Who Are the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America? « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources

see - Who Are the 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America? « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources


"x x x.

1. David Boies & Ted Olson

Ted Olson and David Boies

How could we not include this dynamic duo as a twofer? We’re talking about two amazing lawyers for the price of… well, let’s just say God would probably blush at their hourly rates. Boies has been the chairman of Boies Schiller & Flexner since 1997, and Olson has been a partner at Gibson Dunn since 1972. The pair faced off in Bush v. Gore (Olson repped Bush and Boies reppred Gore), and now they’ve teamed up to argue California’s ban on gay marriage before the Supreme Court.

2. Ted Boutrous

Boutrous is the co-chair of Gibson Dunn‘s appellate and constitutional law groups, and we recently profiled him in the ATL Interrogatories. Fun fact: Did you know that Boutrous was first interviewed by Ted Olson at Gibson Dunn? Not only is he the class action king behind Wal-Mart v. Dukes, but now he’s teamed up with his mentor, to challenge Prop 8 before the Supreme Court.

3. Paul Clement

This list wouldn’t be complete without the patron saint of conservative causes. Once a clerk for Justice Antonin Scalia, Clement is now a partner at Bancroft. Last year, he unsuccessfully tried to overturn Obamacare, and now he’s trying to defend the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supremes. (Bonus: if you’re a liberal and you can get around his political ideologies, he’s kind of cute.)

4. David Drummond

Google is so hot right now, and so is the company’s chief legal officer. Seriously, check him out, he’s a stud. Drummond first advised Google during his years at Wilson Sonsini before he hopped in-house in 2002. Thus far, Drummond has guided Google through many “cutting-edge legal battles,” and hopefully he’ll continue to help them do no evil for years and years to come.

5. Tom Goldstein

Once a partner at Akin Gump, Goldstein left the firm to return to his own practice. On top of his scholarly interests in constitutional law, Goldstein is perhaps best known for founding SCOTUSblog, the leading website for Supreme Court jurisprudence. Plus, he got five million hits on the day the Obamacare decision was announced, and that’s no small feat.

6. Eric Holder

Say hello to the man, the myth, the mustache: Eric Holder. As the first African-American attorney general of the United States, he’s overseen some of the biggest cases our nation has ever seen. Things were going smashingly for him at the Department of Justice up until that Fast and Furious mishap, but we’re sure that he’ll be able to turn it around when he inevitably returns to Biglaw in the future.

7. Kyle McEntee

You know him as one of the founders of Law School Transparency and our 2010 Lawyer of the Year, but the profession knows him better as one of the voices behind the transformation of the way law schools report legal employment. Before the lawsuits and before government figures hopped on the train, McEntee (much like our own Elie Mystal) was one of the first to give law students a dose of reality.

8. John Quinn & Kathleen Sullivan

Can somebody break a hundred for John Quinn? One of the more colorful Biglaw characters we’ve covered, this Quinn Emanuel legal heavyweight is known for typing only in lowercase. Also worthy of mention is Kathleen Sullivan, the first female name partner of an Am Law 100 firm. She was heavily involved in the Mattel v. MGA case, and we wouldn’t mind if a Lawyer Barbie were modeled after her.

9. Amy Schulman

One of America’s best-paid general counsel (earning more than $2 million), this leading litigatrix used to bring home $6 million paychecks at DLA Piper before she left for Pfizer to make a pfortune. While not counting her millions, Schulman serves as a mentor for mothers dealing with work/life balance issues. Sidebar: much to Biglaw’s chagrin, she’s led the battle against outside counsel’s hourly billing.

10. Donald Verrilli

If you’re not familiar with this man’s name, then perhaps you’ve been sleeping under a rock. Verrilli’s been the Solicitor General of the United States since 2011, but prior to his time as a government attorney, he was a litigator at Jenner & Block. Though some called his performance defending Obamacare a disaster, he was vindicated when the Supreme Court decision came out in his favor.

x x x."

How to Become a U.S. Citizen by Marriage - Law and Daily Life

see - How to Become a U.S. Citizen by Marriage - Law and Daily Life


"x x x.

So how does someone become a U.S. citizen after marrying a U.S. citizen? Here are four general steps:

1. Be eligible for citizenship. To be eligible for citizenship through marriage, someone needs to be a permanent resident, be at least 18 years old, and havelived in the United States for at least three years. During those three years, the person must have been married to the U.S. citizen, been physically present in the country for at least half of that time, and not have established a home outside the country.
2. Apply for naturalization. Assuming you meet the eligibility requirements, you still must apply for naturalization to become a citizen. Generally, you must complete Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, include photographs with your application, get fingerprinted, and submit other documents. You may also be asked to provide documents proving the validity of your marriage.
3. Interview and take the citizenship test. Typically, after your application and fingerprints are processed, the next step is to interview with an immigration official and take the citizenship test. At the interview, you will be asked questions about your application, marriage, and background. If the interview goes well, you will then take an English and civics test. Oftentimes, your interview may stand in place of the English test, as the interviewer will have a sense of your command of the English language. The civics test can be more difficult and will require some studying.
4. Swear allegiance. The final step to becoming a U.S. citizen is taking an Oath of Allegiance to the United States.x x xx."

