- Quickdraw McLaw
- 56 Comments
- 212 Views
Last year we did an attorney compensation survey that turned out to have some interesting results. We thought we would give it another go this year. Go here to let us know how long you’ve been practicing and how much you’re making. We’ll share the results before Christmas…
In the meantime, feel free to continue to discuss the Supreme Court’s pacing or anything else going on out there, just remember to keep it work-appropriate and slander-free.
New candidate for Attorney General? http://craigmueller.com/
That website has about as much information as zombo.com
6 opinions released yesterday. Of note in the attorney-discipline context, the NSC holds that fines cannot be imposed on attorneys who have been suspended or disbarred.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This isn’t the place. Hire a private investigator.
This isn't the place for anonymously bellyaching about crooked attorneys? Man, did I take a wrong turn!
I understand now.
Correct. This isn’t the place to anonymously (possibly) on defame people.
Three of the opinions were court of appeals – their first in over a year. Evidently theirs are just included in the sct count of advance opinions as the numbers are sequential.
I want attorneys to disclose their favorite perk. I remember Gordon and Silver had a soda machine that made me jelly.
Is that why they went bankrupt?
My favorite perk? I take almost every Friday off unless I have a hearing scheduled. Of course, I sign my own checks.
Lewis and Roca used to buy you dinner if you worked past 8 p.m. That was nice.
Does going home at 5 pm every day (3 pm on Fridays) count as a perk? If so, that's my favorite!
And is much better than the firm where associates are glad when it's 6:30 on Friday evening because then there's only two more workdays until Monday. 😉
Gordon and Silver could not pay their bills, but make jelly. That is awesome.
I don't offer many perks at my office other than a laid-back office environment, no billable hour requirement, flexible hours and encouragement of work-life balance.
*eye roll*
How much do you pay?
Nowhere near what big law firms pay. $75-85k depending on experience. And you have to be able to lower yourself to handling some family law cases. Nothing's perfect, right?
True… But I don't think I can afford the pay cut.
I finally watched than video where the federal panel barbecued that young lawyer.
I certainly understand why the judges were frustrated. He refused to answer direct questions, even ones where the answer was obvious–such as what are your clients seeking, or what relief are you requesting?
I understand that he did not want to be boxed into a yes or no answer, particularly based on how a few of the questions were phrased, but he needed to answer yes or no, and then provide explanation or nuance. It was clear to him that they had no tolerance for him not answering yes or no, but that once he answered yes or no that they would provide some latitude for him to explain his answer and offer analysis.
But as understandable as their frustration was, I believe they went a bit too far with their criticism, and even made things somewhat personal. The one justice told him that the more he talks the more he loses credibility(which is quite a feat considering that the panel made it abundantly clear that he had no credibility to start with. How can one lose what they never had?)
Another justice was even harsher. He reprimanded him about being like a weasel, and offered the almost comical suggestion(under the guise of helping the attorney) that the attorney view past video of his appearances so that he can see how truly bad he is, and how harmful his presentations are to his clients and his professional reputation.
If this was meant as constructive criticism or helpful suggestions, it came across more like a vituperative attack. It is never helpful or constructive to essentially tell someone how bad they are at their job(even if they are), and that if there is any doubt how bad they are, please watch further video of your court presentations to more fully see how bad you are.
On the other hand, when one argues before the feds., they should know that b.s. is not tolerated. When they ask a simple questions, answer it. Don't evade and insult their intelligence and act like you are there for some noble purpose, when the justices just correctly, and repeatedly, stated what purpose you were there for.
The one justice kept correctly stating that the attorney's goal was that his clients receive the $125,0000. property for $5,0000.That, in fact, is what the entire litigation centered around, but when asked directly, and repeatedly, the attorney kept talking in circles.
So, I think his approach merited a slap down but, IMO, it just seemed to be a little too harsh and even seemed to be somewhat personal(which needs to be avoided).
