Finally, a Good Lawyer Joke

From the awesome show, Community, comparing being a doctor to being a lawyer:

Well, anybody could be a lawyer. You can even represent yourself. You can't do surgery on yourself. It's illegal. You'd get arrested. And then you'd get a free lawyer.

A great show, but Hulu only has two episodes posted. Bonus: Chevy Chase is fantastic on the show.

Wealth Distribution

From UC Santa Cruz Professor G. William Domhoff:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Wealth Concentration: As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)

Estate Tax: Figures on inheritance tell much the same story. According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population.

You should read the entire article (click on link above). The charts are especially fascinating.

Update: per the Federal Reserve Bulletin (September 2014, Vol 100, No 4) aka the 2013 Tri-Annual Survey of Consumer Finances from 2010 to 2013, about 1 in 5 American families earns over 100,000 USD each year.

As of 2013, if you are between 18 to 35 years old and your net worth is more than 10,400 USD, you are better off than half of all American families in your age group.  

Free Book on Investing

I don't know how long the offer will last, but you can click on THIS LINK for a free book by Burton Malkiel: The Elements of Investing.

Back in the day, Mr. Malkiel's book, A Random Walk Down Wall Street, heavily influenced my financial education (even though I disagreed with his central thesis on EFM). Apparently, this new book is for beginners, but if Mr. Malkiel is involved, it should be fun to read for everyone.

Stranger than Fiction

[Published March 11, 2014]

"Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. Resolve to be honest in all events; and if, in your own judgment, you cannot be an honest lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a lawyer. Choose some other occupation." -- Abraham Lincoln, from another era. 

I can talk generally about an academia-governmental complex forming, not just with student loans (which the government profits from), but the idea that schools no longer teach practical skills and therefore rely on their ability to make connections, many of whom are governmental, therefore rendering schools less likely to criticize government overreach.  

I can talk generally about the public’s mistaken assumption that all judges are worthy of being trusted merely because a politician gave them a title. (Riddle me this: people hate politicians and lawyers, but respect judges, who are just former lawyers. Speaking of which, forgive me this soapbox moment: stop electing D.A.s to the bench and look instead at public defenders and private civil law practitioners, especially at smaller law firms. You’re far more likely to see a judge on a civil case than a criminal case if you’re a law-abiding resident, and you want your judge to have experience with different areas of civil law. Finally, when you elect a D.A., you’re often electing someone who is beholden to the police union. Yet, the point of having a separate judicial branch is to create independent oversight, especially over the police.) 

I can talk about the lack of diversity on the local bench—18 out of 89 judges are people of color, in a county where about 37% of the population (including myself) are immigrants. 

But I'll talk about the American public's failure to understand two crucial elements of America's success: first is immigration. On 9/11, some people think of burning buildings, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Iraq, or Bush, but me, I think of a poem:  "I've promised myself, even if I'm the last snowman, that I'll ride into spring on their melting shoulders." As I wrote, “[The poem] represents the immigrant experience and persevering through difficulty to ensure that previous generations…did not toil in vain.”  In other words, we’re all immigrants here in America, though some of us are thrice-removed, trying to find springtime.  Corny, yes.  I stand by it.  As far as I’m concerned, America is successful because of our openness to immigration.  That iPhone?  Steve Jobs’s biological father was from the Middle East.  eBay?  Persian guy from France. And so on. 

Second is the principle that public and private spheres are different and must remain so. The failure to understand this concept has caused many government employees to misunderstand their role--namely, to serve the public and, in higher positions of discretion, to have integrity. We seem a long way from the 1970s bumper stickers of "Question Authority." We are going in the wrong direction.

I’ll close with one of my favorite legal quotes from then-law-student (later Supreme Court Justice) Louis Brandeis:

That the individual shall have full protection in person and in property is a principle as old as the common law; but it has been found necessary from time to time to define anew the exact nature and extent of such protection. Political, social, and economic changes entail the recognition of new rights, and the common law, in its eternal youth, grows to meet the new demands of society. Thus, in very early times, the law gave a remedy only for physical interference with life and property, for trespasses vi et armis. Then the ‘right to life’ served only to protect the subject from battery in its various forms; liberty meant freedom from actual restraint; and the right to property secured to the individual his lands and his cattle. Later, there came a recognition of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and his intellect. Gradually the scope of these legal rights broadened; and now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone [by the government]; the right to liberty secures the exercise of extensive civil privileges; and the term "property" has grown to comprise every form of possession -- intangible, as well as tangible.

