Generation J.D.

On Sunday March 7, the Young Lawyers Committee of the Baltimore County Association hosted its annual bull roast at the American Legion Post No. 22 in Towson.  Each year, the Young Lawyers Bull Roast is the committee’s largest fundraiser of the year, but this year’s event was particularly special in that it was held in the honor of Michael Radcliffe.

Mike, a longtime member of the Baltimore County Bar Association, was diagnosed with ALS in January 2009.  Shortly thereafter, the Young Lawyers Committee rallied around Mike, and, with his help and the support of the entire Bar Association, began raising money for the Robert Packard Center for ALS Research.  The Packard Center at Johns Hopkins is the only international scientific operation dedicated solely to curing ALS.

The bullroast was the third event that the BCBA and the Young Lawyers Committee participated in to raise money for ALS research.  The BCBA hosted a guest bartender event during a Ravens game last November.  It also assembled a group of runners in May 2009 to participate with Team Radcliffe in the Fiesta 5K, a race organized by the Packard Center to raise awareness and money for ALS research.

The BCBA will again participate and support Team Radcliffe in this year’s Fiesta 5K on May 1.

This year, nearly 300 people, including Mike and a huge group of Radcliffes, attended the event, making it one of the most successful ever.  Those in attendance ate and drank to their hearts’ (and stomachs’) content while raising money for a charity that was very near and dear to BCBA. Judge John J. Nagle III and his band, the Mighty Mighty Barristers (pictured), provided the musical entertainment, and generous donations from a variety of vendors created a highly competitive silent auction.

While the atmosphere in the hall was jovial and lighthearted for most of the day, the severity of the cause was reinforced when a 10-minute video was shown to the group.  Produced by Steve Davis, the emotional vignette documents Mike’s battle against ALS, and attaches a personality to an otherwise anonymous disease.  It reiterated why everyone had gathered to raise money for the Packard Center.

If you are interested in further information about ALS, please visit www.alscenter.org.

On eBay, a pair of tickets to last night’s basketball game between Duke and Maryland were advertised for sale for $600.

On Craigslist, another pair of tickets to the same game were advertised for sale for $1,000.

Given the magnitude of the game and the enormous demand for tickets, it’s easy to see the value in being able to attend last night’s game.  But, if you’re not a student … and you don’t have season tickets … and you don’t have a few hundred dollars lying around … how could you get into the Comcast Center for the game?

A clever 1L at the University of Baltimore School of Law came up with an ingenious idea - barter! According to the Baltimore Sun and ESPN’s Erin Andrews, the student offered a to-be-determined number of hours of legal services (contingent upon his passing the Maryland Bar Exam, of course) in exchange for a ticket to last night’s game.

In a profession founded on precedent and form books, it’s refreshing to see a young, prospective attorney thinking outside of the box in an effort to achieve a goal. It’s creativity like this that keeps our profession fresh. When traditional methods fail, clients are always looking for alternative ways to get results.  This kind of “thinking” could prove to be quite successful in the future, and may be a distinguishing trait for this individual to potential employers.

In the end, this particular student’s originality paid off - in exchange for $50 and a promise to perform a few hours of work at a future University of Maryland athletic event, he got his ticket … and a deal he’ll probably discuss for years to come.

When trying your case, what’s better than knowing the law and knowing the facts?

Knowing the judge!

On more than one occasion, I’ve heard this old barrister’s proverb, and all joking aside, being familiar with a judge prior to trying a case before him or her is vital.  However, how can young lawyers get to know a judge before trial? Read the rest of this entry »

A few weeks ago, I attended a Town Hall meeting aimed at addressing issues that arise in cases involving self-represented litigants.  While in law school, I don’t believe the thought of having a case against a party not represented by counsel ever crossed my mind.  However, the reality is that the number of cases being filed and tried by pro se parties is increasing at an astounding rate.  As was discussed during the Town Hall meeting, this reality poses a complex set of hurdles that many lawyers have trouble stomaching.

Looking at Rule 4.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, titled “Dealing with Unrepresented Person,” a lawyer, in dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel “shall not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested.  When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding.”

While this Rule provides some instruction in how to define your role as advocate for the opposing party, it does not provide concrete advice as to how to interact with an unrepresented party during the course of litigation.  There are many concerns that attorneys, regardless of experience, have expressed when dealing with pro se opposition. Read the rest of this entry »

Back when I was in school (take your pick: elementary, middle, high school, college or law school), I loved snow. Couldn’t get enough of it. In fact, I remember one year in high school where school was closed for a week, Christmas break began early and exams were canceled…talk about best-case scenario.

As I look out my window, I can’t help but think that my feelings have certainly changed.

Now that I’m out of school and practicing, snow doesn’t excite me quite as much. In fact, I’d go as far to say that it now aggravates me. Read the rest of this entry »

We all do it.  We send text messages that butcher the English language despite years of teachers critiquing our writing.   We shorten “thanks” to “thx”.  We abbreviate “you” with “u”.  “For” becomes “4″.  I do it all the time… and personally, I don’t have any problem changing spellings and using condensed versions of words to create my own text dialect.  That said, this bad habit needs to be limited to personal messaging only.

From recent conversations with various members of the Baltimore County Bar Association, it has been brought to my attention that many attorneys, rookies and veterans alike, are now using “text speak” in e-mail communications.

E-mail has drastically changed the practice of law.  Drafting letters has been replaced by sending e-mail.  No longer do you have to wait days for a response to correspondence.  Instant communication is now, quite literally, at our fingertips.  However, the trend of replying to clients and opposing counsel with broken English and text-speak is apparently widespread.  (Personally, I have not seen too much of this, but apparently many others have).

Have wordsmiths and the art of writing letters with linguistic prowess been replaced by thumbing quick reply emails into Blackberries?  And if so, why?

The most obvious explanation is the fact that, thanks to our “smart” phones, we are available 24 hours a day (See any and all of the blogs under the Technology tag).  Secondly, considering that the biggest complaint the Attorney Grievance Commission receives about Maryland attorneys is the alleged lack of communication clients receive from their lawyers, it’s now quite effortless to send a quick response acknowledging receipt.

But, does the quick response from your phone allow you to forego formality?

The consensus among those who I spoke to was to avoid using the text-dialect at all costs.

Although many were discussed, there were two reasons that stood out as most important.  First, clients are paying substantial fees for representation.  They ought not be billed for colloquial responses, especially when the price tag is typically a few hundred dollars per hour.  Secondly, there is always a chance that your email will end up as an exhibit in trial.  I know I would not enjoy being cross examined about what “Thx 4 the dox” means, nor would I want any judge to get an impression of my legal abilities based on said phrase.

So, as a wise person once told me, “draft your emails with assumption that, one day, Chief Justice Roberts may be reviewing the transcript.”  Save the txt spk 4 friends.