AGING LAWYERS AND THEIR PROBLEMS

TWO PROBLEMS + AN UNLIKELY THIRD

I spend a fair amount of time these days considering, pondering and counseling counsel as to the professional-vocational problems of aging lawyers (Ls).

Two problems are particularly pressing, and a third is sometimes lurking the the bushes. Both of the first two problems revolve an insufficiency of work to do, whilst L would like to do legal work. This is especially a problem in Texas since the number of Ls is growing fast and at a speedier rate than the hiring population, whether human persons or corporate-entity type persons.

The first version of this problem is for Ls who have “retired” from (quite often pushed or eased out of) law firms where they have been for many years or firms to which they went when a group of partners at a previous firm all bolted, and s/he had to go too). “What do I do now?” goes the question often asked me. There is a great deal of suffering involved when old-L get an office half the size of the old one, is assigned no assistant, is not included in reasoning sessions, is paid directly in accordance with productivity or by the hour, and so on.

The second problem is related. Often Ls in this pickle ask themselves, “From where can I get new business?” For the lawyer who has not been a rain maker, s/he will find that the work does not come at all easily, even from former clients. Some Ls try the “unretirement” route and try starting up a new business, but usually this is in the law but another sector of it. Sometimes they get the idea of providing legal services to the elderly, but most lawyers who already do this oppose new “kids” in various ways, some of which have struck me an on the savory side.  Besides what is a litigator to do? Draft wills? Handle real estate transactions? Unlikely. But the aging litigator knows that lawsuits for the elderly are to some extent pointless because of defense-by delay tactics. (Of course, it is possible to plead only cases which are quite small cases–Level 1 cases, they are called in Texas. And it is possible to debt protection cases. Or it is possible to help fill out “retirement forms.)

Sometimes I have suggested L consider starting a new litigation practice by advertising in various places with such slogans as “Lawsuits tried quick and cheap here,” “Legal writing for a song,” but I am not sure whether the Bar would agree to that, and–I guess–I mean it mostly in a light-hearted way.  (In one state not long ago, one debtor representing lawyer issued an ad something like this: “I’ve been screwing banks for many years. Take you turn with me.” The bar sanctioned this fellow severly for using this kind of phraseology in several ad-maxims.

In any case, people who are about to spend/invest money in legal services are hesitant about using really aging lawyers. More than a few firms are reluctant to hire them since they find themselves not quite understanding how long L will want to work, how long clients will want him/her, and/or how long L will live and/or function.Some of the Ls I have talked to are concerned about some lacks they seem to have acquired, as it were, as they have aged.

One of the most frequent problems is a lack of computer, cyber, and/or digital skills. I have seen senior have trouble with electronic filings and even the computer-and-copier addressing of envelopes or the use of scanning processes.  I have even seen highly experienced litigators not know how to get process served; after all, they haven’t done it in  years; there have always–or formerly–been paralegal or secretarial subordinates who did that sort of thing for one, of course.

The emotional sense of inferiority and discouragement seem acute for these “fellows/fellas.” Discouragement runs high. Sometimes that comes from the past. (Q. Where’s the Shepherd manual? A. There isn’t one anymore.) Sometimes it comes from weak and random failures of memory. Starting over again for those who are 75 is not easy. Not ever person nearly 75 can run for president.  Sometimes my counseling is on how to deal with the “pushing out” firm. Sometimes it’s main function is to tell them they are not alone. Occasionally I have suggests that several people in the 68-75 range create new firms.

I have even suggested that Ls write off everything and set out anew. If you like beaches, go to corpus and “janet,” part time or work in a surf shop. If you like mountains, go to a small town in Colorado and find work as a paralegal in a stumble-bum small law firm at a very low rate. Knoweldge and pleasure will return, I say.

Alas, I don’t seem to be having much success with any of these suggestions. Mostly the L-to-L provision of counsel involves sitting together in loving silence or telling stories together over coffee or on a park bench.  (I read somewhere, in Somerset Maugham’s RAZOR’S EDGE, I think, that silence itself can be a form of conversation.

I don’t charge anybody anything. First, I’m not doing much good, I think, and second, I don’t have a license to counsel in this way, for the most part. There is an area where I have some recognized competence to help some of them, however and that is the area of lawyer ethics, whether disciplinary rules, the law of lawyering, or the moral responsibilities of Ls as lawyers.

