Reflections of a Self-Proclaimed Genius

Consumer Bankruptcy Basics Free Seminar - Ontario YMCA, Ontario, CA 07-28-2010 - AmericanTowns.com

2010-07-19T12:10:00.000-07:00

Consumer Bankruptcy Basics Free Seminar - Ontario YMCA, Ontario, CA 07-28-2010 - AmericanTowns.com

In this time of uncertainty and economic downturn, I urge you to educate yourself on options available to you. If you are in the Southern California area, there is a FREE SEMINAR presented by Rodrigo Law Firm regarding Consumer Bankruptcy. All attendees of this event receive discount on Bankruptcy services as well as educational handouts.

Rodrigo Law Firm is located at 3200 Guasti Road, Suite 100, Ontario, California 91761. You may RSVP by calling (909) 456-8833. The event is hosted at the Ontario YMCA.

Have a good day!

Lackluster Law

2008-04-30T10:42:00.000-07:00

The economy is in a downward trend. Everyone is worried about the future of their jobs, housing, GAS, and even attorneys are fearful of their futures. In a society where more and more (and more and more) attorneys are passing the BAR, one cannot help but wonder if there is enough work.

When I first became an attorney, or rather when I began law school, my thoughts were I will always have a job as long as there are people in the world. Well, now I'm not so sure. I have been reading articles about big law firms laying off new associates, not hiring or cutting back on their summer associate programs. I have been listening to idle chatter about small law firms not retaining enough new clients to pay their leases, and hearing the stories of my boss who claims the economy is hitting us hard.

What is one to wonder when you think, alright am I doing enough? I am worth my keep? Moreover, I hate family law. This is the most cruel law to practice. All day, everyday you are dealing with highly emotional, stressed out, hurt and angry people, who fight with each other for the sake of fighting. Or WORSE-- fight over their children, just to get back at the other for the dumbest things, like "he called me psycho," "she said I was lazy"... blah blah.

Then you have to hear these people telling you: "I can't pay you right now, because I have to pay this or that." Then you see them with a new car, a new hairdo (dye, cut, etc) and a fresh manicure. Here I am thinking, "gee, and here I am unable to afford paying for a basic pedicure, let alone paying for acrylic nails."

So, yesterday, my boss says to me: "My attorney friend said he only got one retainer in the month of March." Can you believe that? We are in a business where there are hundreds if not thousands of new divorce, custody, paternity, child support, filings each day. Then he says "He is even offering low retainers and no one is hiring."

What are we to do in an economy where people are being laid off, paying high prices for gas, mortgages, and now rice? They cannot afford our services. Are we to close up shop? Downsize?

Yet, in our office, there is no huge slow down on work. Yes, I am actually able to breathe and not be on edge wishing there was more time in the day to complete my tasks; but the work is still there. I feel like I have time to "Catch up" and stay there.

How hard are we to fall until the economy picks up again?

Change and Conflict

2007-12-11T21:32:00.000-08:00

On October 16, 2007, I had to write up an employee. The reason was that she was not following my directions, interrupting me when I was trying to remind her of our policies and giving me an overall “whatever, it doesn’t matter attitude.” I hate having to give employees written warnings. The most difficult part of the ordeal was trying to explain to her why I was giving her a written warning. She became completely defensive, negative, and rude. She would not listen to me when I was trying to explain to her once more. I identified the need for her to follow directions, the need for respect between the two of us and the need for accurate records.

Giving employees a written warning is a new policy for our office. One that was used once since I have been at the firm (which is now 4 years), but now intended to be implemented more often, by me as the office manager. This is a change that has developed, but it is new to all new employees. Unfortunately, once I give someone a written notice, our relationship changes, usually for the worst. I expect that she will not be at our firm much longer. I intended to terminate her employment with us by the end of October, if she did not quit before I do so. Lately, I have seen a turn around in her attitude. She is more pleasant, follows directions, though she has a really bad memory, and I feel a small degree of respect in our relationship. Let's see how long it lasts. I really planned to let her go by the end of October, but we need assistance at the office.

I am struggling with finding the “right” people to work at our firm. I am trying to find employees who will work, follow directions and be willing to partake in the development of our firm. Unfortunately, there are few people in the world interested in such a position. At least, the people I have been finding are not like that.

The other hard part is there is one employee at our firm who has been with the main attorney since he started his practice 20 years ago. She is the biggest obstacle to change that I am facing. She is stubborn, moody and at times appears to be sabotaging my efforts so that no changes will be made. She likes the slow “do it or don’t, it doesn’t matter” type of organization in which she has been employed. That cannot keep going. The whole purpose of me managing the office is to ensure that work gets done, on time and properly. In essence, changes have to be made, procedures must be put into place and people need to get on board. This one employee has given all new employees the idea that they do not have to do the work the way I say it should be done, because “that’s not how we do it.” WRONG! For some reason, the main attorney will not think of letting her go. I have no power over her, nor do I have any control. At least we have not butted heads in a couple of weeks.

