By Mark McBride

Let me start a bit at the beginning (you’ll often hear me say in court, “Your honor, let’s go back to the beginning so I can provide a bit of context on what I’m about to argue.”).  When I was finishing law school in Utah, I clerked for a phenomenal criminal defense attorney. She was absolutely lethal on cross-examination.  When I met her for the first time, she of course gave me her business card.  Her email address?  For the sake of her personal privacy, I won’t give it out in full here, but it was dontconfess@xxx.

Since I just mentioned law school, let’s do a little law 101. No matter who you are — whether you are rich or poor, Black, White, Asian, Hispanic, left-handed, right-handed, educated or illiterate; whether you have never had a parking ticket in your life, or whether you just murdered 36 people in cold blood on video — you have no obligation to speak with police, whatsoever, if they try to question you.  This is not negotiable.  This principle is enshrined in the Untied States Constitution’s 5th Amendment, which explains that a person’s right against self incrimination shall (not “may,” but “shall”) NOT be violated.

There is NO upside to speaking with the police and government agents — ever. I have never read a police report in my whole life (and I must have read at least 5,000 of them) which said, at the end, “You know, after hearing from this guy or gal, and after hearing his or story, no charges should be filed, and this person is a model citizen.”  I have never seen such a police report because they don’t exist. Police reports always give the impression that a person is an axe murderer, regardless of whether they are parked one minute overtime at a parking meter after seeing their neurosurgeon for a follow-up appointment, after having just had a tumor removed.

The most important principle to keep in mind is a very simple one:  if the police had enough to arrest you, they would have already done so, and would not be asking to speak with you.  Put another way, you are the last link in the chain.  They need YOU to talk.  If the police are speaking with you, it’s because they don’t have enough evidence already!  I cannot tell you how many cases I’ve handled where, before hiring me, the client has sung like a bird to the police.  That can certainly be dealt with (and I’ve certainly beaten cases where the client did talk), but it makes the job of defending someone that much harder.

So do yourself a favor:  if you are ever requested by the police to them, give them this one respectful answer, “You know, I’m not trying to be obnoxious, but I’d rather remain silent, not speak with you, and have you contact my attorneys, Mark McBride and Jennifer Gardner.”  But the police won’t stop there, though — not by a longshot.  You’ll then hear, in a sort of mopey voice, the police officers say, “Well, ok, this was your chance to tell us your side of the story and to make a clean breast and just do the right thing.”

As it happens, this is just about the only time in my life when I ever tell the clients to do the “wrong” thing, which is not to talk, no matter the pressure the police put on you.  If you can do this one thing — simply and respectfully maintain your right to silence, regardless of how counter-intuitive it feels not to speak with the police (we are all taught to respect authority, right) – you will have done yourself a world of good, and you will have then done the RIGHT thing.

Most Los Angeles residents are well aware that the number of men who die as a result of gunshot wounds and gang-related shootings in our  neighborhoods each week are disproportionately young African Americans.    Not so surprisingly, in our criminal defense practice we see a disproportionate  number of black juveniles facing gun possession charges. Why is it that these teens, many of whom are not gang members or violent individuals, feel it necessary to carry guns?  Whether it is the result of their neighborhoods, peer pressure, a perceived need for self-protection, a desire to be “cool,” or just their naivety about the seriousness of being caught with a firearm, awareness of the consequences they may face if caught with a gun may help lower the number of black juveniles who are inclined to do so.

The consequences juveniles face for gun possession are often harsh and have long-term, life changing, effects.  Being convicted of a felony will affect their right to attend college and to vote.  Serving jail time disrupts their schooling and personal lives, and usually grooms them to become better criminals, leading to higher rates of recidivism.  For juveniles who have family, friends, and community members willing to help us advocate for lesser sentences, they may be lucky enough to be charged with misdemeanors and sent to camps or alternative programs (such as the Salvation Army) that accept troubled youth and help guide them into a career path.  Our young clients who don’t have the benefit of a strong social support system, will almost always face much harsher sentences.