The number of Ls who violate one or more of the Eleven Commandments of Legal Ethics (see my blogs elsewhere) seems to increase over the years in some cases.  Thus, Ls who steal from their client may or may not increase slightly as the Ls get older–not that it become a huge number. I’m reasonably certain, however, partly on the basis of anecdotal evidence, that if the number of Ls falling into sin does not increase, or does,  he size of the heists and embezzlement does go up. This may be because lawyer in their older middle age have more access to client trust accounts. the same goes for embezzlement from firm accounts. For at least some of them, they are looking for a new form of excitement, and it gets not only beyond the law, but way out of hand.

What do I say to those Ls? I’ll not discuss it here. 

Read More

THE REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE

AN OBVIOUS POINT?

Michael Sean Quinn*

I realized the other day, that there was a simple, and upon momentary reflection, an obvious point about litigation, something I have used in practice for 35 years and about which I have been continually lecturing, writing, and teaching for nearly that long. If you think about presumptions in litigation, there are basically two types: rebuttable and irrebuttable.  (The latter type is often also called presumption of law, by which it is intended to say that, as a matter of law, this presumption cannot be overcome by empirical considerations.) 

My self-revelation came to me the other day as I read a clause about presumptions regarding the ownership of property which will arise most frequently in certain types of divorce cases,  but actually in any divorce-related case where there is a gift during marriage, and–I guess–at many other times as well.

Here is what I discovered.  A rebuttable presumption can be (2) overcome by means of empirical evidence. Moreover, (3) the amount of evidence it takes to over some such a presumption is quite law–anything but the obviously false–say, because contradictory–or the manifestly unreasonable. In addition, (4) when the presumption is overcome in this way, it “vanishes,” as it were, and is no longer of any use in the litigation.  

One can immediately see why this is true. If the side which it favored would be arguing “This case once involved a rebuttable presumption, so, although it has been rebutted, you should decide this case in our favor because of what was once true.” Of course, by the same token, the fact that there was a rebuttable presumption once, and it is now gone, does not suggest that favor should be shown the party that over came it.  (“We rebutted a presumption that proposition p is true, so you should conclude now that p false.”) What we learn from all this is that the idea of being-a-rebuttable-presumption is part of the law of evidence and not simply part of the law of civil procedure, except to the extent that the law of evidence is part of that law, as well as a separate species of the family of jurisprudence. 

So, you might ask, what difference does it make? I’m not sure it makes any difference to the insightful. I, however, was blind. My blindness preventing me intimately and immediately associating the idea of rebuttable-presumption-elimination with the production of very weak evidence and therefore distorted my anxieties about how to think about pieces of litigation when I was in the midst of them. I never really realized that once rebutted, a rebuttable presumption vanishes and any attempt to refer to it again is improper. I therefore never thought about obtaining an instructional ruling from the trial judge at the beginning of a trial forbidding any reference to the now undermined and now non-existent presumption.

*Michael Sean Quinn
Quinn and Quinn

1300 West Lynn Suite 208

Austin, TX 78703

Office Phone: 512-296-2594

Cell:512-656-0503

Fax: 512-344-9466

Email: mquinn@msqlaw.com

Read More

LAWYER AS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDER

LAWYER AS THERAPIST?

Michael Sean Quinn*

John  G. Balestriere recently published some excellent–or at  least mostly excellent–advice: Lawyers “have to be unemotional in our work, but we can’t expect that our clients. We serve them better when we remember not only our role as advocate and counselor,but there as client.” In addition he observes and advises that an L is not a friend of the client, not his/her yoga partner or her/his therapist. See his In the Attorney-Client Relationship, You Are The Service Professional (February 5, 2016). His remarks are focused on litigation.

It is certainly true that lawyers need to be objective, discerning, insightful, knowledgeable, and providers of legal services. It is also true that a lawyer, as he puts it (more or less) that it is not the lawyer’s role to “to stroke your stroke your client’s hair and and tell them all will be ok and say ‘Om’  or have them sit on a couch or have the client  [or permit your client] to tell you about their mothers.” It is also true that insofar as lawyers are counselors they are not exactly councilors. 

Nevertheless, there are at least two ways the “Balestriere Doctrine” goes wrong. (Some might even call it the “Balestriere Macho [or, macha] Doctrine,” but that might be wrong, unkind, uncharitable, or some combination thereof.)

First, representing a client in a high risk situation, e.g., litigation where there is actual controversy involved and sufficient-to-substantial amounts of money at stake requires that L deal with the internal, emotional lives of C. It requires knowledge of and dealing with stress levels, unconscious resistance factors, negative biases (as psychologists call them), and so forth. It requires L having that kind of knowledge (or trying to have it anyway)and then using it “on” C for C’s benefit, i.e., in the service of C’s interests. Actually, this is a professional duty of Ls. 