Long story short, change is difficult when you have forces that are working to impede your everyday efforts. Increased urgency exists. I just have not been able to “build the right team.” I know to build the right team, I will need to “push out” the bad employee, but I lack that authority.

I think I have experienced more conflict with the past eight months, than my entire life. It all stems out of my attempts to realize my vision of success for the company. After reading step 3 of leadership theorist, John Kotter’s book "The Heart of Change", I have found that I do not have any stated concrete “vision”. At one point, I attempted to create a vision for our firm with the help of our staff, but they had no interest in assisting, and neither did the senior attorney. Right now, I have a personal vision of success in life and in my career, but I am struggling to create one for our organization. The aspects of my vision for our organization center around: quality service, increased efficiency and productivity (which links to quality service) and growth of the business. I do not think I have succeeded on much, because I am struggling to find the “right team” to help me realize this vision. It is a professional battle that wages and encumbers upon my personal life.

Any ideas?

Rage in the Office

2007-10-30T11:14:00.000-07:00

Today I experienced one of the most highly contentious conflicts, in which I lost my “cool”. I have not had this type of conflict since I was in college. Here’s the story:

I had a court appearance this morning for a client. The opposing counsel notified me the night before that he was going to request a continuance and would not be there early in the morning, because he had a criminal matter. He did not give me a time estimate.

I arrived in court at approximately 9:00 a.m. I advised the bailiff and the clerk that the opposing counsel said he would be in court, but did not give me a time estimate. I told the clerk that the opposing counsel had another matter, but would be at the hearing. I then called the opposing counsel’s office and asked if he would be in court and what time. His staff had no idea and stated that he had not given them instructions. I asked if he could call in to the court and let them know when he would be arriving.

The clerk notified me that the opposing counsel was still in Riverside on a criminal matter and did not give a time estimate. I asked if he could appear by phone, and the clerk stated that the opposing counsel was to pre-arrange a court call, which he did not do.

I advised the court that I was unsure of when the opposing counsel would arrive, and the court stated it would wait until 9:30 a.m. During the time I waited, I cleared calendar dates for a trial with the clerk and with the opposing counsel’s office. The court called the case and instantly advised me that the case had a long history of continuances, that the parties were admonished that no further continuances would be granted and asked what I would like to do. I told him our client wished to set the matter for trial. The court set it for trial on the day mutually agreed upon by myself and the opposing counsel’s office. Then I relayed the issues.

The opposing counsel’s office was notified of what occurred, and the opposing counsel called my office requesting to speak with me. I did not want to speak to him, because I was working on filling out paperwork. My secretary then advised me that the attorney was going to go back in front of the court and request that the trial date be vacated and the matter be set for a MSC. So, I spoke with the attorney.

He began yelling at me and telling me that I had a duty, as an officer of the court, to notify the court that he was tied up in a criminal matter and to put the matter over to another day. I calmly told him that I did advise the clerk of what I knew, what the judge said to me and the total occurrence. He began yelling and screaming at me that I had the duty to tell the court and not to appear until he got there or to put it over.

I calmly told him not to yell at me and that I had no such duty. My duty was for the client, not the attorney. He then stated that I was lying, that I did not notify the court, and that the clerk told him that I never said anything to them. He kept stating that I had a duty to notify the court, what I did was wrong, etc.

I could not handle the yelling or blaming anymore. I raised my voice, which escalated to the point of yelling at the attorney. I told him that he had a duty to notify the court, that he did not call in or put the matter on second call and he did not even inform his staff of what occurred. Then I told him not to yell at me, that I could not talk to him anymore and that if he wanted to talk to me to put it in writing. Then I hung up. I was so upset I was shaking.

My fiancé (law clerk) and the senior attorney, were ecstatic and proud of me. The senior attorney has dealt with this attorney for 20 years. He told me that if I did not stand up for myself he would have no respect for me, would have continued to yell at me and would walk all over me. My fiancé stated the same and said that he had never heard me yell at anyone like that.

I have been experiencing so much guilt, regret and anger over the past few months. My anger and perhaps even rage, has been waging war within me. Yet, with all my inner turmoil, and dealings with persons such as this attorney, I have not lost my “cool”. I am an extremely patient person and do not take things out on others. Or at least I try not to. Usually, when I am in a conflict with someone, I walk away if my rage starts to boil over. I have had experiences of regretting my conduct and words during a conflict, so I have learned to walk away, calm down, then return to the situation.