           -- “The Right to Privacy,” Harvard Law Review, Warren and Louis Brandeis, 1890.

Update: though Brandeis was speaking of government in relation to people, nothing in his comments disallows stringent regulation against groups, nonprofits, and corporations. 

Law: Juries, Verdict Forms, and Keyser Soze

Rule #1 as a plaintiff. Strike all the engineers from the jury pool.

Jurors should remember: you don't have all the information in a trial, and you don't know how the legal process works. Just because a lawyer doesn't spend time trashing the other side, it doesn't mean the other side is angelic. Sometimes, we cannot introduce evidence about how bad the other side is, even if he's bashing our side. Sometimes, judges rule that one side can say certain things, and we can't respond in kind. That means if we mention certain things, the judge can declare a mistrial, and we have to do the whole trial over again.

Don't make any assumptions. Just look at the evidence. Don't assume that you're smarter than everyone else, and you're able to see something that isn't actually in front of you in the form of testimony or a document.

Also, if you do rule against a plaintiff, it usually means s/he has to pay the other side's costs. Sometimes, if you're not sure about who's right, the best thing to do is to rule for the plaintiff and give him or her one dollar.

For lawyers: don't assume that a plaintiff will always benefit from a general verdict form instead of a special verdict form. (A special verdict form forces the jury to think hard about each element of the case, while a general verdict form basically asks, "Is he liable for fraud? yes/no.") By giving the jury a simplified general verdict form instead of a special verdict form, jurors were able to avoid thinking hard about the case.

Also, a simplified form allows the foreperson to advance her/his own ideas about the law, even if s/he is completely wrong. Here, we thought the case was already complicated enough, so all of us agreed on a general verdict form to make things easier on the jury. Unfortunately, the general verdict form allowed the jury to bypass thinking analytically about the case and to decide based on their general feelings and the foreperson's own ideas about the law. For example, after the trial, one juror (the foreperson) said, "The other side's conduct wasn't flagrant enough." I was thinking, "Dude, that's not the law. There's no law that says, 'Only flagrant conduct is illegal,' or "The conduct must be flagrant to be illegal.'"

More advice for lawyers: don't always take the high road. If the other side is bashing your client and name-calling, try to find some way of countering without causing a mistrial. Jurors will choose sides based on whom they think is the good guy or the bad guy, regardless of the law. For example, if the other side hasn't bifurcated punitive damages, bring up the value of his home or another large asset if he keeps saying he's judgment-proof. Or bring up his unpaid debts. Or his or her massive wealth. You need something to make the jurors think they're dealing with someone who can handle a judgment or who deserves a judgment.

On the other hand, consider dropping punitive damages if you don't have a slam dunk situation. You won't be able to bring in any evidence of the defendant's net worth or financial information, but the punitive damages portion will probably get bifurcated anyway (thereby preventing you from talking about the other side's financial situation, bad debts, massive wealth, etc.). The upside is that you won't have to prove malice or oppression. If you try to show malice or oppression, jurors may get confused about the burden of proof on the original claim. For example, they may think that negligence requires malice (it doesn't). Lawyers may want to tell a jury in closing argument whether a specific claim requires specific intent.

I am going to need some time to get over this one. I will not be posting for a while.

P.S. Note to judges: if you allow the other side to bring up stuff about atomic bombs or to equate a foreign government's actions with an individual, no matter what the result, one party will think the process was tainted. Telling someone the remedy for any resulting prejudice is a mistrial--where a party and his lawyer have to come back and do everything all over again--is fair but somewhat impractical when one side is pro se and essentially unemployed, and the other side is paying for a lawyer and expert witnesses. I don't want to focus too much on the national origin issue now, but I might write about it later. At the end of the day, I feel the jury treated my client, an educated U.S. citizen of Middle Eastern descent, as not fully American. Why would they do that? Why would they side with the lawyer who had misrepresented facts all week? Could all the talk about atomic bombs and religion have something to do with it? Was it something else? Was it a combination of different factors, some permissible and some impermissible?