As criminal defense attorneys representing these youth, we take a holistic approach to working up a defense.  A big piece of this includes taking the time to investigate their background and determine what resources and relationships they have that could assist them in receiving an alternative (and more productive) punishment.  Family, friends, and community members willing to advocate for these youth and provide a stable environment in which they can complete probation, are often a critically important component of the defense: when the Court actually sees that a teen defendant has a strong family and support system that is willing to make sure that the teen completes the alternative sentence, we find almost universally that it is more inclined to agree to a lesser punishment and not send the kid to jail.

We observe amazing transformation among young clients who participate in alternative programs instead of serving jail sentences.  These results make us all the more certain that most juveniles deserve a chance to prove that they can make better decisions when placed in a disciplined, nurturing environment, away from the peers and environment that encouraged their deviant behavior.  Sometimes it takes being charged with a crime for them to see that they need to make big changes in the way they live their lives, and placement in an alternative program (and not in jail) often lights the way.

By Mark McBride

In light of all the kind words Jennifer has posted on this website about me, I would be remiss in not returning the favor.  This, however, is not an attempt simply to pat each other on the back for nothing, but is instead well-deserved back-patting, and my chance to introduce the criminal defense warrior side of Jen, and provide some input on who she is – both as a person and a lawyer as she gets in the trenches with me on very serious criminal cases.  Indeed, in reflecting on what I’d say about Jen, I’m reminded of a great quote by JFK, who told the French press during his first trip to Europe as the president:  “I’m the guy who came to Paris with Jackie Kennedy!”

I met Jen a little more than a year ago while when she and I were working on a case together.  Knowing that perhaps 95 percent of my practice is devoted to defending serious felonies, she told me that she had long wanted to make the transition to criminal law, and that she was looking for the right partner with whom to do it.  It wasn’t long before she and I started talking about a very unique niche in criminal law:  the concept of a man-woman defense team and a firm which does not operate on a volume basis.  Personally speaking, this business model is something that I have wanted to do for years, since the criminal defense community, as we all know, is crowded with solo practitioner males, and since, even worse, the web is saturated with volume-based criminal defense firms which are “big hat and no cattle.”

That first case developed into us working on a couple more cases together, and shortly thereafter we started our criminal law partnership. And, boy oh boy, am I glad I did.  Jen is one of the best lawyers I have ever met.  She is honest, hard working, tenacious, and excellent both in and out of the courtroom.  She can go from making a great record in the courtroom in a high stakes felony case to dealing with anxious clients, to delegating responsibilities with investigators and clerks, to . . . Her ability as an advocate is virtually unlimited.  She brings a significant amount of litigation experience to our partnership (and I throw in a bit of wisdom here and there (at least I try!), and she’s a heck of a person, too.  We spend, of course, a significant amount of time talking and working together, and we have our wonderful spouses to thank for supporting us (even during late at night calls from clients in jail).

Since starting our boutique-style criminal practice, Jen and I have obtained amazing results in a myriad of high impact cases.  I couldn’t do what I do without her. I am honored to be working with Jen, and we strive each day to develop a professional relationship which is built to last, and we work on expanding ourselves regardless of each case we take on, whether it’s big or small.  Jen’s internal strength and courage is uplifting and inspiring, and she makes me a better lawyer each and every day.  Thanks, Jen, for going into business with me.  I hope never to let you down.

By Mark McBride

I have a serious bone to pick with what are three huge enemies of a criminal defense attorney:  (1) TV; (2) Movies; and (3) a great number of other lawyers.

The first two enemies go together. I call it the “TV effect.”  Clients often think that criminal defense work is like what they see on TV and in the movies.  They think that, by hiring a privately retained criminal attorney, money changes hands between defense lawyers and judges or between defense lawyers and prosecutors.  They think that simply because they hired a privately retained attorney, their case will “just go away.”  This is not particularly the client’s fault.  We live in a media-saturated culture, and our thinking is saturated with media images.  If a client has seen several movies (we all have) where money has changed hands and, in classic cinema style, a case has “just gone away,” or if a client has heard the old wives’ tale about, “Yeah, if you hire this guy or gal, they can just make a phone call . . .,” what can we as defense lawyers expect?

