A Day in The Life

And my heart sank

2006-06-01T16:32:00.000-04:00

In law school they teach lots of common sense approaches to winning a cases like "argue the law." In practice, you learn that you should not only argue the law, but also apply the law to the facts of your cases, to show the law is in on your side. I have also made, what I feel to be another common sense observation, that judges respond to well-reasoned arguments argues in a clear concise manner. However, no one ever told me that judges take all those well-reasoned arguments and the paper they are written on, crush them up into little balls, and throw them at their law clerks for fun. They then write their opinions in complete derogation of any precepts of existing law!

Let me step back for a moment, I am sure when it comes to matters of contract, tort, or property law, appellate judges are very much all-knowing and don't need some second year associate punk lecturing them on the law. However, in my limited experience, I have found most judges (state judges especially) know less about labor law than a first year law student.

All this is a preamble to my reaction upon receiving the opinion in case I argued in the state appellate court. It was a case involving sex discrimination by prison guards. I was not terribly upset that I lost the case, it was more the short shrift that the judges paid to my arguments. There was absolutely no discussion on some of the important issues I raised in my brief. There was an even wonderful issue regarding standing that my adversary raised that I was able to respond to with a torrent of federal and state law. However, not even a single word in the opinion was devoted to that issue. Mind you, this might treatment be excused if this were an opinion of the trial court. However, these were appellate judges.

I am incredibly disheartened. Maybe next time, I will go to federal court instead. Those judges maybe more conservative, but at least they are competent.

screwing up, with style!

2006-05-22T16:01:00.000-04:00

Something has bene irking me for quite sometime, and airing it here may be cathartic for me dealing with this. A few weeks ago, I attended an investigatory interview with some of my clients. My clients, teachers accused their principal of sexual harassment. Prior to them filing a complaint, the school board conducted an investigation to determine whether they should take action to discipline the principal. Present at the interview were myself, my clients (individually, not together), the school board's attorney, and the school superintendant. What I had thought was going to be a fact-finding session, quickly turned into an inquisitorial rant with the board attorney hurling pointed questions and insults at my clients. Instead of standing up and saying "my clients will not be treated like this. If you cannot conduct yourself civilly, we will leave." I simply said very little, only interrupting now and then to prevent my client and the board attorney from coming to blows. My clients were very upset, and in hindsight, I understand why. They were looking to me for protection, or at least zealous advocacy on their parts. Instead, I cowered, unsure whether it was proper for me to even to suggest the interview could be terminated.

I am not proud of my actions, and any scorn is well deserved. However, I hope I will learn from this mistake. While as attorneys we endeavor to act professional, especially to one another, sometimes it is necessary to put on a show for your client.

I am not Superman

2006-05-15T17:10:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, I have clients who expect me to work miracles, i.e they have been terminated for stealing, they were then convicted for stealing, and they still want their job back. I tell them that I am just attorney, I do not have magical powers. While I am supposed to possess superior powers of persuasion, I can only work with the facts that I am given.

Currently, I represent a group of teachers who are suing their school district for sexual harassment by the school's principal. I also represent the union which consists of all teachers in that district, but that is a different matter. The filing of the complaint has caused quite a rift among the teachers, with the teachers who are against the lawsuit hurling insults at my clients(best not repeated here) that what make a steelworker grimace. The other day, one of my clients calls and tells me that one of the pro-principal teachers is telling everyone how my clients are but of worthless you-know-whats and everything in the complaint is lies. She asks, no, more like commands me to do something about this. I tell here, firm, but polite, that I have no power to make this woman shut up. Moreover, even what she was saying was slanderous, I couldn't threaten her in any way. Since I represent her union, any such action would be a conflict of interest. My client is incensed, "well, why do we have a lawyer then?" she asks rhetorically. I sigh. How do I explain to her for the fifth time, that I can't turn water into wine, fish into loaves, or bagels into bialys. I think the joke was lost upon her, but I am hoping she understood what I meant.

