Author Archives: Amy Farr Robertson

Unknown's avatar

About Amy Farr Robertson

Civil Rights Lawyer. Dog Lover. Smartass.

Client-Centered Practice

A few years back, when I started to co-counsel with the University of Denver Civil Rights Clinic, I started hearing about “client-centered lawyering.”  “Yeah yeah yeah” I thought, “I listen to my clients, too.”  But as I worked more closely with the professors and students at the clinic, I came to appreciate the extra layer of thought and respect that this brought to the representation.  Often I would find myself proposing a perfectly rational, highly effective, kick-ass course of action, only to hear a student or professor say, “I wonder how our client would feel about that.”  Or I would prepare to tell the client why our proposed course of action was right, just, logical, and effective, and a student or professor would suggest that perhaps we first talk with the client about his goals.

It has been a good learning process for an experienced lawyer, especially one who cut her teeth as the nth chair associate in a giant firm — representing large corporate clients, where the client’s moral, ethical, and personal goals for the litigation were as distant as the moon — and then moved into a plaintiffs’ class action practice, where the “client” is simultaneously the individual and the class.

Client-centered lawyering has been at the top of my head for a variety of reasons, and so it was this morning as I read this account of parents — a blind mother and sighted father — meeting with the education bureaucrats who were making decisions for their blind daughter.*  The question was, what sort of cane should the daughter be provided and taught to use?  First, for me, a lesson in the fact that there are multiple types of white canes:

The discussion surrounds the selection of which cane Marley is to use, we want the longer, lighter white cane, while she feels that a much shorter, 3x heavier with a que ball end cane is the “best choice”.

The writer/dad discusses the practical pros and cons of the two types of cane, along with this essential history:

Most importantly, the difference SYMBOLICALLY from the short, red ended heavy cane vs the long white cane. The standard cane originates in the UK circa 1921, by James Biggs, who found himself newly blind and painted his walking stick to become more visible. (White cane, Wikipedia.org). The long cane was developed in 1958 by the Iowa chapter of the National Federation of the Blind, designed to “enable us to walk faster without diminishing either safety or grace”(The Nature of Independence by Dr. Kenneth Jernigan, NFB.org) One was created from a “discomfort from the amount of traffic around his home”, and designed for the purpose of “being more visible”. Of its entire development from England in the 20’s, to France in the 30’s and the lions club in America in the 50’s, the main theme from its inception, to its development and adoption into law, is the concept of “visibility”, alerting others of a blind person. In contrast, the long white cane was created from a dissatisfaction for “the short, heavy… type, and we youngsters associated carrying a cane with begging, shuffling along, and being helpless”, and designed for the purpose of “advancing on the road to freedom and independence”(Jernigan). And THOSE are facts…
~In short, one symbolizes “look out, I am a handicapped person, and I can’t get around that good”, while the other symbolizes “look out, I’m a handicapable person, and I’m coming through!”

And here was the response of the “Orientation and Mobility Professional” in a meeting with the writer, his wife, and the daughter’s educational team:

Every time we speak about what the white cane means, or mention the philosophy of advocacy and higher expectations/ standards we live by and expect for ourselves, including Marley, a look of sheer disgust smears across this teachers face, followed by a heavy roll of the eyes and pulling of her brows as high as she can, finishing off with a sarcastic smile to the others (Marley’s principle, kindergarten teacher, low vision teacher and special services coordinator) CLEARLY saying without using words, “who the fuck do you think you are to make decisions for your daughter, & I can’t believe we’re wasting our time listening to his shit folks”.

The words she IS using is, “what training and credentials do you have in orientation & mobility (O&M)” (to have a say in the course of your daughters independence development). She says, “I have a masters in O&M, and YEARS of experience”, she says, “Marley’s white cane with metal tip is a danger to others”.

