Connecticut state representative Patricia Dillon, seeking to protect the job market for U.S. lawyers’ services, has introduced a bill that would ban as “unauthorized practice of law” various types of outsourced legal work (such as document review, which some law firms now farm out to workers in India). Some don’t think the idea will fly: Westport-based law firm consultant Peter Giuliani “said the doc review-type tasks being done overseas is more like paralegal work. ‘You don’t need a license anywhere in the U.S. to do what they’re doing,’ he said.” [Connecticut Law Tribune via ABA Journal]
Posts Tagged ‘lawyers’
Injury client screening, the Namby Pamby way
A decision tree (or flow chart) in which a rather large number of branches lead to referrals to a civil rights lawyer.
“Counsel shall not make any derogatory remarks generally about trial lawyers”
A breach-of-contract trial under way in D.C. this week “pits the trial lawyers group American Association for Justice against its would-be lender, Wachovia Bank.” [ABA Journal]
Forthcoming: “The Lawyer-Judge Bias in the American Legal System”
Sounds promising, from Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton in January (via Glenn Reynolds):
Virtually all American judges are former lawyers, a shared background that results in the lawyer-judge bias. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law.
Claim: it’s “open season” for saying bad things about lawyers
And that’s just so unfair, according to Lester Tate, president of the State Bar of Georgia. After all, it’s not as if lawyers have a lot of power or behave aggressively or hurtfully toward anyone else, right? “Particularly abhorrent are the attacks that come from candidates who are lawyers themselves.” Where’s their professional solidarity? [Atlanta Journal-Constitution]
Law firms that represent anti-gay causes
The Human Rights Campaign has issued a report rating major law firms (among other large employers) on how well they address LGBT issues. It takes off points for law firms that have represented anti-gay clients, such as Foley & Lardner, which has represented opponents of gay marriage in litigation in the District of Columbia.
Many nonlawyers will not see anything unusual in this. The thing is, it’s a passionately held tenet of N.Y. Times-reader legal liberalism — sometimes, at least — that law firms must not be publicly shamed for electing to represent “bad” clients in important legal matters. After all, representing those clients does not necessarily mean they share the clients’ objectives or viewpoints. For example, former Bush administration defense official Cully Stimson was widely excoriated after he suggested that it was to the discredit of leading law firms that they had thrown a tremendous effort into the pro bono defense of Guantanamo detainees.
Elie Mystal at Above the Law and John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum are among those to raise the question whether there is any real consistency to all this. And does it make a difference whether the “bad” client is being represented pro bono, or is paying handsomely, as with Sen. Kristen Gillibrand’s repping of Big Tobacco as a young lawyer?
Oh, well that’s okay then
“Less than 40 percent” of lawyers surveyed in the U.S. considered corruption to be a big problem in our legal system [WSJ Law Blog; summary and study by International Bar Association and others, see p. 10 of study]
“Lawyer Bluster on Display in Oil Spill Litigation”
Because snagging a place on the Plaintiff’s Steering Committee is kind of like money in the bank, if not better. [WSJ Law Blog]
“A Litigious U.S. Might Be Driving Business to Law Firms Abroad”
Hoist on their own petard? “Are U.S. law firms losing international business opportunities because a surprising number of in-house lawyers prefer to seek counsel in other countries? That’s the conclusion of a survey that suggests global companies would rather be advised by British firms.” One of the apparent factors involved is that international firms often prefer dealmaking that specifies British or European rather than American jurisdiction in case of later dispute. [David Hechler, Corporate Counsel]
“Passive Aggressive Settlement Disbursements”
The Namby Pamby offers reasons to be nice to one’s lawyers.