In this case, I feel like I had no choice. This person was insulting my integrity, lecturing me on ethics and the way of the world. He was completely in the wrong. I had no duty to hold the case up until he arrived. These attorneys make the rest of us look bad. They give us a bad name. I know his personal style and office, and know for a fact that he does not work on cases, and only continues them until he is off the case. That cannot be allowed. Moreover, he is the unethical person that I previously posted about. He has no right to lecture me on ethics!

Further, he is known to be a big bully in our community. I hope my actions do not speak ill of me. I sort of regret that I lost my cool, but I couldn’t just sit there like a beaten animal waiting for the next blow.

This is truly an example of a conflict that escalated to an irritatingly high impact level. What could I have done different? This is truly upsetting. And I have work that needs to be done.

TIps for the California BAR

2007-06-18T13:11:00.000-07:00

People have been asking me for advice on studying for, taking and passing the BAR exam. So I thought I'd post my advice.
Tips:

1. Take a full 2 months off to study. Do not do anything other than study. No work, no school and minimal socializing.
2. Study at least 8 hours a day, 6 days a week, for the first 6 weeks. Make sure you give yourself at least 1 day off (or I did 1/3 days-- i.e., I studied for 3-4 hours on Sundays then took the rest of the day off). For the last 2 weeks you should be studying at least 10-12 hours per day with no days off.
3. Get a full 8 hours of sleep every night for the first 6 weeks. Sleep is the best time of day for me. I need to sleep. If I was not able to sleep, I at least put myself in "sleep mode." So I relaxed, watched t.v. and lied in bed. For the last 2 weeks you will be lucky if you sleep 4 hours a night. But do try to get at least 5-6 hours of sleep. It is refreshing to sleep.
4. Take frequent breaks. If you start to get a headache, step away from the books, breathe, take a walk, play with your dogs or other animals. Just get your mind cleared for at least 10 minutes.
5. Exercise and eat healthy!! I cannot stress this part enough. I went to the gym, walked with my study partner and dogs, etc. My mom sent over food to us all the time. Chili beans, tofu, rice and mushrooms, etc. So eat well. And comfort food was always nice, like ice cream. Why not treat yourself?
6. Do lots of Essays. I wrote out at least 20 essays and outlined around 1000. When you are studying a subject, you should be studying the essays. That is the best way to memorize the law, understand it and figure out how to apply it.
7. Do TONS of MBEs. I did approximately 2000 MBEs. At least 33 per day. Once a week for the first 6 weeks I would do at least 100 at a time. Make sure you are always practicing under timed conditions. By the end I was finishing 100 MBEs in 2 hours. In fact I finished 100 MBEs on the bar in 2 1/2 hours. After doing them, go over the answers-- right and wrong! Use the concise points of law stated in the answers. Put it all in your outlines.
8. Do at least 6 Performance Tests and Outline/Review 10 different Tests. Nothing more to say than be familiar with the different type of performance tests that may come up.

If you take all the above information to heart, you should pass the BAR.
I did all of it and passed the First time!

If you need any more advice feel free to ask.

I will be willing to look at written essays and give my input for a small fee.

EXCITING NEWS

2007-06-02T21:49:00.000-07:00

I passed the California BAR Exam on my first try. On May 25 at approximately 6:30 p.m. I found out that I passed the BAR!! This was an exciting day for me and a sad one as well. My partner did not pass. He is currently studying for the July exam. I certainly hope that he is able to pass the July Bar. It is not the same working without him. Moreover, it is difficult to be happy for myself when he is so miserable.

Well, moving on. I was sworn in on June 1 at approximately 9:00 a.m. by Judge Brown of the San Bernardino Superior Court. My swearing in was conducted in open court, solely for me. That was nerve wracking and extremely exciting. I was hardly able to repeat the oath.

Seven years of school, 2 straight months of studying, mounting student loans and debt was all worth it. I passed!!! Let's hope I am able to pay some of my debt, beginning this year.

More wonderful news--- I found out that a digest I wrote about two years ago was published in the ULV Law Journal printed in 2006. How great is that? I have a hard bound copy imprinted with my name and nearly 30 paperback copies of my piece. That was good news for me. I truly did not think I was published, but now I am. This is another huge step forward in my life.

Happy Blogging All!

Century Ride

2007-05-02T21:05:00.000-07:00

I recently joined a group called Team in Training. It works with the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society to raise funds for research to find a cure for blood cancer diseases. I will be training for a 100 mile bicycle race called a "Century Ride" in August. For my part I have committed myself to a personal goal of raising $5,000 for the Society.

