Maryland Lawyer Blog

“The Maryland Lawyer” section of the Maryland Daily Record today has an interesting article on the impact of the economic slowdown on Maryland lawyers and the fears of law students looking for a job. The article reports that a number of law firms nationally are “axing” lawyers, including Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP, Dechert LLP, Clifford Chance LLP, and Thelen, Reid, Brown, Raysman & Steiner LLP. (I had originally included McKee Nelson LLP on the list because they were included in the Daily Record article. I have since been corrected by email by them that "McKee Nelson conducted a voluntary program last October through which a number of capital markets lawyers volunteered to take partially paid sabbaticals to work for not-for-profits, transfer to other areas of practice, take buyouts, or seek jobs with our clients.") Other firms such as Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP are limiting their summer associates and Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal LLP has taken back job offers, presumably to incoming lawyers.

To really scare big firm lawyers, the article mentions the 1992 dissolution of the Baltimore mega law firm of Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman.You can always gauge the legal market in Maryland by the reaction to the mention of the Frank, Bernstein, Conaway & Goldman breakup. In the best of times, the mention of that ghost brings on “That could never happen to us” chuckles. During a bad legal market in Baltimore, any mention of that dissolved firm evokes some response in a self-conscious “That could not happen to us. Right? Right?” tone.

The prospect of the collapse of one of Baltimore’s major law firms would be very unlikely because today big law firms are run more like a real business than they were in 1992. As this article points out, Frank Bernstein probably could have been saved if they had terminated partners, an unseemly practice in 1992 but de jour today. The old days of making partner and becoming a “made man” are long gone, which makes a lot more economic sense for a law firm facing a downturn in the market.

This article makes clear that Venable, Miles & Stockbridge, and Piper DLA are in public denial about the impact an economic slowdown/recession has on their firm, pretending that the Baltimore-Washington market is somehow significantly more immune from an economic downturn than other markets. I think these lawyers are smart enough to be preparing for the impact of a downturn in the legal market and are taking steps to mitigate their risk.

Accident and medical malpractice lawyers tend to think they are immune from an economic slowdown because litigation generally remains constant in good and bad economic times. But there is some impact because many lawyers handling real estate and other economically sensitive areas of the law migrate to litigation – specifically personal injury – during economic downturns, which does have some impact on personal injury lawyers.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Maryland Daily Record has an article in its Maryland Lawyer section this morning on associate retention in Baltimore law firms. I was amazed to read that one lawyer, who is on his third job, expressed dismay that his two previous law firms never asked him the kind of work he wanted to do. He says he was told, “Here are the cases we have, here are the clients we have and we’ll give you the work.” He complained that no one ever asked him, “What do you want to do?’” he said.

Tragically, these law firms only gave him the work that it had, not the work he wanted. Our law firm handles only personal injury cases. But if we had a lawyer who said, “Hey, I don’t want to handle personal injury work, I want to do mergers and acquisitions,” we would obviously run out and immediately pick up JPMorgan or Bear Stearns as clients. Are you telling me every law firm does not operate this way?

These cold sweat shop law firms that do not allow you to pick the work and the clients you want to do are the same kind of law firms that actually expect you to come to work on rainy days like today. The inhumanity!

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

In my Insurance Law class at the University of Baltimore last week, somehow the topic of the bar application came up. One student complained about how detailed and arduous the application process is to complete. I mused that I didn’t know why they make you jump though all of these hoops when they let just about every non-felon in anyway.

I was dead wrong. The Maryland Court of Appeals ruled last week in a 23 page opinion that a bar applicant, never accused of any crime, was unfit to practice law for two reasons: (1) bad credit history that the applicant lied about, and (2) an inappropriate relationship with a 15 year-old girl.