The Pork Project

2006-05-11T20:25:00.000-04:00

I recently read this article in the New York Times. It serves as a perfect example why often time it can be very frustrating being a labor lawyer.

The UFCW has been in a knock down, drag out fight with the Smithfield Packing Company in an attempt to unionize their workforce. The union lost the election in 1997, the NLRB cried foul, and almost 10 years later, the Court of Appeals has finnally upheld the Board's findings that Smithfield committed so many egregious unfair labor practices as to render the results of the election void. So now both the workers and the union are vindicated; did I mention that this took almost 10 years? Like many Board rulings that are later upheld by the court, this was probably a hollow victory for the union. I am sure that the urge to unionize has long since dissipated among the workers. Even though some employees won the right to reinstatement, since they were probably proponents of the union, it is doubtful they will be welcomed back with open arms by Smithfield.

Back on plantet Earth, I continue to toil along up to my ears in work. I also have to handle a divorce case for a family members. Having never taken family law in law school, I am learning as I go. All I can say it is probably better I am handling that matter gratis. With the learning curve I had to go through, I would have probably goen through a few thousand dollars worth of billable hours by now! In the future, I think I will leave divorce requests to the experts.

birthday

2006-05-10T11:12:00.000-04:00

Today is my birthday - just another day, but an important miletsone nonetheless.

I would like to apologize to all my readers out there (all two of you) for not having posted ion the last few months. I have been remiss in my duties, because both my professional and personal life have been so busy. I promise that in due course, I will regale with more tales from the exciting world of federal civil procedure and other highlights. Then again, I am sure you much rather hear about mob-infested labor unions. These stories may not be true, but I am told they make for better reading.

In the limelight

2006-03-06T20:18:00.000-05:00

I am learning, that the law, labor & employment law in particular, is great theater. A recent example will illustrate my point.

The other day, I attended a mediation. The backstory was my client was suing his employer for disability discrimination. Specifically, he is a diabetic and they suspended him a few months ago claiming he couldn't perform the essential functions of the job. Eventually, he was reinstated, but they were not going to give him backpay. Myself and the employer's attorney exchanged a couple of letters full of legal vitrol, but nothing much came of it. Finally, I had my client file a charge with the state agency alleging disability discrimination. To this day, I am still not sure the strength of my client's claim. However, I do know that when a discrimination complaint is filed, no matter how frivilous it may end up being, at the time it is filed, an employer will take it very seriously. So the filing of the charge was a bit of a bluff, but I felt necessary to protect my client's rights.

My bluff proved correct. The employer made an offer.

A young lawyer ain't got nothing in the world these days

2006-03-03T20:48:00.000-05:00

A reader has asked the following question (and I am paraphrasing): Stop your whining and have your secretary do those mundane task you despise so. If only work were that simple. In very large firms, you have armies of paralegals, network administrators, and of course secretaries ready to assist you with every minutiae of your workday. However, us mere mortals have to do everything ourselves. This is a longwinded way of saying I don't have a secretary.

2006-03-03T10:11:00.000-05:00

I apologize for the long delay in posts. I have mentioned in the post that life has a funny way of getting in the way of this blog.

Work has been busy, but mostly filled with busy work, and not anything substantial. As an attorney, you entire net worth to your firm is based on the amount of hours you bill. The more hours you bill, the more money the firm stands to profit form your labor. All comments regarding, Marx's theory of surplus value aside, even firms, like mine, that represent unions engage in this practice.

