Tags

  • Published on

    You and Judges

    Judges
         I hope you never have to face a judge, but if you do don't despair.  They are people too.  There was a time when anyone could be a judge but now judges tend to be attorneys.  I don't know why people choose to be judges but from my experience many attorneys seek the bench because they don't like to practice law or can't earn a decent living doing it.  A regular paycheck is the most attractive lure to potential judges.

         I remember another attorney telling me a number of years ago that he liked sitting in as a temporary judge because he could  control people's lives.  I'm glad he never became a real judge.  Most judges that I have met are not power hungry and just try to do a good job.  There are no special qualifications to be a judge.  You don't have to take special classes or tests or psychological evaluations.  In our state all judges are either elected or appointed.  County judges have to run for office unless they are temporarily appointed to fill the remaining term of a judge who cannot continue to serve.  That means they generally align themselves with political parties.  Once judges are elected most judges do not decide cases based upon party affiliation and they can generally serve as long as they like because experienced judges almost always win reelection regardless of party affiliation.

         Judges at the state and federal level are appointed to the bench.  These appointments are largely political in nature since the appointments are made by the governor or president.  As is true with county judges a sitting judge usually doesn't lose his seat.  As is also true with county judges politics are not a significant factor in judges' decisions.  Many judges have confounded the political parties that appointed them.  We hear a lot about the political battles fought when a U.S. Supreme Court judge is appointed but even at that level the judge is not beholden to a party.  On really hot topics like abortion it may be easier to distinguish liberal from conservative judges because the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortions.  However, most decisions even at that level are not politically influenced.  It is important to remember that judges aren't supposed to make law.  They are supposed to apply existing law to the set of facts before them.

         Having said all of that there are good judges and not so good judges, as is true with most if not all segments of society.  In my humble opinion a good judge is one who listens to people and treats them with dignity and respect.  A good judge moves cases along and requires attorneys to do their jobs.  A good judge reaches decisions quickly once the case has been presented.  We had a judge in our county who always announced his decision as soon as the trial was over.  When you prepared your case you could tell your client this was going to happen and it did like clockwork.  Most judges don't do this but I believe they should.  Perhaps there is some value in sleeping on it, but it certainly isn't a good idea to allow cases to pile up in a to do box because new obligations will cast shadows over the old.  I also think that a lot of judges delay their decisions because they don't want to render their decision with everyone watching.  As they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

         Judges should be treated with respect because of their position in the legal system.  Otherwise, however, if you end up in front of a judge treat him or her as you would a friend or family member.  If you have to testify look the judge in the eye and be yourself.  You don't want to dress in a suit or tie if you normally don't wear one but you also don't want to wear sandals and a baseball hat.  You want to be presentable in the way you look and the way you act.  Even attorneys don't like to argue with judges so if you do represent yourself try to avoid argument if at all possible.  On the other hand there is no reason to be intimidated by judges.  You don't have to be a genius,sage or saint to be a judge and they eat, sleep and go to the bathroom just like the rest of us.  At least I think they do.

           


  • Published on

    You and Attorneys

    Attorneys
         Whenever  potential clients call me at the office I ask how they are, aside from the fact that they have to call me.  Hiring an attorney is not an item on most people's bucket lists.  As a kid I always hated to go to the dentist and would dread it for days leading up to an appointment that my loving mother made for me, even though she never went to see him.  One of the least fulfilling purchases people make is tires for a car.  It is not the type of thing you spend money on for thrills or to show off for your neighbors.  Seeing and hiring a lawyer combines the experiences of going to the dentist and buying tires for your car.  

         I became a lawyer for a number of reasons.  First, because I didn't think i liked attorneys and wanted to protect people from them.  Second, when I was young my family had a business that needed an attorney on rare occasions but couldn't afford the fees.  This inspired me to try to make legal services available at a reasonable cost.  Third, I was in college in the late 60's and early 70's when it seemed like everyone was fighting for a cause.

         Over the years I have learned that attorneys as a group are like most other segments of society, meaning that there are good ones, bad ones, kind ones, mean ones, giving ones and selfish ones.  As a class I don't think attorneys are any different from teachers, nurses, doctors, mechanics, plumbers and clerks.  Every societal group includes individuals from one end of the spectrum to the other.

         We all like and feel comfortable with different types of people.  We all see and meet people that we may not care for because they remind us of someone else we didn't care for, or because they are too short or too tall or too skinny or too fat or too pretty or too ugly.  We may not like the way a person talks or walks,  or the way a person smiles or frowns.  We all know that other people may not like us even though it has nothing to do with whether we are good or bad people.

         Fortunately, you usually can choose your attorney, unlike someone rushed to the hospital with a heart attack requiring immediate surgery performed by someone unknown until after the operation.  Just because you meet with an attorney doesn't mean you have to hire that person.  To my knowledge most lawyers will provide a free consultation which gives you an opportunity to meet and greet.  Even if you have to pay for a consultation it may be worth it since you don't have to commit yourself to a continuing attorney client relationship.  I have consulted with a number of people over the years who didn't return.  They may have resolved their problem on their own or sought out another attorney.  There is nothing wrong with that.   I have also consulted with people on one problem and had them come back a year or two later to hire me for something else.  I am not offended in the least if someone decides not to hire me.  I just hope I gave him or her helpful information.

         Cost is obviously a factor in hiring an attorney.    Cost first comes into play when deciding if you need an attorney in the first place or should try to handle the problem on your own.  If you have a claim against someone for $2000 you shouldn't pay an attorney $2000 to handle it for you.  I won't represent a clients who say at the first meeting that they are more concerned about the principle of being wronged than they are about the cost because after many months and dollars have been spent that attitude will almost always change.  Hiring a lawyer is a financial investment.  You don't want to throw good money after bad. 