Chemerinsky: Same-sex marriage battle goes before the Supreme Court - ABA Journal

see - Chemerinsky: Same-sex marriage battle goes before the Supreme Court - ABA Journal


"x x x.

The Supreme Court will have oral arguments tomorrow and Wednesday on the question of whether laws requiring that marriage be between a man and a woman violate the constitutional rights of gays and lesbians. What are the cases? What are the issues? What might the court do?

The Cases

Tomorrow the court will hear arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, which involves the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8 which amended the California Constitution to say that marriage must be between a man and a woman. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court interpreted the California Constitution to create a right of marriage equality for gays and lesbians. In November 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8 to overturn this decision.

Two same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses brought a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8. In the summer of 2010, federal District Judge Vaughn Walker declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional as violating the fundamental right to marry and denying equal protection to gays and lesbians. The defendants in the lawsuit, including the governor, the attorney general, and the registrar of records refused to appeal Judge Walker's ruling. Supporters of Proposition 8 intervened to appeal.

After briefing and oral argument, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals certified to the California Supreme Court the question of whether under California law the supporters of an initiative have standing to appeal when state officials refuse to do so. The California Supreme Court said that this is permissible and the 9th Circuit, in February 2012, declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional. The 9th Circuit emphasized that California had extended the right to marry to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples, but Proposition 8 took this right away only from same-sex couples; the court said that denied equal protection.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Windsor. Edith Schlain Windsor and Thea Clara Spyer met in 1963 and lived together as a couple for over 40 years, until Dr. Spyer's death in 2009. They bought a house together on Long Island and shared an apartment in Manhattan. They were married in Toronto in 2007.

Windsor and Spyer provided for one another in their wills. Spyer's will made Windsor executor and sole primary beneficiary of her estate. Under the Internal Revenue Code, an estate like Spyer's would usually qualify for an unlimited marital deduction and would therefore pass to the surviving spouse without imposition of the federal estate tax. But Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act says that for purposes of federal law marriage must be between a man and a woman. The result is that Spyer's estate owed $363,053, which would not have been owed if not for Section 3 of DOMA.

Windsor filed a suit in federal district court challenging Section 3 of DOMA. Shortly before the answer from the United States was due, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that it was the position of the United States government that it would enforce Section 3 of DOMA, but not defend its constitutionality in the courts. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives (BLAG) voted 3-2 along party lines to participate. The district court allowed BLAG to intervene and granted summary judgment for Windsor. In October 2012, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and declared Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional as denying equal protection to gays and lesbians.

The Issues

First, in each case there is a significant procedural issue which may cause the court to dismiss without reaching the merits of the right to marriage equality. In Hollingsworth v. Perry the question is whether the supporters of an initiative have standing to appeal to defend it when the defendant state officials refuse to do so. The California Supreme Court said that under California law the supporters of an initiative may represent the interests of the state in such circumstances.

But the question is whether that is sufficient to meet the standing requirements of Article III of the Constitution. The Supreme Court long has said that Article III requires a concrete injury for standing; an ideological interest is not sufficient. Do the supporters of Proposition 8 suffer any injury, other than an ideological one, if it is invalidated?

In United States v. Windsor, the court has granted review on the questions of whether the executive branch's agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives the court of jurisdiction to decide this case, and whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case. The court appointed Harvard law professor Vicki Jackson as an amicus to brief and argue these jurisdictional questions and she contends that the court lacks jurisdiction.

If the court dismisses one or both cases on standing grounds, the question then will be the effect of the dismissals. In Hollingsworth, the answer seems clear: the same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses had standing to sue in district court and the district court thus had jurisdiction to issue an injunction against the governor, the attorney general, and the registrar of records keeping them from enforcing Proposition 8.

If the court holds that the supporters of the initiative lacked standing to appeal, then the district court's statewide injunction will go into effect and same-sex couples can marry in California. But in Windsor, the effect of dismissing the appeal for lack of standing would be that Windsor would prevail, but Section 3 of DOMA would otherwise seem to be in effect.