I could really use all the support I can get. We start training this week. Part of the reason I am participating in this team is because my life partner's sister died from Leukemia when she was just 5. He is also joining the team, but is still not sure if he wants to broadcast his sister's death. I am trying to be understanding. However, I think she should be remembered and her memory honored by this race. Hopefully he will come around.

If you would like to donate you can do so online at my personal webpage:
http://www.active.com/donate/tntors/tntorsCGarcia2

Please try to support me. Any words of advice or encouragement are truly needed and appreciated.

I am not a very atheletic person, so this will be a huge challenge for me!

Leading in Uncertain Times

2007-03-28T13:56:00.000-07:00

Alright, I have a new one for ya. I am currently finishing my Master's in Public Administration. Most of the classes focus on leading organizations or managing the people therein. In line with these course objectives, I have taken a long hard look at the organization I am working in. I sort of have people working under me, but I am not the "boss". So, I have implemented various new systems and ideas to improve the productivity of the staff, and myself. The hard part is getting the staff, who have been at the organization for many more years than I, to actually use the new systems. I tried everything. One of my professors told me that a great way to train people to do the work and motivate them to do it, is to take them out for coffee or something and ask them what is the best way they learn and also to ask them what I can do to make their job easier.
The problem with that is we need to get the work done. How practical is it to get these people in a separate place to theorize with them on how to motivate them or get the tasks accomplished? In other words, how do these theories of "leading" match with the practical world?

Also, I considered that one of our weakest areas is the fact that we do not work, think or act as a team (or a cohesive unit). To succeed in our goals, it is necessary that we work as a team. So one idea I had was to implement a new "program" called "Goodwill Messages". These messages are meant as a way to give each other positive feedback, which will be revealed at the weekly staff meetings (which will also take place).

I am hopeful that this small program will be effective, but who knows? My question, then, is: what are non-corny programs/systems that will have the effect of "team-building"?

Any thoughts will be extremely helpful.
Thanks.

BAR TAKER

2007-03-02T10:34:00.000-08:00

Hello my lovely readers.

Alright, I just finished two months of gruesome studying and a 3 day (6hours per day) Bar Exam. That was the first time I have ever taken the Bar and it was stressful, agonizing and of course scary.

I do not want to do that again, but I will not know if I have to until May 25. AAAAHHH. So I will keep you posted.

Now, I get to go back to living, working, eating, sleeping, traveling, etc. Let's hope I do not have to take another two months off to study again!

Anyhow, I am presenting a paper on March 23, at ULV. The paper topic is on the institution of marriage. I thoroughly analyzed the radical feminist position on the institution and offer an alternative to the total abolition of the institution. That is, I suggest that marriage should become a contractual relationship. (Yes, that takes the love out of it). But not so much that people can no longer get married. By all means get married. I believe that people should have the option to enter into a contractual form of partnership. After all, it is a joint enterprise of sorts, which should be approached in a business frame of mind.

What do you think about that? I believe that people who go through the dissolution process would have a much easier time of dividing assets, etc, if they had gone into the marriage as a business, with an exit strategy (something we all know and love to think about).

Let me know your thoughts.

I'm BACK!!!!!

Miss Me?

2006-11-21T11:30:00.000-08:00

I know, it's been a while. I'm sure you all missed me. This has been a busy week for me and the world. There is so much to comment upon I hardly know where to begin.

Here is a great little story or anecdote of what a bad lawyer is like:

This happened just yesterday. So there is this lawyer (whom I will not name) whose practice is in the dumps. He just does not want to work on his cases, then blames his staff. Of course the staff is completely stressed out because clients call and come in all day long, yelling and complaining about the attorney. The staff takes the brunt of all this.

So yesterday, a client and his soon to be ex-wife comes in. They are working on finishing their uncontested divorce, which is basically filing a bunch of paperwork. Well, the attorney did not do crap on their case, except maybe crap on them. The client is pissed and starts ranting and raving about the office, the attorney, the poor work and etc. I am there trying to help him out, but I cannot do much except say: "We are trying to finish this for you so you don't have to worry about it anymore". When I really want to say: "Yea this guy is an idiot, I feel your pain, etc."

Now the attorney is there and he goes off on me about this guy, saying that he is about to kick his ass out of the office, then does.

What do you think about that? Both men could have handled themselves better, but doesn't the attorney have an obligation to "take it like a man" and own up to his mistakes? Doesn't the client have every right to be upset and rave like a lunatic about the lack of professionalism of the attorney.

That is just my opinion. Of course, now I am stressed out about these client's cases. We have to do the work on their cases right the first time otherwise these people's lives are ruined.

