« May 08, 2011 - May 14, 2011 | Main | May 22, 2011 - May 28, 2011 »
May 20, 2011
Rapture Music.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:50 PM | Comments (0)
May 18, 2011
Sensitive Litigation Moment No. 15: Is "Professionalism" a Smokescreen for Bad Lawyering?
Professionalism--like good crops, the flag and motherhood--is indeed hard to criticize. It is also tough to define. Is it always good for clients? Can it even hurt them?
Weenie Alert: It's not about the lawyers anymore. In litigation, and in other contentious projects, does the practice of routinely and without question granting extensions, expanding deadlines, and saying "yes" to an adversary's requests for an accommodation really help clients? Or are such courtesies merely effete and provincial folkways that take the focus off the main event: solving problems for clients as expeditiously as possible? See "Professionalism Revisited: What About the Client?" in San Diego's The Daily Transcript of April 29, 2005. Has anything changed in five years?
.jpg)
Bar association meeting, San Diego. Pick any year.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:59 PM | Comments (2)
Scott Greenfield: Clients, Bonding & Lawyering.
On the one hand, there's a critical need for trust between lawyer and client. On the other, there's a critical need for detachment. A defendant feels the former.
Over at his celebrated Simple Justice, a Not-For-Weenies venue, do read Scott Greenfield's Too Close For Comfort, preferably before The Rapture obtains.
Above: Greenfield before 2003 industrial accident.
Posted by JD Hull at 11:33 PM | Comments (0)
May 17, 2011
Get Out Of Your Cars And Dance.
Posted by JD Hull at 02:22 PM | Comments (0)
Feat Tuesday: I hear you moan, I hear you moan, I hear you moan.
Billy he got so sad, dejected, put on his hat and start to run
Runnin' down the street yellin' at the top of his lungs.
Posted by Holden Oliver (Kitzbühel Desk) at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)
May 16, 2011
Sensitive Litigation Moment No. 14: Remember arbitration? How was that supposed to work, anyway?
Is there a way to stop feeding the monster? It's clear that both globally and in the U.S., arbitration and "ADR" have defeated the goals of Faster, Cheaper, Better. See, e.g., ABA Journal (April 2010) "International Arbitration Loses Its Grip". Any ideas on how to fix it? We need a system that works for clients--we already know it "works" for outside law firms--in business-to-business disputes. Why not have contract clauses that, regardless of the amount at stake, stipulate to one (1) panelist and require a decision in six (6) months?
Arbitration: Did it get as bad as the disease?
Posted by JD Hull at 11:23 PM | Comments (2)