Second, assuming the court does not dismiss on standing grounds, there are both equal protection and due process challenges to the denial of marriage equality before the court. Both the 9th Circuit in declaring Proposition 8 unconstitutional and the 2nd Circuit in striking down Section 3 of DOMA focused on the denial of equal protection for gays and lesbians. The briefs raise the question of what level of scrutiny should be used for sexual orientation discrimination. The United States, for example, argues for heightened scrutiny. Of course, the court could find an equal protection violation without reaching the question of the appropriate level of scrutiny by concluding that laws denying marriage equality fail rational basis review.

Also before the court is the question of whether the right to marry, which the court has deemed a fundamental right, is violated by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. The district court in the Proposition 8 case found the initiative unconstitutional on this basis, as well as it denying equal protection to gays and lesbians.

Third, the court will need to decide whether there is a sufficient government interest in denying gays and lesbians of the right to marry. The supporters of Proposition 8 and DOMA argue that marriage has historically been between a man and a woman. Their central argument is that marriage is primarily about procreation. The brief by the petitioners in Hollingsworth v. Perry declares: "an animating purpose of marriage is to increase the likelihood that children will be born and raised in stable and enduring family units by their own mothers and fathers. Because relationships between persons of the same sex do not have the capacity to produce children, they do not implicate this interest in responsible procreation and childrearing in the same way. The Equal Protection Clause does not require the state to ignore this difference."

But the supporters of marriage equality sharply disagree with the claim that marriage is primarily about "responsible procreation." They argue that opposite-sex couples always have been able to marry without inquiry as to whether they desired or could have children. Moreover, same-sex couples will have children whether or not they can marry--gay couples through surrogacy and adoption, lesbian couples through artificial insemination and adoption. If marriage is desirable for family stability, as petitioners claim, then children of these relationships are better off with married parents.

If the court reaches the merits, it will have to decide whether it is persuaded by the justifications offered by the supporters of Proposition 8 and DOMA.

What Might Happen?

There are a large range of possibilities. The court could dismiss one or both cases on standing grounds. The court could uphold Section 3 of DOMA and Proposition 8. If the court strikes down Section 3 of DOMA, the result will be clear: there are about 1,100 federal laws that provide benefits to married couples and same-sex couples in the United States who are married will be able to gain these benefits. The court could write its opinion relatively narrowly, so that it just invalidated Section 3 of DOMA and left for each state to decide for itself whether to allow marriage equality. Or the court could write its opinion broadly to indicate that all laws denying gays and lesbians of the right to marry are unconstitutional.

The court could strike down Proposition 8 in a number of different ways. It could follow the 9th Circuit's approach, which would have effect only in California since it is the only state to extend the right to marry to gays and lesbians and then take that right away. It could take the approach urged by the United States and find that there is a constitutional right to marry for gays and lesbians only in states that have created civil unions or domestic partnerships. This would extend the right to marry for gays and lesbians to eight additional states. Or it could find that laws denying gays and lesbians the right to marry are unconstitutional, which would extend the right to marry to all 50 states.

Perhaps the oral arguments will give some indication as to what the court is going to do, but almost certainly we will have to wait until at least June to know the results in these momentous cases.

Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, is one of the nation’s top experts in constitutional law, federal practice, civil rights and civil liberties, and appellate litigation. He is the author of seven books, the latest being The Conservative Assault on the Constitution (Simon & Schuster, 2010). His casebook, Constitutional Law, is one of the most widely read law textbooks in the country. Chemerinsky has also written nearly 200 law review articles in journals such as the Harvard Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Stanford Law Review and Yale Law Journal. He frequently argues appellate cases, including matters before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeal, and regularly serves as a commentator on legal issues for national and local media. He holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.S. from Northwestern University.

x x x."

God and the Supreme Court

see - God and the Supreme Court


"x x x.

Official prayer

It may be surprising to some but the highest court in the land, which is not supposed to show bias for any faith, is quite Catholic in its practices. The en banc recites a prayer at the beginning of each session and justices take turns leading it. The Court even has a special prayer, called the centennial prayer (it was composed on the 100th anniversary of the Court), and all the lower courts are required to say this when they start their proceedings.

Then Justice Artemio Panganiban explained that the Court consulted various religious groups, including Protestants and Muslims, before finalizing its official prayer. He wanted to show that the Court did not favor any religion.

Recently, a Supreme Court justice took issue with this practice, reflecting the thinking that the judiciary should avoid any appearance of siding with a religion. Prayers are personal and need not preface public duties.

This justice asked to be excused from leading the prayer. In a letter to his colleagues, this justice supposedly said that he would still stand and show respect for the ritual but cannot be part of it. Apparently, this is the first time such a move was made by a member of the Court.

It’s not only the courts that start their official functions with a prayer. The Senate and House of Representatives also do the same.