STAY TUNED for so much more information, comments, thoughts, rants, etc.

Signals of Wealth

2006-11-11T13:37:00.000-08:00

Remember that young boy I spoke about. Well later that evening I observed the boy giving a ride on the ATV to a young girl approximately the same age (3-4).

His ownership of a new ATV signified his status among the children resulting in the boy winning over the little girl, by none other than his mini ATV.

Again there is an inherent danger in raising our children as materialistic beings. How is it that this young boy won over the girl? Was he friendly? Did he have a good personalty? Likely the answer is that girl found him attractive because of his toy.

This is no different in the older generation. A man with a car is more desirable than a man riding in the passenger seat (scrub). The toy signifies a higher status than the scrub.

We must not teach our children to behave in this manner. Perhaps it is a schematic design in our DNA that causes all humans to behave this way. Maybe there is nothing we can do, but leave it to sciene.

This is a precarious situation.
We must not teach our children to behave in this manner. Perhaps it is a schenatic design in our DNA that naturally

What is our World Coming to?

2006-11-08T10:37:00.000-08:00

What is our world coming to?

A 3 to 4 year old boy arrived at a pop warner practice field on his own miniature ATV. His mother followed in pursuit as other young boys playing in the area admired and perhaps coveted th boy with the ATV.
So I ask you this, what is this world coming to?

Toys are no longer toys, but a fashion accessory or a signal of wealth.
Is the youth of our day destined to become even more materialistic than our present generation?

Of course I recognize the irony, if not the hypocrisy of my words which I am easily typing on my relatively new MDA. Ah yes, I am part of the materialistic generation that is despised and talked ill of by the so-called baby boomer generation.

Yet, I grew recognizing the inherent danger of the keen desires of material things.

I say this, do not ignore the words of a generation that recognizes its flaws and seeks merely to cure the deleterious impact of its designs.

We must prevent youth from becoming toy crazed and rapacious.

VICTORY and DEFEAT!

2006-11-08T10:29:00.000-08:00

Alright, I hope you all went out and voted yesterday.

California experienced a great victory and yet a great defeat!

The governator was re-elected. I think he will do well in the next four years for California.

Diane Feinstein was re-elected. We have a nice mixture of the two parties.

Prop 85 and 90 did not win, which is great for us!

The defeat we suffered was in terms of the other propositions.

California voters said no to prop 86 and 87. I really think those would have bettered our economy and environment. Think about it, the biggest deterrent for consumers of tobacco, is the price. If it costs too much then there will be less smokers. Sadly, the millions of dollars spent on advertising by the tobacco companies and other special interests groups won the day.

Well, I guess you have to take the good with the bad.

Now the federal government accomplished a HUGE VICTORY!

We got the first lady speaker of the house, 3rd in line to the presidency. This is one step closer to having the first female president. Now, if we could only get the first female chief justice of teh US supreme court, that would be great!

Additionally, the federal government has been taken over by democrats. Hopefully this will lead to the US getting out of IRAQ and spending less money on a fruitless war.

This will be one exciting term!

Proposition 90

2006-11-03T22:43:00.000-08:00

Alright, I need to let you know about this one. On the commercials the people arguing against Prop 90 say that this will cost property owners more money. However, that is quite the contrary. Here is what Prop 90 essentially does:

Basically, this prop reiterates the constitutional requirement for just compensation on the taking of property for public uses. But, it goes one step further in defining just compensation as the "highest price the property would bring an in open market". Typically just compensation means the fair price, not necessarily the highest price.

Then it goes another step by stating that plaintiffs will not have to pay attorney's fees and costs to the government in eminent domain actions.

So, the government will have to eat the cost and pay lots of money to obtain old property, condemned property, aesthetically displeasing property, nonconforming uses, etc, for public use.

The prop will not increase costs to property owners, but to the government, which derives its funds from public taxes.

EVERYONE WILL BE HIT HARD BY THIS PROP, EXCEPT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHOSE LANDS ARE TAKEN.

This is not a fair proposition!!

GET OUT AND VOTE!

2006-11-03T22:03:00.000-08:00

No matter what your views or opinions, you need to get out and vote on November 7, 2006!

Re-elect the Governator, even though he is Republican. Arnold has done well for California and I am not sure if I like Angelides' antics. So let's give the Governator some more time to shine, then if he craps on us, then hopefully we will have a more qualified candidate.

If you have any questions about certain propositions, let me know. I'll read through the prop and tell you what they say, in clear terms. I'll try not to give my opinion, unless you ask for it.

Thanks!