You can guess as to the bad credit history problem. He had bad credit, tried to fix it right before he made the bar application, and then lied about it. The situation with the girl sounds like something out of a TV movie. The girl – now a 22 year-old woman - apparently went to the Character Committee – via a letter from her mother - and told them about the relationship. When she testified, the woman recanted much of what she told the investigators. It was also revealed that she had committed acts of vandalism and violence against the bar applicant, and apparently had threatened suicide when he threatened to break up with her.

So you might think those allegations wouldn’t hold up, but enough stuck to make it meaningful to the Maryland Court of Appeals. The bar applicant claimed he was a father figure to the girl, but admits that he (1) lied about his age when he met her, (2) found her very attractive and (3) had a sexual relationship with her (there was debate as to whether the relationship started when she was 15 or 16).

The Character Committee found he showed poor judgment in having a relationship with someone who was not “emotionally mature.” I don’t necessarily disagree with the result, if only because I find it creepy for a man to say he was a “father figure” to a 15 year-old girl he met and slept with. But I wish the semantics were a little more specific. I’m not sure how many of us were “emotionally mature” when we took the bar exam. The problem, it seems, is not that she was emotionally immature but that that she was only 15 or 16. I don’t see why we can’t say that is a bad thing, and I really don’t know why Maryland law does not reflect that this is a bad thing.

For better or worse – largely for the better – we live in a culture of forgiveness. I think if this applicant gets his act together, he will be admitted to the bar. You can find a copy of the Court of Appeals’ opinion here.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

Like many of us, I have followed closely the Elliot Spitzer saga with sadness, fascination, and amazement. My quick two cents: I think what Elliot Spitzer did was awful and I think he no longer has the moral authority to lead New York. The hypocrisy is just stunning. The irony is I don't think most Americans believe what Elliot Spitzer did should send him to jail but he does (oh, unless, Elliot Spitzer is the defendant.)

But I think it is also insane to suggest, as the Associated Press reported some are, that Spitzer should be disbarred or his license to practice law should be suspended. The standard to be governor of the state of New York is different from the ability to participate in the livelihood of practicing law.

Lawyers who commit (relatively) victimless crimes should be prosecuted because, as Elliot Spitzer knows full well, you cannot pick the laws that you choose to follow (at least the ones that are not unconscionable, which pretty much includes every enforced law in this country). But they ought to be allowed to keep their jobs. It is also worth noting that no one would suggest that a doctor should no longer practice medicine for sleeping with prostitute.

What an incredible irony it would be if Elliot Spitzer was suspended or disbarred for sleeping with a prostitute when we do not suspend or disbar lawyers who drink and drive and put innocent children at risk.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Maryland Daily Record's Blog reports that DLA Piper and Venable, the two Baltimore mega firms, have raised their associate starting salaries in Baltimore to $160,000.

I remember in 1995 when I was making $57,500 coming out of law school at a litigation defense firm in Baltimore that, at that time, was only a half notch below Piper and Venable in starting salary. Because other than being a law clerk, my next best paying job in life had been as a camp counselor making minimum wage, I thought I was a millionaire. (In a related story, I was still living at home.)

The Daily Record Blog asks if these young associates are worth 160K a year. The answer is clearly no. But three years from now, when they have quality experience and are billing out at $450 an hour while working approximately 28.7 hours a day, the answer becomes a resounding yes. It is not dissimilar to the Oakland Raiders signing JaMarcus Russell to a six-year, $68 million contract even when they did not think he would be an asset to them in the first year of his contract (they were right).

To collect this 160K a year, there is a catch. You actually have to show up and work there. I can honestly say that I would not take the job of a first year associate at one of these firms if they offered me $1,000,000 a year. If you can walk into some of these big firms - I'm not speaking to Venable and Piper specifically – you will see many of their lawyers are blinking t-o-r-t-u-r-e in Morse Code. These are tough places to work, especially if you have a family and other commitments. For a great fictional account of big firm life that is absolutely hysterical, check out the Anonymous Lawyer Blog.

