It’s “Moot”, not “Mute”

People come to see me it seems, just to use this word. Then they botch it. Once in my office they try to work the conversation around so they can say “moot”.

Most of the time when they get to that crescendo moment where they get to use the legal term they invariably say “mute”, like the button in the lower right corner of the television remote control.

Example:

tv remote

If the other side gives up then the whole thing is mute, right?

After which I am tempted to merely mouth words but offer no sound to illustrate the errata. But I merely nod and move on.

Errata. Now there is legal term I wished more lay people recognized.

Susie Orman is Practicing Law Without A License : POSTSCRIPT

Susie Orman has a television show. She gives financial advice. Now she is giving legal advise, and she lacks a license to do so. She must be stopped.
Suze-Orman1
I have seen her on television telling everyone in America they want to avoid probate by putting everything they own and ever will own into a revocable living trust, so that when they die the assets just flow to the beneficiaries without probate.

This is good advice as I understand it, in California where she lives, but I will not say this as the State of California has not issued me a license to practice there. No similar license has been issued to Susie either, nor has she been to law school.
california state bar
Meanwhile she is telling my clients Your lawyer wont tell you this and goes on to talk about this trust. Right, I wont advise it because it is usually a mistake for people in Washington State, unless there is some really good reason to do so.

Meanwhile I have clients mad at me, thinking I am taking advantage of them. I don’t see how I could be so overreaching, when a will costing about a sixth to a tenth of a trust while the client is alive and the probate after the client has passed often less than the cost of the trust altogether.

Besides, I know some banks that just will not recognize the trust, and demand letters testamentary from the probate court in any case.

Susie Orman is practicing law without a license and must be stopped. But the California State Bar will not stop her, because, wait for it….

She Is Not A Lawyer

POSTSCRIPT : I had heard through legal channels will kits with Suze’s name on have begun to surface. I started typing her name into the Google search strip and got as far as half way through her last name when the bar auto completed “Suze Orman Will and Trust Kit”. suzeorman_kits_musthavedocuments

My apologies for not spelling her first name correctly earlier.

The website calls these the “Must Have Documents”. It ain’t necessarily so. Not everyone needs a trust.

Also some people have special needs that only a lawyer with some experience will see.

The price for the “Must Have Documents” is a promising $63 according to the website. This supposedly saves the average American $2500 according to Suze.

“It ain’t necessarily so
It ain’t necessarily so
De things dat yo’ liable to read in de Internet
It ain’t necessarily so”

Porgy and Bess with edits.

REPEAT: Suze Orman is practicing law without a license and must be stopped.

AVVO – The Computer Lawyer Rating System

I am presently rated 8.9 out of 10.0 on AVVO, a lawyer rating system.

I had been rated 9.1 out of 10.0, when a peer endorsement from a lawyer I had never heard of before in a far off state endorsed me. I deleted the endorsement because there is no way this man could know what to say about me.

And so I have a 8.9 rating. I am proud of it.

And I still wonder how the machine measure my experience, ethics and knowledge of the law.

All Things Being Equal

I saw this bumper sticker in Seattle yesterday.

equality

I am a student of how far that love goes. I mean, should we put weights on the flamenco dancer so I can keep up with her? flamenco guitar and dancer

Or take hiring a lawyer for example. Do you really want him to be an equal? I seriously doubt this, but I have to say, there are multiple occasions where I have been asked to buy into my clients emotional state as the place from which decisions are taken, rather than remaining the objective advocate I think the client wants.

Sometimes I have a guy come in and tell me he “has a great case” and goes on to demonstrate with remarkable detail why we are not equals and the law school education and 30 years of experience really does mean something.

Note I do not say lawyers are better than their clients, but they rarely think like a lawyer and if they could they probably wouldn’t be in my office.

If I could write down how to think like a lawyer I would but here is the best I can do:

What a lawyer has to do is sort out the wheat from the chaff.
wheat thresher
I am not sure that would fit on a bumper sticker, and our task cannot be diluted into a catchy, likable sound byte but here are the facts:

When the client arrives with the plan for what the lawyer, like a chess piece, is to do it is the job of the lawyer to decide what to do, and disregard the directions from the less experienced client, as all things are not equal, unfortunately.

There is no Substitute for Experienced Advocacy

1. We Are Created Equal. Among the Jeffersonian myths that have survived is the idea that all men are created equal. Perhaps that is true, but after birth their experience differs widely. They may not be that educated gentleman farmer Thomas Jefferson saw us as becoming these generations later. In fact, most are not. Thomas Jefferson

In the last several years the bench and bar have had a buzz word gone into policy called “Access to Justice”. I like to call it “Access to Firearms” but it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

2. Access to Justice. The basic idea is that with some forms and instructions on where to file them and how to confirm a hearing anybody can achieve “access to justice” and state their case like Jefferson’s farmer. So the court system wrote some forms and gave instructions on where to file them.