Prop 86

2006-11-03T21:44:00.000-08:00

Now to another Proposition. You've seen the millions of commercials for and against this Prop. Each commercial claiming that they are telling what the Prop really is about. Let me break it down in simplified terms:

Each cigarette will be taxed 13 cents, amount to $2.60 per pack of cigarettes.
The purpose of this Prop is to deter young people from becoming addicted to cigarettes.
The funds of this tax will be distributed as follows:
5% to Health and Disease Research Account
34% to a Tobacco Control Research Sub-Account, which is designed primarily for research of the effectiveness of tobacco control efforts, and research on the prevention, causes and treatment of tobacco related diseases (Essentially to pay the people who are in charge of the program)

14.50% to a Cancer Registry Sub-Account

25.75% to Breast Cancer Research Sub-Account

11% to Lung Cancer and Lung Disease Research Account

42.25% to the Health Maintenance and Disease Prevention Account

Basically, the funds will be allocated to various health-related programs.

My opinion of this prop is this: The tax will deter people from smoking. The sheer cost of a pack of cigarettes will be the deterrence.
Do I really care where the money is going? These programs need to be funded somehow, so why not impose a tax on these packs of death sticks?
What do you think?

Proposition 85

2006-11-03T21:31:00.000-08:00

Alright, if you live in California then I am sure you have seen the thousands of commercials about Prop. 85. Let me tell what Prop 85 states, in clear terms:

A teenager under the age of 18 must notify their parent to obtain an abortion.
The minor has the opportunity to request a court order waiving this notice requirement, assuming that minor has the funds, which the Prop does not provide for her.
Of course, the Prop allows for the minor to obtain an abortion if it is a medical emergency.

That is the simplified version of the Prop. What do you think about it?

I'll tell you my thoughts.
I am a woman, clearly. Now if I were a pregnant teenager deciding to get an abortion, it is likely that I am scared and worried, upset, etc. I would most be afraid of my parents.
This proposition may lead teenagers to obtaining illegal and unsafe abortions, likely resulting in higher numbers of teenage deaths. If not, the minor's parents will likely become angry, disappointed, upset, and so on, leading to violence or abuse on the minor.

Is that the point of the Prop?

That is a bad idea. I remember seeing people in front of stores asking for signatures to have the Prop put on the ballot. I guess they got enough parents to sign, and not enough young people (registered voters). Unless these people faked the signatures. Who knows?

If this Prop passes, teenagers will be in a lot of danger.

Follow-Up to "Another Dilemma"

2006-11-02T17:51:00.000-08:00

Alright, so I received a comment to my posting entitled "Another Dilemma". The comment generally stated that you have to put up with irate clients in any profession, because they pay the bills.

I agree. I do not mean to say that clients/customers are the worst in the legal profession. I do apologize if it came across that way. A colleague of mine told me once that the problem is with people in general when it comes to money. In other words, people will lie and cheat for the sake of money.

Call me crazy, but I do not think there is any honor in lying. I am a flat out honest person, no matter how bad the truth may be.

So, I guess the real dilemma we all face every day, in all walks of life, is dealing with people.

What do you think?

Freedom of Expression

2006-11-01T15:36:00.000-08:00

One of the most fundamental principles of law is embodied in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, that is, freedom of expression. The founding fathers of our nation sought to remove itself from the tyrannical nature of the English monarchy. The founding fathers ensured this was the top principle set forth in the United States Bill of Rights.

So why is it, that when a person decides to exercise their fundamental right of freedom of expression, the public uproars against that person? For example, a guy on the news decided to dress as Adolf Hitler for Halloweem. He is not a Nazi, as if that should matter, but the public is enraged. What is the problem? He has the same rights as anyone else. He chose something that was a bit insensitive, but should that result in him being censured?

Is it as big a deal as the news has made it?

The media cuts to "less offensive" halloween costumes of celebrities, which included half naked women in what appears to be lingerie. That is considered less offensive than a costume of Adolf Hitler.

Give me a break. I think the guy has a right to exercise his freedom of expression. It did not hurt a single person.

What's the big deal?

DID YOU HEAR THE NEWS?!?

