- law dawg
- 38 Comments
- 2034 Views
Per the request of one our readers, what is your take on representing your colleagues? More specifically, what do you think “about partners who DEMAND associates perform free legal services for coworkers? Don’t they realize the associate will learn things they probably should not know and the coworker may be an uncooperative entitled brat? It rarely ends well and oh by the way, why didn’t the partner agree to provide the free services himself/herself?” What is your experience with this kind of situation? Do the non-lawyer colleagues at your firm deserve the benefit of your legal expertise as a work benefit? Is there an ethical issue here? An HR issue? How do you deal with it when something like this arises?
A legal sec asked me to help her once. She was elderly, supported her granddaughter, and was being evicted after a significant rent hike. She needed more time to find an extra place. Honestly, it was one of the most fulfilling things I’ve done as a lawyer.
I have never regretted it, when helping out a co-worker or employee.
If you’re inclined, the Ask a Lawyer program at Legal Aid is a good way to help people too. I do the landlord/tenant one a couple times a month.
Sign up, you get a call sheet with 5-7 names and their issue. You call and give them 10-15 minutes and answer questions and point them in the right direction. People are usually nice and very grateful for the help.
You can also take a case through Legal Aid. They provide great support and representing a kiddo in a CAP case is very rewarding!
https://www.lacsn.org/what-we-do/ask-a-lawyer
We should all sleep better knowing Hooge is looking out for us.
I love helping out staff when they have a problem. Every time I’ve done it, I feel great about it and the staff just becomes more loyal to me. Win-win. Sometimes it’s nice to help someone just because.
That’s great so many of you do this voluntarily, but what about the situation when the partner requires you to do it. Yeah, you’re getting paid, but it’s awkward.
Yeah, you wouldn’t want to do a solid for someone who might have some say in your annual bonus, or your promotion. Go ahead and stand on principle, bruh.
What if you find out your coworker/client has a history of Domestic Violence, DUI’s and other criminal activity. Or that her current partner is on the Sex Offender list? Makes it a bit awkward, right?
Or that your client has violated every court order the judge has issued and thinks he/she can continue to get away with it because there is a free lawyer on board?
Just like with anyone else, you maintain the confidence and protect the person’s legal rights. How fucking difficult is that? It would be wonderful to spend our careers representing saintly virgins; but that’s not realistic, is it?
I generally agree with you, except….. I do quite a few cases for LACSN. I do have a threshold which is this is volunteer and if I determine that my volunteer time could be better spent on someone more worthy, I am not above letting LACSN know that this case is not a match with my firm.
AGOMLA pro bono cases are the worst. There is exactly ZERO merit screening on those which leads to people abusing the pro bono system something fierce.
I’ve never done AGOMLA, but I suspect the merit screening is that they are active members of the military. Res ipsa.
Same – sticking with Legal Aid
Actually they do not have to be active duty unfortunately. We got one that was not active duty and sent it back.
LACSN doesn’t screen perfectly, but perfection isn’t attainable. I am surprised that AGOMLA has no screening at all, if that’s true. As I recall, this was created by Adam Laxalt when he was NVAG. I like the intent here, but where there are limited resources, some sort of triage/screening is appropriate. Otherwise, you have the potential to exclude services from an active duty/vet with financial hardship because pro bono work was donated to a financially secure vet.
The issue is that this is a coworker and suddenly you know things you probably do not want to know. And should not be forced to know.
I had my pro bono ask a lawyer time blocked on my calendar and staff in my office (I was in house, so no other attorneys) saw it and thought it was an open session for them to ask legal questions. I ended up telling folks they could have the equivalent of an ask a lawyer session as needed to go over self help forms, etc. I gave the usual disclaimers as. like others have commented, it feels nice to help. I always do need some boundary/line set at the start about what I can do and that line is firmly on the question side and not in the taking cases side of things. Whenever I’ve taken cases, even through LACSN, the client won’t reimburse costs and I don’t push the issue and it costs me more than just my time to do it.
When I was a newer associate years back, they had me do this divorce case and I had tons of hours into it, including a multi day bench trial (business valuation issues, etc.). Well, turns out that they waived the entire bill for the client because of some personal connection (and had always planned to do so possibly?). It wasn’t quite like being asked to do something for free, but it counted against me at bonus time (the hours counted for my requirements at least).
Fine for staff i think, but not for colleagues on the letterhead.
Short-sighted thinking.
In the grand scheme of things, professionally and otherwise, people who approach life in a spirit of selfless service generally live better lives and are more successful in every way. Generosity benefits both the giver and the recipient.