Seal, statues and chapels

The show of religiosity doesn’t end with prayers. Take a look at the seal of the Supreme Court. It features two tablets with Roman numerals, representing the Ten Commandments.

Years ago, one justice questioned this symbol since the Court is a non-religious institution. He proposed changing the Ten Commandments to something secular. “The justice argued that a symbol with such significance only to some religions has no place in the Supreme Court seal because the tribunal may be accused of favoring certain faiths,” Newsbreak reported in 2007.

His colleagues rejected this, perhaps unwilling to rock this Catholic country.

There’s more, beyond prayers and seals. In a building beside the Supreme Court, where the Judicial and Bar Council or JBC (which vets nominees to the courts) and other agencies under the Court hold office, I saw a small room with the statues of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. It appeared to be also a place of prayer.

This open embrace of one religion sends a signal to others—Muslims, Buddhists, Protestants, agnostics—that minority faiths and non-believers are peripheral in the justices’ eyes.

The scene in the JBC seems to be common in other government agencies. Religious icons are displayed at the Department of Social Work and Development and the Department of Agriculture, among several others. A number of offices even have their own chapels—yes, chapels!—like the Department of Budget and Management, the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Senate.

Many of us have taken this for granted but it shows how the Catholic religion has woven itself into the state, in form and rite. Some foreigners have remarked that this seems to be distinct to the Philippines.

My sense is, despite the Catholic appearance of the Supreme Court, form will give way to substance and some of the 10 justices will see the merits of this landmark social legislation.

As Justice Marvic Leonen wrote in his dissent, “…we are still open to reasoned argument even as we may have tentative views on the law and how it squares with the Constitution.” - Rappler.com

x x x."

Price Yourself Out of the Market

see - Price Yourself Out of the Market


"x x x.

Warning: This Isn’t For Everyone

I’ll end with some thoughts as to what type of lawyer can use this approach. Again, it’s not for everyone, and again, you can’t be unreasonable with your fees. There are limits to how much you can charge.

But pricing yourself out of the market, so to speak, is great for the following type of lawyer:

1. You’re at the top of your game (or intend to be). Great lawyers know that true mastery is never really won. And the true master knows that there’s always more to learn. So to be at the top of your game, whether a greenhorn or not, means you price yourself, not everyone else. It’s how you value the kind of service you know you can provide.
2. You care about your clients more than anything else. Pricing yourself as I describe isn’t about money or getting rich. It’s about having the time and resources to do a bang-up job on every case for every client. There’s a difference in any given month between 20 misdemeanor DWI cases at $500 per case and two felony DWI cases at $5,000 per case. Both approaches have you taking in $10,000 that month. But only one has you spending a lot more time on client service (and a lot less time running to the courtroom).
3. You do not possess a “lack” mentality. If you think there are only so many cases, but so little time, and so much competition in the form of other lawyers ready to snap up all the business, this isn’t for you. You’re too afraid to look like you don’t have all the answers and to say “I don’t know” when you really should. Unfortunately, it seems to me, in conversations I’ve had, that many lawyers possess the lack mentality, the kind where lawyers are all a dime-a-dozen, and the future of law is in doubt, and “how are my kids gonna eat,” and it’s all just doom and gloom so let’s head to the safe room now while there’s still time.

There’s nothing wrong with being a businessperson who happens to be a lawyer. If you want to run a business, and the actual law practice is somewhat secondary, that’s fine.

But if you’re at the top of your game, you care more about your clients than the money, and you’re not afraid to compete on a higher level, pricing yourself “out of the market” might be one sane approach to the practice of law as we head into the future.

x x x."

Full Text: Memorandum on GR 203469 (Cruz et al vs. Aquino et al) | Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy | BAND

see  - Full Text: Memorandum on GR 203469 (Cruz et al vs. Aquino et al) | Bloggers and Netizens for Democracy | BAND


       "x x x.

Full Text: Memorandum on GR 203469 (Cruz et al vs. Aquino et al)

Posted on March 13, 2013 by admin

inShare

Petitioners in GR 203469 (Cruz et al vs. Aquino et al) on March 11 filed at the Supreme Court an 88-page Memorandum on the constitutionality of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.

The Memorandum includes portions in compliance with the court’s order to submit scenarios on why Section 12 of the the assailed law is not needed by law enforcement authorities to combat cybercrime.

Below is the full text of the Memorandum:

Cybercrime Law: BAND Memorandum on GR 203469 (Cruz et al vs Aquino et al) byTonyo Cruz

x x x."

On Criticism - MEL STA.MARIA | The presidential conspiracy theory on Sabah, his critics and democracy - InterAksyon.com

see - MEL STA.MARIA | The presidential conspiracy theory on Sabah, his critics and democracy - InterAksyon.com


"x x x.

