Category: Off Topic

Embarrassment from the American Bar Association

As the head of compliance, I frequently call on a team of lawyers for advice on how to interpret the law and move that interpretation into implementation. As a consumer of legal services, I have an interest in innovation and improvements in the delivery of those services. As an former practicing lawyer, I understand the challenges.

The American Bar Association ran a  Legal Rebels contest on the theme of “What innovation will be most valuable to you in your future practice as a solo practitioner?”

I don’t deal with solo practitioners very often for legal advice, even though they represent a big portion of legal practice. Having left a big law for compliance, I’m now more like a solo practitioner (without having to look for clients.)

I was interested to hear what innovations the ABA found interesting. The crop of runners-up was a mixed bag. With some interesting thoughts and some mere statements that technology alone will be innovative.

I was hoping the winner would offer something new and interesting about improving the delivery of legal services, legal skills or the delivery of client service.

The winner thinks a fancy answer machine will be the most valuable innovation: Solo Dreams of Full-Functioning Digital Messaging Assistant.

Kevin O’Keefe and Scott Greenfield already expressed their dismay. I think this one of the worst things to come out of American Bar Association. I don’t see how this would help the lawyer. I don’t see how this helps you be a better lawyer or deliver better client service.

For the most part, lawyers are dealing with their clients at a critical time in their lives: divorce, imprisonment, merger, bankruptcy, internal investigation, etc. A personalized greeting from a robot on the phone is not going to make me think any better of the lawyer.

For me, simple questions can be answered by email. More complicated issues and more problematic issues require a real person. Do you feel better about a service provider because you can handle transactions through voicemail?

Parts of the lawyers day can be handled by technology, but personal interaction between the lawyer and the client cannot.

Maybe the ABA should just stick with selling skateboards.

Sources:

100 Best Legal Blogs

The ABA Journal is compiling its annual list of 100 best legal blogs (They use “blawgs.” I hate that term.) They would like your advice on which legal blogs you think they should include.

Use the Blawg 100 Amici form to tell the ABA Journal about a legal blog that you read regularly and think other lawyers should know about. If there is more than one legal blog you want to support, make multiple submissions.

They allow comments in the submission and will be including some of the best comments in their “Blawg 100” coverage. Friend-of-the-blawg briefs are due no later than Friday, Oct. 1.

They don’t have a compliance category and the other blogs in the practice specific category from 2009 are better choices. Feel free to include Compliance Building.

Broc Romanek’s TheCorporateCounsel.net Blog deservedly won that category last year. It was great to see a compliance-related blog win.

We Have Video of Barney Frank Arguing With a Dining Room Table

After pushing through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Barney Frank now needs to run for re-election. He is not running unopposed in the Democrat primary, but the opposition is … “interesting.”

Barney is the congressman for my district, so I have voted for him in the past and plan to vote for him again. I would have hard time voting or his primary opponent. He will also have to face a Republican candidate in November, either former Marine Sean Bielat or businessman Earl Sholley.

Last year at a town hall meeting, a woman named Rachel Brown, a Lyndon LaRouche follower who accuses President Obama of acting like Adolph Hitler, challenged Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank with a question. He responded that talking to Ms. Brown “would be like trying to argue with a dining room table.” The Congressman does not usually argue with furniture.

Unfortunately, Brown was so incensed that she decided to run against him for his Congressional seat. For some unknown reason, Frank actually agreed to a televised debate with her.

She decided to compare Obama to Roman Emperor Nero instead of Hitler at the beginning of the debate. She also thinks we should be piping water in from Canada to invigorate the American economy.

Sources:

Compliance Bits and Pieces: Ground Zero Mosque Edition

One part of compliance is investigation. Find the facts. Don’t rely on opinion or self-interest statements. With all the hullabaloo about the Ground Zero Mosque I thought I would gather some factual information.

First off. It’s not at Ground Zero.

Just How Far Is the “Ground Zero Mosque” From Ground Zero? by Matt Sledge in the Huffington Post

From 45 Park Place, the former Burlington Coat Factory building that will make way for the Cordoba House, it’s two blocks, around a corner, to get to the WTC site. Park Place doesn’t lie between the construction site and any mass transit stations, so you would need to go out of your way to have it offend you.

Mosques And A City Block (Update) by Scott Greenfield in Simple Justice

If someone was trying to build a Mosque on the Site, there would be one debate. But building a Mosque where the old Burlington Coat Factory used to be isn’t the Site. Not even close. It’s the equivalent of building it ten miles away in Houston. It’s a different neighborhood, climate, time zone. There are a couple of nudie bars, even another tiny Mosque, that far away, not to mention dozens of stores selling cheap junk. It’s not a pretty neighborhood. It’s not what people who don’t know Manhattan think it is. Not even close.

