There seems to be a never-ending amount of callousness mixed with stupidity mixed with cognitive dissonance mixed with outright violence and horror these days.
The London office of Biglaw firm White & Case allegedly fired a partner who was suffering from mental health issues due to the loss of his wife to cancer. Disputing the fired partner’s claim and saying that the partner was terminated for “poor performance,” the catchall of all catchalls, the firm noted that “sadness and grief” are not sufficiently disabling under British law.
Maybe that argument has to do with the whole British concepts of “stiff upper lip” and “carry on,” but how unfeeling can one be to not sympathize, empathize, whatever words you choose, with the death of a loved one? (I will talk about Uvalde later.) And with more than 1 million COVID-related deaths in this country, how could anyone not have been touched personally by grief and sadness, a sense of a loss that is indeed forever? Amazingly heartless? Stupid? Res ipsa loquitur.
Bravo to Mark Herrmann, who reiterates what should be a main tenet of law practice, in that you don’t reach for the moon in litigation if your client is only entitled to a piece of green cheese. Whoever thinks that litigation, trying a case, is just a game is stupid. Even if freedoms and lives are not at stake as they are in criminal cases, civil cases of whatever nature are equally important to the parties involved, and to treat them without the requisite degree of seriousness is not only stupid, but malpractice. That’s why explaining to clients the value (or no value) of a case is essential. The failure to do that is also stupid and malpractice. Our job is to tell clients the good, the bad, and the ugly about their cases. They should not be seen just as ticking billable hours (whether a person or an entity) but with real-life problems that need to be resolved as best as possible, without bankrupting them. Isn’t solving problems, be they micro or macro, why we do what we do?
“Chutzpah” is one of my favorite words. Substitute “gall” or “nerve” for it, and you get the idea. So how about this for nerve, gall or chutzpah? One of the defendants awaiting trial arising out of the January 6, 2021, “house party” wanted to go on a trip outside the U.S. to celebrate that he was a winner in a sales contest at his company. (Full disclosure: I have been to several of those, courtesy of my ex-husband, many years ago, and it is a week or so of good times. However, he was not awaiting trial on any offense, except for his long-held grudge against the Dodgers moving from Brooklyn to LA.) So, it’s a great bench slap when a court tells a defendant how it really feels about the defendant’s untimely request to travel to Cabo.
And here in the Central District of California, Federal District Judge Otis Wright has washed his hands of a criminal trial he was presiding over. It was, in a sense, an “off with their heads,” or more particularly the public defender who was doing what lawyers are supposed to do, provide a vigorous defense, and make a record for any appeal. If only we lawyers could get rid of clients in the same way.
How about having Elon Musk for a client? I don’t know what your reaction may be, but mine is simple: pass. Talk about having an issue or two — or 20 — with client control. Do you think there is enough money in the world to be part of a law firm that he will hire, fire, direct, and control? And more than one general counsel at Tesla has taken a hike from Tesla in the past few years. Calling all superheroes and others who don’t care about their reputations and who are willing to put themselves in harm’s way. A situation of cognitive dissonance?
It will be easier to practice once the LSATs go the way of VCRs. (Remember those? Remember dial telephones?) The ABA may well drop all law school testing requirements. Say what? Yup, that bastion of tradition may well toss the LSAT. Some law schools have already substituted the GRE for admission purposes.
The cottage industry of LSAT prep will probably fall by the wayside. There are a number of things to complain about the test, not the least of which is the cost of prep, done often more than once, to present an aspiring lawyer in the most alluring light for law school admissions deans. As a result, good, even great, potential candidates for law school can’t jump the first barrier, which is the LSAT prep costs. And an LSAT prep can cost thousands in addition to the usual and customary fees for taking the LSAT itself. For many peeps, standardized tests have been dreadful ways to determine success in the first year of law school. It’s not predicative of any lawyering ability except the ability to do well on a standardized test. Law school admissions officers may now think about candidates more holistically, instead of an LSAT score and a GPA that might only reflect “easy A’s.”
So, when do the horrors end? Now 19 children and two adults are dead in Uvalde, Texas. Screw “thoughts and prayers.” Screw “There are no words.” Remember Buffalo? Remember Orange County? And those two are just in the past week and a half. There are plenty of words, but too many people don’t want to say them. We lawyers earn our keep with words. We need to speak up and speak out.
Jill Switzer has been an active member of the State Bar of California for over 40 years. She remembers practicing law in a kinder, gentler time. She’s had a diverse legal career, including stints as a deputy district attorney, a solo practice, and several senior in-house gigs. She now mediates full-time, which gives her the opportunity to see dinosaurs, millennials, and those in-between interact — it’s not always civil. You can reach her by email at oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