Two concerns with your remark: 1. I don't think it's clear at all that they would have given him latitude to explain his answer. He had already attempted to explain why BV didn't apply, and they cut him off almost immediately. 2. BS is not only tolerated, it is required. There are many appeals courts before which a direct response and challenge to the court to consider revisiting their preconceived notions would be welcomed. The 9th Circuit is not one of them.
The client's goal wasn't to receive the property for $5,000. It was to enforce the property rights provided by the law.
The Judges' actions of calling Ayon a weasel is completely inappropriate. Is that grounds for discipline?
Depending on what the judge says, it can be disciplinary, among other things.
Kozinski wasn't calling Ayon a "weasel," he said Ayon should review the argument and "watch [him]self weasel," meaning he was being evasive. While it may have been overly harsh, I don't believe it was intended to be a personal insult.
I heard him call Ayon a weasel. Play the audio, Frank.
No you didn't, because he didn't say that. As the other posted noted, he said "you really should go back and watch the oral argument, and watch yourself weasel." He didn't say "watch yourself, weasel!"
Can name calling be a sign of bias?
Rule Number One with any appellate court: You must provide a reason why the result you want is the right result, not just under the law, but because it is the right and fair thing to do. Sounds like the attorney was unable to do that. Usually, a good moot will tease out those kinds of issues and prepare the attorney for what might happen.
To: 2:41. His goal was in fact that, hopefully, his clients could obtain the property, valued at $125,000., for a mere $5,100. That said, the attorney's failure to answer directly did not justify the way he was treated by the panel.
The justice in the middle sounds a little like Bella Lugosi(and in fact has the same stare).That would intimidate me, admittedly. Additionally, such justice should stick to his day job and not try Open Mic.Fridays.
His stand up career will never get off the ground. His attempts to inject comic relief into the very tense proceedings were neither comic nor relieving.
When the attorney stated he has two separate grounds for setting aside the lower judgment, the justice said something to the effect "What!? Isn't one ground enough for you?" When the non-joke fell flat(how could it not) he persisted, while grinning, "you have two grounds. You want a pile on?"
Also, best not to attempt humorous banter with an attorney, who five minutes later, you will openly disgrace on the record and advise him to view video of his past performances to(essentially) see what a poor lawyer he is.
Also, the other judge, personalized things such as "you lose credibility"
rather than "your position loses credibility." In other words, both justices made it sound like this attorney's shortcomings as to how he presents, is a recurring thematic, even systemic, problem with his practice. Arguably, instead, IMO they should have limited their remarks to how he is arguing the case at bar.
Now, that all being said, it could be that he has appeared continually before this panel and consistently refuses to answer questions, and instead evades or changes the topic–being "weasly" as I believe one justice justice called it.
The "justice in the middle" is Alex Kozinski, perhaps the most famous circuit court judge behind Judge Posner of the 7th Circuit, who just stepped down I believe.
Also, to your earlier point, I don't think Kozinski was trying to belittle Ayon by telling him to go and watch his oral argument afterwards. I think he really wanted him to have a third-party view of his argument. I have watched some of my own arguments after the fact and been surprised by how I came off and changed my style as a result. Its sort of like the first time you read a deposition transcript and realize how often you use "um" and speak in incomplete sentences. Maybe Kozinski could have said in a more gentle way, but I think he was sincere in that he thought it would do Ayon some good.
I didn't necessarily get the sense that the poster is totally oblivious as to who all these justices are.
I got the impression the poster did not want to directly identify federal justices when making observations which could be considered somewhat less than flattering.
But I could be wrong. Perhaps the poster knows of none of the players in the federal system.
Agree with 3:35 that it is assumed the justice is trying to be constructive. But agree with 1:59 and 3:24 that the plain language used can be reasonably construed as quite demeaning. In fact, we need construe nothing. On its face, it in fact appears quite demeaning. That said I just have to, and must, assume that 3:35 is correct and that a prominent federal justice would not merely demean an attorney and tell him to view video of how truly bad the attorney is, unless there is actually a constructive purpose to be served by it.