As an attorney you are supposed to account for every activity in the day, down to six-minute intervals. For instance, you might attend a deposition for 3.0 hours. Or you might draft a short letter to a client, you might bill this for 0.1 hours (six minutes). I find that when I am doing lots of busy work, i.e. checking my messages, or writing short letters, I bill very little. Because I don't have a secretary, I always end up spending an inordinate amount of time, printing the letter, printing the envelope, making the requisite photocopies, and then sealing the envelopes (the old fashioned way, of course). Do you know how long it takes me to walk from my desk to the printer? None of that is billable time! If I worked in sweatshop firm, I might worry that such improper uses of time would affect my job and $30K bonus. Lukcily, I work in a firm that doesn't even have a billing requirement. Of course, neither do we give out $30K bonuses.

I admit, not much of rant, but my creativity has been lagging as of late.

Barbarians at the Gates

2006-01-31T09:47:00.000-05:00

Recently, one of the partners at my firm agreed to represent a group of union dissidents who had been not-so-gently expelled from their union. One individual, was the former president of this local. After he and his cohorts were voted out of office, the new president not so ceremoniously removed them from the union in the hopes that they would no longer pose a threat to his political base, i.e. non-members cannot run for or hold office. Union politics can get messy, often quite a bit messier than politics among our federal or state officials.

These dissidents sought our help to get them reinstated in time for the upcoming election. While we had no hesitation about accepting the case, I think in the back of his mind, the partner was figuring that if they won the election, they would ask our firm to be the union's attorney.

When you are practicing labor law, representing labor unions is your bread and butter. If your law firm represents a union, chances are you will handle all their arbitration, unfair practice charges, and any other legal work. It is good steady income and the bigger the local, the more business you can hope to expect.

My role is this is perhaps more inadvertent, but no less important. I happen to be the only member of my firm admitted to practice in the federal district court where this case is venued. So lo and behold, I, humble and junior associate, am now the attorney for record in a case involving union dissidents trying to storm the gates of an 8,000 person local.

So, we file a complaint in federal court suing the union under a host of federal laws relating to the conduct of internal union politics. Apparently, the complaint made a big splash, and the union, now wants to talk settlement, in particular they are willing to reinstate our clients in time to run for the election. In fact, during the negotiations, the union unilaterally reinstated our clients as members, making them eligible to run for office! I thought to myself, great, we can settle the litigation and let the election run its course. However, as I am learning, union politics are not that simple.

Apparently, the lawsuit has caused an incredible buzz among members of the union. Our clients told us that the current president is not popular among the current members, and this complaint has emboldened his detractors (including our clients) and generated alot of political capital for the dissidents. Our clients feel that if the complaint is withdrawn, they will lose their momentum among dissatisfied members of the union. It appears that the union's unilateral reinstatement of the dissidents was just a ploy to neutralize the force of our client's bid for elected office.

So we are now a month away from the election and the litigation continues. My adversary is dumbfounded, he tells me clients got what they wanted, i.e. reinstatement, so why proceed? Unfortunately, I cannot tell him the real reason why, though I suspect he already knows. Ultimately, even if this litigation is deemed to be "legally" frivolous, it will have served some other purpose in helping our clients' election bid.

Little Red Riding Hood sues the Big Bad Wolf for intentional misrepresentation of character

2006-01-26T10:13:00.000-05:00

Plaintiff attorneys often get a bum rap from their colleagues sitting on the other side of table that they bring too many frivolous lawsuits. Apparently, it is somehow our fault that that our legal system has ground to a standstill because of the astounding number of civil suits filed in every year. While I am no policy wonk, it appears to me that a solution would simply be to increase spending on our courts system so that it can better handle the increased caseload. Oops, I think I just advocated for an increase in taxes, better cross off "career in politics" from my list of future endeavors.

All kidding aside, attorneys must always be cognizant that when they agree to represent a client, whether it be a Plaintiff or Defendant, that they do not advocate a frivolous legal position. I consider it a small personal victory when I can convince a client not to bring a lawsuit. For instance, I have this one client, a police officer, who has been toying with the idea of suing his employer, a municipality for wrongful demotion. When we first met, he told me that he was having some personal conflicts with his supervisor (which is the genesis of 99% of work-related litigation). He made a internal complaint to the police chief alleging harassment by his supervisor. Subsequently, this police officer was demoted on some type of disciplinary charge.