The writer sums it up succinctly in what seems to me to be the absolute 180-degree opposite of a client-centered approach:  “I look at these divine and almighty credentials of hers as a hindrance, she has had 6 years of formal training on how a sighted person tells a blind person what’s best for them.”  It made me stop and think:  when is my law degree a hindrance to helping people achieve their real goals.  True, when they have selected law to achieve those goals, I have 30 years (starting from first year law school) of experience in how to use the tools of the legal system to achieve those goals.  But I can’t tell them what their goals are or should be.  And it is incumbent on me to provide [legal, ethical] options, and not only the options that I think achieve the goals I think they ought to have.

But client-centeredness needs to escape legal clinics and law journal articles and inform medical, social service, education, and other practices were the folks with the fancy degrees and certificates think it’s a license to tell their clients what’s best for them.  In addition, while I’m sure it’s a problem everywhere people with training and degrees use those skills to help people who lack same, but are ass-deep in their own lives, I’d venture it’s a larger problem in the world of disability.  People with disabilities know their own bodies, skills, and strategies often far better than the credentialed doctors, teachers, and social workers tasked with evaluating their lives and doling out treatment and resources.  These practices need a giant dose of client-centeredness to avoid the absurd and appalling circumstances of a sighted professional telling a blind father what was best for his blind daughter to navigate the world.

Also this particular “O&M Professional” should please go fuck herself.

**********

* This FB post also appears in the blog Blind Mom in the Burbs.

Photo of the Day #potd

As part of my resolve to get off my behind and walk more (note, not run, bike, hike, rollerblade, sprint, climb, or rappel) , I’m determined to take and post one decent photo each day, starting . . .  three days ago.

There has got to be an interesting story here.  {Image: computer monitor sitting on the street in an alley, the right side singed black by fire.}

Today’s photo.

{Image: close up of leaf with dew drop.}

 

Things that are like Kim Davis

things that are like kim davis

{Image: the image is a Word table that can be viewed at this link.}

Things that are not like Kim Davis:

A person being drafted involuntarily into the military asserting conscientious objections to serving in the military.

The difference: the word “involuntarily.” Davis’s situation is like a pacifist enlisting in the all-volunteer army and then asserting conscientious objections to serving in the military.

It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), which is defined as

all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.

42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e(j) (emphasis added). So if you’re a county clerk and you want to wear a yarmulke or headscarf to work, you can because it will not affect the conduct of the employer’s business. If you are a pharmacist, the whole point of the employer’s business is to sell medicine, so you cannot require your employer to accommodate your Christian Scientist beliefs by removing one of your primary job duties.

Kim Davis is not a conscientious objector; she’s a person refusing to do her job or possibly a person who has the wrong job.

Update:  Eric commented

One difference: when Kim Davis took her job, issuing gay marriage licenses was NOT part of her job.

My easy and, I think, correct response was that issuing marriage licenses was part of the job.  That should be the end of the discussion.  But it made me think:  how would I handle Kim Davis’s case if it were a real case — as opposed to a publicity stunt — and she came to me for legal advice?  Distasteful as I find her religious views, I would advocate a role for her that did not require her to personally issue marriage licenses to people she did not approve of.*  There appear to be a number of employees in the clerk’s office willing to issue all legal licenses; if the office could permit her to refuse to issue such licenses “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business,” I think that would be permitted.  The distinction is like a Wal-Mart employee who won’t sell guns — which should be permitted as it’s an enormous store with plenty of other tasks — and a gun store employee who won’t sell guns — which will cause undue hardship as the employer would be paying the employee to do nothing.

The problem with this analysis for Davis is that she apparently instructed the rest of her staff not to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, which did cause hardship in that the entire office ceased to be able to do one of the things it is tasked with doing.

*******

*The test for religious accommodation requires sincerity but sadly not consistency, so she can decide to disapprove of gay and lesbian couples, while continuing to issue licenses to people of other (and different) faiths, divorce(e)s, child abusers, tax cheats, lusters, gluttons, sloths, greedy bastards and other sinners, deadly or otherwise.