The, admittedly, harsh assessment("you tend to do this in your cases", or whatever the language was) does tend to suggest the intent is for the attorney to view the video of his past arguments, and learn form his experience. But, again, it's difficult to get people to improve after such a seemingly demeaning dressing-down.
Boy that's some tough love, and one better have thick skin when practicing before such court.
But even the posters who think the justices were too harsh concede two critical points: (1)The past history before that court may well support that the attorney has a habit of presenting his arguments in such a troubling fashion; and(2)He not only refused to answer simple, direct questions, he also did not seem to be candid and forthright as to what real life relief he hoped to obtain for his clients.
I have a cowboy rope. Let's wrestle in all those lovely personal insults that judges and the quasi judicial have made against us. We can make it a drinking game.
A hearing commissioner told me I was providing too much information.
3:24 here again. I well know who the justice is, and the Bella Lugosi remarks were just intended as silly levity. I do certainly agree with 3:35's very positive view of the judge's intellect and stature, and I should have mentioned and conceded those points when making my remarks that he still seemed a bit harsh with how he dealt with the attorney.
But too harsh or not, this attorney apparently has appeared before them on several occasions, and he should know they would have no humor for him evading and being so circular.
Just to clarify, the judges didn't mention anything about past arguments before them. Kozinski only told him to view the video of the current argument and to see that he was weasling out of questions.
Bonnie told me not to shake my head at her. So, I sucked my thumb.
Even even-tempered jurists will call you out for very visibly shaking your head is response to a statement or ruling by the court.
Do you bite you thumb at me, sir?
Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Hafter's six month suspension today.
http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=41966&csIID=41966&deLinkID=624756&sireDocumentNumber=17-39815
Poor Hafter. Johnson really wanted to cook his kosher goose.
A judge asked me out, and she was 40 years older than me. Grabowsky gross.
If you're on the level, and this actually occurred, be a pragmatist.
Rather than adopting a highly principled, indignant stance, think of the benefits to your career if you are willing to be a little more flexible and broad-minded.
I am on the level. No thanks. Judges aren't all that.
Are you exaggerating slightly about the 40 year age difference?
Even if you are a real young attorney, like only 30, we don't have much in the way of 70-year-old judges remaining on the bench. The bench is ,relatively speaking, far more youthful, and far more represented via female judges, than it was when I started practicing.
Now that I think of it, although the bench has many times more females than when I started practicing(it is now probably over half female), diversity in terms of race is no better represented than when I began practicing.
In fact, although there have always been very few African Americans and Hispanics on the bench, there are now even fewer than when I began practicing.
In my 20s.
Cadish yelled at me for citing a commonly used court rule.
Cadish yells at everybody.
I don't believe that. There's a few jurists I would believe that about, but not her.
It's simply untrue. I can't imagine that anyone who appears in District Court much will agree with you.
Agreed that she is not classified as one of the calmest and most pleasant ones(such as former Judge Barker, Denton, Bell, etc.).
But no way in Hell would any experienced District Court practitioner classify her as one of the most temperamental(we need not recite the list).
I don't believe that any experienced practitioner would agree that Cadish constantly screams at everyone. False, and you know it.
And. no, I'm not a huge Caddish booster as I agree she is not one of the most patient and pleasant. Instead, she is somewhere in the middle, and everyone knows, or should, know it.
So, unless she has really taken a turn for the worse in recent months…
Cadish is nasty to deal with. I am an experienced attorney.
I appear in front of Cadish a lot in criminal only. No idea how she presides over civil cases. In my experience, if you are getting yelled at by Cadish, you've earned it. She does react to argument with facial reactions that may be demeaning. BUT, I actually like to know how my arguments are being received, so I can either hammer a point home or move on.
No attorney earns being yelled at by a judge.
…snowflake?
Interesting discussion.