Substitution of defense attorneys “a travesty of justice”

This seems to have been a novel, if misguided attempt on the part of a trial judge to save the Georgia legal aid system some money, and move a somewhat slow moving criminal case to trial expeditiously.

Reinstatement after disbarment

This Legal Profession Blog article raises the interesting question of when disbarred lawyers should be reinstated.In New York, apparently, the payment of 15 or 20 bribes over a period of 13 years, to insurance company adjusters is no impediment to reinstatement for a disbarred lawyer.  Thomas J. Culhane argues that no one was hurt by his actions, since the payments were only to expedite settlement, and did not increase the amounts that the insurers would have paid out to his personal injury clients.

A majority of the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court was content to rest its finding that Mr. Culhane “…possessed the necessary character and fitness to warrant reinstatement” based upon his claims of remorse.

The dissent found that the long period of time over which these payments occurred and “…the persistence of [Mr. Culhane's] position that  the insurance companies were not harmed by that conduct…” belied any finding that he was now fit for reinstatement.

Mr. Culhane’s persistent position is plagued by at least 2 serious problems.  Firstly:  Assume, for the time being, that he is correct, and the insurers were not harmed by his conduct.  How do we know?  Attaching compensation figures to personal injuries is a discretionary exercise, which takes into account innumerable factors that differ from case to case.  The fact is that there is no way to verify this claim.

Secondly:  As a lawyer, Mr. Culhane is an officer of the court, and it is not enough simply to say that his conduct did not involve the courts.  When he is negotiating the settlement of a personal injury claim, he implicitly or explicitly invokes the rights that the courts would likely grant his client.  The payment of bribes carries with it the appearance of subverting the judicial process, and brings the administration of justice into disrepute.  It does not matter whether or not the insurance company would have paid the same amount in any event.  The end result is a collateral benefit to the lawyer in the form of an earlier payment of fairly substantial fees.

In the end, much depends on the type of profession we as lawyers want.  In my view, the reasoning of the dissent is much to be preferred.

What lawyers can learn from Mike Holmes about legal ethics

“Holmes on Homes” is one of the most popular home renovation television programs on the cable channel “HGTV“.  The series is based in Ontario, however its popularity is not restricted to Canada.  The show has been doing very well in the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia. For those not familiar with this series, Mike Holmes is a highly respected construction and renovation contractor who “rescues” homeowners who have fallen victim to unscrupulous, sloppy or inept renovation contractors.

Mike’s motto is “Make it Right”, and his passion for his calling is clear from the moment every show begins, through to the when the credits roll.  Watching the show, it becomes clear that Mike Holmes has little patience for contractors who take on work in which they have little knowledge or experience.

He has even less patience for those who have the requisite knowledge and/or experience, but do not care enough to do the job right.  Mike Holmes’ philosophy is exemplified in this excerpt from his book, taken from the website:

…[T]he most important lesson I learned from my father wasn’t about wiring or plumbing…it was about doing things right…he cared about what he did…doing something right wasn’t just about business practice, it was about who you were as a person, and how you treated others…I have always tried to get it right the first time.

The parallel to legal ethics should be obvious.