(And yes, I did ask the court to exclude testimony and comments about foreign governments and international affairs. The court wasn't sympathetic to my argument that mentioning the Iranian government and current events would result in prejudice. I argued that allowing such comments and testimony would be unduly prejudicial when the media is currently hyping an Iranian nuclear threat and when the primary images of Iranians in the mainstream media are of the much-hated Iranian president. The court wasn't swayed by my argument. The court did exclude evidence of my client's international travels, but the defendant still mentioned it during the trial. The judge stopped the trial, called us over for a sidebar, and warned the defendant that he was in contempt and should not mention excluded evidence again. The defendant went back to calling my client a "professional plaintiff," which was somewhat hilarious to hear from a plaintiff's lawyer. Also, I don't know if this should make me feel better or worse, but I believe the judge was sincerely fair. I still believe we were very lucky to get an excellent judge.)

Update: I forgot to add one more interesting tidbit. After the trial, a judge can ask the jurors how they voted if requested by a party. This is calling "polling" the jurors. According to the one juror who voted in our favor, someone switched her vote during polling. So one juror decided one thing in the jury room and another thing in public. Why would someone switch her vote?

Keep in mind, other than the defendant's/lawyer's own testimony, no other evidence was offered to prove my client had a bad motive for bringing his current lawsuit. The defendant even said at one point, "You're slicing baloney," when I asked him about the alleged conversations between himself and my client. Two other lawyers who were in the room and heard defendant's allegations found them to be totally baseless and indicated the defendant was not believable. Under cross-examination, the defendant testified that he and my client had a 2 to 3 hours conversation about my client's ex-wife, my client's search for an Iranian wife, and Middle Eastern politics. Later, the defendant suddenly added that my client had discussed the Holocaust during this conversation. I asked about the percentage of the conversation dedicated to personal issues, Middle Eastern politics, and the Holocaust. He answered, "50/50." I asked him how three different topics could be "50/50," which spurred his "slicing baloney" comment. During this part of his testimony, the defendant mentioned Iran's conference against the Holocaust and said the Holocaust is called the "Hollow Holocaust" in Iran. No one in the jury appeared fazed at all, perhaps because by that point, they were tired and had been desensitized by the earlier comments about nuclear bombs and government actions. My client is a clean-shaven U.S. citizen who has been living in America since 1978.

Furthermore, the defendant once accused a sitting judge of being anti-Semitic, a claim that was rejected. Defendant's allegation of judicial anti-Semitism occurred in a separate case, and I didn't want to risk a mistrial/contempt by mentioning it after the judge ruled that we could not discuss unrelated cases.

The one juror who voted in our favor on the legal malpractice claim? A retired ex-Air-Force sergeant. Post-trial, when the jurors learned more information about the defendant, they appeared shocked. The retired ex-Air-Force sergeant even angrily exclaimed, "I told you so," to one of the other jurors.

Union Influence

Scott Herhold, on San Jose's public safety unions and the financial strain they cause:

[What kind of city is San Jose?] Is it the one that gave police a series of nice little pay boosts after 9/11, bumps that take the average wage to more than $114,000 after five years on the job?

Is it the one that, thanks to an arbitration system it agreed to in the 1980s, is paying cops and firefighters 90 percent of their salary as a pension after 30 years?

In the past nine years, driven by public safety, the city's employee costs — wages and benefits — have increased by 64 percent. That's roughly 7 percent a year. I know I haven't done as well.

Wow. Interesting article.

Who's Running the Show?

From SJ Merc, Internal Affairs column, March 14, 2010:

A new report from the Fair Political Practices Commission — California's elections watchdog — mines years of campaign and lobbyist reports and turns up this nugget:

Over the past decade, 15 special-interest groups have spent more than $1 billion in an all-out bid to influence the state's affairs. They spent that money to sink ballot initiatives and boost candidates. They fed it directly to political parties' war chests. (Democrats came out slightly ahead of Republicans.) And they spent hundreds of millions wining and dining lawmakers and other state officials.

Almost a fifth of the cash came from one group: the politically powerful California Teachers Association ($211.8 million). The teachers union was followed by an affiliate of the Service Employees Union International ($107.5 million), a pharmaceutical industry group ($104.9 million) and two deep-pocketed Indian tribes ($83.6 million and $69.3 million). Rounding out the top 15 are some other big names, such as Pacific Gas & Electric, Chevron, AT&T and Philip Morris. (For the full report, go to www.fppc.ca.gov/reports/Report38104.pdf.)

So when we talk about special interests influencing state governments, remember: it's the teachers and other unions who have provided the most grease to Sacramento. Is it any wonder Sacramento provides teachers and unions with special benefits unavailable to most private sector workers? I'll end with this gem from the article:

"The conclusion is inescapable," reads the report's executive summary. "A handful of special interests have a disproportionate amount of influence on California elections and public policy."