Search

Articles Posted in Ethics

One of the many hats I wear at Miller & Zois is that of our in-office appellate specialist. What that really means is that I handle all of our law firm’s personal injury cases that wind up being appealed, and that I accept referrals (from other lawyers only) to handle civil appeals of all types.

One thing I see over and over is briefs from the other side that make the ill-advised choice to attack the trial judge or trial counsel. And I don’t mean with reasoned legal arguments, I mean things that are over-the-top, like allegations that the judge was biased, or ad hominem attacks on the opposing party or their counsel. There are a lot of things wrong with doing that, but the two main ones are 1) it’s unprofessional and 2) making yourself look like a jackass isn’t very persuasive.

If you handle appeals on a regular basis, you should take a look at “Professionalism On Appeal: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly”, an article by Howard J. Bashman, a Philadelphia-area appellate specialist. I think he sums it up nicely by saying: “Indeed, expressing animosity toward opposing counsel on appeal, or toward the trial judge, usually proves to be counterproductive rather than an effective strategy for victory.”

Most lawyers handling cases involving permanent injuries and ongoing complaints of pain are familiar with the medical sub-specialty known as “pain management.” These doctors (often with experience in anesthesiology) concentrate in the management of long-term chronic pain. This is done by medication management and other methods. This is a legitimate medical specialty with its own certifying boards.

This kind of treatment is often viewed with some skepticism by insurers and juries. Anecdotally, I think this is because this treatment cannot result in a “cure” for whatever is wrong. Instead, it concentrates on making the patient as comfortable as possible by ameliorating the effects of painful permanent conditions. This leads to concerns that pain management treatment is not medically neccessary, or that it encourages drug-seeking behavior in patients.

Legitimate pain management doctors go to great lengths to establish medical neccessity, and to control concerns about drug-seeking by patients. They obtain records of past medical history, keep meticulate prescribing records, make patients sign treatment contracts, and often use urinalysis to monitor compliance. On the other hand, illegitimate pill-mill doctors have been known to omit these precautions, and will write endless streams of prescriptions for powerful narcotics, often based on nothign more than the patient’s say-so that it hurts. Most experienced personal injury lawyers have run into both kinds of pain management doctors. At least, I have.

Today’s paper has an article about a lawyer from Frederick County who has sued the state over an incident where he was arrested in the Court of Appeals building. According to this Baltimore Sun article, the regular bailiff was out, so he was replaced with a police officer from the state’s Department of General Services. When the lawyer arrived at the courthouse, dressed in a slovely fashion, he was asked to show ID. He refused, and lied to the officer. He said he left his ID in the car, when it was actually in his pocket. He was then arrested. The charges were dismissed for lack of probable cause. Now the lawyer has sued for $700k for his “wrongful” arrest.

This is the same guy I wrote about here, when he rudely interrupted a trial judge, showed tremendous disrespect, and stormed out of a courtroom while the judge was hearing the case. In a wrongly decided opinion, the Court of Appeals let him off the hook because the judge made some procedural mistakes in handling the contempt ruling.

It looks like he didn’t learn much. Perhaps he is correct that there is no legal requirement that you show ID when entering the Court of Appeals building. But a person entrusted with the privilege and responsibility of being a member of the Maryland Bar should know better than to handle it the way this guy apparently did. Just because you have the right to act like a jackass doesn’t make it a good idea.

I have just discovered an interesting legal blog I hadn’t seen before. The Legal Profession Blog is written by four law professors and focuses on legal ethics and issues afecting the practice of law.

The blog links to an Ohio ethics opinion suspending a lawyer for two years, for get this, looking at dirty pictures and stories depicting consenting adults, in his home, with his wife. Apparently he was also convicted of a felony for obscenity under federal law. He served 15 months in federal prison and upon release got hit with a suspension from practicing law. His story is that his ex-wife broke into his home and stole his computer, and delivered it to the FBI in order to gain an advantage in custody lititgation.

When I saw this, I thought wait, what? Then I thought some more. I suspect there is more to this than the opinion lets on. There almost has to be. I don’t think that you get 15 months at Club Fed and a two-year suspension for Googling up the Kim K. sex tape. I mean, I doubt it gets you prison time if there are stories about it on TMZ.

My fellow attorneys, write this down: “Offering legal services in exchange for sex is unethical.” And unlikely to succeed, if you look at this ethics opinion where a lawyer made such an offer, to two clients who happened to be lesbians. You, sir, are a genius. Enjoy your well-deserved disbarment. Disclaimer: Although this is more likely to succeed with non-lesbians, it is equally wrong and repugnant. Thanks, Walter Olson. I do not agree with you politically on most things. But I agree unethical lawyers do everyone a disservice.

Justice Scalia trips and falls, but he is unharmed. Crap. This would have been the best slip/fall case ever, possibly even better than Judge Bork’s.  I love Judge Bork (not to be confused with Bjork). Great beard, (although not well visualized in the photo at right) and he reached the pinnacle of American achievement by becoming a verb.

Getting “Borked” now refers to defeating a judicial nominee by attackign his character and philosophy. And as an added bonus, it sounds kind of dirty.

I have a lot of respect for federal magistrate judges. They spend their days handling settlement conferences, ruling on motions, and presiding over discovery disputes. Every once in a while, if they are lucky, the parties to a case will consent to a trial before a magistrate to liven things up.

dunce-cap
Nothing sucks more than civil discovery disputes. Particularly those that involve deposition misconduct in the form of speaking objections, and motion papers inclusive of personal attacks. Here is the greatest court order I have ever seen (ABA Journal via ATL).

Judge Leen apparently got to this ruling too late to affect discovery in the case, but she’s not exactly apologetic about it. As she explains: “I am not the Maytag repairman of federal judges desperately hoping for something to do.” She thought so little of the merits of this dispute and the number of trees killed in its pursuit that she assigned her intern to read the 185 pages of transcripts submitted by the parties and to submit a memorandum. The intern was very quickly able to determine what the lawyers should have known- they were being bad.

Contact Information