I agreed to take the case, but I wanted to do some more investigation. One thing I have learned is that while should always give your client the benefit of the doubt, sometimes they do not tell you the whole truth. My client furnished me some documents which were generated as a result of this disciplinary charge. One thing I will says about police departments, at least from an employee-relations perspective, they generate a very long & detailed paper trail. Upon review, I learned that the police officer had rescinded his municipal complaint prior to the disciplinary investigation. Furthermore, I learned that he entered into a plea deal with his union and the police department which downgraded the charges to a demotion. To make things, worse my client actually signed a statement stating that he entered upon such a settlement voluntarily and without being coerced.

Upon reflection, I grabbed my forehead and started cursing in Yiddish. I can just picture myself attempting to argue this case and having the judge laugh me out of court:

Judge: So LL you mean to tell me you filed this whistleblowing complaint alleging wrongful demotion when your client voluntarily accepted said demotion?

LL: (cowering in fear) yes.

Judge: How on earth do you expect to prove to this court an adverse employment action was taken against plaintiff?

LL: (recovering a bit) Well, my client was constructively demoted. He was forced to accept the demotion because he felt he had no other choice.

Judge: yet counsel for defendant has shown that plaintiff signed a statement stating he was not coerced?

LL: (wetting my pants): um, um, um . .. . please don't hurt me.

Judge: I am dismissing your case and furthermore because you obviously do not understand your ethical obligation not to bring frivolous litigation before this court. Furthermore, I hereby sanction you to spend the next five years practicing tax law.

I proceeded to speak with my client, who is still absolutely livid about the whole situation, in regards to dropping the matter. Trying to persuade a client not to do something is a bit like entering the lions den with raw meat strapped to my chest. Miraculously, I was able to convince him that bringing this lawsuit was not in his best interest. I told him, (and there is a bit of truth to this), that I would gladly take his money, but he should seriously consider whether it was worth it for him to spend $10,000 (a random number) in legal fees only to have his case thrown out. He agreed, though we contemplated taking alternate legal action which I may discuss in a future post.

Location, Location, Location

2006-01-24T16:23:00.000-05:00

Sometimes when I am sitting alone in my office wondering why I have no work to do, I ruminate on such weighty philosophical subjects as: Is there any rhyme or reason as to where law firms are physically located? Before you spring from your seat in excitement and anticipation, consider the following. Traditionally, most lawyers had offices near the proverbial county courthouse. Many law firms, especially those specializing in criminal defense work continue this practice to the present day. Take a walk in the neighborhood near your local county courthouse and you will see why. Incidentally you may also notice an inordinate number of drinking establishments named "the sidebar," but I digress.

In my short time in practice, I have made some observations in regards to the location of law firms that practice labor and employment law. Without fail, most of the firms that represents defendants, i.e management, are located in the wealthier suburbs. I think this was a deliberate choice on the part of these firms to allow their partners convenient access to the local country club and golf course. And yes, many of these attorneys do play golf. For the record, I cannot stand the game. A golf course is horrible misuse of precious land. Miniature golf, on the other hand, is the sport for athletically challenged individuals like myself.

Whenever we attorneys have bar association meetings it is usually at some posh country club overlooking some immaculately maintained golf course. I imagine that the management attorneys in the room are inevitably thinking about the next opportunity to practice with a nine-iron. I usually dwell on more mundane matters such as "where is the buffet table?" and wondering if the kitchen staff are organized and whether they are looking for an attorney to represent them.

Wide awake in snoozeland

2006-01-23T13:00:00.000-05:00

I don't deal well with some of the more mundane aspects of practicing law. This includes reading my mail, returning phone calls, making idle chit chat with opposing counsel. I ending spending an inordinate amount of time on these tasks without actually being able to bill for that time. These activities become more onerous after a big trial suddenly settles and I am left with a cleared calendar and very little work to do.