         If you decide you have to hire an attorney you can shop around, but as is true with most products don't hire the cheapest or most expensive one just based upon the cost.  You don't know what you are getting until you have gotten it.  Also, different types of legal services are priced differently.  I charge a flat rate for certain services like wills and an hourly rate for most lawsuits.  Some attorneys will charge a contingency fee for collections and most personal injury lawyers work on a contingency fee basis.  Whatever the fee structure make sure you understand it and if you are charged on an hourly basis make sure you receive itemized bills on a regular basis.

         If you need an attorney ask people you know and trust for suggestions.  Don't hesitate to call an attorney and ask him or her who would be a good person to contact about your particular problem.  In closing, remember when dealing with attorneys that they are people just like you who happen to practice law for a living and that it is your case, not theirs.  

     

  • Published on

    You and the Courts

    Courts
         Most people will never have to go to court or deal with a court.  The most common contacts with courts are probably through traffic infractions and relatives' estates going through probate, and neither of those matters generally end up "in court",  meaning that they generally do not end up in a trial or hearing before a judge.

         The primary purpose of our courts is to resolve conflicts.  Many people probably think from television and movies that courts actually create conflict when they watch a ruthless lawyer scale down a ruthless witness or another ruthless lawyer.  However, the reason the case got to court was because someone had a conflict with someone else, and we have determined over hundreds of years that it is better to resolve these conflicts in a peaceful and nonviolent manner.

         Many of you have seen westerns where conflicts were resolved at high noon on main street, where the winner was the fastest draw.  Many of you are also familiar with the Salem witch trials where witch cake could be used as evidence of guilt and where your odds of surviving were greater if you pleaded guilty regardless of your innocence.  We still have violent conflicts on a regular basis, oftentimes referred to as war or riots, but those conflicts are beyond the realm of the courts.  The conflicts most addressed by the courts are those involving individuals or individual businesses and companies.

         Predecessors of today's courts included dragging an adversary to a designated strong man who would kill him or her if he believed your story, having fellow citizens decide the winner based upon what they had heard in the community, hiring the most witnesses to support your story, and hand to hand combat, among many others.

         The role of the courts today, as I previously stated, is to resolve conflicts as humanely and civilly as possible.  The cases that receive the most publicity are criminal in nature, and in those cases the government proceeds against the individual.  Most trials, however, involve individuals or companies suing other individuals or companies.  i used to practice criminal law and there are aspects of those cases that are unique to criminal cases.  My focus here, however, is on civil cases, the ones most likely to invade your life at some point.

         Lets assume you bought a pig from a neighbor.  You bought it because you wanted to breed pigs and sell the piglets.  You had heard during coffee at a local diner that your neighbor had a great sow that produced piglets prolifically.  You approached your neighbor and asked if he was interested in selling the sow.  He said he was since he had decided to raise llamas instead.  You told him that you wanted to breed the sow and he agreed this would be the perfect sow to seed.  You paid him the asking price and lugged the hog home.

         You later hired Bob the Boar through his owner to seed the sow.  They had a great time and everyone awaited the blessed event, which never came.  You, or rather Bob, tried again and still no results.  You contacted the local animal doctor to check your sow and learned that she was sterile.  Befuddled at best you approached your neighbor and asked if you could return the sow since she couldn't seed.  He expressed his regrets but said he didn't want the sow.  You asked if you could have your money back and he said no as well.  At this point you become the Hatfields and McCoys.

         You believe you have been wronged because you hoped for a seeded sow.  Your neighbor believes it is wrong for you to expect your money back since you took the sow in the first place and he moved on with his new venture.  You stew over this predicament.  Should you just write it off as an unfortunate life experience, or take him to court.  You decide on the latter.

         To take your neighbor to court you have to go to the court clerk's office and file a complaint, which essentially says that he sold you a sow that you wanted to seed but couldn't be successfully seeded.  The neighbor, lets call him Ned since it is shorter than neighbor, then has a designated period of time to file an answer to your complaint, which either admits or denies what you said in your complaint.  If he admits the facts as contained in the complaint you can ask the court to find in your favor without a trial because there is no factual dispute.  Trials are only held if there is a factual dispute because the sole purpose of a trial is to determine what the underlying facts are

         Given the facts as state above, with nothing more, there wouldn't be a need for a trial, so you would ask the court to resolve the dispute without one.  The real issue would be whether you should get your money back from Ned since the sow couldn't seed anymore.  The court would then look to the law to resolve the dispute.  The primary source of laws is either written laws, such as statutes, or case law, which comes from decisions reached by other courts facing similar situations.  If the court could not find a law that applies then it would have to make the decision on its own, which decision could then become law for other courts facing the same dispute.  The court would try to make what it considers the fairest decision given its impact on future sow sales and purchases.

         Lets add to the facts above that you said in your complaint that Ned said he guaranteed that the sow would seed prolifically for you.  Unfortunately, Ned said in his answer that he never said any such thing.  Now the case has to go to trial.  The court has to determine if Ned made that guarantee.  You get your day in court.  Both you and Ned testify to what you said in your complaint and answer.  The court must now decide if Ned made that guarantee.  This is where the burden of proof comes in.  Since you filed the lawsuit you have the burden of proving that is more likely than not that Ned made the guarantee.  If the court cannot decide whether to believe you or Ned then you unfortunately go home with no money and a seedless sow.  However, if the court decides to believe you rather than Ned because of your wit and charm, then you win.  The court would probably order that you get some if not all of your money back, but would probably not force Ned to take the sow back.  Everyone will not be happy with the court's decision but the court has resolved the conflict.  Whether you ever get a red cent from Ned is another story for another day.