picture, assures me he's only buried 3 bodies in his life) over at his less-than-prominent blog.

Now it's June 2013.

Christopher J. McCann, who has been trying to gain a presence on the internet, has just discovered that we all know that. He now leaves me this comment: (I've highlighted the interesting passages of this rambling screed):

I am Mr. McCann.

I was not going to respond to you here, but when I see that you have insulted someone that unbeknownst to me has tried to stick up for me, I felt it necessary to explain myself.

It is clear you misunderstood the offer that my (now former) webmaster was putting forth. Firstly, any content in the articles he offered was mine. As a busy attorney, and not as web savvy as other professionals, I am not aware of all of the avenues in which I can get my content published. Nader simply sought out places he felt would be receptive to my content. I don't know why you took such offense towards him or me for making such an offer. You simply could have said "no" and moved on. Or contact me to discuss it. I trusted him to take the time that I don't have to approach other professionals such as yourself, assuming that you would respond appropriately. I was mistaken in my assumption.

It seems you were more interested in just making some point about unethical marketing practices and needed an example. The problem is, you chose the wrong example.

You would be the exception among web marketing professionals who thinks one should not seek to publish content on outside sources.
Nor do I think you are in the majority of persons who think it is unethical to hire someone to find places to publish the content they authored if they don't have the time or know how to locate such sources.

I do know who Scott B. is. At least I am pretty sure because I only know one other attorney with that name and last initial "B". He is a local lawyer, and a very good one, who knows me well. It should be obvious why he doesn't want to (or have to) use his last name when it appears you are only interested in putting down anyone you don't know who disagrees with you. Scott is a great lawyer whom I respect immensely. I liken your response to him as that of a "bully." For a lawyer to behave that way is . I'm surprised to see an experienced lawyer behave so immaturely, and unprofessionally towards another.

Also, you know nothing about me as a lawyer, so I fail to understand how you equate my conduct with being "unworthy of a member of the Bar." You just come off as a bully, and failed miserably to make some sort of point about web marketing.
Perhaps you should have simply contacted me directly when this happened and discussed it with me as one professional to another, rather than hurl insults from behind your computer.

I actually left a message at your office last year after hours after this blog post came to my attention. You never returned my call. If you are so concerned by what I have done, call me. My number is: (949) 596-0060. All calls are personally answered by me.

If you really still have a problem with this, call me anytime. But stop hurling insults at me or my colleagues for no reason. It just makes you look bad.

Well Chris, all I can say is that it may be time for you to take some advice about responding to negative reviews. There's a post you should read, it was a guest post on your blog in February.

Take care.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

A Tale Of Two Emails From Young Lawyers, And A Request

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 01:55:00 +0000

Today I saw an email sent to a young lawyer I know. The email was requesting to meet with the lawyer to discuss a job (a job that wasn't available). Lawyers get these all the time. New graduates send cover letters with resumes saying they want to work for the firm, not having a clue whether the firm is hiring. Most just hope for a response (which this guy got.) Most would love the ability to meet with a lawyer (which this guy turned down).

Yeah, the young lawyer responded that he had no job to offer, but sure, the young lawyer could come in and meet him and talk about a possible set up where Mr. Jobless could have his own practice, share space, get some work, etc... It wasn't a job, it was an opportunity (note: Mr. Jobless actually mentioned the word "opportunity" in his email, but as you'll learn from reading Mark Bennett's post on the email, his idea of an opportunity was a paycheck. He couldn't get that, so he said "thanks, but no thanks."

There was debate in the comment section to Bennett's post about whether this kid was just bat shit stupid or deserved understanding because he made it clear he wanted a "job" and not an opportunity to at least sponge off some lawyers for a while while trying to make a few bucks. Hell, it's the internet, everyones got an opinion and where ever you fall on this, I really couldn't give a crap.

Later in the day, I myself got an email. Here are the relevant portions:

Mr. Tannebaum,

Could I fire off some questions to you? I would like very much to enjoy the practice of law, but am at something of a crossroads as to how to do so...

