The Legal Underground

Weekly Report #3

Here's the weekly report on my Madison County, Illinois, law practice:

In an unfortunate development, my partner (who is also my wife) began on Monday to research a single ERISA problem that involved many thorny sub-issues about long-term disability plans, welfare benefit plans, the legality of retroactive modification of WBP's, subrogation agreements, the common fund doctrine, complete v. partial preemption, exclusive jurisdiction, concurrent jurisdiction, pendant jurisdiction, removal and remand procedures, etc.

On Tuesday, the ERISA problem gravitated from our office to our family room, where copied cases lay strewn about the rest of the week and we were finally forced to violate my partner's long-standing rule not to discuss business at home after 7 p.m. Even so, my partner hasn't yet fully resolved the problem, although I reached a conclusion of my own on Wednesday: ERISA sucks.

Other than that, it was business as usual for me: two court hearings completed, one settlement agreement nearly completed, four sets of discovery inching towards completion, one upcoming trial almost ready to go, a few unexpected mini-crises to resolve, and forty-five minutes wasted with a marketing person wanting to sell me advertising on TV. Until next week . . .

An Apology, and a Clarification

In response to the angry e-mails I received about the Google-bomb in my post "The Riddle Solved"--

(a) Like you, I usually don't condone Google-bombs. I only make an exception when they are integral to the plot. However, the post "The Riddle Solved" didn't have a plot. Thus I have no idea why I included a Google-bomb in the post, and I apologize;

(b) The person at the other end of the link to "America's Finest Trial Lawyer," though reputed to be a trial lawyer, may not be America's finest. I have no opinion on the topic. In fact, I was only joking. If you are angry because you weren't considered for the honor, I suggest you call the ad rep for your local Yellow Pages. The honor can be yours for approximately $1,000/month, plus a possible visit from the bar authorities, depending on your state.

To avoid further misunderstandings, trial lawyers without a sense of humor should quit lurking on this blawg. Instead, they should visit "The Illinois Trial Practice Weblog," another blawg I manage. Its humor quotient is 0.

Lawyer-Novelist Scott Turow in the News

In an article yesterday in the Springfield News-Sun, Scott Turow hinted that his days might be numbered at the megafirm where he practices, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal:

So when does Turow become just an author, you ask?

“I think that day's just around the corner,” he said. “But it's been 17 years.”

For the full article, which gives some background about Turow and his writing habits, see "Scott Turow, the author who made law interesting," by Andrew McGinn, Springfield News-Sun.

(And in similar news about a lawyer-blawger, Howard Bashman of How Appealing announced today that he's leaving his firm, Buchanan Ingersoll, to open his own firm focusing on appellate litigation. He promised that further details will be forthcoming. Good luck, Howard, and be sure to take plenty of associates with you!)

The Riddle Solved

Recapping Riddle #2: Who's so famous that the first page of his website features not his firm's name, but a gigantic close-up of his face? Yes, it's trial lawyer Gerry Spence. Congratulations to Jenna from Hold U in Contempt who first answered the riddle correctly.

Now to more about Gerry. Thanks to the magic of Google (and to his clever website designers), Gerry is the first listing for "America's Finest Trial Lawyer." Shouldn't we try to level the playing field a bit, especially for some hungry lawyer whose website design isn't as fancy as Gerry's?

Yes, we should. So here's the Google-bomb of the day: "America's Finest Trial Lawyer." (Don't be afraid to follow the link. I guarantee it's someone you'll like, and who will appreciate a little boost in his Google ranking).

Note to Jenna: the promised prize is on its way.

Thanks #3

I admit to being unschooled in the most blawgfully proper way of expressing my appreciation to those who have taken a look at Legal Underground and participated in one way or another.  So I'm just going to continue doing it as follows . . .

Thanks --

--To George Wallace at A Fool in the Forest for these nice words, including his mention of my post Personal Confession #1, or the Importance of Staying Awake.

--To Mother in Law (not my own) for her kind words about this site on hers.

--To Jenna at Hold U in Contempt, who has Legal Underground listed as a "daily read" along with some other blawgs.  There'll be more here about Jenna a little later.

--To Matt Homann at the [non]billable hour for adding the permanent link on his site.

