The Finale

I spent upwards of an hour creating a nifty timeline of events throughout law school. I ended up deleting it. It was unconscionably long-winded. You only need to know a few things.

The past 4 years have been a most difficult in mine and Heather's lives. Yet they have been the most rewarding. I have witnessed God wonderfully weave some of the most seemingly impossible situations together for a finale that simply leaves me in awe.

Each time a new year of law school began there was a challenge. Whether that challenge was a beautiful new daughter, or finances, we (myself and my wife, Heather) made it through.

This finale did not come easy. There were many late night study sessions. There were many conversations with my father where I confided that I was unsure if I could endure the stresses of law school. The difficulty of balancing a family, school and a career tested both me and my wife.

In the end you HAVE to want it bad enough to get it. There were 100+ students sitting in a law school classroom 4 years ago who thought they wanted it bad enough. It turns out approximately 50 had what it takes to make it.

I juggled three jobs, school, and a family, humbly stating that I'll be graduating in the top 20% of my class. Whatever dream or desire you have, go for it! But go for it with the full intent to achieve it. Attempting your dream at anything less will cause you to fall short.

This is my last blog post as a law student. I'll be taking a break from blogging while I study for the February 2013 bar exam. Judging from my number of page views, I haven't scared all of you off yet! This blog has been a healthy outlet for me throughout my law school years. There have been a few posts where I dared to admit not "having it all together" and was downright honest. Those posts were the most therapeutic. I hope you enjoyed at least some of the posts.

It is my full intent that my next post will be as a licensed attorney. Until then, thank you for reading.

Concede, don't be conceited

Conceding in the legal world, as in the real world, goes against human nature. It usually consists of acknowledging a fact or point of law that goes against your client's case. However, when properly used, it conveys the savvy-ness of an attorney. It indicates that an attorney has taken their blinders off and has considered the other side's point of view. It also indicates a modicum of humility.

No one likes to admit their weaknesses. Lawyers are no exception. The adage of "lead with your best argument" is still certainly true. However, there is no such thing as a perfect case and/or client. Lawyers better serve their clients by addressing weaknesses after presenting their best argument. To do this shows that you fully understand the issues. It also potentially takes away the sting of the opposing attorney stating your weaknesses when you blindly ignores them.

I recently dealt with an attorney who distorted our client's deposition in a motion to dismiss that he filed with the court. Not only did he misrepresent our client's testimony, he made false statements in the actual motion. Countering his motion was simple: state what our client actually said. This lawyer adopted such a one-sided view that he allowed it to cloud his judgment. After I brought up the many weaknesses of his argument in a responsive motion, he dropped his motion and decided to settle the case. If he had simply conceded certain things that were true, he may have been able to sting our client more effectively.

Refusing to admit weaknesses makes you appear conceited. Concede and leave your reputation intact.

Take My Case

If you're looking for humor in the legal world, there's not a lot around. But one thing that humors me is how differently people appraoch the process of hiring an attorney. This runs the gamut from those who want to hire your law firm over the phone to those who ask twenty precautionary interview-type questions before discussing their actual situation.

I regularly speak with people who are so convinced they have a case and want to hire us. I take the time to explain why they don't have a case. At this point, one of two things happens:

A. The person understands and thanks me for my time, the call ends.
B. The person gets upset that we have "rejected" their case and the proceeds to attempt to sell me their case. My patience wears thin and my responses dwindle to single words.

The A option makes my day much easier than B.

A very good attorney who taught two classes I took gave this sage advice:

"You'll make more money on the cases that you turn down, rather than on the ones you take"

Well taken.

David vs. Goliath

A few months back I was approached at work with a problem. A client of ours had a recently pled guilty to criminal charges and now the opposing attorney for our client's civil case filed a motion to dismiss based on what he deemed to be perjury in our client's deposition.

The lead attorney on the client's civil case asked if I would draft the response to the motion to dismiss. I instantly said that I would, only to have the reality of the difficulty I now faced crush my elation from being asked to do it. I had never written a motion to dismiss, let alone a response.

This was my chance to prove my potential. My big shot at impressing the boss. I spent the next four days putting every ounce of mental energy into my response. After several revisions, I finally mustered the courage to show my boss. He was impressed. However, that was the easy part. The million dollar question: would the judge be impressed?