Specifically, I'd like to go solo, and am not sure where I should, what I should practice (I studied criminal and IP in law school), or how to balance it all and still have a personal life. I don't know. . . Because I know it sounds odd, I will say that part of my problem is that I left the state I went to law school and am in a whole new network. I won't hound you or anything. . . just thought I'd give it a shot.

Reading the tone of this email, I wonder what this kid would do if I invited him to come meet me at my office for a 5 minute conversation and no promises? Sure, he makes clear he wants to go solo, but he's not sure he can make it and would probably take a job if offered. He would at least jump at the "opportunity" for a meeting.

So while I'm going to respond to his email directly, I'm asking you to help him. Give him your best advice. I think he deserves it. I think he'd appreciate it.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of Defending The Lawyer Before The State Bar

Understanding The New Florida Bar Advertising Rules, If That's Possible

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 18:10:00 +0000

There's new advertising rules for Florida Lawyers. They're available in this 53 page opinion released by The Florida Supreme Court this week.

Don't worry, you don't have to read 53 pages of a legal opinion, I'll help you with this.

From the Court: the Bar concluded that the existing lawyer advertising rules should be entirely restructured, focusing primarily on preventing the dissemination of misleading and unduly manipulative information.

But what about simply "manipulative information?"

Moving on...

And don't worry, like any rule change proposal: The proposals are designed to make the advertising rules more cohesive, easier for lawyers who advertise to understand, and less cumbersome for the Bar to apply and enforce.

Easier, less cumbersome. Of course.

So here we go:

Rules 4-7.1 through 4-7.10 are deleted. Gone. Poof.

We now have:

4-7.11 (Application of Rules);
4-7.12 (Required Content);
4-7.13 (Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements);
4-7.14 (Potentially Misleading Advertisements);
4-7.15 (Unduly Manipulative or Intrusive Advertisements);
4-7.16 (Presumptively Valid Content);
4-7.17 (Payment for Advertising and Promotion);
4-7.18 (Direct Contact with Prospective Clients);
4-7.19 (Evaluation of Advertisements);
4-7.20 (Exemptions From the Filing and Review Requirement);
4-7.21 (Firm Names and Letterhead);
4-7.22 (Lawyer Referral Services); and 4-7.23 (Lawyer Directory).

If you're keeping count, and I do, we now have 12 rules instead of 10.

We also introduce the new term "objectively verifiable" in Rules
4-7.13 and 4-7.14

Meaning?

If the attorney can show, by objective facts, that the statement is true, then he has presented an objectively verifiable statement in the advertisement. On the other hand, making a subjective statement such as "the best trial lawyer in Florida" is a misleading statement that fails to meet the requirement because it is neither objective nor verifiable. The advertising statement must be supported by verifiable facts.

So you can't say you are awesome, unless it can be verified. But can you then just list your past success? That's verifiable.

Well... as long as the past results are not:

atypical of persons under similar circumstances.

Also:

A result that omits pertinent information, such as failing to disclose that a specific judgment was uncontested or obtained by default, or failing to disclose that the judgment is far short of the client's actual damages, is also misleading.
So is the Bar still staying away from the internet?

This subchapter applies to all forms of communication in any print or electronic forum, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, brochures, flyers, television, radio, direct mail , electronic mail, and Internet, including banners, pop-ups, websites, social networking, and video sharing media.

So now you can't use the internet as a haven for deception. What will the marketers do?

Also: This subchapter applies to communications made to referral sources about legal services.

"Communications?" So I can't get drunk with a referral source and say things that are not "objectively verifiable" The bartenders lobby should have been all over this one.

This is a requirement that may strike fear throughout the Bar:

Legibility. Any information required by these rules to appear in an advertisement must be reasonably prominent and clearly legible if written, or intelligible if spoken.

And you lawyers that take the case and send it to another lawyer to do the work?

Ut oh.

If the advertising lawyer knows at the time the advertisement is disseminated that the lawyer intends to refer some cases generated from an advertisement to another lawyer, the advertisement must state that fact. An example of an appropriate disclaimer is as follows: 'Your case may be referred to another lawyer.