2006-10-26T00:02:00.000-07:00

Did you hear the news from New Jersey? New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in favor of same sex marriages-- or at least close to same-sex marriages. This is a step toward the domestic partnerships available in California. Perhaps, in the next ten years we can expect same sex marriage rights. For now, each state is slowly recognize that same sex couples deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"TRENTON, N.J. - New Jersey's highest court opened the door Wednesday to making the state the second in the nation to allow gay marriage, ruling that lawmakers must offer same-sex couples either marriage or something like it, such as civil unions.
In a ruling that fell short of what either side wanted or most feared, the state Supreme Court declared that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual ones. The justices gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite the laws.
The ruling is similar to the 1999 high-court ruling in Vermont that led the state to create civil unions, which confer all of the rights and benefits available to married couples under state law.
"Although we cannot find that a fundamental right to same-sex marriage exists in this state, the unequal dispensation of rights and benefits to committed same-sex partners can no longer be tolerated under our state Constitution," Justice Barry T. Albin wrote for the four-member majority.
The court said the Legislature "must either amend the marriage statutes to include same-sex couples or create a parallel statutory structure" that gives gays all the privileges and obligations married couples have."
--By GEOFF MULVIHILL, Associated Press Writer (View full article at yahoo.com)

Dumb Lawyer

2006-10-25T22:51:00.000-07:00

There was this lawyer(A), who brought a motion to compel discovery responses, he knew was unfounded, untimely and completely erroneous. The opposing counsel (B) told him kindly that the motion should be taken off calendar (dismissed, withdrawn) because he will be subjected to monetary sanctions.

This lawyer laughs and says: "No. Maybe I'll learn something." So he proceeds to the hearing about 2 weeks later. Of course the other attorney (B), opposes the motion and requests monetary sanctions. (Like a fine) The court scolds Lawyer A and sanctions his client. Lawyer A tells Lawyer B that he will not make his client pay for his error. However, the client had to pay for the preparation of that motion, as well as the court time. Additionally, Lawyer B's client had to pay for the expenses and the court had to expend judicial resources to hear the motion.

This is a prime example of WHAT NOT TO DO, in the legal profession. As I said, the client will complain about their bill and all the work done on their case. That is inevitable. So why add fuel to the fire?

ANOTHER DILEMMA

2006-10-24T09:37:00.000-07:00

Alright. The biggest problem attorneys face are getting clients to pay up. Now, many clients call day and night, everyday, every week wanting to speak with the attorney, law clerk or some person on the staff about their case. Of course, this is a business, so every law firm charges their client for the time spent talking to them (or should). Then the client receives their bill, which contains an itemized list of all the work completed on their case, including every phone call.

Their general reaction is full of expletives, which I will not place on my blog (let's keep this G-rated). Then here comes the "real" fight. You may think that an attorney does all his/her fighting in a courtroom-- but that's just the fun part-- no all the battle is between lawyer-client.

There is no way to avoid this. When it comes to money, people will go to the mat, until there is nothing left. This is true in any situation, but particularly in the legal profession. The general consensus among the masses is that attorneys aren't worth that much money. But the truth is attorneys work their butts off for their clients, stress out for them, take care of their legal problems, and the thanks the attorney gets is the finger (verbal, physical, emotional, etc).

So the dilemma is: Clients. (Plain and simple)

What's your opinion?

The Lawyer's Dilemma

2006-10-19T18:43:00.000-07:00

Pretend you are a lawyer. (That may be difficult, seeing as how the general feeling about lawyers is : "ICK") But try. Now imagine that, as this lawyer, you have a client come to your office asking what he should do if his wife is trying to leave him for another man. What is your first thought?

Any lawyer's first thought is: Is there property?

California is a community property state, so should you as a lawyer advise your client to hide assets or get rid of assets to prevent the wife from taking said assets? Is that ethical? Fraudulent?

My first thought is legally based: You cannot hide assets from your spouse, but you may think about setting aside enough assets to prevent the other spouse from unilaterally taking, destroying or hiding certain assets. Then you, as the attorney, have to remember to have your client write a list of all the assets (or property) he has taken. This way, in the dissolution action, your client will have disclosed all assets to his ex-spouse (or soon to be) thereby protecting his interests in both the litigation and in real life.

Now some attorneys will say the following: Take all the most valuable assets, put them in your name, hide them, etc. Merely to prevent the other spouse from having anything. But not only is that unethical, but it is illegal-- or bordering illegal.

What are your thoughts?

Follow-Up on Domestic Partnerships

2006-10-16T10:44:00.000-07:00

I received an interesting question to my first posting "A little Hello". The comment poses the following questions:
"What is the definition of a domestic partner?" and "Who chose 62?"

First, a domestic partner is a legal fiction created by the California legislature for same-sex couples, who do not have the right to marry. Instead of being called marital partners, the legislature calls these couples domestic partners, when they register with the state as such. This legal fiction gives the couples basically the same exact legal rights as married couples, only without the title. This registration status is given only to same-sex couples.

Second, heterosexual couples may register as domestic partners only if they are over the age of 62. Again, this is a legal fiction. It was an arbitrary number picked by the legislature.

