Should you wait until you’re sued to hire a lawyer? At that point, the answer is obviously yes – but what if you haven’t been sued? Do you still need a lawyer? How do you find one?

The best way to hire a lawyer is like everything else – by referral. You more than likely know someone who has been sued. Ask them if they’re satisfied with their lawyer. When you’re asking for a referral, you will want to know the answers to several questions.

Does the lawyer communicate on a frequent basis? Do you get copies of all filings and letters? Does your friend or acquaintance have the lawyer’s home telephone number? Does the lawyer promptly return telephone calls? Does the lawyer send a bill each month? Does the lawyer tell you when hearings are scheduled to allow you to attend and watch the lawyer in action?

You should check to see if your lawyer is licensed by checking your local state bar. That site will also tell you whether the attorney has a public record of discipline. Find more about your lawyer’s background information.  Assuming all is well and you’re hearing the right responses to your questions, go ahead.  But first, set up an appointment for a free consultation, and do your own face-to-face evaluation.

If you’re not engaged in a lawsuit, it’s an even better time to hire a lawyer. With the right advice, you can work to avoid being sued, and spending legal fees and costs to defend yourself.

The truth is that the view from behind the bench is decidedly different than from in front of it. Sitting as a pro tem judge (which I had the opportunity to do today) presents an interesting perspective – how a judge looks at both sides of a case. There’s quite a difference than advocating one side of a case.

As a judge, you look dispassionately at both sides of the case before forming an opinion about the possible outcome. As a lawyer, advocating one position requires you to counter and discount the other side’s argument. The judge’s view is subtly different. As a judge, you have to evaluate which side is believable, which side has the more solid evidence, and what fairness dictates. You can, and must, ignore some of those things as a lawyer to advocate your client’s case.

Lawyers that can evaluate believability, evidence and fairness give their clients an edge, because they tend to look at the end result of the case. That lawyer can also give you better advice about the ultimate outcome of your case. Clients can accomplish the same thing by stepping back and listening – really listening – to the other lawyer. That’s what the judge and the jury have to do.

[thanks to matt from london and j. craig williams via cc]

Related Posts:

• Do Not Hire This Lawyer To Fight Your Traffic Ticket
• Judge Gives His Verdict on Lawyers Gone Wild
• Willie Gary Interview About Being a Lawyer and Law School
• Lawyer Held in Contempt of Court for Pretending to Masturbate
• 15 Rules for Clients to Find and Keep a Great Lawyer

A senior Texas judge who refused to hear a last-minute appeal from a prisoner facing execution because her office “closed at five” was put on trial Monday in one of the most high-profile cases of alleged judicial misconduct in the state’s history.

Sharon Keller, dubbed Sharon Killer by her detractors, was the subject of a hearing at the Texas commission on judicial conduct that could ultimately see her removed from the bench.

The case relates to her handling of the imminent execution of a convicted rapist and murderer, Michael Richard, on 25 September 2007. That morning the U.S. supreme court had cast doubt on the constitutionality of using lethal injection – the form of death administered by Texas – by agreeing to rule on whether it amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

Lawyers for Richard raced to file an appeal that would put a stay on his execution, which was due to take place that evening, but they were delayed by computer glitches.

They contacted Keller, who by then had gone home to deal with a worker doing repairs to her house. When, at 4:45 p.m., they requested a postponement of the execution, her reply was: “We close at five.”

At 8:23 p.m. Richard was put to death.

The apparently callous handling of the case led to a storm of protest and headlines around the world. Keller later claimed that she had been unaware of the lawyers’ technical problems.

Keller faces charges including denying the rights of a condemned man. She is the highest-ranking judge to face misconduct proceedings.

A Republican, she has a reputation for her tough approach to justice in a state known already for its hard line on crime. In 1998 she ruled in a case involving a man with learning difficulties, denying him a retrial despite DNA evidence that appeared to prove his innocence.

[thanks to crazytales562 and Free Internet Press / CC BY 3.0]

Related Posts:

• The Craziest Notice of Appeal Ever
• Judge Gives His Verdict on Lawyers Gone Wild
• The Best Way to Hire a Lawyer: How It Feels to Be a Judge
• Lawsuit Against Banking Lawyer for Reckless Misconduct
• Why Law School Has Not Lost Its Appeal To Me

Can the law ever become too lenient? Everybody is familiar with the tag line “ignorance of the law excuses no one” and true to its strictest sense, no one, even those in privileged positions are excused from any of the provisions of the law. If you committed your transgressions and violated any of these provisions of the law, you are directly subjected to the scrutinizing eyes of the court. When faced with such a prospect, you need to protect yourself and get a legal professional to defend you.

Expectations for a Defense Lawyer

Who else do you turn to other than a defense lawyer? Typically, the government provides the services of a public defense lawyer should the person be financially incapable of paying for their legal counsel. Of course, a defendant with financial means at the disposal can definitely bring forth his personal lawyer.