There’s a reason all the elected officials of both stripes in Manhattan think this whole debate is nonsense. They’ve been there and know what they’re talking about. This is being used by politicians to manufacture a debate that doesn’t exist. They are selling a fantasy to people who don’t know any better. This Mosque has absolutely nothing to do with the Site. It doesn’t besmirch anyone’s memory. It might as well be in another country for it’s impact on anything.

The Wikipedia page for Park 51 is full of links to great primary source material and (at least when I read it) mostly avoids opinions on the controversial project.

Park51, originally named Cordoba House and sometimes referred to in the media as the “Ground Zero mosque”, is a planned $100 million, 13-story, glass and steel Islamic community center and mosque. Plans are for the facility to include a 500-seat auditorium, theater, performing arts center, fitness center, swimming pool, basketball court, childcare area, bookstore, culinary school, food court serving halal dishes, and Islamic prayer space for 1,000–2,000 Muslims. It would replace an existing 1850s Italianate building that was damaged in the September 11 attacks, and is located two blocks (about 600 feet, or 180 meters) from the World Trade Center site in Manhattan, New York City.

Muslim Prayers and Renewal Near Ground Zero by Ralph Blumenthal in the New York Times

The location was precisely a key selling point for the group of Muslims who bought the building in July. A presence so close to the World Trade Center, “where a piece of the wreckage fell,” said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the cleric leading the project, “sends the opposite statement to what happened on 9/11.” “We want to push back against the extremists,” added Imam Feisal, 61.

Mosque-erade from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Mosque-Erade
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Snow and Ice in August

It’s August, but here in Massachusetts we need to start thinking about snow and ice. Not because of climate change, but because of the Supreme Judicial Court. They just issued a ruling that changes the standard of liability for snow and ice hazards.

The standard in the Massachusetts had been that a property owner could not be held liable for injuries on the property arising from a natural accumulation of snow and ice. The law was based on old standards for different duties of care owed by a property owner to tenants, licensees, and trespassers. That was further tied to the question of whether the injury was caused by a defect existing on the property (First year of law school and bar exam flashback.)

The “Massachusetts Rule” was that “the law does not regard the natural accumulation of snow and ice as an actionable property defect, if it regards such weather conditions as a defect at all.” That particular statement came from a case where the homeowner had been away, leaving his driveway unshoveled and covered in snow. The injured person walked across the unshoveled driveway, fell down, was injured, and sued the property owner. She apparently left empty-handed.

The result of the Massachusetts was that most wintery slip and fall cases hinged on whether the snow and ice was a natural or unnatural accumulation of snow and ice. If it was natural, the landlord escaped liability and could get the case dismissed at summary judgment without a trial.

I should point out my bias. I have a sidewalk in front of my house (that I dutifully shovel). My employer owns commercial property in Massachusetts.

In Papadopoulos v. Target Corp., the Supreme Judicial Court announced that the state has abandoned the Massachusetts Rule and “discarded the distinction between natural and unnatural accumulations of snow and ice, which had constituted an exception to the general rule of premises liability that a property owner owes a duty to all lawful visitors to use reasonable care to maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances.”

The new standard:

We now will apply to hazards arising from snow and ice the same obligation that a property owner owes to lawful visitors as to all other hazards: a duty to act as a reasonable person under all of the circumstances including the likelihood of injury to others, the probable seriousness of such injuries, and the burden of reducing or avoiding the risk. … If a property owner knows or reasonably should know of a dangerous condition on its property, whether arising from an accumulation of snow or ice, or rust on a railing, or a discarded banana peel, the property owner owes a duty to lawful visitors to make reasonable efforts to protect lawful visitors against the danger.

That means the jury will have to determine what snow and ice removal efforts are reasonable in light of the expense they impose on the landowner and the probability and seriousness of the foreseeable harm to others.

I think the end result is going to be more lawsuits filed against property owners. We can take Mr. Papadopoulos as an example. He had lost his case in summary judgment. Now he gets to go back to court and try again to get some money for his injuries.

Coming back to compliance, this is a rule where you act to avoid getting sued. Many communities have a local ordinance that makes the failure to clear sidewalks subject to a fine. I think most homeowners clear their sidewalks because its the neighborly thing to do. (Of course others, begrudgingly clear their sidewalks. You can get a good sense about them by seeing if they clear their driveway first or their sidewalk first.)

The goal is get property owners to clear their sidewalks and driveways so that people don’t fall down and hurt themselves. It seems there are several different ways to encourage this behavior. I could go a little deeper, but it’s still summer and I’m not ready to give more thought to snow and ice.

Sources:

Image is Austin shoveling snow by oddharmonic.