The last enemy of defense lawyers are often the many other (but certainly not all) lawyers out there who make guarantees, promises, or statements which gives a potential or current client the impression that, by hiring that given lawyer, the case will “just go away,” or that a very difficult case to defend is a walk in the park.  Frankly, this issue is much more real, and much more difficult to contend with as a practicing criminal attorney, than the TV effect.  On a virtual daily basis, I have clients, or potential clients, ask me:  “Mark, you can easily beat this, right?”  Or they’ll say, “Yeah, since I hired you, you can just make a phone call, right?”  Or here’s the worst one of all:  “You know, before hiring you, I talked to this other lawyer, and he (or she) told me that they could get my case totally dismissed.”  Man, I’m upset just writing that last one.  All of these statements, though, are unbelievable, and they do nothing for criminal defense attorneys who want to provide a great defense while also having an ethical and honest relationship with their clients.

As I sit here and write this blog, I think of the scene in “A Few Good Men” (see . . .there I go, thinking about movies myself!), where Jack Nicholson screams, in the courtroom finale:  “You can’t handle the truth!”  When you tell clients the truth, oftentimes they don’t like it — at all.  This is also unbelievable to me.  When you tell a client in a multiple life term case that there are some really bad facts or issues which a jury might have a hard time dealing with, or when you tell them, “No, I can’t get the DA’s office to offer less time,” clients will sometimes become irate.  Indeed, I recently had a client in an extremely difficult, multiple life case say, “Man, Mark, I just wish you would tell me that this case is no big deal.”  I am encountering this phenomenon more and more as a criminal attorney — a client’s desire not to believe what juries sometimes really think, or hear their case has some weak points.  This phenomenon is getting worse each day, and it’s in proportion, it seems to me, to the state of the economy.  When the economy is bad (sound familiar?), more lawyers will make more outlandish promises, and clients and potential clients will expect the attorney they eventually hire to act likewise.

But that’s alright.  That’s part of the job as a criminal lawyer.  If a lawyer doesn’t have thick skin, and if a lawyer can’t resist making false promises to a client, they have no business defending serious felony cases.  As Alan Dershowitz once remarked about the amazing, but incredibly honest, Clarence Darrow:  “Remember:  he wasn’t revered until after his death.”

By Jennifer Gardner

I’m serving jury duty today.  Criminal Courts Building, Downtown Los Angeles.  I did not have time to do the on-line orientation over the weekend because I worked continuously on a decision that I had to file with the Civil Service Commission on Monday morning.  So, I showed up late Monday morning (at 9:15 instead of 8:30 am) and was told that I could not start on Monday – I could not even do the training, rather, I had to report the next day at 8am and do the training at the courthouse.   Then, I will have to stay there until between 4 pm and 5 pm to see if I am called to be on an actual jury panel.

I can not do this today.  But I can not do this in October either, which is when they told me that I could come back if I really must need to.  Next Monday, I begin a preliminary hearing in a homicide case, and my client is not waiving time.  In October, that very same case will probably be going to trial.  So, today I can not get on a jury and risk being stuck on a case that might not finish on time for me to be at the preliminary hearing, and I can not agree to show up three months from now either.

I’m sure that I’m not the only one who is gravely inconvenienced by having to be here.

I love to try cases.  I was born to try cases.  But this headache is giving me a whole new appreciation for the mental state of the 12 jurors who often decide our client’s fate.  What the judges all tell us when we tell them that we haven’t settled is that when you go to trial, you are now giving up control of your life to 12 very angry, stressed out, people sitting in the jury box.  Now I really get it.  Suddenly, that whole idea (of trial by jury) no longer seems so romantic now that I have hands-on insight into the mindset of our reluctant citizens who are serving on juries (in most cases) against their will.

By Jennifer Gardner

I am disgusted by how some lawyers use their celebrity clients to shine the spotlight on their own careers.  Even more appalling is when they breach client confidentiality by indiscreetly mouthing off to the media about a client or former client.