While trying to prevent "Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements," is admirable, this part of the rule will be fun to litigate:

An advertisement is deceptive or inherently misleading if it:

(3) implies the existence of a material nonexistent fact.

Like me, do you often get annoyed when people are being...wait, let me get this right... deceptive and misleading by implying the existence of a material nonexistent fact?"

Here's an example of an implied existence of a material nonexistent fact:

Another example of the implied existence of a nonexistent fact is a statement in an advertisement that a lawyer is a founding member of a legal organization when the lawyer has just begun practicing law. Such a statement falsely implies that the lawyer has been practicing law longer than the lawyer actually has.

So young lawyers, don't be self starters. Don't "found" anything and advertise it to anyone. It's misleading, apparently.
You can say (even if it's not true) that you are:

aggressive, intelligent, creative, honest, or trustworthy.

You cannot say that you are:

"the best," "second to none," or "the finest."

You can use the words:

"goal," "dedicated," "mission," and "philosophy."

And your precious testimonials?

Testimonials by clients on these matters, as long as they are truthful and are based on the actual experience of the person giving the testimonial, are beneficial to prospective clients and are permissible.

Now let's talk about Potentially Misleading Advertisements. This is a pretty clear standard (there's still not a font for sarcasm?)

(1) advertisements that are subject to varying reasonable interpretations, 1 or more of which would be materially misleading when considered in the relevant context;

(2) advertisements that are literally accurate, but could reasonably mislead a prospective client regarding a material fact;

(3) references to a lawyer's membership in, or recognition by, an entity that purports to base such membership or recognition on a lawyer's ability or skill, unless the entity conferring such membership or recognition is generally recognized within the legal profession as being a bona fide organization that makes its selections based upon objective and uniformly applied criteria, and that includes among its members or those recognized a reasonable cross-section of the legal community the entity purports to cover.

Ok. I'm going to just move on from that one before my head explodes.

But before I do, just know that even if your ad is potentially misleading:

Clarifying Information.

A lawyer may use an advertisement that would otherwise be potentially misleading if the advertisement contains information or statements that adequately clarify the potentially misleading issue.

Now that we all understand Deceptive and Inherently Misleading Advertisements and Potentially Misleading Advertisements, let's talk about....

UNDULY MANIPULATIVE OR INTRUSIVE ADVERTISEMENTS
A lawyer may not engage in unduly manipulative or intrusive advertisements. An advertisement is unduly manipulative if it(and I'll summarize this:

images, sounds, videos, dramatizations, authority figures such as a judge or law enforcement officer, or an actor portraying an authority figure, voice or image of a celebrity, except that a lawyer may use the voice or image of a local announcer, disc jockey or radio personality who regularly records advertisements so long as the person recording the announcement does not endorse or offer a testimonial on behalf of the advertising lawyer or law firm... to mention a few.

This of course is my favorite part:

Notice of Compliance and Disciplinary Action.

A finding of compliance by The Florida Bar will be binding on The Florida Bar in a grievance proceeding unless the advertisement contains a misrepresentation that is not apparent from the face of the advertisement. The Florida Bar has a right to change its finding of compliance and in such circumstances must notify the lawyer of the finding of noncompliance, after which the lawyer may be subject to discipline for continuing to disseminate the advertisement.

I wonder what happens if the Bar files a complaint, the ad was found to be in compliance, and then after the complaint is filed the Bar revisits its finding? The word "after" seems ripe for litigation.Those of you who use those cheesy referral services need to read 4-7.22, and read it carefully - specifically section (b).

So there you go, easier, less cumbersome, or as Justice Canady said: I am persuaded that the proposed rules remain unduly restrictive.

I'm reminded of the time I was at a conference listening to the head of the Florida Bar Ethics Department talk about lawyer advertising. I asked why we couldn't just simplify the rules. The response: "why don't you help us do that?"