To find fault with critics by saying their statements make the issue grave and place “in danger hundreds of thousands of Filipinos” is simply irresponsible talk. It diverts the identification of the real source of the problem. It misdirects and does not address the root cause of the bloody events in Sabah. On the other hand, critics do not make regulations, rules and the laws. They do not implement policies. Their power lies only in their perceptive observations of events, their skill in making an idea clear, and the media platform to relay them. It would be irresponsible and unpatriotic for these critics not to share them, regardless of what others think. Their sense of duty to the nation impels them to openly, and even publicly, criticize. Margaret Chase Smith said “moral cowardice that keeps us from speaking our minds is as dangerous to this country as irresponsible talk."

More fundamentally, Section 1 Article 2 of the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of our Constitution provides that “the Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from it.” The people have entrusted enormous powers to the public officials in government.  There will always be a great temptation to misuse, not use and, worse, abuse these powers. When this happens, public servants become despots. And the people become subjects of a ruler. The constitutional principle that “sovereignty resides in the people” becomes an empty statement and the Constitution desecrated. This is where the role of our freedom of expression comes in. It is the duty of all citizens to speak up and to remind the “powers-that-be” where sovereignty resides. The people must do so without fear of reprisals. They must all be critics to prevent the non-use, misuse and abuse of power.

A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute... is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, 

annoyance, or unrest. (US Associate Justice William Douglas in Terminiello vs. City of Chicago, 377 US 4-5)

Government action or inaction will necessarily generate public opinion. It may be good and it may be candidly annoying. But speaking out ideas and opinions must not be discouraged. It is in fact the responsibility of our elected officials to listen to the people’s criticisms. They were entrusted with a great privilege to serve the people, they must listen. They may or may not heed the diversity of the people’s views and they may choose one from the other, but they must always be given a measure of scrutiny. Public opinion may be unpredictable, presumptuous and erratic but its intrinsic value in a democratic society outweighs its fickleness. 

The first Prime Minister and acclaimed founder of the State of Israel, Mr. David Ben Gurion, said it perfectly: “The test of democracy is freedom of criticism.”  Gurion accepted criticism even at a time when Israel was in its precarious formative stage. He studied them, learned from them and made decisions after taking them into consideration. President Aquino should learn from Gurion. It is wrong to regard critics as necessarily enemies of the State or conspirator

nment was labeled a subversive. In this administration, are we already seeing the nascent stage of a period where anyone speaking against the government will be labeled as a conspirator? I hope not.

In one episode of our radio/TV show RELASYON, Luchi Cruz Valdes, head of TV5 news and current affairs, and I talked about “criticisms.” I asked her what, for her, was the value of criticism. She succinctly replied: “Criticisms make one humble.” Indeed, their expression may painfully sting and hurt one’s sensibilities. But, at the same time, criticisms can shake people from their know-all-attitude, making them realize their own fallibility as any other finite human being. And when this humility sets in, they listen. And when they listen, they open up their minds to the universe, thoughts and ideas of their critics, whose most likely reason for speaking up is precisely for the good of the people criticized.

My unsolicited advice to the President is this: Mr. President, we sincerely want you to succeed. Our prayers are with you and our people. We are with you in finding a solution to this Sabah problem. Step back for a while, take a deep breath and listen to your critics, for, in the end, they may turn out to be your best allies, in finding a solution to the Sabah problem. Let the essence of democracy guide you in solving the problem.   

x x x."

Your Clients Really Are Crazy - Lawyerist.com

see  -  Your Clients Really Are Crazy - Lawyerist.com


"x x x.

“Are Your Clients Making You Crazy? How to Avoid Drama with Maddening Clients” is an article in the March 2011 issue of Bench and Bar of Minnesota by lawyer and psychotherapist Elizabeth Wittenbergthat starts with this eye-opening pull quote:

Statistically, over 9 percent of American adults have a diagnosable personality disorder … .

In other words, it is not your imagination; some of your clients really are crazy. In fact, depending on the kind of law you practice, I bet the percentage of your potential client base that has a diagnosable personality disorder is substantially higher than the average.

Personality disorders

A personality disorder, according to Wittenberg, is an “enduring patter[] of behavior and subjective experience that affect a person’s thinking, feeling, relationships, and impulsiveness.” And, she says, “Often the affected person sees these patterns as perfectly reasonable and appropriate despite their dramatic, negative impact on her daily life and the lives of those around her.”

People with personality disorders have “limited life scripts” and usually behave in “fixed, unyielding ways” that often force people around them to play implicitly-assigned roles like caretaker or bad guy. In other words, personality disorders have a sort of ripple effect on those around the person with the disorder — clients with personality disorders can make you crazy, too.