Case in point:  Chicago lawyer Stuart V. Goldberg who rumor has it was or almost was Lindsay Lohan’s attorney for about five minutes this week.   Was he hired, was he fired or did he resign?  It makes no difference, at least in the state of California where as soon as a client consults an attorney for legal advice, the duty of confidentiality attaches to all communications.  This would make Goldberg’s ramblings to People Magazine about how he thinks Lindsay is a “lost child….who doesn’t understand adult consequences” or fully grasp “what is going to befall her…..” not simply inappropriate editorializing and prognostication, but a severe breach of that duty.   I think the duty of confidentiality even extends to whether a client fully comprehends the heap of trouble she finds herself in, especially in Lindsay’s case where she has been accused of violating the terms of her probation.  Consciousness of guilt and remorsefulness are very much at issue in this type of a situation.  Opining about whether a client (or even an “almost” client) is sufficiently aware of what they are doing or not, and whether they feel bad about it or not, is clearly wrong.    Mr. Goldberg had the nerve to tell the media that he required 100% loyalty from Lindsay, but he did not return the favor when he thoughtlessly addressed the media in this way.   Often, being a good lawyer includes knowing when to keep your big mouth shut.

By Mark McBride

I recently had the occasion to pick a jury in a sexual assualt / kidnapping case.  We started with 66 people, the goal was to arrive at 12 jurors and 3 alternates.

I must say, after jury selection, I came away from it feeling good about one thing, and feeling not so hot about two things.  What I felt good about was that, for the most part, most Los Angelenos are really good people who just want to do the right thing.  The DDA and I questioned them extensively.  Because this was a multiple life term case, the trial judge gave us virtually all the time we needed to really figure out their motivations, what they really thought, and so forth.  I did not detect dishonesty in them at all, in terms of making up baloney excuses to try to get off the jury.  Yes, there were a couple people who were transparently silly in their attempt to say that their roof would fall in, or that their children would be taken by aliens if they were empaneled, but, fortunately, we had a very smart and fast trial judge who saw right throught that, and she returned them to their seats.  As well, the DDA and I “kicked” all of them anyway.

I felt bad, though, about a couple things, and both of them go right to the fairness of the proceedings.  The first issue is that, during the discussion of some of the bedrock constitutional rights (the presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof, and the right of a defendant not to testify at all), several, very normal-seeming people had significant issues with the last one — a defendant’s right not to be penalized by the jury if he or she says nothing at all during trial.  Yes, of course you can do your best to “kick” those jurors, but, of course, the rest of the potential jurors hear these unfortunate comments.  To rebut this, I look for leaders rather than followers.  I look for people who can put their foot down, and say, “No, this case is bogus.  I’m not convicting him or her.  Period.  I just can’t.”  As they say in criminal defense law in terms of hanging a jury, “it just takes one.”

The last thing I noticed which was very difficult in a case of this type were the many members of the panel who were reluctant about sitting on the jury because it brought up in their minds very difficult experiences from their past.  We had men and women, in their 40′s and 50′s, who were telling us in private conferences (out of earshot of the entire jury, but in the presence of the judge, DDA, court reporter, and myself) that simply hearing the charges brought to their minds things that they hadn’t even told their closest loved ones in their entire lives.

But that’s our job as trial lawyers.  That’s why we took the oath — to defend people, no matter the human cost, no matter the peril, no matter the human pain which could be caused by, say, lethal cross-examination, all the while working ethically and legally.

My takeaway from this experience confirmed the age-old principle that jury selection is one of the most important parts of a trial.  Many lawyers say (and I agree with them, on many levels) that jury selection will determine if the case can be won at all.

My next entry will be about whether juries should hear the potential sentence a defendant could receive if they vote for guilt.  Stay tuned . . .

By Mark McBride

When I became a criminal lawyer at the age of 27, and after having my bar license for all of one month, I sought out great mentors and people who could give me not law-school-type advice, but real courtroom advice.