I wrote "4-8.4 - nothing false, misleading, or deceptive" on a napkin and handed it to her.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of Defending The Lawyer Before The State Bar

Some Thoughts For Online Wine Merchants - The Good, The Bad

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:18:00 +0000

Every so often I write about wine. Today is a good day to write about wine, because there's only one other thing to think about, one thing on the minds of all Americans, and I need a break from thinking about that for a few moments, even though I know there are over two-dozen families and a community in Connecticut that don't get the luxury of being able to take a break.

I'm not in the wine business, I don't sell or market wine or have a business interest in a vineyard. I'm what's called "the consumer."

And I know, I'm not the average consumer. For the most part, wine merchants and wine marketers target those that get excited about things that make me laugh. As a sommelier myself and avid collector, I lament the person walking the aisles of the local wine shop just looking at price, label, and how many points, or the person who sends me an email about a wine and says it "looks good" because it's cheap and highly rated.

I predict based on my unscientific observations that the best selling wine is "under $10 and 'smooth.'"

I want to talk to you - wine industry. I want to tell you some things about consumers like me. Some good, some bad.

Do what you want with this. My prediction is that you will do nothing because things are good and I'm an outlier.

But here goes:

THE BAD

1. I don't care that the wine is made by "the famed winemaker from _________________."

The grapes aren't the same. Wine starts with good grapes. I know that, and I know you know I know that, so stop emailing me that the wine is being made by the guy that made a good wine somewhere else. I don't care. Put it in a footnote, casually mention it, but stop using it as a headline.

2. Lot 18, stop emailing me whether I'm "sure I want to skip the (wine)?" It's stalky. If I want to buy it, I will. If you continue to stalk me, I won't, ever.

3. Please check cellartracker.com before telling me that Suckling gave it 96 points or that some unknown critic gave it 93 points.

You all know that cellartracker.com is used by people like me to see how a group of different people liked the wine. When you say it's 96 points and 17 people who know wine say it's an average of 87.7, you're done.

Would it kill you to note what cellartracker says, like CinderellaWine.com does?

4. Wines 'til Sold Out, I have no idea what the "WTSO Member Average" is. Sounds fishy.

5. Invino, your shipping costs are terrible.

6. Wine.com, you need to do more for your Steward Ship people.

Do you not see we buy more wine based on the yearly fee we pay for free shipping? Do you think we need more weekly emails telling us free shipping folks that you're running a special "one cent shipping" deal?

7. All of you, stop discounting wine to the price for which it normally sells.

Only idiots don't know that Caymus is about $60. When you sell it for $79 and discount it, you're being disingenuous.

8. Wine Cellarage, you get dumbest move of the year.

You promoted free shipping to people within three surrounding states to those who bought $500 of wine? Everyone else gets nothing? Unsubscribe, goodbye.

9. Get your inventory together.

Whatever it costs you, tell me immediately that you don't have the wine, or don't have a case. Don't call me three days later and give me the bad news. Additionally, and I'm talking to you Wine Exchange, another place I'm done with, don't promote a wine you don't have from a distributor you don't know, because when you don't get it and you have more excuses than answers, you lose a customer.

10. Winery notes are meaningless.

Tell me what you think of the wine as a merchant. Tell me a story about the wine, how you got it, why I should buy it. I'm not buying it because it you tell me what the winery says about how the grapes were planted or the weather. Be more like Dan Posner or Jon Rimmerman (if anyone can write as much as Jon or Nicki).

11. Stop sending me a box of wine.

I will never understand why I receive boxes of wine with nothing but packing and bottles. Wineries are usually exempt from this stupidity as they will include tasting notes, and Wine.com goes as far as including a coupon for a future purchase.

But I do not understand why the rest of you include nothing? Would a handwritten note of "thanks" kill you? One time I got a note saying I looked you up and see you're a lawyer, my wife's a lawyer too." Silly little note, but it said something about the merchant. If I bought a Napa Cab don't you want to tell me that if I like it, you have another one that I may like as well? Do you not have a corkscrew with your company name on it, a hat, something? Sending boxes of wine with nothing in them is like saying "here." Silly customer retention policy. You're not the only wine retailer - you know that, right?

THE GOOD

1. Invino.com, as much as your shipping costs piss me off, I like you telling me that a wine I previously purchased is back in stock. Good move.