Said response was filed and days went by. A few days before the hearing, the opposing attorney called and cancelled the hearing. He made an excuse that he couldn't attend, but we knew the writing on the wall. His motion to dismiss had virtually no merit, and my boss gladly allowed me to professionally call him out on it in our response.

Fast forward two months and the client received a very good settlement at mediation. Today the client's check came in. I couldn't help but think how far off that check seemed when I was first drafting the response.

Did my response solely save the client's case? No, we have a great time of people that built up the client's case along the way. But I believe years from now I'll look back and remember this as my first David vs Goliath moment, where you face something that seems infinitely bigger than you. As I will soon be the "newbie" in the attorney world, it surely won't be my last.

Exit Strategy

"What are your plans after passing the bar? What kind of law do you want to practice?"

With graduation less than five months away, these questions seem to intensify by friends and family. The truth is, for a few years I've known exactly where I want to go. As far as what, well, that's still working itself out.

More than four years ago, I began working at a small company. Having a "corporate" job immediately before, the new found freedom and independence of working for a small company was an eye-opening and life-changing experience.

Even now, as I work for a small law firm, I love the independence, freedom, lack of intrusion, and camaraderie of a small firm.  

After speaking with lawyers who worked for medium-large size firms, I came to the conclusion that I'd gladly exchange somewhat higher initial pay and the farce of job security for a smaller firm.

For those close to me, you know what my plans are. I've been associating with a close, successful attorney for the past few years. We've discovered success as a attorney/assistant team, and I can't wait to see the success we can bring as an attorney duo in the years to come.

New firm name and details to come soon!

Back to the Beginning

Recently I met a guy who walked into law school beaming from ear to ear. As any of my law classmates will attest to, this is rare, because most of us have looks of disappointment as we yet again walk through the school doors for 3.5 hours of mental torture. Not that we regret going to law school, but we're ready to get out after almost 4 years.

As I would discover, my beaming friend just received his acceptance letter. Speaking with him brought flashbacks of my fateful walk to the mailbox when I noticed the letter from law school. Had I been accepted or rejected? After all, I did dedicate a few months into both studying for and taking the LSAT with no guarantee I'd get in to law school. Had my efforts been wasted?

I'll never forget that evening in November 2008 when I found out I'd been accepted to law school. Several joyous phone calls later, I still couldn't believe it.

My newfound friend was full of questions, and I was happy to oblige him. His demeanor was refreshing. You meet so many law students that are burned out, it's nice to speak with someone full of energy (granted, becoming accepted to law school is the first step of one-thousand before graduation).

To my new friend: best of luck over the next four years. To those, like me, who are due to graduate this December, or next May, never forget the excitement of receiving your acceptance letter.

Law School: A safety net for those who think they're smart

I began law school proud of myself. Proud that I had "made it in". I wore my law student badge with honor. This now-humorous self-held honor continued after I passed my first year of law school. I had gone from "making it in" to "making it". First year is a critical test of who's got the stuff and who doesn't.

Fortunately, for the better of myself and those around me (mainly my wife!), I've moved on from these internal shananigans.

Law school is a safety net for those who think they're smart. Hypothetical questions are pondered to infinity (to my utmost disdain). Law school exams can be hard and taxing on the writing hand, but generally your client is an upstanding citizen and there's a clear legal result for them. You answer the question to get the highest grade.

Then there's the real world. Where your client has a criminal record, past medical injuries, and maybe even a child support arrearage. You client is broke and comes to your office in tears asking for a loan. Your heartstrings are pulled, but that pesky ethical rule says you have to say "No".

I'll finish school this December, pass the bar next February (fingers-crossed), and begin practicing law. The safety net will be gone. Honestly, I'm anxious to see it go.

Working for my father and a law firm has shown me that law school is the tip of the iceberg, and reality is the 90% you don't see that's underwater.

But be careful, reality is the bottom portion that can sink your legal career.

Martin, Zimmerman, and Hearsay

Regardless of your personal opinion about what happened between Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, you weren't there. I wasn't there. Any information that you form your opinion on regarding this tragedy is hearsay. No matter how right you think you are that George in fact did/ did not act in self-defense, your belief is based on second-hand information. This information has been tainted, to some degree, as it's been passed down to you.

What blows me away about this tragedy is our ability to form an opinion, and steadfastly hold to it, all while relying on this second-hand information, hearsay.

Perhaps "innocent until proven guilty" is a time-honored adage we merely now pay hollow respect to. We think it's a good concept in theory, but when it comes to the practical application, we throw it out the window.