Common personality disorders

Here are a few common personality disorders you might see in your practice:

Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist; everything in this post is based on Wittenberg’s article, which you should definitely read. is sadly not online because Bench & Bar of Minnesota apparently does not want to give you a reason to visit its website.

Narcissistic personality disorder

Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition in which people have an excessive sense of self-importance, an extreme preoccupation with themselves, and lack of empathy for others. (fromNIH.gov; also, see Wikipedia)

Wittenberg says clients with NPD are often cooperative and engaged, at first, but they will start blaming others and lashing out if unexpected problems arise. She says it is very difficult for clients with NPD to take responsibility for anything, or even admit they played a role in their problems. And they don’t like to be called on it. Clients with NPD may storm out of your office if you point out the role they played in creating their problems.

Narcissism often conceals extremely low self esteem, which narcissistic individuals conceal beneath a self-important shell, reinforced by affirmation and acclaim from people they admire. Wittenberg recommends helping narcissistic clients maintain their self-esteem by treating them with utmost courtesy and respect. Go along with their desire to see you as worthy and high-status. Let them think of you as “the best,” but be careful not to appear to compete with your client. As exceptional as your client wants to think you are, you must come in second to him. Suppress your irritation at your client’s bragging and witticisms; narcissistic clients need your endorsement, and they will probably settle down and stop begging for it if you stroke their ego a little bit.

Where things get especially difficult with a client is in settlement, particularly in criminal matters, where the client may have to acknowledge some responsibility. You must convey to the client that you are on her side, and explain why it is necessary to accept some responsibility while preserving as much self-esteem as possible.

Do not fell into the trap of getting demoralized while working with a narcissistic client, who will never recognize the quality of your work. Satisfy yourself that your work is up to par, and do not get preoccupied if your client does not recognize it.

Antisocial personality disorder

Antisocial personality disorder is a mental health condition in which a person has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the rights of others. This behavior is often criminal. (from NIH.gov; also, see Wikipedia)

According to Wittenberg, “[p]eople with Antisocial Personality Disorder or features of this disorder often come into contact with the legal system. That’s because a key marker of this disorder is ‘failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors … .” That does not necessarily mean criminal behaviors, but people with ASPD have an “overriding motivation to pull something over on others,” and take pleasure in consciously manipulating people. You are as likely to find them at the head of a corporation as in the back of a police cruiser. They are reckless, lack remorse, and are highly impulsive. They either rationalize the harm they do to others, or don’t care.

People with ASPD need to control others and to feel powerful. Like narcissistic clients, they may brag and deny responsibility for their problems, but they will do it in different ways. A client with ASPD is more likely to brag about illegal activities and characterize illegal activity as something everyone else does, too. They also lie a lot.

Put this together, and clients with ASPD can be dangerous to work with. Wittenberg says “[t]he most important thing … when working with antisocial clients is … to maintain safety.” Schedule meetings when other people will be around. Adopt a firm and direct approach so you are seen as strong, not weak. Be rigid when it comes to expectations, billing, and other aspects of the representation. (Antisocial clients are a good reason not to be lenient with payment plans, or not to accept them at all. They will take pleasure in skipping out on your bill.)

In order to forge a relationship with an antisocial client, you have to play to her need to control. Make yourself useful to her by showing her you can help her get what she wants if she works with you. In discussing the legal matter, focus on consequences, not legality or morality.

Antisocial clients will tell you only what they think you need to know, and usually omit details in their narratives. You must elicit detail without challenging your client, which could send him into a rage.

You will probably feel uncomfortable with antisocial clients, and possibly contemptuous of them. You may even be afraid of them.

If you find yourself working with antisocial clients, do not allow yourself to be intimidated or cheated. Be skeptical of everything you hear (a good quality for a lawyer, anyway), be safe when meeting with your client, and protect yourself financially with adequate retainers.

Borderline personality disorder

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a mental health condition in which a person has long-term patterns of unstable or turbulent emotions. These inner experiences often result in impulsive actions and chaotic relationships with other people. (from NIH.gov; also, seeWikipedia)

People with BPD are, in a word, unstable. They may even be suicidal, and often engage in other self-destructive behavior. “Clients with [BPD] … can be lots of fun to work with, until suddenly they’re not” says Wittenberg. The trouble is, you may not get any clues that a client has a borderline personality until it emerges later in the representation. In fact, in the beginning, she may be the perfect client — up until something happens to upset her idealized form of your representation.

In legal matters, BPD may introduce intense, inappropriate anger. Clients with BPD may fly off the handle and abruptly terminate relationships — including your representation. Threats of ethics complaints and malpractice lawsuits inevitably follow, when a borderline client terminates your relationship in anger.