2. Wine.com, I noticed that very, very, very, late in the year you started offering specials to Steward Ship members - like an extra day of discounts. Nice gesture.

3. Totalwine.com, good program of buying and picking up wine at any store, but you need to promote it more as a gift idea. It's a great gift to tell someone to go by their local Total Wine because there's a gift waiting for them. It gets someone in the store that may not have visited and gives the gift giver a way of getting a bottle of wine in the hands of someone on the same day.

4. Cellartracker.com, I love the new site design.

Love to hear any thoughts you have on the state of wine merchants. Maybe I missed some good, or bad things, and maybe I need to know about some others out there that take care of their customers.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Where are the Marketers And Tech Hacks On Instagram Leaving Twitter, For Lawyers

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Mon, 10 Dec 2012 00:32:00 +0000

As any lawyer who spends any time on the internet knows, there is nothing that happens for which some lawyer marketer or tech hack misses the opportunity to write about how it will affect lawyers. All new electronic devices, all new social networks, and generally anything new that garners attention of more than 35 people, comes with the drumbeat of those hopeful for a few lawyer bucks, that it will have an effect on lawyers. It just will. Just watch. Keep watching.

Don't believe me?

iPad for Lawyers

iPhone for Lawyers

Android for Lawyers

Blackberry for Lawyers

Facebook for Lawyers

twitter for Lawyers

LinkedIn for Lawyers

How Lawyers Can Use Halloween To Get New Business

How Lawyers Would Botch the Zombie Apocalypse

See, there's nothing that can't be related to lawyers.

So over the last couple days I wondered why there was no sounding of the lawyer marketing/tech hack alarm that twitter is no longer allowing Instagram pictures to automatically post.

I know, I know, you're thinking, "what's Instagram?" Well, if that's your question, you are probably not really a lawyer, or even doing anything that doesn't involve making collect calls from a correctional facility. Instagram is very important. It's important because many people use it and say it's important.

Instagram is a program to take and post pictures on the internet. You can also share them and have people share their pictures. You can also follow people and people can follow you. If you are a lawyer, you want people sharing and following. Share, and follow. Just do it.

If you are not taking and posting pictures on the internet, you seriously need help, especially if you're a lawyer. Because Instagram is a social networking site and lawyers who do not participate in social networking sites are missing out. Just trust the marketers on this. If they weren't right, they wouldn't have shut down their law practice to spend their days convincing you that they are right.

Anyway, before today, or yesterday, or whenever, you could take a picture with Instagram, put it up on twitter, and the picture would automatically appear on your status update.

That doesn't happen anymore. Now there is a link, but you have to click on it to see the picture.

Here's more of the awful details:

It used to be that when an Instagram user took a photo and then shared it with Twitter, that photo would show up in the Twitter user's tweet on Twitter.com and Twitter's various apps.

Then, last week, Instagram crippled this feature, only allowing Twitter to display cropped photos.
Today, Instagram seems to have turned this feature off.

(Instagram users can still share their photos to Twitter, but now other users have to click a link in a tweet to see the photo.) Some users are whining about the change.

Whining?

How dare they call the emotions over the loss of a critical tech feature (for lawyers) "whining."

I know, as lawyers, you're thinking "what will happen to all my clients and my practice?" I'm scared too. What effect will twitter's dis of Instagram have on lawyers, and how we can save our livelihood?

The internet is already raging:

Loren Feldman, who is bald, and not a lawyer (but as everyone else on the internet, keenly interested in everything about lawyers), said this:

Omg no more Instagram photos. Shit just got serious. Man these are crazy confusing times we live in. Why must it be like this? Why?

Chris Taylor (@futureboy on twitter and deputy editor at Mashable) made the relevant point:

Clicked on an Instagram photo in Twitter and had to wait FIVE WHOLE SECONDS while it loaded the page. What is this, the Middle Ages?

I think Chris was being sarcastic, but as you know, sarcasm at a time like this is just bullying.