At the same time, I had just become part of the defense team in the notorious, albeit nationally publicized, Tom Green bigamy prosecution in Utah.  In speaking with lead counsel on that case (and we spoke a lot and spent a significant amount of time together), I asked him, “John, what is the best advice you can give a guy who wants to be a great criminal lawyer?”

I’ll never forget his response.  He said to me, “Kid, listen up. This is not complicated.  All the fancy education lawyers have somehow makes them forget one thing.  And I want you to listen to me real close.  Whenever there’s something in a courtroom which does not feel right, and whenever you think a judge or prosecutor or witness is not telling the truth or trying to slide one over on you, say these words, and never get tired of saying them, ‘Your honor, I want a hearing.’”

To this day, and after having handled hundreds of criminal cases, many of which are very high stakes and/or very gory, you can still hear me say, “Your honor, with all due respect to the DA and the witness, my client and I would like a separate hearing on that separate issue.”

That advice — where you request that the Court take evidence and take a much more careful approach before it decides a critical issue — is some of the best I’ve ever received.  The heart of this strategy is that the burden is on the system and the prosecutor to establish critical facts, and it also gives the courts, prosecutors, and witnesses the chance to show you what they have.  More to the point, it allows you to make a record through lethal cross-examination, which is the heart and soul of a criminal defense attorney’s arsenal.

I have received some other great advice over the years, but, in the last few days, that wisdom from nearly 10 years ago has really been resonating in my mind.  And it is wisdom that will never go out of style, and it is wisdom that I seek to employ in virtually every criminal case I handle, no matter how big or small the issue.  

As many of you already know, my good friend and colleague, attorney Mark McBride and I joined forces in the second half of 2009 with the goal of providing a team approach to providing private criminal representation, and since then the firm’s criminal law practice has grown substantially. Mark is an outstanding lawyer who has devoted his entire career to representing individuals accused of committing crimes. Recently, he was named as one of LA’s “celebrity go-to” lawyers (http://www.thewrap.com/deal-central/article/la-law-whos-who-celebrity-attorneys-18076).

I asked Mark to give me a list of what he considers to be his biggest accomplishments so that I could post them here, and this is what he said:

“1.  Dedicated and husband and father;

2.  Tried misdemeanor cases while still in law school;

3.  Started criminal practice while only 25 years old and with $600.00 in the bank;

4.  I have never prosecuted anyone, and never will;

5.  I have conducted research and writing for, and had as mentors, some of the best and most high profile criminal defense attorneys not only in California but across the country.

6.  I am admitted to practice in all the State Courts in both Utah and California, and am admitted to practice in several federal jurisdictions, which include:  The Central District of California, the Eastern District of California, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the District of Utah, the Northern District of Illinois, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. In addition to Utah’s and California’s state courts, I have also been admitted, as a friend of the Court, in several other state criminal courts across the country, which include New York, Florida, and South Dakota;

7.  My first high profile case occurred when I was only 27 years old, during which I was part of the defense team on the nationally known Tom Green bigamy prosecution in Utah. Since then, I have had many high profile and celebrity clients;

8.  Since becoming a criminal defense attorney, I have handled at least 250 criminal cases, which have run the gamut of criminal offenses (traffic violations, DUI’s, murder, child sexual abuse, narcotics trafficking at the federal level, white collar crime, parallel SEC investigations amidst allegations of federal crime, bank robbery, and so on and on);

9.  As a criminal defense attorney, and before criminal charges have ever been filed, I have successfully persuaded law enforcement officials and prosecutors not to charge crimes at all on dozens of occasions;

10.  My most recent victory?  In mid-June 2010, I obtained a dismissal of an attempted murder charge, in Pasadena, after a gut-wrenching and lengthy preliminary hearing, during which I proved that the complaining witness had no credibility.  This is a virtually unheard of accomplishment, as the burden on prosecutors is considered to be quite low during a preliminary hearing.  Various criminal lawyers in Southern California have extended their amazement and congratulations to me in light of this victory, since they know how low the burden is, for the State, during a preliminary hearing.”