--To Carolyn Elefant at My Shingle for noticing my post about  The Really Long Law Firm Website Legal Disclaimer, and to Kevin Heller at Tech Law Advisor for creating a link to the same post on his blawg.

--To Susie at Practical Penumbra, for her kind words about my post The Trial Lawyer's Prayer; same to Ozguru at GDay Mate for his.

--To Wendy Leibowitz, who mentioned this site on Law Reporting, Jurist's new blog on law and the media.

--To David Giacalone at ethicalEsq, who is urging all lawyers to  keep an open mind about the ethical issues posed by contingency fees (and to those who followed our thread, I urge you to look at a continuation of the discussion by David and another lawyer, which is in the comment section of the post I linked to).

--And finally, to those who voted for me in Truth Laid Bear's new blog showcase.

And Starring as the Hunky Paper-Pusher: David Hasselhoff!

In an entertaining post over at Corp Law Blog, Mike O'Sullivan wonders why litigators, rather than corporate lawyers, are the staple of law-related TV shows and movies.

It might seem an elusive goal, but Mike promises to do what he can to see that a corporate lawyer is one day portrayed by a hunky actor.

Solve This Riddle, Win A Prize #2

What lawyer is so famous that the first page of his website features not his firm's name, but a gigantic close-up of his face? Even more, he's so famous he can actually pull it off?

Need some hints? First, it's not Fred Baron, who though famous by many standards, features only a tasteful headshot of himself on his firm's website.

Second, it's not Rush Limbaugh. Good guess, since I'm obviously thinking of someone who's not afraid to display his ego. But Rush isn't a lawyer, dummy.

Third, some biographical hints about the winning answer: he had a long career as a civil defense lawyer before switching to the plaintiffs' side, he published a book of poetry, and he once obtained a mega-million verdict against McDonald's (having nothing to do with coffee).

The prize? The first winning answer will receive five complimentary copies, bound in tasteful blue, of my all-but-forgotten monograph: Compulsory Consolidation of Commercial Arbitration Disputes, St. Louis University Law Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2 (1989). (A little dry, but featuring more than 100 footnotes.)

If you think looking at Riddle #1 might help you figure out the answer (it probably won't), the link is here.

New Coffee Case Has Only Just Begun

A lawsuit over spilled coffee in Madison County, Illinois? That's right, only this time it involves Starbuck's, according to today's Belleville News-Democrat: "Lawyer: McDonald's coffee case different," by Brian Brueggeman.

You can hardly blame overlawyered for commenting on this one. But it would be fallacious to say this case--or any case that's just been filed--proves much about anything. You have to wait to see how the case proceeds, then how it ends.

Even proponents of tort reform must admit, as one does in the News-Democrat article, that all citizens "are entitled to appropriate recovery when they're injured by defective products." Right now, it's too soon to pass judgment on the coffee case. The plaintiff hasn't been awarded anything yet, may ultimately receive nothing, and will have to visit the Alton Belle Casino if she's hoping for a jackpot.

The Exalted Profession

Do lawyers take themselves too seriously?

Clearly, it would be reasonable for some lawyers to point out they are not being taken seriously enough, in which case they can object that they are more than merely this. But would it be going too far for those same lawyers to claim they are something akin to this?

The truth, I suspect, lies somewhere in between. (For a brief commentary on this post by its author, please see Comment 1).

New in the Blawgosphere

At the meeting of the Madison County Bar Association the other night, I sat with Matt Homann, a lawyer and friend from neighboring Highland, Illinois. At dinner, Matt spoke with great enthusiasm about his ideas for reinvigorating the practice of law, and the blawg he planned to launch to share those ideas.

Well, just a few days later, his blawg is up and running. Titled the [non]billable hour, it promises "daily ideas to re-energize your law practice and make practicing law fun again," especially by finding alternatives to hourly billing. (Personally, I'm generally eager each morning for another day of practicing law, though it's been awhile since I billed by the hour. I remember rather vividly I didn't like it).

Please make a point to visit Matt's site to find out what you can do to re-energize your practice. I happen to know that Matt has many interesting ideas, and I'm looking forward to seeing how they unfold on his new blawg.