If you've formed your belief as to whether George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense, that's fine. But for those that go out of their way to malign the application of objectivity and would seek to have George Zimmerman arrested, prosecuted, or whatever, without actual first-hand knowledge of the transpiration of the tragic event, please shut up.

Do I have a case?

"Do I have a case?"

I am asked this question every day. While legal ethical rules prevent me as a law student from answering the question on its face, I can ask questions to see if our firm is interested in possibly taking on the case.

If there's anything I've learned in my short tenure working for a law firm, it's that people's expectations often far exceed the reality of their situation. Law, like every other business, comes down to customer service. When your customers have overblown expectations from the beginning, it's imperative that you insert realism immediately. Otherwise attempting to correct their expectations becomes a hopeless effort, and no amount of money will ever bring them "justice". They will forever retain the chip on their shoulder.

For these types of clients, lawyers are really just glorified babysitters. Perhaps it's the Bart Durhams and Hughes & Colemans, displaying glorious sums of money with puffed-up promises of justice that are the problem.

One of my worst pet peeves is someone asking, "What are my rights?". This question confuses criminal and civil law (Yes, you have a right to a jury trial in a civil matter under the 7th Amendment, but that's about it). It immediately tells me that this person will be difficult to deal with. They've seen too many lawyer commercials.

One of the worst things to do when calling a law office is to argue with the paralegal or lawyer about why you think you have a case. At our office, we have over 100 years of collective legal experience and it amazes me when a person voluntarily inserts themself into a legal argument with myself or our staff having little or no understanding of the law. Besides raising the red flag that we don't want you as a client, you come across as an idiot.

Practicing/working in the legal field can be tolling. Clients aren't always appreciative and sometimes accuse you of mishandling their claims when in fact the client really didn't have a strong case to begin with.

The most important lesson I've learned is to have the attitude of a servant. This includes not belittling those who lack legal understanding even when it's extremely warranted. It means smiling as a client yells through the phone that you're not doing a good enough job.

The kind words of thanks of appreciative clients make it worth it, and you have the satisfaction of knowing you guided your fellow man through a long, complicated process and achieved for them a favorable result.

Actually, 15 Minutes or Less Can Cost You...

     The majority of calls I receive at my job are from people involved in car accidents. The biggest problem besides who's at fault is whether the at-fault driver had insurance. If not, then the the not-at-fault driver must have uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, often referred to as UM Coverage, before I can discuss our firm representing them. I'm using this post to get on my soapbox and plead with you to make sure you have enough UM coverage on your policy.

     For most people, UM coverage is an afterthought. They want enough liability so they can't be personally sued, but don't fully consider the results in the event that they're hit by someone who has no insurance at all.

     For example, John Smith has $100,000 per person/$300,000 per incident liability coverage, which these days is adequate at best. But he decides to skimp on his UM, and elects for $25,000 per person/$50,000 per incident UM coverage. Years go by and John one day has a head-on collision caused by the approaching car veering into his lane improperly. John and his wife sustain life-threatening injuries and have to be transported to Vanderbilt's Trauma Center via Life-Flight Helicopter, which costs approximately $25,000-$35,000 per person. 

     Unfortunately for John, the at-fault driver allowed his insurance policy to lapse. John must now rely on his UM coverage, but only has $50,000 of UM coverage for his wife and himself. The Life-Flight bill alone has devoured this entire $50,000. It takes John and his wife four weeks in the trauma center to recover, now they face six-figure hospital bills, for which there's no remaining insurance to cover.

     Sure, John can sue the at-fault driver, but that driver likely won't have any assets because his house is mortgaged and car is financed. You must have something of value that doesn't have any loan/lien/mortgage against it in order "connect" it, or execute it upon a judgment. Sure you can sue the guy, but at the end of the day you have a worthless judgment if you can't execute on it.

     I cannot tell you how many John Smiths I talk to on a weekly basis. I cannot begin to describe the heart-ache of lost jobs, homes, and utter financial ruin that I hear all the time. You can literally hear the regret in their voice from having purchased "cheaper" insurance.

     Check your UM coverage and make sure it's enough to adequately cover YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! I personally recommend at least $100,000 per person/$300,000 per incident. UM coverage is relatively cheap and in the unfortunate event another driver causes an accident in which you are involved and doesn't have insurance, you are covered.