When someone goes through life searching for ways to feel put upon, insulted, and offended; that person will have an unhappy life.
Try this:
For one day, consciously put aside all complaining and protesting. Instead, do something genuinely nice for someone and don’t tell anyone that you did it it. See if it causes you to be less anxious, less depressed, and less “triggered”. See if the world seems just a bit less against you.
I love helping people and think its the best part of the profession. Lawyers are here primarily to help people first and foremost. Making money is a secondary benefit.
I saw the comment yesterday and thought it bizarre. I have worked at more than one BIG firm and no Partner ever forced me to represent a coworker—and I had some asshole Partners I dealt with. I fixed a ticket for a Managing Partner’s family member once, but that wasn’t a big deal since I was going to court anyway. So, I guess I don’t get what OP’s issue is. It’s not that big of a deal.
Supreme Court suspended Les Stovall temporarily:https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=71844
Leslie Mark Stovall is temporarily suspended from the practice of law, pending this court’s review of the hearing panel’s recommendation of disbarment in Docket No. 88997.
He was already suspended once– January 2022 Through January 2004.
January 2002 Through January 2004.
Guess he’ll need to turn the practice over to Ross.
A disciplinary record is not a collection of old photographs that fade with time. It is a longitudinal data set that reveals character, habit, and a lawyer’s propensity to follow ethical rules. Stovall’s record is not remote; it is a remarkably consistent, thirty-year chronicle of professional failure. The data points show a clear pattern: a persistent disregard for diligence, a cavalier approach to client communication, and most tellingly, a recurring and profound deficit of honesty.
The 1997 Public Reprimand for conduct involving “dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation,” the 1998 reprimand for untruthfulness to others, and the federal conviction for filing a false tax return are not “remote” precursors.39 They are the foundational data points of a career defined by a willingness to engage in deceit for personal benefit. The current offense—the solicitation and use of stolen, privileged documents—is not a departure from this pattern; it is its logical and brazen culmination. No reasonable person would accept that a 2004 conviction for a criminal act reflecting on honesty (ROA 1897) is “remote” to the current acts of bad faith grounded in deceit occurring around 2018. His actions are not separate incidents; they form a
39 ROA 1897.
53
single, consistent pattern of misconduct. His history did not just set the stage for this moment; it made this outcome inevitable.
This extensive record demonstrates one thing with brutal clarity: past sanctions have failed to achieve specific deterrence. Stovall has been the subject of a long-running experiment in incremental punishment, and the experiment has failed. Letters of private reprimand, public reprimands, fines, and even suspension have proven insufficient to modify his professional behavior. For him, these penalties were a cost of business. A rational system, when lenient sanctions repeatedly fail to deter an unprincipled lawyer, does not keep offering the same lenient sanctions. A rational system increases the sanction until it compels compliance or removes the lawyer from the profession.
-State Bar Answering Brief, at pgs. 50-51.
OUCH.
Les definitely has a checkered past, and I won’t defend that, but the Football Leaks thing, or whatever you call it, was sort of blown out of proportion IMHO.
Les is a tenacious litigator. Judge Dorsey dumped on him. Don’t know if he should be disbarred because of a federal district court’s findings. He is not accused of any financial irregularities. Seems to be exaggerated.
Judge Dorsey is at the center of this discipline case. Judge Dorsey was so integrally involved in the Pengilly discipline case that she had to recuse herself. Becoming a Kishner.
What if you are the only attorney in the firm who has expertise in a particular area of the law (which your current firm does not handle) and the partners require you to help every employee who has a problem in that area? It makes the partners look magnanimous while you are dumped on.
@3:21 this is a stupid hypothetical. What are the odds of you being the one expert in tadpole breeding law and it just so happens that 49/50 of the employees have some tadpole issues they need dealing with? Obviously, my example is as absurd as your hypothetical, in that the likelihood of this being an actual thing is less than 1%.
Not a hypothetical. You are currently working in a business firm but have expertise in Family Law and child custody. No other attorney in your firm knows anything about divorce or custody. You’re it.
Then you my Associate friend have found your avenue to the good graces of the Bonus Selection Committee because you have something that no one else has. You milk that cow like it is no one else’s business.
Not only what @9:47 said, but again, the odds of NUMEROUS employees all having family issues requiring representation is so low as to be irrelevant. Perhaps this would come up once every few years, if that. All that being said, again, you can’t be FORCED to do it anyway. Politely decline if you’re uncomfortable. Mountain out of a mole hill over here with this guy.