Now, what are the usual thoughts that go through your mind when thinking about the services that a defense lawyer will provide for you? Are they not supposed to be the ones defending their clients against the impending punishment looming over their heads? Moreover, defense lawyers are also expected to keep abreast of the entirety of the list of laws which the Constitution or the Law of the Land embodies. Lawyers are also expected to carry themselves with dignity, professionalism, and style at all times as well. This entire concept has been entirely shoved to the side in the case of attorney Adam Reposa.

Defense Attorney Adam Reposa Crosses the Line

At 33, Adam Reposa, an Austin defense lawyer was charged with criminal contempt of court as he made the gross mistake of committing lewd gestures in the courtroom right before the eyes of County Court-at-Law Judge Jan Breland. Reposa allegedly aimed his simulated masturbatory gesture directly at Judge Breland and the judge found this act to be malicious and contemptuous, to say the least. As a result, the Austin defense lawyer was led out of the Heman Sweatt Travis County courtroom bearing handcuffs. For this misdemeanor, defense lawyer Reposa has been sentenced to jail for a period of 90 days. District Judge Paul Davis has stressed that he was proud to clear things out in order to “uphold the integrity of the judicial process”.

How Reposa gesture came about was while defending his client on the charge of driving while under the influence of alcohol. What the court didn’t expect was the dramatic turn of of events. In the course of representing his client, he suddenly looked directly at prosecutor Richard Gentry, rolled his eyes, and pulled off the obscene gesture during the pretrial hearing. Judge Breland found Reposa’s actions to be “intentional and contumacious conduct during the court’s review of the plea bargain offer to his client before jury trial.”

When Contempt is Part of the Legal Picture

In basic terms, contempt of court is a civil infringement with a criminal punishment. Retired Judge Davis was assigned to hear the complaint filed by Judge Brendal. Judge Davis clarified that contempt of court is a complaint filed against a persona whenever the court decorum is violated for any grounds applicable. The judge noted that Reposa seemed to be undecided on whether to admit his fault or justify his act because he reportedly did both things during the hearing that took place in the county attorney’s office. Reposa also tried to argue that he didn’t intend the gesture for the judge but instead it was meant for the prosecutor.

In case you were wondering, Reposa’s name is listed on the State Bar Web site as Adam “Bulletproof” Reposa.

(Click to view image full-size)

Related Posts:

• A Tale of Drama in the Local Court House
• 16 Tips to Become a Better Personal Injury Lawyer
• The Best Way to Hire a Lawyer: How It Feels to Be a Judge
• Nevada Supreme Court Justice Robert Rose Retires
• 15 Rules for Clients to Find and Keep a Great Lawyer

Imagine carrying a sign in front of the local courthouse that reads: “I stole from a local store.”

Imagine doing that at 12pm. Under the hot beating sun. With sweat dripping down your forehead. For two hours.

If you get caught stealing and you end up in Putnam County Judge Peter Miller’s courtroom, that just might be your punishment.

”It is better than going to jail, but it’s not fair,” said Rashane Lewis, who was arrested for being the lookout in a Wal-Mart while a friend of hers took some children clothes.

Over the past twelve years, Judge Miller has sentenced over 600 people to these unusual punishments either outside the courthouse or at the store where the incident took place. Walking around with an embrassing sign is his preferred method to deal with shoplifters.

According to the administration of the Putnam Count probation system has said only three of Judge Miller’s sign carriers has repeated their offense. He, along with other judges around the United States believe that public penitence, involving some sort of public humiliation works to rehabilitate convicted offenders.

‘If you see someone marching up and down in front of a store, you may think twice before stealing. I’m not going to say it is going to prevent it, but it will stop the one who did it from doing it again,” said Judge Miller.

He gives the offenders an option. Take a 30-60 day jail sentence or endure two hours of public embarassment. Along with their choice, they must perform 25 hours of community service, they have six months of probation and they are fined $294.

Like I mentioned earlier, Judge Miller isn’t the only judge in the U.S. to have these unusual and creative sentencing ideas.

Take Ohio Municipal Court Judge Michael A. Cicconetti in Painesville for example. Teens had yelled “Pigs” to some local police officers. He had the teens stand on a busy street corner with a pig and a sign reading, “This is not a police officer.” He had three men who were arrested for soliciting prostitution wear chicken suits and carry a sign with them that read, “There is no chicken ranch in Painesville.” He also sentenced a couple who stole a baby Jesus statue from a manger to dress up as the Virgin Mary and Joseph and walk around Painesville with a donkey at their side.

In Harris County, Texas Judge Larry Standley had a man who hit his wife take yoga classes as a form of anger management.

In San Francisco, a man convicted of mail fraud was sentence by a judge to walk outside of a post office with a sign reading, “I stole mail. This is my punishment.”

“We don’t like it, but what he does is legal,” says Assistant Public Defender Mack Brunton. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this is his way to encourage them not to do it again. It seems to work fairly well.” When defendents are given the option of either jail or carrying a sign, most people “cringe.”