Lastly, I think it would be extremely interesting to see a constitutional case brought against the California government for discrimination. I do not think it will be all that successful, because heterosexual couples have a greater right than same sex couples, that is they can marry. However, I think that heterosexual should have the same contractual rights as domestic partners.

What are your thoughts?

Ethics

2006-10-12T19:13:00.000-07:00

Hi fellow bloggers, I know its been a while, but I have a good one for ya.

Is it ethical to stretch the truth to support a cause? For instance, say you have a case where the one party is stating that the interpretation of a certain event is one way and the other party says that the same event really meant this. Now, both sides are correct in their statement of the event, but one party is stretching the truth to support their interpretation of the event, thereby retaining a large benefit from it. Is that
ethical?

Or is it all subject to interpretation and debate. In other words, it isn't a matter of ethics, so much as it a matter of perspective. My thought is that it is a matter of perspective that walks the fine line of ethics.

Will the answer depend on how "ethics" is defined? Again that goes back to a matter of perspective and debate, which, of cours, requires the special knowledge of an attorney to debate that question.

The Contracts Debate

2006-10-10T23:55:00.000-07:00

Today I was reviewing some real estate contracts. The realtor says: "These are disclosures required by law, because of all the lawsuits that have occurred."

Isn't that funny? Most people view the law negatively. For instance, you will typically here a layperson saying that litigation has caused the problems in the world. For whom? I'll tell you. The big companies and other people seeking to defraud the little guy, are the ones who are now facing problems, because of litigation.

If you have a chance, look at real estate documents. There are at least ten single-spaced pages with full disclosures, instructions, advice, etc. on purchasing or selling a home. These protect the first-time homebuyers and of course the repeat buyers, who are likely experts on the meaning of these documents, or their rights.

So, I must say I am completely excited about the law and litigation, once again. The justice system is designed to help the public and achieve equity.

Court Holiday???

2006-10-09T17:34:00.000-07:00

Okay, so today is Columbus Day-- an official court holiday. Doesn't that seem odd? Our courts are designed to achieve justice for the minority, the weak, the poor, and the overall public who have certain inalienable rights. And yet, our courts recognize a day that symbolizes the rape and pillage of an indefensible nation/sovereign, nay- public. So why do we even celebrate or recognize this holiday? Isn't that at odds with the fundamental underpinnings of our system?
I do not recognize this holiday, and so I went to work. In fact, the entire firm I am employed with, came in to work. That is justice!

Gubernatorial Debate

2006-10-08T12:02:00.000-07:00

So I was watching the California Gubernatorial debate and I couldn't help but wonder... When is Angelides going to give a real answer.

The debate made me a bit angry, because I was looking for some honest answers and some more information about the candidates. Instead, Angelides continued to attack the governor and Bush.

Don't get me wrong, I always enjoy a good verbal attack on Bush, but what did that have to do with California? I expected hard hitting answers and an intellectual debate. Angelides is not right for California. It would be best to keep the Governator. That is unfortanate, because I do not identify myself as a Republican... nor do I call myself a Democrat. It seems to me that Angelides has more interest in showing the public how bad Republicans are than in letting the public know why he is right for the job-- aside from being a Democrat.

Is that Angelides' campaign platform? "Vote for me, because I am a Democrat"? That does not make him a good candidate.

We need to get a viable third party established. It seems that when the current parties campaign they are more interested in appearing in the middle on all the issues. So why don't we get a party that is in the middle? Or how about a party that is soooo one-sided on all the issues. Don't we, the public, deserve to know the truth about these parties? How can we make an educated decision in elections, if both sides are in the middle on all the issues? Why don't we get a party system that will give truthful answers and tell us, the public, what they are really intending once in office.

I would like to say to Angelides-- "Hey, we all know you are going to raise taxes, just admit it."

That is my opinion. What's yours?

My Baby Girls

2006-10-06T18:26:00.000-07:00

A Little Hello

2006-10-06T17:12:00.000-07:00

Hello Everyone.

I just started this blog, so that I may connect to other legal academians in the community or address any questions, comments or concerns the general public may have about the law or any other academic topic. My life has been devoted to academics, a large portion of which is dedicated to the law. I have a primary interest in civil rights and the philosophy of law. Currently, I am working in a firm which focuses mostly on the area of family law.

If you have an interest in any subject area that you would like to discuss, debate or provide your opinion on, please let me know.

I would like to know what everyone thinks of the following issue:
Providing contractual relationship to unmarried couples, which gives the same benefits that are received by married couples.

My thought is that society should provide an alternative to marriage for unmarried couples, which will be seen as a legitimate union. Presently, California does not allow heterosexual couples to register as domestic partners, unless they are over the age of 62. How is that fair? Let me know what you think.