Our blog has moved, and is new and improved.

You should be automatically redirected in 3 seconds. If not, visit
MinnLawyerBlog.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts with label civility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civility. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Dorsey subject of New York judge's ire

Southern District of New York Judge Harold Baer has taken the opportunity in a trade secrets case—now settled—to deliver a 129-page admonition to the lawyers in the case and the profession in general concerning what he sees as declining standards of professionalism and civility.

The plaintiff was represented by Dorsey & Whitney, and attorney Kristan Peters, who was with the firm from January to June this year. The complicated dispute involves the use of information allegedly protected by court orders. The judge’s full opinion in Wolter Kluwers Financial Services Inc. v. Scivantage, is available here.

Dorsey denies the allegations of unprofessionalism against it but more interesting to me is the judge’s exhortation on lawyers and law firms in general. If it’s accurate—and I don’t know that it is—I’d like to think it’s an East Coast phenomenon.

Baer writes,

“While I am dismayed at the way in which many law firms today approach the
practice of law, I realize that for the most part is it none of my business and
indeed not the business of the judiciary in general. The fact that partners are
at times made and retained for their rainmaking skills and not for their legal
skill, that the number of billable hours is not only the alpha and omega of
bonuses but that these hours—or at least the ones that count—often exclude pro
bono hours, or that who gets credit for originating a piece of business can
throw a firm into turmoil and prompt major internecine struggles, or that the
bottom line has eclipsed most everything else for which the practice of law
stands or stood to the extent that the practice of law is now frequently
described as a business rather than a profession. . . . Rather, it is the
fallout from such conduct, some of which we witnessed here, that ineluctably
drives some lawyers and some law firms to the kind of conduct that played out
before me at this hearing and that then becomes the business of the
courts.”

Thursday, June 7, 2007

So you want fries with that?

I wish I could take credit for this entry, but it was prepared by Paul Fletcher, the publisher and editor-in-chief of Virginia Lawyers Weekly, our sister publication in the Old Dominion. Here is Paul's take on a story that has been making its way around the Web.

There is a legal story floating around the Internet that is worth pulling to ground and blogging about.

Last month a lawyer from a big firm in Chicago was handling a case in federal bankruptcy court in Miami. Lawyer is head of the bankruptcy section of said big firm. The judge holds an emergency hearing in a matter. As reported in the court transcript posted by the legal blog Above the Law, said lawyer was not the most deferential to the judge. Judge seemed to be wanting to do something the lawyer didn’t like, so the lawyer told her, “I suggest to you with respect, Your Honor, that you’re a few French fries short of a Happy Meal in terms of what’s likely to take place.”

First, anytime someone prefaces a remark to you with the phrase, “with respect,” watch out. You're about to do a turn as Rodney Dangerfield. Second, Ronald McDonald is not recognized as much of a legal authority. He is, after all, a clown. And third, if you insult a judge in open court, you do so at your peril.

Needless to say, the judge at whom the Happy Meal remark was aimed was not so happy. She issued a show cause to lawyer, scheduling a hearing on why he shouldn’t be suspended from practicing in her court and have his pro hac vice admission revoked.

Above the Law broke the story; the Daily Business Review provides an update on the fallout for the lawyer and his firm. Among other developments, the client is no longer his client.
The show cause hearing is set for June 25. Stay tuned.

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/05/atl_practice_pointers_dont_ins.php
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1180515925030