Clarity, consistency, and structure will help avoid this result. Regular status calls or emails are especially important to borderline clients, and you should be prompt in returning communications, even if it’s just to acknowledge that you will follow up.

Representing a borderline client can be a roller coaster ride. Resist the ups and downs by staying calm and level. Borderline clients challenge you to reject them. If you stay the course, you will be able to do the work you were hired to do.

You cannot avoid clients with personality disorders

Dealing with clients with personality disorders sounds like a lot of trouble, and you may be tempted to resolve never to represent such clients. Discrimination laws aside, personality disorders may not be clear at the outset of the representation, for one thing. For another, if a tenth of tenth (or more) of your potential client base has a personality disorder, chances are good you will end up dealing with a disordered client sooner rather than later, anyway.

If you understand your clients’ personality disorders just well enough to work with their needs, you can still be an effective advocate while making your clients happy.

x x x."

Judicial Affidavit Rule applies to PRIVATE prosecutors

see - Supreme Court of the Philippines

SC Modifies Compliance by Public Prosecutors with Judicial Affidavit Rule

Posted: January 9, 2013; Bianca M. Padilla

The Supreme Court En Banc, acting on the petition dated December 12, 2012 from the Prosecutors’ League of the Philippines (PLP) for the deferment of the effectivity of the Judicial Affidavit Rule for at least a year in criminal cases, resolved instead to modify the public prosecutors’ compliance therewith from January 1 to December 31, 2013, as follows:

For the purpose of complying with the Judicial Affidavit Rule, public prosecutors in the first-  and second-level courts shall use the sworn statements that the complainant and his or her witnesses submit during the initiation of the criminal action before the office of the public prosecutor or directly before the trial court. Upon presenting the witness, the attending public prosecutor shall require the witness to affirm what the sworn statement contains and may only ask the witness additional direct examination questions that have not been amply covered by the sworn statement.

The Court also clarified in its three-page unsigned resolution that the modified compliance does not apply to criminal cases where the complainant is represented by a duly empowered private prosecutor. The private prosecutor shall be charged in the applicable cases the duty to prepare the required judicial affidavits of the complainant and his or her witnesses and cause the service of the copies of the same upon the accused.

The Court acknowledged that 80% of the backlog in the first-and second-level courts involve criminal cases, and that delays in those cases are caused mainly by lack of prosecutors, absence of prosecution witnesses, and lack of PAO lawyers. It thus expressed its expectation that public prosecutors will use the one-year modified compliance period to take the necessary steps to seek the needed augmentation of their ranks and develop methods and systems that would enable them to fully comply with the requirements of the Judicial Affidavit Rule when the modified compliance period ends. The Court also stated that the Rule shall remain in full force and effect in all other cases and situations not covered by the resolution.

(Unsigned Res., AM No 12-8-8-SC, Judicial Affidavit Rule, January 8, 2012)

A field guide to clients | Articles | Home

see - A field guide to clients | Articles | Home

"x x x.

Clients are sort of like family—you’re bound to them, even on the occasions when you’d prefer not to be. And like any family, there are plenty of characters. 

This infographic by Ciplex, a digital marketing and creative agency, offers a field guide to a variety of clients you might see in your professional life. It also explains what makes them tough to work with—and what to do about it. 

x x x."

Minimize the Risk of an Ethics Complaint - Lawyerist.com

Minimize the Risk of an Ethics Complaint - Lawyerist.com


"x x x.

Client intake

Create a checklist to help you screen potential clients so you can try to avoid the things most likely to lead to trouble. Include in your checklist items such as:

• Subject area. Only take on clients where the primary areas of need are those in which you are experienced. If you want to expand your practice, get a mentor or find other ways to gain experience in a new field before taking on a client who needs those services.
• Ability to pay/retainer received. If your potential client cannot afford your services, you are likely to wind up in trouble. You cannot always just walk away from a non-paying client, and financial issues between you will lead to trouble. Make sure they can afford you, and get a reasonable retainer up front.
• Litigation history. If your potential client has a habit of firing or suing their attorneys or other service providers, this should be a red flag.
• Reachability. Clients often complain that attorneys do not communicate with them. In order to satisfy a client on communication, you must be able to reach them. Make sure you ask enough questions to know whether you can reach your client when you need to.
• Reasonableness of demands. If your client initially comes to you with demands you cannot reasonably meet (such as presenting you with a motion to dismiss when the opposition brief they are asking you to write is due this week), you may want to pass on the case.

x x x."

BBC News - Facebook and Twitter sentences: Are judges out of touch with social media?

BBC News - Facebook and Twitter sentences: Are judges out of touch with social media?

