Evan Schaeffer's Legal Underground

How to Dress a Lawyer, Part III of "An Introduction to Lawyers for Those Who Have Not Yet Had the Pleasure of Being Introduced: An Essay in Four Parts"

Part I: An Introduction to the Typical Lawyer

Part II: How to Feed a Lawyer

Part III: How to Dress a Lawyer

There is a primary rule to keep in mind about dressing lawyers. With very few exceptions, lawyers should be dressed. This is not meant to be a criticism of lawyers that aren't dressed, but merely a realistic assessment of what it is that gives lawyers their firepower. It's their brains, not their sex appeal.

The rule about keeping lawyers dressed applies not only to lawyers per se, but also to judges. That judges should be dressed is best illustrated by the custom of clothing judges in floor-length robes. This custom would be meaningless if there weren't some danger in coming face to face with an unrobed judge.

There's a story that further illustrates my point. I'm thinking of a jurist I'll call Judge Miller. Judge Miller wasn't just any judge; he was a federal judge. As such, Judge Miller had acquired many of those unusual tics and quirks that give federal judges such an air of rarified extraordinariness. Judge Miller never talked about his status as a widower, for example, wouldn't reveal his first name, and made sure never to be seen at a grocery store shopping for anything but red wine or coffee filters.

AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBSITE . . . "Preparing for Depositions: Reviewing Prior Interrogatory Answers."

FOLLOWING JOHNNIE COCHRAN'S DEATH, THE COCHRAN BRAND LIVES ON . . . According to an article in The National Law Journal, Cochran's untimely death caused a "lull in case intake" in his Los Angeles offices. Since then, however, the firm's national ads have started up again, and the firm continues its push from police-brutality cases into a full range of personal-injury litigation.

My own research indicates that the Cochran firm is thriving throughout the country. The firm's website lists 18 locations, including offices in Chicago, Memphis, and Miami.

The Cochran firm is still operating in St. Louis too. It was almost two years ago that I conducted some undercover research at the firm's St. Louis offices, which weren't quite open yet despite the firm's advertising in the local Yellow Pages. I assume the offices are open today. The only other difference between then and now is that there's absolutely no chance I'll run into Cochran on the street at lunchtime, as I used to say I was always expecting to happen.

In truth, it never would have happened. Cochran's national practice was always more about a brand than a person, meaning he never needed to set foot in Chicago or Miami or St. Louis. It's no wonder the firm is finding it possible to soldier on without him.

Related posts:

1. Goodbye Johnnie Cochran

2. Law-Related Things That Suck: The Death of Johnnie Cochran

THE WEEKLY LAW SCHOOL ROUNDUP . . . Number nine of the resurrected Roundups is up at Will Work for Favorable Dicta. The tenth will appear here next Sunday.

AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBSITE . . . "Arguing Motions: Work Hard to Connect the Dots."

GADGET UPDATE: The Cybernet PC-in-a-Keyboard . . . Want to dazzle your friends with your extreme geekiness? Try this--

It's the Cybernet Zero-Footprint-PC, a standard computer keyboard with the rest of the computer stuffed inside it. Why? I don't know, but it's got an Intel Pentium 4 processor, a hard drive of whatever size you'd like, and (of course) a Full Size Enhanced Windows keyboard. Just add a monitor and you too can be a lawyer with a shiny new gadget. For as low as $570.

THE UNNAMED ASSOCIATE SPEAKS #3: Prestige at Biglaw or Experience at an Insurance Defense Firm? The Debate Continues. . . 

by the Unnamed Associate

This week I've been out of my mind, preparing for and taking another bar exam, and simultaneously preparing for my first trial. It's a good confluence of circumstances – one an opportunity for the state to inform me that I shouldn't be practicing law; and the other an opportunity to prove it.

Color my underpants important, but it's days like today when I'm glad that I was less concerned about prestige when taking this job, and more concerned about getting experience as a litigating lawyer. I know I could have enjoyed researching and writing for other lawyers who will never give me credit – I can enjoy a whole lot if I'm well paid for it. And I could have swallowed my pride for the crazy egos and their volatility – again, for a lot of money I can be pretty humble. I know from experience that I enjoy the bigfirm culture. But when I count back and realize that my first trial is happening less than six months after the day I was sworn in as an attorney, I'm both intimidated and elated about the choice I made.

HIRING A GREEDY LAWYER . . . In a post titled "In Defense of Greed," the Greedy Trial Lawyer argues that greed is good--

Have you ever thought about why most people seek the services of a greedy trial lawyer when they have been injured? Why is it that someone who would normally not hire a greedy accountant or a greedy doctor would prefer greediness in a personal injury lawyer?

. . .

[A] greedy trial lawyer ultimately works hardest for the largest recovery. The greater the award or settlement, the greater the fee. And, the greater the net recovery to the injured victim.

The argument is designed to be provocative, not persuasive. It doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. It's a given that the system works better when a lawyer's financial interests are aligned with those of his client. But a lawyer doesn't have to be "greedy" for this to happen. Besides, you know what they say about greed: Pigs get fat but hogs get slaughtered. I've seen it happen a time or two, and it's not a pretty thing.

The idea isn't practical either. When you're considering lawyers to hire, how do you recognize the greedy ones? Maybe the lawyer you admire because of his Rolex and his yacht became bored with the business after he acquired his awesome jet. See what I mean? Although it's easy to imagine a greedy lawyer in the abstract, it's hard to actually spot one in the wild.

Cf. Types of Lawyers #13: The Stereotypical Lawyer.

AT MY TRIAL PRACTICE WEBSITE . . . "Functioning as a Conduit Between Your Expert and His Opinions."

MILBERG WEISS INVESTIGATION: NO INDICTMENT OF NAME PARTNERS . . . The reporting about the Milberg Weiss investigation continues at Law.com, where Justin Scheck has this: "Lerach, Weiss May Not Face Indictments"--

[L]awyers familiar with the case say prosecutors were unable to get much beyond the accusations that came up in connection to [former Milberg clients Steven] Cooperman and [Seymour] Lazar that Milberg Weiss would pay referral fees to third-party lawyers who would then pass those payments on to the lead clients.

With Lazar refusing to cooperate with the government -- and Cooperman's testimony compromised by the fact that he offered it in exchange for reduced prison time -- prosecutors apparently were unable to build a case that Weiss and Lerach knew of such payments.

It looks like the predicted fizzle-out is coming to pass, which might disappoint the New York Times, which breathlessly reported last July that the investigation would reignite "heated debates about the tort system" and "influence how all plaintiffs' lawyers practice."

The New York Times report about the latest developments is titled "U.S. Case Against 2 Lawyers Appears to Falter."

Related posts:

• Milberg Weiss Investigation: Not Over Yet (2/9/06)
• Milberg Weiss Investigation Rolls On (10/3/05)
• The Wall Street Journal on Milberg Weiss (8/12/05)
• Built on a Shaky Foundation (7/20/05)
• Lawyer or Lawyer-Zombie? (7/1/05)