     Finally, by TN law your insurance company cannot increase your insurance premium if you end up filing a UM claim. There is literally no downside to having a lot of UM coverage.

Steve Jobs and how Apple overtook my house

I absolutely devoured Walter Isaacson's biography on Steve Jobs, finishing it in six days. I am fascinated with the process of reading, watching, whatever of someone's rise to success. I finished the book with mixed feelings. Jobs basically abandoned his first daughter, only trying to reconnect with her later on in life. He was infamous for having an explosive temper in pursuit of relentless attention to detail. However, the result of this pursuit produced some of the most beautiful, innovative products to date.

What amazed me the most was Jobs' ingeniousness in design. There was no market research into what shape and color a product it should be. Simple and beautiful were Jobs' passion for his products.

I remember my first year in law school when I first saw it. My friend's aluminum Macbook. It looked more expensive than any other laptop I'd ever seen. It was also a sleek, simple design. I immediately wanted one, but I had never owned a Mac.

Fast forward a year later and I bought my first MacBook, a used white 2006 model. I spent an entire day learning the OS and fell in love with Apple's layout. Where on a PC, I had to go through 10 steps to make one change, on my Mac it took 2 steps. It was simple, not intimidating.

I continued to enjoy my used Mac, but quietly desired my friend's aluminum model. A year later, I upgraded to the black Macbook. Later that year, I got an iPhone. Dragging songs and playlists onto my iPhone was a breeze. I loved the iOS layout. My daughter, Violet, soon fell in love with my iPhone, enjoying the kids apps like piano and drawing.

The next summer, my wife needed a home computer. I lovingly pushed the idea of an iPad. We got her the iPad 2 last summer.

I finally got my coveted aluminum MacBook earlier this year. The sleek aluminum design and build is more visually appealing than any other manufacturer right now.

The beauty of Apple products lies in the fact that my two year old can successfully operate an iPhone and iPad, opening apps, playing them, scrolling through them, and returning to the main screen when needed. For a kid whose attention can't be held for more than thirty seconds, she'll spend 30 minutes playing with my wife's iPad uninterrupted.

Additionally, the build quality of Apple products is phenominal. I have no qualms purchasing used Macbooks, because they rarely have any issues. I previously had a Dell laptop, purchased new for me from my parents, that worked wonderfully for a year. Then I started getting the "blue screen of death" for no apparent reason.

In Isaacson's book, he thoroughly addressed Jobs' persistence in creating a closed loop design, that the software and hardware be tightly integrated with no allowances for intrusion. While Microsoft made billions in licesning its software, Apple OS was strictly for Apple. This tight integration created a secure user experience, granted a sheltered one.

Personally, I prefer a more "closed loop" system. I quicky grew sick of viruses that daily plagued my PC. Since owning Mac products in 2010, I've never had a single instance dealing with a virus, on any device. I know many people like the customization apsect of Windows and Android devices, but to each their own.

Jobs was far from perfect, not the best father and husband that walked the earth. But he was a visionary, he stressed beautiful design and ease of use. He saw the future and demanded people follow him there with his products. He created a computer and phone that a two year old could successfully operate, no small feat.

Tort Reform: An Empty Solution

Forget McDonald's and hot coffee. That didn't happen in Tennessee. Yet, somehow we've been told that we need to "reign in" runaway high-dollar verdicts. The facts, however, paint a VERY different picture.

The Tennessee Jury Verdict Reporter compiles a list of jury verdicts for every tort category. It also ingeniously categorizes million-dollar verdicts and averages them over a six year period against the total number of all jury verdicts (regardless of dollar amount) for that same six-year period, giving you a hard percentage of how much million-dollar jury verdicts make up of the total number of jury verdicts.

Between 2005 and 2010, there were a total of 84 jury verdicts for at least $1 million. Care to guess the percentage of all jury verdicts these 84 made up? Come on, just guess!

4.74%. What!

To put it another way, a plaintiff has a mere approximate 1 in 25 chance of obtaining a million-dollar judgment. Yet our legislators consider these odds enough of a threat to spend valuable tax-payers dollars to enact legislation to combat these "crazy" jury verdicts.

More importantly, an overwhelming majority of these 84 million-dollar jury verdicts were a result of a catastrophic death or injury, leaving those fortunate to survive incapacitated or restricted to wheelchairs or bed-ridden for the rest of their lives.

And legislature convincing us that safeguards need to be in place to prevent excess awards was appropriate for what reason? Exactly.