If you read a lot of blogs, you might be rolling your eyes that another personal injury lawyer blog is bashing big (defense) firms. Well, you are, I guess. But there is a reason while DLA Piper has over three thousand lawyers: all things considered, including I’m guessing the money, it works for them. While the big firm life was certainly not an environment in which I thrived, I have a lot of friends who tolerate it quite well. My brother-in-law is a fantastic lawyer. I’m always running issues by him even though he does not do personal injury work. He is a partner for a mega firm in Arizona. He has tons of his own clients and bills out at roughly $10,000 an hour. Of course, I'm telling him, "Geez, take those clients and go start your own firm, you can retire (and I can retire off you)." But he enjoys that power, resources, support, and camaraderie with so many other lawyers that a big firm provides and would never consider anything else. (In a related story, one of his big hobbies is using vocabulary words I’ve never even seen before in emails.)

It is a Friday and I’m stalling getting back to work so I’ll make one other big firm comment. The jab every small firm trial lawyer loves to make about mega firm lawyers is that a first year lawyer after two weeks on the job as a district attorney usually has a great deal more trial experience than a large firm lawyer that has been practicing for 15 years. This drives big firm lawyers crazy because there is a lot of truth to it. But I started practicing law at a pretty big firm and we were national counsel for pharmaceutical companies, working with a lot of mega law firms around the country. A lot of those lawyers had little or no trial experience. But they were smart people who had given a lot of creative thought to how to prepare a case for trial. Sure, some of these lawyers would fare about as well as your cousin Elmo in front of a jury. But working with these lawyers – including the Elmos - I think was great experience as a young lawyer that served me well when I began preparing and trying cases. I also saw many the best plaintiffs' lawyers in the country and some that were not so good. I learned a great deal from both.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (1)

Posted In: Maryland Legal News , Practicing Law

Bookmark:

Caryn Tamber writes a fascinating article in the Maryland Daily Record today on lobbyist Bruce Bereano’s challenge of the suspension of his Maryland lobbying license.

The State Ethics Commission fined Mr. Bereano $5,000 and suspended him for 10 months as the result of Bereano’s violation of Maryland law, which does not allow lobbyists to work on a contingency fee basis. Mr. Bereano’s lawyer argued that his client cannot be fined and suspended, because he signed the agreement for a contingency fee before the sanctions law went into effect (although it is worth noting that at the time of the agreement, the contingency fee deal was a crime under Maryland law).

Mr. Bereano is no stranger to trouble with the law. He was convicted in 1994 of eight counts of federal mail fraud charges for essentially skimming money from clients to make campaign contributions to political candidates, although I don’t think his clients particularly objected.

None of this is particularly interesting to me. What is fascinating to me is that the Maryland Court of Appeals deciding the case will be composed of only two active judges and five retired judges because Judge Robert M. Bell, Judges Irma S. Raker, Lynne A. Battaglia, Alan M. Wilner and Dale R. Cathell all recused themselves. They were replaced by retired judges James Getty, William W. Wenner, Lawrence F. Rodowsky, Robert L. Karwacki and Raymond G. Thieme Jr.

Five of the judges? This is a guy who knows people, let me tell you. He apparently continues to flout the law. Scandal follows him everywhere. Yet he still counts most political elite in Maryland among his closest friends. I remember reading in 1999, when he got out of jail, about how the many influential Maryland politicians were there to meet him as he walked out of prison. Folks, that’s what I call influence.

The two people I’m most interested in today are New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick and Bruce Bereano. Belichick fascinates me because he has just awful people skills, which is usually a recipe for disaster for almost any profession, much less an NFL coach. Moreover, by every account I have ever heard, he is just a miserable human being without a great deal of integrity. I’m very interested in how people with such glaring weaknesses can still have such great success. Yesterday, I bought the late David Halberstam’s biography of Belichick to try to get some insight into him. With Bereano, obviously he does not need to do this stuff to be successful, so why do it?