Second, performing this process might require some degree of comforting, something Balestriere rejects.  It might also require reducing or eliminating some “distance” between L and C. (Of course, under some circumstances too great a reduction can lead to a different kind of problem.) In any case, often manifesting sympathy and solidarity with C is a necessary part of L’s professional responsibilities. 

Law school doesn’t teach much about all this, and never has. One wonders if it would be well to do so. After all, experience taken just by itself without the right sort of open-mindedness probably won’t help much. Then again. Imagine a class entitled “Counsel and Counselor,” or something of the sort. Imagine a clinic on the same topic. Imagine a course or clinic entitled “Client Management.” 

*Michael Sean Quinn
Quinn and Quinn

1300 West Lynn Suite 208

Austin, TX 78703

Office Phone: 512-296-2594

Cell:512-656-0503

Fax: 512-344-9466

Email: mquinn@msqlaw.com

Read More

LAWYER VIOLENT CRIME

FAMILY VIOLENCE

Michael Sean Quinn*

A New York personal injury (and maybe probate) litigator who lived in Fairfield Connecticut had spent his off duty time beating and stabbing members of his family. Some of the beatings were done with a baseball bat, apparently. At least some of these injuries were quite severe. L’s then wife is still in critical condition in a local hospital. 

The police were called and came quickly. They found L with one of his sons in the front yard. Dad has a weapon of some sort, and son had the bat. (Son later said he took the bat away from his dad, L.)

As L advanced upon the police shot by at least one of the policemen. All this happened in the early morning–sometime around 6AM. L died a bit later from gunshot wounds. 

Many lawyers will be tempted by the hypothesis that at least one characteristic of L’s law practice was at least one of the factors causing this ugly incident. What that proves is that not all temptations are bad, and not all epistemological temptations are false or lead to “the false.” 

From the moral point of view–a completely different division of philosophy–many lawyers will also wonder if L didn’t get what he deserved. A tempting thought, to say the least. 

Then, of course, there are the issues of legal and constitutional rights. I’ll leave those to someone else who is less outraged than I. 

*Michael Sean Quinn
Quinn and Quinn

1300 West Lynn Suite 208

Austin, TX 78703

Office Phone: 512-296-2594

Cell:512-656-0503

Fax: 512-344-9466

Email: mquinn@msqlaw.com

Read More

LAWYER DISBARRED FOR SKULDUGGERY

OVERZEALOUS REPRESENTATION

*Michael Sean Quinn

L represented C. The case was less than perfect. L therefore decided to “impeach” opposing counsel We’ll call him “OpL” 

L knew that OpL was a drinker and knew where he often imbibed. Perhaps he also knew that OpL had a weakness for at least flirtation.  L dispatched one of his voluptuous and–shall we say– unconstrained paralegal (“She”) to show up and at least appear seductive. 

The game was–as they say, “on”–and She found him at the bar, sat down with him, drank with him, suggested that the game should continue, and dispatched him to move her car, since it was getting late.

The problem was that OpL was at least slightly tipsy. For his part, L had arranged for an actual law enforcement official to be in waiting and OpL was arrested for drunk driving.  

Aggressive? No doubt. Zealous? Surely. Clever? Appears so. Prudent? No. Within Lawyerly ethical  limits? Obviously not!

L has been disbarred. And had to pay costs ($14,000+) Crime? Probably but unknown as yet. She? Answer in Form of Question: Would you hire her?

Enjoyable and comical story that bring pleasure to the reader? I don’t find it so, even though L got what he deserved. Why? Tragedy or at least unnecessary and inappropriate injury and hurt to too many people. Demeaning to a profession about which there is, and always has been, at least deep skepticism anyway.   

*Michael Sean Quinn
Quinn and Quinn

1300 West Lynn Suite 208

Austin, TX 78703

Office Phone: 512-296-2594

Cell:512-656-0503

Fax: 512-344-9466

Email: mquinn@msqlaw.com

Read More

Quinn Quotes

Not every mistake made by an insurer in handling a claim inflicts compensable damages upon a claiming insured.  This is true especially if the insurer's error hurt somebody, just not the insured.~Michael Sean Quinn, PhD, JD, CPCU, Etc.Tweet

The books shown are NOT affiliate links.
MSQ (site) does not receive any compensation for books listed or sold.
Books are shown for the reader's convenience only.

Newsletter

Michael Sean Quinn, PhD, JD, CPCU, Etc*., is available as an expert witness in insurance disputes and other litigation matters. Contact