Today this was the case, since my big whistleblowing case that I had described previously, settled. However, it is the root of some depression on my part. Any law professor or legal analyst will tell that something like 97% of all cases filed settle. I certainly see no reason to dispute that figure. What I don't like is when cases settle for the wrong reasons. In fact I am so naive, that I think cases should settle for very mundane reasons i.e. one side realizes that if the case goes before a jury, there goose is cooked. However, my whistleblowing trial settled because the judge told us to settle and we did on terms that were not the most favorable to my client. If you recall, there was an issue about pornographic emails that my client sent and received while at work. Normally this would be a non-issue as this was not the stated reason for his termination. However, the judge spoke to both parties off the record about his obligation to report alleged unethical behavior of attorneys. I had never heard of this before, but I have learned the hard way never to argue with a judge. You may dislike what he is saying, but woe to the unfortunate attorney who truly gets on a judge's bad side, but I digress. The judge was concerned that these emails may constitute unethical conduct, which if the facts supporting this contention come out on the record, he may have an obligation to report it to the state's attorney ethics board.

In the immortal words of Qbert: !@#$!%!@$.

A quick call to my boss confirmed that the judge may be right. Do we risk going forward, maybe winning the case, but potentially risking my clients' future ability to practice law? The defendant promised to drop its counterclaims if he withdrew his claim. My client was furious. You would have more luck reasoning with a deranged chainsaw than with an angry client. Being risk averse, I advised my client he should not take that chance, what if he lost everything?

I think you can guess the outcome, we settled. My client was not too happy with the outcome, he felt we had been bullied by the judge. He was probably correct, but what we were to do? Defendant had indicated that it would appeal every adverse ruling in the case, including whether those emails should be admitted. And what if the content of these emails went before an appeals judge? He or she would surely not hesitate to sentence my client to legal purgatory.

I am angry with myself. The Defendants were real scumbags, and I have no doubt that they terminated my client because he blew the whistle. If you are generous you could chock it up to ignorance, but I should have had the foresight to anticipate these emails would have raised issues for my client. The life lesson learned: never represent an attorney suing a law firm. Things get way too personal and messy, like a bad divorce.

A lawyer defrocked

2006-01-20T14:02:00.000-05:00

I am not one to comment on gossip, mostly because I am simply oblivious to anything that approaches modern culture. However, my fiance explained this bit of news to me and seemed interesting enough to warrant a post.

An attorney by the name of Melissa Lafsky, has been publishing a blog called http://opinionistas.com about the life of a first-year associate in a big Manhattan defense firm. I read the blog and I tip my hat to you Ms. Lafsky. I found your blog engaging and humorous, especially your penchant for painting big firm life with a healthy dose of black comedy. While I work at a very small law firm, I can appreciate the absurdity of big firm life as many friends of mine have sold their soul for the prestige of a six-figure income. I also recall many law school classmates prostrating themselves over these type of firms. Reading Ms. Lafsky's blog has reassured me that I made the right choice.

Now that Ms. Lafsky has resigned her position as an attorney at Littler Mendelson, (which I might add is a notorious anti-union management firm. Watch the film Live Nude Girls Unite for more information), I will miss her vignette and antecdotes about big firm life. Maybe after she finishes her book, she will throw of the shackles of the dark side and become a labor lawyer. Actually, the only sane thing for anyone in that position would be to give up the practice of law forever.