Unfortunately, as it is often said, Thomas Jefferson was the last man who had a grasp of the entire body of knowledge as it existed at the time. What this means to the pro se litigant he cannot possibly grasp what he is getting himself into.

Well, yes, you can get yourself in front of a judge. You can get yourself behind the stick of an aircraft too after reading the instructions on the internet on how to fly, but it is not a good idea. airplane crash

3. The Results. Often this does work out. Some questions are fairly straight forward. Divorce might be simple, then it might not.

There are a lot of “what if’s”. A child support issue between two Boeing employees can be done pro se as well.They each get issued a W-2 every year from which one can calculate monthly income and feed that data into a child support software to produce a result. Done deal right?

What if one of them doesn’t work for Boeing? What if he is self employed? Things get complex. I can say for sure the pro se litigant will not be able to fashion the court order that will equitably divide the Boeing pension in a way the company will recognize and follow it.

4. Too Close to the Problem. The other thing a lawyer does for a litigant that he cannot do himself is achieve some degree of objectivity about his or her case. Is it really a good idea to rush into court guns blazing? Are you sure the judge is going see things the way you do? courtroom antics

Maybe you can have a lawyer look at what you’re doing and see if it is alright. But then what if you botch the hearing by saying something that erodes the presumption that everyone comes to court in good faith and a bona fide dispute that requires a consumption of that most precious of commodities, judicial time?

How often have I seen the pro se litigant in court with a ton of paper in front of him, obviously served on the other party and the bench earlier, with this idea that his pleadings represent some manifesto that will change the course of human events? courtroom drama

The reality is he comes off instead just as an unhappy man wasting everyone’s time and his relief is denied. There is no substitute for experienced advocacy. courtroom

5. The Outer Limits. I cannot write down here what I have learned from 30 years of practice. It is part of the secret knowledge of lawyers, but even if I had to “tell all” I couldn’t transpose into words for you Jeffersonian gentlemen farmers how to conduct your case. It is in part and art, and otherwise just the nature of experienced advocacy.

There is No Trap Door in Superior Court

There is no trap door in Superior Court. trap door

This is not vaudeville, “Laugh In” or some totalitarian state.
HitlerAccused 1944

When someone lies in court, the opponent has to be prepared to confront them with a prior inconsistent statement made under oath somewhere during cross examination. That is not the same as arguing with them.

argument
Don’t expect the Judge to somehow magically know when a person is lying. Clairvoyance is not a requirement to take on the robes.
clairvoyant

Every month it seems someone appears in my office with a document someone has signed under oath, or declaration swearing the contents to be the truth “on pain of perjury” and declaring they have lied!

Truth is hard to find. One mans black is another mans white.

Star trek black and white

My Dad used to say that the reason we lawyers have jobs is one guy cannot see the other guys point of view. And that is why there are no trap doors or sudden death in civil or criminal law.

Modern fact finding is an advanced, yet frustrating concept. It takes time, and eventually there is some result. Better this way than by popular sentiment, strong man leadership or mob rule. French sloganguitene

Juror Number 12 Never Returned, No She Never Returned

I read an article in my hometown newspaper today about juror misconduct leading to the guilty getting away with crime.

In one case the jury had deliberated for 2 hours and decided to take a break. Juror #12 never returned, the entire trial was over with no verdict, a mistrial. Now the state has to decide whether to spend the states resources to prosecute or cut the accused a deal. I am betting on the latter because that is what happened in another case of juror misconduct.

In the second case the accused was charged with a sex crime against his own daughter. The juror decided to conduct his own internet research on the nature of these cases at home during the trial. This effort to enhance what competent evidence was adduced at trial cost the state the verdict and meant the 6-year-old would have to testify all over again. After all the man has a right to face his accuser, twice it seems.

Instead the guilty plead to a lower charge and will spend about a third of the time in prison he would have otherwise spent.

 We doctors of the law spend a lot of time with the Rules of Evidence. We are careful about making sure the evidence is trustworthy, and candidly, we don’t really need any help. Some of the least trustworthy evidence I have seen is what someone decides to post on the internet, free from the vigor of cross-examination.

Like the Rules of Evidence, our system of laws has been developed over generations to be as fair and competent as possible. We need 12 good citizens to believe in that system and make a decision based on what they hear.

But good citizens seem to be in short supply. We are apparently so full of our rights we need not care about our civic duties.

Meanwhile I hope Juror #12 had a good afternoon because no one else did, she never returned and her fate is yet unlearned. It is good I am not deciding what to do about Juror #12.