Mark is a tireless, passionate advocate. We compliment each other really well and enjoy aggressively defending our clients. It’s exciting and gratifying to work together to achieve the amazing results we are achieving on all of our cases. I believe this is because we make a powerful team and a potent adversary, which is what you need when you are up against the government. Mark and I do our best to level the playing field for our clients so that they get more than just a fair shake. I am really proud to be associated with Mark, and of all the good work we are doing.  For more information about our criminal defense law practice, check out www.LACriminalLawHelp.com ,

Things have been so busy lately that I have had no time at all to tell everyone about the new website: www.LACriminalLawHelp.com. This site defines what Mark McBride and I are trying to achieve by joining forces and providing our clients with a team approach to our criminal defense practice. I am really proud of the work we are doing. More about that soon.

There is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis. Borrowers who sought to live far above their means, and buy homes that they could not reasonably afford, are at fault. Regulators and government officials should have done a better job of ensuring that financial institutions didn’t take excessive lending and trading risks, and that mortgage lenders did not engage in inappropriate lending practices. And several financial institutions experienced risk management fail, in their blind rush to maximize profits.

With regards to the third leg of this triangle of responsibility, President Obama’s proposal to institute a tax on certain assets of financial institutions with more than $50 million in total assets represents an attempt to ensure that taxpayer bailout funds are fully recovered from financial institutions that took excessive risks — and what better way to accomplish that then to require the assistance of those institutions that benefited the most from the bailouts.

Some will make the argument that certain institutions were relieved of their obligations to the taxpayer once they repaid the bailout funds that they themselves received. However, at a time when Goldman Sachs recently paid 953 of its employees more than $1 million in compensation, several months after accepting $10 billion in bailout funds — and when Merrill Lynch paid 696 of its employees similar amounts, months after also receiving a $10 billion present — such arguments may have difficulty obtaining much sympathy on Main Street, especially when these banks might not have been in any position to pay this compensation to begin with, had they not been restored to health by the American taxpayer.

The American people shouldn’t be left to suffer and clean up the mess to which Wall Street played a major role in contributing. We need to hold Wall Street accountable for its share of the mess. If Congress approves the President’s tax, perhaps financial institutions will give more careful consideration, going forward, to the downside of making reckless decisions with regards to risk management, and will be extremely hesitant to put themselves in a position where taxpayer dollars are needed to save them. No one should begrudge the right of Wall Street bankers to enjoy fat profits whenever they make good decisions; but in turn, like good capitalists, they need to pay a price whenever they experience epic fail.

Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown’s victory on Tuesday over Martha Coakley suggests three important lessons for political candidates, and federal officeholders seeking re-election:

First, the most important word in 2010 for federal candidates is going to be accountability. Your pedigree won’t matter to much to voters, and no seat is “safe.” Voters want to know who you are, what you have done, and what you are going to do, going forward, to address their concerns. Candidates who don’t actively and effectively communicate these things are going to be trouble. When you’re a politician, voters are your clients. You take them for granted at your own risk. You can’t afford to be out-hustled on client service, and that’s where Coakley fell short.

Second, as important as health care reform is, in this political environment, the correct mantra for politicians to repeat continues to be “it’s the economy, stupid.” Politicians need to correctly diagnose and address voters’ immediate concerns about their finances before moving on to other concerns.

Third, no one has any clue about what’s going to happen in November. Raise your hand if you knew who Scott Brown was a year ago. However, whatever you may think of Scott Brown and his politics, the fact is, he knew who he was and what he stood for — and he did a great job of communicating that to Massachusetts voters. The lesson here is, persistence and passionate belief in a cause can overcome great odds to achieve an effective result. I can certainly relate to that, and to all of these lessons, as an attorney.

I appear in court regularly on my cases, and it is fascinating and frightening to see how the economic crisis is affecting the court system.

Not only are the courts furloughed due to lack of funds to run them, but also, I heard a rumor that LA County is going to lose 111 judges to layoffs, and that only criminal cases are going to continue to get priority. This is going to collide with the law that requires civil cases to be tried within a year of the filing date of the complaint.

More importantly, the remaining civil judges are going to have to absorb the caseloads of the laid-off judges. I wonder how they are going to do it. Judges are already extremely overworked. You can feel them struggling to handle their caseloads and to unload cases. They pressure the lawyers to resolve disputes outside of the courtrooms, and pressure the parties to pay to have private judges decide them.

I appeared at a post-mediation status conference the other day. This is a court hearing where the judge requires all of the lawyers to appear and report the outcome of a mediation. In my case, the parties did not settle their dispute at the mediation, though they spent nine hours and thousands of dollars — between the mediator’s time and the lawyers’ time — trying.

The first thing the judge stated on the record when she saw five lawyers approach the counsel table as she called the case was, “What are you all doing here? How can these parties afford so many lawyers on this type of a case?” One of the lawyers, who appeared by telephone, then made several inflammatory accusations against my clients. The judge ignored these comments and asked her very simple, direct questions about the outcome of the mediation. The lawyer answered with non-responsive, inflammatory accusations.

The judge angrily castigated this lawyer for not “being reasonable or helpful,” and lectured that as an attorney, the lawyer’s role was to help resolve problems rather than make matters worse with such tactics. I have never seen a judge react like this. A month previously, a judge on another case yelled at the lawyers who were in chambers preparing for trial — exclaiming that by doing so, we were simply “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.” He told us that instead, we needed to put our energies into settling the case. This judge made clear his belief that aggressive tactics have no place in a log-jammed courtroom.

There is even less tolerance now for tactics that used to be considered good old-fashioned advocacy. Tactics that used to be considered the norm are by necessity falling by the wayside. The court system was overly congested before, and now, it is going to get much worse. It can not help but profoundly affect the way we advocate for our clients. As a pragmatist, I think that in many situations, this is a good thing. Too often, too much money is wasted fighting over frivolous issues. I agree with Abraham Lincoln, who said: “As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good [wo]man. There will still be business enough.”

We are moving towards a new civility.

In America today, there are almost as many people making their living as bloggers as there are lawyers. Already more Americans are making their primary income from posting their opinions than Americans working as computer programmers or firefighters….
The best studies we can find say we are a nation of over 20 million bloggers, with 1.7 million profiting from the work, and 452,000 of those using blogging as their primary source of income. That’s almost 2 million Americans getting paid by the word, the post, or the click — whether on their site or someone else’s.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124026415808636575.html

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog, Elizabeth Wurtzel examines how over-worked and over-paid corporate lawyers enabled the Wall Street bankers, and thereby  co-created the current financial crises.  Her observations are below, and I couldn’t agree more.

Millions of hours of manpower put in by investment bankers on Wall Street and the lawyers who enabled them — the kind that brought home those bright shiny bonuses that are now causing a populist uprising in the hinterlands — have been wasted away by what is kindly called the credit crisis. . . .

[T]he traditional life of a law lackey . . . has meant virtual residence at the firm. Meals were delivered by Seamless Web and the roll-top desk was used for catnaps, because whatever it is that had to happen had to happen immediately, or yesterday. The emergency-room atmosphere that permeated the processing of derivatives deals, corporate takeovers, and whatever else has been going on at Goldman, Bear, Citi and Merrill for the past decade, could rival that of an operating room during open-heart surgery. Only, of course, it was a matter of money — not life or death.

Perhaps money and mortality are all the same to some. But as a way of making the former, this hysterical ER-approach has proved futile. All those lost nights of sleep are now lost 401(k)s. So what was the point? Corporate lawyers could have been sunning in St. Bart’s and ended up with the exact same result, plus a tan.

. . . I don’t believe any of the major players are re-evaluating their ethos — only their decision to invest in subprime mortgages. And this is foolish, since the problem is not just that the financial instruments were bad bets, but that the corporate structure and the feverish rush of it all are fundamentally flawed.

I would love to call the system despicable or detestable or something evil-sounding, but that would be giving it too much credit. It’s really just the march of dunces.

I would add that in order to prevent this type of phenomenon from recurring, many lawyers need to step outside their air-conditioned skyscrapers and experience a bit of more of “real life” before they mindlessly mastermind the next financial-or-whatever apocalypse.