"My Cousin Vinny" revisited

2006-01-18T20:16:00.000-05:00

Do you remember the movie "My Cousin Vinny" starring Joe Pesci and Marissa Tomei? Besides being a very entertaining film (i.e. "yutes"), it is also provides an ideal point of reference for my first trial. Here I am, admitted to practice law for little more than a year and I am handling a civil trial. I actually feel like Joe Pesci's character, minus the colorful attire, given the fact that I have no idea what I am doing. In law school, they offer absolutely no preparation for this kind of thing. For instance, while they may classes on trial advocacy, my law school did not offer any practical course on Jury Selection 101. I have had experiences trying cases before arbitrators or administrative law judges (ALJ), but never before a jury. It is often easier to try cases before an ALJ or an Arbitrator because you don't need to worry about whether a particular piece of evidence is too prejudicial, because no jury is present. But I digress. . .

This case is interesting in number of ways relative to this issue. We represent the Plaintiff in this matter, an attorney, who was terminated for complaining to his supervisor that a paralegal was forging his name on motions submitted to the court. After he was terminated, the Defendant discovered that while Plaintiff was employed he had sent & recieved a number of different pornographic emails at work. For obvious reasons, this was never a proffered reason for his termination. In fact, the alleged reason for his termination was his poor work performance.

Fast forward to trial where Plaintiff is now suing Defendant for wrongful termination under the whistleblowing law. Defendant now wants to introduce these emails to demonstrate Plaintiff was a "bad employee." As Plaintiff's attorney, I argue that even if these emails are relevant (and they are clearly not), their prejudicial effect surely outweighs their probative value (i.e. their relevance). If you were a juror, and you discovered that the Plaintiff had sent and recieved these emails, could you objectively judge the other issues in the case? Well in my case, many jurors had to be excused because the judge felt they could not. Should the evidence come in at all? Is it relevant? as Plaintiff's attorney I surely don't think so. My client's case is sunk if those emails are admitted. What do you think?

Old Mother Bush

2005-10-28T10:21:00.000-04:00

It is no secret that anyone at all remotely involved in the labor movement has the greatest disdain for President Bush. In addition to simply being a Republican, he has undertaken many anti-worker measures including appointing a number of pro-employer members to the National Labor Relations Board (www.nlrb.gov), appointing Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor (www.dol.gov), as well determining simply by fiat that employees of the newly-created Department of Homeland Security would not be allowed to unionize nor granting them merit system protections. However, the icing on the cake was, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, he suspended the protections of the Davis-Bacon Act in the areas affected by the hurricane. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that federal contractors pay their employees the local prevailing wage. 99% of the time, the prevailing wage is much higher than the federal (or state) minimum wage.

So while everyone else was abuzz with the withdrawal of the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, I noticed another little gem hidden in within the electronic pages of the New York Times: Bush decided to reinstate the protections of the Davis-Bacon Act (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/politics/27cong.html). What struck me most was that not only had democrats, labor leaders, and other liberals criticized Bush, but even members of his own party felt that suspending the law was simply not a good idea and its only purpose was to weaken the power of the unions in this country. The shocking part about this is that this sentiment was not expressed by a Democrat, but by a Republican, Representative Peter King of New York.

The moral of the story: you know it is a bad day for Bush when his fellow Republicans are criticizing him for being anti-labor!

Slow boat to Chinatown

2005-10-27T08:36:00.000-04:00

Things at work have been very slow. I am learning that this profession can be very volatile. One day, you have three briefs due, a trial to prepare for, and a motion to argue, and then . . . POOF! Everything gets adjourned until 3 months from now and you are left twiddling your thumbs. This happened to me last week. I was all set to argue this motion in court and my adversary (sounds nefarious doesn't?. . . However the connotation of this terms aptly describes my relationship with opposing counsel) calls and requests that the matter be adjourned because "her father-in-law died." Now before you call me cruel and heartless, consider this: earlier in the litigation, a day before a similar deadline, she told me she could not produce the required documents because her "sister was in the hospital." Now as attorneys, we are supposed to trust one another. However, I am almost positive this attorney lied about her father-in-law in order to put off the motion simply because she was not prepared to argue. Having dealt with this attorney during all phases of this case, I would not put this kind of behavior past her. She is lying, deceitful, and would have been perfectly at home in the Nixon administration.