We need to learn more about what makes this guy tick. So I’m not asking for, I’m demanding someone write a biography of Bruce Bereano.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (2)

Posted In: Maryland Legal News , Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Prince George’s County Bar Association, the Administrative Offices of the Courts, and the Pro Bono Resource Center of Maryland, are sponsoring a Pro Bono Legal Services Fair for Maryland lawyers on Friday, September 28, 2008 at the UMUC Inn and Conference Center by Marriott, 3501 University Blvd., East, Adelphi, MD 20783. For those of you who want to do good and still get paid, a CLE is being held in Room 1123, at 5:00-6:00 called “Just Because Its Pro Bono Doesn’t Mean You Can’t Get Paid.” (Don't you get the feeling John Edwards might roll in the door for that topic?)

The keynote speaker for the pro bono fair is Robert M. Bell who, of course is the Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Panel members are Jo Benson Fogel, Orlando Barnes, Barbara Jorgenson, Peter Holland, Philip Robinson. The moderator is Judge Cathy Hollenberg-Serrette.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Anne Arundel County Bar Association's annual crab feast is on Friday, September 28, 2007, 1:00 p.m. at Sandy Point State Park.

I probably will not go this year but I have gone in previous years. It really is a nice, very well attended event at an absolutely beautiful site overlooking the water in Annapolis.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Wall Street Journal blog has published convicted Enron executive Jeff Skilling 237 page appellate brief.

Like most Americans, I did not follow the case closely and have not carefully reviewed the evidence against him but I assume he is guilty because a jury convicted him. (From a documentary I saw, I could certainly convict him of first degree arrogance in about 3.4 seconds.) Anyway, I am linking to this brief because, after reading about 10 pages, it is obvious Jeffery Skilling picked lawyers who are fantastic writers. The best way for lawyers to become better writers is to read good legal writing.

You may wonder how these lawyers got around the requirement in the Federal Rules that a brief may contain no more than 14,000 words. His lawyers filed a motion asking the appeals court to accept a longer brief. One blog, Talk Left, said that: "Jeff Skilling is serving 24 years in prison. The trial lasted several months. If his lawyers say they need 237 pages to present his arguments, I say let them." While I suspect the guy is guilty, I could not agree more.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Criminal Law , Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog has a good post on what should be in the introduction when writing a motion. You can find it here. The gist of the post is that lawyers should not use the introduction to just introduce what is to come but should instead provide an clean executive summary of the motion. Most lawyers summarize in the introduction intuitively but this lucid explanation is worth reading even if you do.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The new lawyers section of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association is having a happy hour in Bethesda at Black’s Bar and Kitchen on 7750 Woodmont Avenue. You do not need to be a new lawyer to attend, just a member of the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association (on any lawyer, paralegal or law student interested in joining).

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post | Comments (0)

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark:

The Los Angeles Times reports yesterday on the debate in California about whether California lawyers should be required to tell their clients whether they carry malpractice insurance. Apparently, 20% of the state's 150,000 lawyers do not have legal malpractice coverage. (Can you believe California has 150,000 lawyers? Exactly where do they hold their annual bar convention? I'm a lawyer and I find this disturbing. Let's just move on....)

The question is not whether California lawyers are required to get legal malpractice insurance; instead it is whether lawyers must disclose whether they have legal malpractice insurance. Opponents of the rule argue that because clients will likely not want a lawyer who discloses that they do not have legal malpractice insurance, this will effectively force all lawyers to buy legal malpractice insurance.

I'm sure this is true. But if virtually every client would prefer a lawyer with legal malpractice insurance, shouldn't all lawyers have legal malpractice insurance?

The American Bar Association has adopted a model insurance disclosure rule and 20 states now have some sort of disclosure rule. I think having to disclose this fact to a client is unbelievably awkward. I think a better rule would be requiring legal malpractice insurance, at least for lawyers handling they types of cases that often lend themselves to legal malpractice claims, such as real estate lawyers and personal injury lawyers.

Posted by Ronald V. Miller, Jr. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Practicing Law

Bookmark: