News you can use

"Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and the four presiding Appellate Division justices have formally adopted a new set of attorney ethics rules that proponents say brings New York lawyers in line with their counterparts in most of the rest of the country.

The Rules of Professional Conduct align ethics standards in form and numbering sequence with the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct. That change will make it easier for New York attorneys to reference ethics rules and advisory and legal opinions nationwide when researching issues, supporters of the new rules say."

To read more, look for: Joel Stashenko's December 17, 2008 article entitled "New Lawyer Conduct Rules Adopted; Standards Aligned With ABA Model" in the New York Law Journal.

A definition of professionalism

I came across another interesting quote in my horribly organized electronic notes that I would like to share; it may be attributed to Lippe the AmLaw optimist or it may have come from an earlier commenter:

Although duties to their clients in particular matters are paramount, lawyers must throughout their careers remain conscious of and committed to the goal of improving the profession and the system of justice. This commitment includes taking personal and professional measures to increase the availability of legal services and abet even-handed and efficient application and administration of the legal system for all segments of society.

Food for thought; if you have any comments or know the source, let me know.

Job (in)security

When surveyed whether they feared that they may lose their job during the recession, our readers responded somewhat anxious with 50% of our lawyer-voters worried that they may lose their jobs in this recession economy.  But, that percentage is probably much lower than the national average (if anyone knows those numbers, I would love to know), 49% of you are feeling pretty confident in the stability of your positions--I call that keeping a stiff upper  lip. And of course, there will always be a small percentage of error for those who head is in the clouds and continue to ask the question: what recession?

Will billables go bye bye?

I am sure many of you read Jonathan D. Glatners article in the New York Times on November 12, 2008, entitled "Law Firms Feel Strain of Layoffs and Cutbacks": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/12law.html?emc=eta1

The most compelling passage to me had to do with the demise of the billable hour, which is a buzzing topic in the legal press of late:

"A survey of about 600 corporate executives by Acritas, a London-based research firm, found that 32 percent expected billing practices to change over the next two years.
'Rather than having hourly rates, we are increasingly negotiating flat fees or fixed fees, or success fees,' which include a premium based on predetermined conditions, said Ivan K. Fong, chief legal officer and secretary at Cardinal Health in Dublin, Ohio, and chairman of the Association of Corporate Counsel. Some law firms have resisted those changes, he continued, but may find they have to accept clients’ wishes.'"

So do you think the billables will die? and how soon from now . . . .

A word from our readers

I received this comment a few months back and I want to share it because the reader brought up some good points:

It's important to step into the shoes of most persons who are not lawyers: I understand this from many phone calls to me as a government lawyer. Most persons want access to justice, but cannot afford the fees charged by private sector lawyers; most persons find the entire legal system to be irrational--i.e., the World Trade Center litigation. Let's have outreach to the public, and re-examine the adversarial nature of the law in a context where ADR is rational. I really don't think that the responses you receive mean much to the public, who are the source of what is deemed "professionalism", as applied to lawyers. When we write, we write for the reader: this blog has to be for the reader--the public, who are not lawyers.

I can't decide my position on this statement "the public, who are the source of what is deemed 'professionalism'" but I am leaning toward disagreeing. And if anyone is reading this humble blog they are in all likelihood an attorney. So are we doing nothing to forward our cause here?

An optimist's look into the future

I have been following Paul Lippe's columns entitled "Welcome to the Future" in AmLaw:

I’m an optimist. I believe the post-boom world will recapture the best qualities of the legal profession, the reasons we went to law school and became lawyers in the first place. I predict that over the next few years there will be positive change for those prepared to embrace and promote it.

I am an optimist too. Or am I just a jaded, post-optimist? This short quote is all I have left in my electronic notes and I don't recall what is the "positive change" he forebodes lawyers to "embrace." Any suggestions, whether or not you have read the article, are welcome. Or if you want to share what you think are "the best qualities of the legal profession" or even why you "went to law school" I would love to know.

Congratulations Barack Obama!

Now the election is out of the way and the fun begins to see how the brilliant campaigner assembles brilliant minds to work through, slog through the problems facing our nation. I am glad Obama (like me--see my earlier post) is thinking of Lincoln at this time in our nation's history: “We are not enemies, but friends — though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.”

Good Luck Mr. President-elect!


p.s. nice concession speech from McCain too; alluding that we can all work together. (A very smart seven-year old even asked me whether there might be a place for McCain in an Obama cabinet; I explained why it was not likely).

p.s.s. and thanks to new readers for participating in the polls. This is the end of the political side of this blogger, next post -- back to PROFESSIONALISM

Election Day

I am looking forward to voting. I hope you are too.

I recently read Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address for the first time. I was so impressed at how poignant a 143-year old speech can still sound:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may acheive and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

That was the final paragraph of the Address. The entire speech was only 4 paragraphs long. I love when someone says so much in so few words. A true American genius and a mentor to make all lawyers proud of their profession.

How your firm feels about bar associations

The results are a surprising 50/50 in our latest survey. 50% of our readers work for law firms that encourage partcipation in bar associations -- all of those work for firm that allow time for bar meetings and encourage leadership roles; the other 50% work for law firms that don't -- within that group 17% of those surveyed said their firm impliedly discourages participation. That's an unfortuate statistic.

Musings on the R word

This Autumn has been full of unfortunate falls. We have yet to see if professionalism in the law will expand or contract, and if lawyers will be viewed more positively or negatively during these times of the R word.

But even closer to home, we are all asking ourselves: Was the boom in financials directly related to the boom in law firms? (oh yes, those of you in denial, that was a boom) In New York and probably everywhere else in the country you have to say yes. How is the bust going to affect us lawyers, or me associate/counsel/junior partner/partner? I think we have already seen some of the effects.

Don't hold your collective breaths because there is inevitably more to come . . . .

When what you deserve and your sense of entitlement don't match

Most of you have probably already seen this article from the law journal, but it is worth a late posting by me, even if for nothing more than to emphasize that greed often accompanies unprofessionalism and is plain ugly.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202424738820

Your thoughts on why we aren't liked

Fifty (50%) of you voted that the cause of the public's perception that lawyers act with less than the utmost integrity is changes in the practice of law that are increasingly modelling corporate practice.

So, essentially you are saying that the public is right (the public, indeed in never wrong) and it is not mere perception; things have actually changed and it is only natural that attitudes would change too (unfortunately for the worse).

Well, let's hope that those changing practices do not lead to a meltdown in the legal world akin to what is going on in the financial world, because the chances for the government bailing us out would be even less likely . . . .

What is going on?

There appears to be a lull in the discourse of professionalism these last couple of weeks. Is it because with the arrival of new associates everyone is on their best behavior? Or is it because summer is over and everyone is concentrating on back to billing?



Take a minute out to comment and let me know. I hate to be in the dark.

Professional Responsibility --- everyone's doin' it

Even those at the top of the integrity ladder need to check the righteousness of their rungs now and then, just look at the DOJ.

Attorney General Mukasey told the ABA House of Delegates on August 12 that "Professionalism is alive and well at the Justice Department today." (Did I detect an emphasis on the word today?) He was heartily applauded.

AG Mukasey was referring to Office of Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility joint reports that investigated DOJ hiring practices in and before 2007. The investigations demonstrated and the AG acknowledged that improper political considerations had been used in hiring immigration judges, AUSA hirings and prestigious legal internship programs, among a few other positions.

AG Mukasey then took the professional responsibility helm and let everyone know that much has changes including, inter alia, new hiring procedures and mandatory training. Now things have been righted and the AG assured the audience that "Politics must play no role either in the hiring of career employees or in the investigation and prosecution of cases." [more applause]

You can find a video of the speech at http://www.abavideonews.org/

Not Just For the Seasoned Set

Here is an inspiring article from the National Law Journal that I am sharing with those of you who didn't catch it earlier:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202423761253

Proof that lawyering is fun. You can't argue with a 98 year old. Enough said.

What New York Lawyers think of Mandatory Retirement - Reprise

According to our survey results most New York lawyers are against mandatory retirement. A whopping eighty seven percent (87%!) of those surveyed both "young" and "older" attorneys (in fact, numerically, more young attorneys were in favor than older -- likely because we appear to have more participation here at the blog from younger attorneys -- so start clicking old fogies!) voted that mandatory retirement is unfair and should be eliminated.

Only twelve percent of those surveyed thought that mandatory retirement was fair and should be compulsory -- and 100% of those in favor of mandatory retirement are all young lawyers. Apparently no older lawyers who participated felt that mandatory retirement was fair. Surprised?

I wonder if the results would be the same if we surveyed folks whether firms' up and out policies are fair? But then again that is like apples and oranges, isn't it? or is it?

What do you think? Maybe we should make that a future survey? In the meantime, click the COMMENTS button and share your opinion.

Oh, and also cast your vote on the new survey: Why does the public prefer to castigate us rather than love us?

Observations on the topic of professionalism

I read a great article the other day; following is one of the many choice quotes:

"Lawyers in top management positions sometimes seem befuddled, if not irritated, when professionalism is mentioned at all. At times it is dismissed as an antiquated notion out of the annals of nineteenth century fin de siecle novels. Even if acknowleged, it seems at times to get pawned off on half-baked programs devoted to such flinty notions as 'mentoring' or 'inns of court' or special committees on 'collegiality' and law firm life, things to add to the practice of law, not integral to it."

credit for the quote goes to Robert E. Shapiro, Advance Sheet, Litigation, Vol. 34 No. 2 (Winter 2008).

What do YOU think? agree or not?
let the law world know by hitting the Comments button. . . .

What New York lawyers think of Mandatory Retirement

The most recent and comprehensive survey I found (a national survey reported in an Oklahoma City journal) in my simple web search shows that attorneys are not in favor of mandatory retirement. Cut and paste the link below to see what I am referring to:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20071012/ai_n21047269

If you think otherwise or can find better or more recent survey results, especially highlighting views of New Yorkers, click on "Comments" below to let me know.

In any event, vote in our survey (to the right of this post) so we can compile our our own results of what New York attorneys think of mandatory retirement.

We Need Mentors!

One hundred percent (100%) of the people who responded to our last survey "Would you like to be a mentor or mentee in a nycla-sponsored mentorship program?" responded that they could use the assistance of a mentor. That tells me two things: (1) most of the people who are reading this blog (or at least voting in the survey) are in the earlier stages of their career; and (2) those attorneys need to talk to people with more experience than themselves to help them navigate their way to their career goals.

We would like to hear from more seasoned attorneys to get a mix in the dialogue so I am dedicating the next survey to a topic that is likely close to the hearts of those who have been practicing for more than 10 years (and in some cases, a lot more): Mandatory retirement.

Don't forget to cast your vote and to click on the "COMMENTS" link below to comment, give your opinion or any ideas for future surveys.

Comments on the Definition

I received a recent comment:

"One thing maybe is that the ALLCAPS presentation of the definition makes it hard to read. Although it does give it that 'handed down from Moses' look . . . ." Well. Looking as though being handed down from Moses outweighs being hard to read--it will remain ALLCAPS!

For those of you who don't know what we are taking about, read the 266-word definition of professionalism at the bottom of the page and let me know if you too think it looks kinda cool (or if you don't have the time to read it all, just look at it and let me know).

Critique of the Definition -- Second paragraph

(If you don't have the draft definition of professionalism fresh in your mind --and why not? -- scroll down to the bottom of the blog, I posted it there.)

Most of the second paragraph of the Definition of Professionalism is relatively uncontroversial, except the third sentence; we'll look at each in turn.


I agree that attorneys have the responsibility to develop their skills and practice diligently in applying those skills on behalf of their clients. We all know the law is evolving, developing one's skills doesn't end after practicing for 5, 10, even 45 years. Applying those skills with diligence is equally important because we are entrusted by our clients in issues of utmost importance that they are not able to handle on their own.


Now, on to the third sentence, I will keep it short- anyone want to comment on churning fees? Feel free to click the "Comments" link below.


Finally, what is left to say about zealous advocacy that you haven't already heard. I guess the last sentence is a reminder to temper it with knowing when to settle.
I complain that the definition is too long, but it does give me lots of fodder. Stay tuned for a critique of the third and final paragraph.

Mentoring - reprise

I am taking a short detour from my exploration of the contours of the professionalism definition to a topic that we looked at earlier. (please don't fret, I will return to the definition shortly)

I would like to give my thoughts on a few questions that I received from an earlier mentoring post.

Question:
"I'd appreciate thoughts on how bar associations like NYCLA might help on the mentoring front. Would senior lawyers, including retired and semi-retired lawyers, be willing to participate? Is there a way that at least some CLE credit could be offered to both mentors and mentees for a well-structured program?"

Having retired/semi-retired lawyers in a formal mentoring program would be an amazing resource for young lawyers, for obvious reasons. I think it would be more difficult to get older lawyers on board. The benefits for older lawyers that I can think of: interest enriching the profession with their wisdom, and keeping up with the profession through a young blood, may not be enough to interest retiring lawyers, who might rather be playing golf or learning how to play the piano.

I would love to hear from older lawyers in particular who can think of reason why mentoring young attorneys is attractive to them.

CLE credits might be a way to attract more interest (though I am not sure how CLE credit programs are structured) and there definitely is professional development value in a mentoring program not only for the young attorneys, but also for older lawyers -- to keep them on their toes.

It is worth looking into. If anyone has any information in this regard, please pass it along to me.

Critique of the Definition -- Part I

My first impression of the first paragraph is that it sounds elitist and is likely to put people off.

And disingenuous . . . If I were to ask a random group of people which profession consists of "a group pursuing a learned art as a higher calling in a spirit that it is performing a public service, a service that is indispensable in a democratic nation . . . ." I can assure you not one will say lawyer. sad, but oh so true.

The public servant concept can be looked at more broadly though; in that way the definition is more palatable to me. It is true that as lawyers we are performing a public service whether we assist an indigent inmate in litigating against the city for improvements during his incarceration, and equally a public service when we assist a billionaire find a loop hole in the contract in which she would rather not continue complying with -- in both examples we are assisting members of society with their everyday goals in a way they couldn't do by themselves, without our assistance and specialization.

(However, thinking of that last example I recall the documentary "Corporation" in which the film places the entire blame of overblown, over powerful corporations on lawyers who set out to use those organizations to enrich themselves and their practices. I thought the historical representation was simplistic, naive, narrow, overstated yes, but we shouldn't err on own by overstating our profession as a "learned art").

I wasn't around for the meeting when the definition was finalized and the snippets were taken from various sources. Was lawyering once upon a time referred to as a "learned art"? Who said that?

Finally, I can't really find fault with the last line: as attorneys we owe "an obligation of dignity, integrity, self-respect and respect for others" but in my view we owe those to each other as human beings, not just as attorneys.

Second paragraph next time . . .

I'm Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is (so to speak) -- Intro

I asked that you take a look at the definition of professionalism and let me know what you think. But, that really wasn't fair and 2 questions come to mind: (1) for a discussion on professionalism why should you be analyzing a definition; and (2) why don't I do it myself.

In regards to question 1, the Task Force likes to use the definition as a starting point for discussion. Not so sexy true, but it is packed with assumptions and value judgments that not everyone agrees with. On the other side of the coin, even though the definition is pretty long, many people bring up important aspects of the profession that the definition has failed to cover. Those opinions often make for a lively start-off to discussions among attorneys.

As for question 2, for the next three posts I will be looking, paragraph by paragraph, at the definition and will let you know what I think. As a teaser, I will let you know right off the bat that I think the definition is too long. With that said, below if the first paragraph of the definition; it is what I will be thinking about for the next couple of days:

By professionalism we mean a group pursuing a learned art as a higher calling in a spirit that it is performing a public service, a service that is indispensable in a democratic nation founded on the rule of law. This calling is no less a public service because it may also be a means of livelihood. Pursuit of a learned art in the spirit of a public service is the essence of being a lawyer. It implies an obligation of dignity, integrity, self-respect and respect for others.
. . .

to be continued . . .

Take a Look at the Definition of Professionalism

The Task Force on Professionalism has come up with a working definition of "Professionalism" that I have included on to this blog, at the very bottom on the page. We have asked around for some input on the definition and have received some comments so far, such as: 'pro bono has no place as a requirement in the definition' and 'doesn't address interaction among lawyers.'

Granted as a definition it is long (complete with disclaimers), but if you would take the time to read the definition and give us any comments that you may have, for instance, what you would change or add, we would love to hear from you.

Thanks and regards,

Do you need a mentor?

We are trying to find out the extent mentoring had an impact, or is having an impact on your careers. In thinking of ways to promote professionalism, ethical behavior and a sense of community among attorneys, we are of the opinion that the profession could use more mentoring.

Even though many large firms have formal mentoring programs, have they worked for you? And if you are a young attorney in a small or mid-sized firm are you getting mentored at all? If you work outside of private practice, in government or public interest, are you given any mentoring?

Wouldn't it be great to have a system where you can turn to someone that is not directly affiliate with your job to talk? (knowing full well that you can't talk to your mentor directly - in most cases - if he or she is the one you have a professionalism gripe about) Or do you think that all is well in the land of lawyers and the last thing you would want is to talk to another one?

And of course, if your career was assisted somehow by a mentor we would like to hear about that too.


Looking forward to your comments!

Just click the comment button below to add your views. To make this work we want to know what you think!

Thanks and regards,

Welcome to the First Post -- We want your Input

Fostering a sense of professionalism is something lawyers and their bar associations have always done. One of NYCLA's core purposes at its founding roughly a hundred years ago was "to elevate the standards of integrity, honor, and courtesy in the legal profession."

With the increased public attention on lawyers these days--and often with an emphasis on their frailties and excesses--it seems especially important, now, to take stock.

• What does it mean to be a lawyer in New York City?
• Has that meaning changed and if so, for the better or worse?
• To the extent professional values can be defined and are widely shared, what can be done to instill and promote them?
• What can the various segments of the profession (courts, law schools, bar associations, law firms and other law offices) realistically accomplish, and are they doing enough?
• What can be done to improve the public perception of lawyers and the role they play in society?

This blog was put together in conjunction with NYCLA and the special task force it created under the aegis of its Justice Center and its Ethics Committee to bring focus to these issues.

Jim Kobak (the chair of the NYCLA Task Force) and I welcome your answers to the questions posted above and any other comments you may have.

Keep checking in with us as we will regularly bring you interesting updates as well as our professionalism questionnaire (once we figure out how to allow you to download it from this blog). But in the meantime, give us your comments on the questions above and it will be practice for when the questionnaire is available.

Thanks and regards,

Everyone really does hate us?

This December 3rd article from Am Law dovetails nicely with this blog's September 19 post and the september survey: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2008/12/sorry-but-every.html.

Enjoy. I am having a slow start to 2009. . . .