You still may doubt my veracity, as you have every right to. However, I have further proof of her mendacity. I know for a fact that she has made numerous misrepresentations to the court. By that, I mean asserting facts or arguments in her papers that she knows to be untruthful. Professional integrity and fear of a defamation action prohibit me from going into further detail. However, I think you get the idea.

What really makes my blood boil, is that at the motion hearing, I was going to bring all this before the court and ask that the court impose sanctions on her. While I have to wait another few weeks for the argument to be rescheduled, I am anxious to do to her what Bush has been doing to this country for the last five years (apologies to Woody Allen). What I mean by that exactly, is to hold her accountable for her conduct.

This desire for "bloodlust" is not just based on my own selfish desire to get even with this attorney. If the judge imposes sanctions on her, chances are, he will force the other side to pay for my client's attorney fees. This would be a big deal since my client is not the most affluent individual in the world and attorneys fees would reduce his financial burden in this case.

Time - not just another great tune by the Chambers Brothers

2005-09-27T10:04:00.000-04:00

The problem with juggling clients and a fiancee is other things tend to fall by the wayside - including this blog. I would apologize profusely for the scant amount of attention I have paid to this blog in the last few months, but I don't think anyone out there is listening; but I digress.

Clients can be incredibly needy. Especially my clients. More on that in future posts. I know all you are simply on the edge of your seats waiting for this.

Why not one more?

2005-08-25T09:24:00.000-04:00

It seems that Blogs have become like talkshows, everyone including the mail carrier now has one. It certainly makes for diversity, though half of them are not very interesting to read (present company, included).

In other news, after less than a year of practicing law, I am beginning to secure my own client base. Perhaps this may not seem like a big feat for those gregarious individuals who networked their way through life, but it is a personal accomplishment for me. Though I am not exactly antisocial (asocial may be a more appropriate term), networking is not a skill I possess. Still, as luck would have it, a women called, out of the blue, and wants to sue he municipal transit authority for discrimination. Apparently she filed a complaint with the EEOC a few years back, and ever since her supervisors have been giving her hell. Obviously, I cannot discuss the details of the case. I felt compelled to take the case, when she broke down in tears in my office. I don't know what her chances of prevailing will be, but I get the sense that even the process of filing a lawsuit and holding her employer accountable will in its own way be cathartic. Besides, one of the reasons I took this job, was to provide some justice to those who are mistreated by their employers. I am no crusading Don Quixote type (otherwise I would have been a union organizer), but I do think employees need some kind of justice. On a more practical and mundane note, this will be good practice for me as I will probably have to go up against some big, management-type firm where the attorneys make $400 / hour. . . Bring 'em on.

fits and starts

2005-06-01T15:27:00.000-04:00

A six month interval between posts is probably not considered exemplarly behavior in blogland, but I can still claim naivete as a defense. Actually, I simply forgot about this blog - life has a funny way of getting in the way of truly mundane and useless endeavors like pouring out my innermost thoughts to the world wide web. Consider this my good faith effort to begin anew.

Perhaps I am in the minority, but I thoroughly enjoy my day job. Being a lawyer allows me to channel all my agression and angst on my unsuspecting adversary. Before you poo poo this, bear in mind two things:
1) I represent labor union and individual employees. I fight for good, not for evil.
2) On a personal note, being a lawyer is a lot cheaper than going to therapy.

Besides, being a good Jewish boy, what other choice was there?

No subject

2005-01-25T13:13:00.000-05:00

I don't usually classify myself as a conformist, but by starting this blog I am joining the thousands of others who feel the need to air their dirty laundy over the internet. I am doing this on a whim, not so much to give others the opportunity to view my personal life, but to act as a release for any tension or conflict inside. I suppose I could write a traditional diary, but being somewhat of a techno-geek, this has somewhat more appeal to me.

More details about myself will follow in upcoming posts.