a post in which I reply...

half tongue in cheek (you'll have to figure out which half) to the nonbillable hours Five by Five (+1) and explain why the changes hoped for could never be realized.

David Giacalone, of haikuEsq. writes: "1) A renewed commitment by the individual lawyer and law firm to accept only work that can be done diligently and competently."

My reply: this would put 95% of the attorneys out there out of work.

Ernie the Attorney writes: "1) Modify the contingency fee system to eliminate the conflict of interest that often arises when an attorney has a stake in the outcome of a case that is dependent on physical injury to a client or the client's relative."

My reply: this in no way serves the monetary interests of plaintiff's or defense lawyers, but only clients and insurers and thus has no chance.

Evan Schaeffer, author of Notes from the (Legal) Underground, writes: "2) You and I both have lots of documents to exchange. But is it fair to dump them on one another just before a deposition starts? Idea: Let’s give each other documents at least a week before we know the other will need them, assuming a timely request has been made."

My reply: lawyers are notoriously waiting until the last minute to do everything (see above) so Evan should know that this change will never happen.

Denise Howell, author of Bag and Baggage, and rightly so one of the pioneering legal bloggers, writes: "3) Law is a knowledge business; treat it like one. The legal world historically has chased would-be clients to financial centers, leased expensive space, insisted its minions put in long hours there, and hoped this would somehow help the bottom line. The fact is this strategy serves no one, including actual and would-be clients. I'm not saying firms should abandon their downtown office space, but they should be cognizant and supportive of how their own personnel and their clients actually work (or would prefer to work, given the choice). This means satellite offices and support facilities in areas closer to where people live. It means underwriting home and mobile office expenditures. It means helping lawyers achieve a balance between family and work by helping remove the roadblocks on both ends.

My reply: although legal blawgers may not represent this type of attorney, typically most lawyers disdain home life and would much rather spend all of their time in the office away from their families, especially litigators. Denise, this one has no chance.

Sheherazade Fowler, author of the Stay of Execution, writes: "1) Abolish the bar exam; 2) abolish my summer associate program; 5) every law firm should publish the divorce rate among the attorneys at the firm.

My reply: 1) Hazing rituals are important; 2) SAP is the bright and shiny lure that without it no one may ever join biglaw -- you can also think of it as your last meal before the execution; and 5) see above.

Finally, Carolyn Elefant, solo and author of My Shingle, writes "5. At a minimum, allow lawyers who have practiced law for more than three years in one state to automatically be eligible to practice in any other state touching their jurisdiction. (so for example, a DC attorney could automatically practice in Maryland and Virginia after 3 years). I understand that bars want to uphold professional competence standards and all that, but frankly, it is just ridiculous for attorneys admitted in one state to have to either take another bar exam or fill out a lengthy admission form and pay hundreds of dollars in fees (as well as annual dues) just to go to court on the other side of the border. And pro hac vice motions don't help much either because in many jurisdictions, the attorney of record has to appear in court with the foreign attorney anyway."

My reply: This practice has nothing to do with competency (see above); states are protecting their hometown lawyers revenue streams from evil outsiders like a proper monopoly should do.

June 28: Evan decides to join the conversation, apparently, without even noticing this post.

Advertisement