“They hate it. They would rather jump off a cliff than carry the sign. They would pay more money. They would swim the English Channel,” says Mr. Brunton.

There is precedent for these public humiliation sentences in history, so don’t think this is anything new. Back in colonial times, those that broke the law were made to sit in stocks, which consisted of a frame in which the culprit’s hands and/or feet were confined while the offender remained seated. Villagers would taunt these people and throw rotten fruits and vegetables. And yes, they would sometimes even throw excrement. That’s when you know your neighbors really don’t like you.

A Connecticut professor at the Quinnipiac University School of Law named Quilliam V. Dunlap has researched cases that end in an usual sentence. He hasn’t come across any studies that reveal anything about whether jail time or public humiliation is a better crime deterrent.

”They don’t amount to cruel and unusual punishment. They are unusual, but most of them as not as cruel as sending someone to jail or prison,” said Mr. Dunlap.

Even though it may be preferable to jail time, those that have to undergo the humiliation don’t seem to like it. “This is just a humiliating stunt,” said Wal-Mart shoplifter Rashane Lewis.

Related Posts:

• Public Defenders or Private Defense Lawyers: Who’s Better?
• Alabama Refuses the Sale of Sex Toys Due to Public Morality Regulation
• Nebraska Court Throws Out Claim For T-shirt That Caught Fire
• Sharon Keller or Sharon Killer: Texas Judge Refuses to Hear Appeal and Now Put on Trial
• Lawyer Held in Contempt of Court for Pretending to Masturbate

From shlep:

Nevada Supreme Court Justice Robert Rose retired on Dec. 29, 2006, after 18 years on the high court.  In an interview given to the Nevada Appeal, “Justice Rose says it’s time to step aside (Jan. 15, 2007), the retiring justice listed helping to create Nevada’s pro se assistance programs high on the list of his accomplishments.  According to the Appeal:

One effort he says he spearheaded is the “Pro Se Counsel” program designed to help litigants who don’t have legal counsel. Rose said the system now provides more than 500 different forms to help those without lawyers handle issues, including divorce and guardianship to landlord-tenant disputes.

“That will probably help more people than anything else I’ve done on the Nevada Supreme Court,” he said (emphasis added).

I’ve been praising Nevada’s efforts to help pro se litigants for years.  The Clark County Family Law Self Help Center, in Las Vegas, is an excellent example. (see our prior post for some remarkable statistics on the use of the Self Help Center in Clark County).  As Chief Justice, Robert Rose had his priorities straight and his efforts should be applauded. [By the way, he had his priorities straight in 1977, when, as lieutenant governor and president of the state Senate, he broke a tie to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.  That vote cost him the gubernatorial election in 1978 and sent Rose back to practicing law.  Instead of a career in politics that had been predicted to make him governor and then U.S. Senator, Bob Rose was soon a superior court judge and won election to the Supreme Court in 1988.]

• You’ll find links to the 500+ Nevada standardized court forms in the SideBar of the courts’ pro se resources page.

Related Posts:

• Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks at the University of Miami
• A Virtual Tour of the Federal Supreme Court
• Lawyer Held in Contempt of Court for Pretending to Masturbate
• Question: Does Mediation Undermine Justice?

From Illinois Trial Practice:

“This is a grudge match,” begins Judge Easterbrook’s opinion in Redwood v. Dobson. The case concerns bad behavior by lawyers in depositions. It’s an opinion with an undeniable entertainment value, though you have to keep in mind, as Easterbrook himself points out, that the behavior by the lawyers described in the case is “not as bad as the insult-riddled performance by Joe Jamail that incensed the Supreme Court of Delaware.”

If you’re keeping score, lawyers on both sides of the case behaved badly. By the end of the opinion, Easterbrook takes it upon himself to “censure” some of them and “admonish” another, the latter sanction being not so harsh as the former. Here’s a recounting of some of the lawyers’ wrongs–

• Asking harassing questions;
• Feigning an inability to remember;
• Pretending not to understand ordinary words;
• Giving improper instructions not to respond.

Did I mention the deponent was a lawyer? If you decide to read the case for its practical tips, Easterbrook’s opinion explains the few circumstances in which a deponent can be instructed not to answer a question under the federal rules. “A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation directed by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(4).” Note that being harassed isn’t on the list. In that event, the defending lawyer must call off the deposition and apply for a protective order.

The deponent, meanwhile, may be entitled to “stalk out of the room,” though that part of Easterbrook’s opinion might merely be dicta.

Related Posts:

• Bad Behavior of Lawyers, Cartoons, Novels, White Castles, and Blogging
• How Witnesses Lie to Lawyers
• The Best Way to Hire a Lawyer: How It Feels to Be a Judge
• Public Defenders or Private Defense Lawyers: Who’s Better?
• The Stupidest Things Lawyers and Witnesses Say In a Court of Law