It's at a time like this when we need a hug, we need to be there for each other. The Atlantic Wire understands this - they have a three-step process entitled:

"How to Get Over the Twitter-Instagram War

on Photos."

So I ask, where are the marketers and tech hacks when we need them? How will we continue to practice law when we can't directly post pictures from Instagram to twitter?

Help us marketers and tech hacks.

Please.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Meet Marc Romano Of Ignyte, Inc.

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:21:00 +0000

Marc Romano of Ignyte, Inc, sent me an email:

Brian,

Regarding your piece on the future of law being a joke, I and several people who read your piece think that the biggest joke in law at least this week appears to be you. You seem pissed off at something. Everything OK at the office?

Frankly, I'm convinced that you don't know what your talking about and if you're so busy defending peoples rights, where do you find the time to write self serving pieces like this with the intention of degrading others who are delivering great value to the profession. You seem to have impressed a grand total of 23 people who hit the "like" button. Not so good.

In the future, you need to back up your claims with facts supported by credible third parties. The word of Brian and Brian alone simply does not cut it with intelligent people. Then again, maybe that's not your audience.

I have limited time here. I have seven law firms that we're rebranding and several holiday parties to attend in the evening by past clients who simply want to thank us for putting them on a positive path. They are all thriving and focused on the future of their firms as opposed to Brian who is desperately defending the past.

By the way, starting your day at 9:15 is a bit 20th century and not indicative of a very busy schedule. We start our days at 7. We're pretty jammed up.

Kind regards,

Marc Romano
President
ignyte Inc.
Get ahead. Stay ahead.

marc@ignyte.ms / www.ignyte.ms / mobile: 1 + 585 469 2132 / www.linkedin.com/in/ignyte

Here's more about Marc:

Judgment against Ignyte, Inc.

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.

Got 5 Bucks? I Got A Lawyer For You

noreply@blogger.com (My Law License) — Tue, 23 Oct 2012 00:52:00 +0000

Fiverr is a Groupon-type site that offers "The world's largest marketplace for small services, starting at $5."

Some interesting offers I found:

I will professionally write a song or jingle for your website, celebration or event for $5.

I will draw your favorite animated character for $5.

and my personal favorite:

I will put message on my eyelid under my eye or on my lips for $5.

Then there's this:

I will give you expert legal advice on almost ANY subject. Tips for asking questions, be specific and leave out any personally identifiable information. Limit your question to 1 legal issue, ask questions don't tell stories or crimes. Disclaimer; I do not represent clients but I do provide legal advice. The information that is provided is solely for educational and informational purposes, and do not constitute legal advice. While I may on occasion suggest or respond to hypothetical fact situations, your situation may differ in important respects from these scenarios, perhaps in ways that are not apparent, and in some instances my response may be affected by pedagogical, jurisdictional, or other factors that also affect its potential applicability to your situation. Please understand that NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS FORMED BY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME, AND PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

So to review:

For $5 (from I have no idea who), you get:

1. Expert legal advice.

2. Apparently from a lawyer who "does not represent clients" but does " provide legal advice." (insert laugh from all 50 state bar associations.)

3. This expert legal advice is solely for educational and informational purposes but DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE.

4. This expert legal advice, solely for educational and informational purposes that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE may be "on occasion" nothing more than to "suggest or respond to hypothetical fact situations."

5. In some instances the response, which is expert legal advice solely for educational and informational purposes but DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE "may be affected by pedagogical, jurisdictional, or other factors that also affect its potential applicability to your situation."

6. And finally, Please understand that NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP IS FORMED BY COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME, AND PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME CONFIDENTIAL OR PRIVILEGED INFORMATION when you are seeking expert legal advice solely for educational and informational purposes that DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE EVEN THOUGH IT IS EXPERT LEGAL ADVICE.

I don't know who this lawyer is, but he should be disbarred. Not for offering this to the public, but for the harm he has caused to the public by writing the above.

And I apologize to all the young lawyers who believe I'm just trying to stifle creativity in a world of desperate unemployed law school grads, but my advice is that if you have $5, get one of these:

Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and aren't a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand.

Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.