"x x x.

A 12-week prison sentence given to a man who posted offensive comments on Facebook about missing April Jones and Madeleine McCann has been criticised by legal commentators as disproportionate. But are judges and magistrates out of touch when it comes to social media?

On 8 October the Facebook comments landed Matthew Woods, 20, of Chorley, Lancashire, with the longest sentence magistrates could pass - less a third to give credit for an early guilty plea.

Over the Pennines a day later, Azhar Ahmed, also 20, of Ravensthorpe, West Yorkshire, was fined £300 and ordered to do 240 hours of community service for posting an offensive Facebook message following the deaths of six British soldiers.

Both were prosecuted under the Communications Act 2003.

While Ahmed was receiving his sentence, director of public prosecutions Keir Starmer QC was in one of a series of meetings he is holding with journalists and legal experts to get their views on his planned guidelines on interpreting the act.

Under section 127, it is an offence to send electronic messages, including on social media websites, that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character".

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

A message on Facebook could be more offensive than an insult in a street, but it is hard to understand how the former gets a 12-week custodial sentence and the other just a fine.”

David Allen GreenHead of media at Preiskel & Co

His new rules aim to bring more consistency to sentencing.

'Boundaries of free speech'

Mr Starmer - the most senior prosecutor in England and Wales - announced his plan to issue the guidelines last month. It followed the release without charge of Port Talbot Town footballer Daniel Thomas, who had been arrested for tweeting a homophobic message about Team GB divers Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield.

Mr Starmer said at the time there was "no doubt that the message posted by Mr Thomas was offensive and would be regarded as such by reasonable members of society".

But he said it was not "so grossly offensive that criminal charges should be brought".

Mr Starmer, who aims to publish draft guidelines next month, added: "In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media."

Points up for discussion in his series of round table meetings include striking the balance between free speech and the application of criminal law; whether police should try to protect people from what some would consider bad taste; and how reposting, or retweeting, comments should be considered in law.

BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones said celebrities, sports stars and school children alike were finding that mistakes made using the likes of Facebook and Twitter could spin out of control very rapidly.

Keir Starmer has called for a debate 'on the boundaries of free speech in the age of social media'.

The courts, the police and other authorities were grappling with the question of how they should handle offensive behaviour on these new platforms, he said.

Mr Starmer's round table meetings were a measure of the puzzlement of the authorities.

The big question was should something you say on Facebook be treated more seriously than something you shout across a crowded pub, our correspondent added.

David Allen Green, head of media at business law firm Preiskel & Co, is opposed to custodial sentences for posting offensive messages.

"A custodial sentence for some comment deemed grossly offensive can be itself grossly offensive - that is not what prisons are for," he told the BBC News website.

"It may well be that a message on Facebook could be more offensive than an insult in a street, but it is hard to understand how the former gets a 12-week custodial sentence and the other just a fine."

'Silly joke'

Mr Green, who was solicitor for Paul Chambers in the "Twitter joke trial", believes that "the police and the criminal justice system more widely still do not understand enough about social media, and because of this resources are being wasted and bad decisions being made".

In July, Mr Chambers - who was found guilty in May 2010 of sending "a menacing electronic communication" threatening to blow up an airport - had his conviction overturned at the High Court.

Continue reading the main story

The law

• The Communications Act 2003 governs the internet, email, mobile phone calls and text messaging
• Under section 127 of the act it is an offence to send messages that are "grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
• The offence occurs whether those targeted actually receive the message or not

• Communications Act 2003 - Section 127

Mr Chambers, who had been fined £385 and ordered to pay £600 costs, had maintained throughout that a tweet that he would blow up Robin Hood Airport, in south Yorkshire, because it was closed after heavy snow had been "a silly joke".

On Tuesday, Mr Chambers wrote on Twitter: "Two extremely bad days for freedom of speech with #AzharAhmed and Woods. Glad all that fighting wasn't for nothing :/"

Social media, in Mr Starmer's description, "is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors, but also by others including the police, the courts and service providers".

But while some opponents of tough sentencing over offensive remarks suggest it sometimes comes as a result of lack of understanding, magistrates and judges have been unequivocal in their judgements.

Sentencing April Jones tweeter Matthew Woods on Monday to 12 weeks in prison, Chorley Magistrates' Court bench chairman Bill Hudson told him: "The words and references used to the current case in Wales and that of the missing girl in Portugal are nothing less than shocking, so much so that no right thinking person in society should have communicated to them such fear and distress.

"The reason for the sentence is the seriousness of the offence, the public outrage that has been caused - and we felt there was no other sentence this court could have passed which conveys to you the abhorrence that many in society feel this crime should receive."

More on This Story

Related Stories

x x x."