Amy’s Recipe for Perfect Iced Coffee

  1. Use Equal Exchange French roast coffee in a French press to make approximately 1/2 cup too much exquisitely  strong coffee in the early morning.
  2. Don’t drink all of it.
  3. Sometime in the afternoon, poor remainder over ice.
  4. Enjoy!

Coal company asks court to strike protest song lyrics from activists’ lawsuit

Coal company asks court to strike protest song lyrics from activists’ lawsuit.

{Image: four parallel coal trains rounding a bend in the track, the front two with coal cars full of coal.}

Image credit: energycatalyzer3.com

There is just so much to love about this.  That the plaintiffs’ lawyer — our friend Darold Killmer — included John Prine’s beautiful lyrics in his complaint.

Then the coal company came with the world’s largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man …
And daddy won’t you take me back to Muhlenberg County
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay?
Well, I’m sorry my son, but you’re too late in asking
Mister Peabody’s coal train has hauled it away.

That this annoyed Peabody Energy, the defendant.  That they were so annoyed and clueless that they moved to strike the lyrics as “irrelevant, immaterial, impertinent and/or inflammatory.”   (I love “impertinent” with its overtones of the Dowager Countess of Downton Abbey.)  That this motion gave Darold the opportunity to write things like this:

Defendant Peabody Energy Corp. has paid its lawyers thousands of dollars to submit a 17 page brief in support of its four page Motion to Strike song lyrics from the Complaint because . . .   it wants “to avoid the expenditure of time and money that must arise from litigating spurious issues . . .”

and

A song can’t hurt Peabody, and recitation of a portion of the song will not cause Peabody undue difficulty or expense, except that which is self-inflicted.

and

Undersigned counsel is happy to report that the frequency of references to Bruce Springsteen’s lyrics in all types of legal writing is rising.

In fact, there is an entire section of the brief entitled “Non-Traditional Legal Writing is Good,” and I commend that to my vast audience of word nerds (hi, Mom!).

Obviously, the most delicious thing of all is that if Peabody had just put on its big-kid undies, ignored the lyrics, and moved on, no one would know.  Well, all of us with the privilege of hearing Darold recite his legal exploits would know, but it might not have surfaced outside the bar/bars of Denver.

Now, however, it’s in the ABA Journal.  And U.S. News & World Report.  And the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  And Wyoming Public Radio.

Self-inflicted, indeed!

In which I get interviewed for the 25th Anniversary of the ADA

An interested and interesting reporter, Maeve Conran, from Boulder’s KGNU, interviewed me for their series on the 25th anniversary of the ADA.  It was delightful to talk to her and I appreciate, as you’ll hear, that she just sort of let me talk, rather than chopping it up into sound bites.

This . . . for every unpleasant restaurant/access encounter we’ve ever had.

The whole thing is about 1:50, but the fun part starts at 1:21, if you’re really impatient.

From the USA Network series “Complications,” Ep. 6.   Here is a captioned version — in a link, not the original, because I’m not very good at screengrabs and the audio is messed up.

Remodel Timeline

Remodel timeline pt 1

Remodel timeline pt 2

{Image descriptions.  First is a simple vertical flow chart from “we sign a contract and pay a deposit” to “the contractor’s employees come to our house and remodel” to “we’re done.” Second is a scrambled and dysfunctional flow shart with aproximately 20 boxes connected with straight, overlapping, and squiggly lines. The contents of the boxes can be read (I hope) in this pdf.}

Biglaw Firm Decimates Summer Associate Program | Above the Law

http://abovethelaw.com/2015/06/biglaw-firm-decimates-summer-associate-program/

But think of the SOCIETAL cost as packs of feral law students roam the hot summer streets in their new suits looking for $100 lunches and getting in knife fights over memo formatting.

Justice Roberts: sketchy on law AND historical anthropology.

Justice Roberts cited the traditions of four cultures in his dissent on gay marriage. Here’s what he didn’t mention. – The Washington Post.

Yesterday we demonstrated that Justice Roberts’s grasp of the Constitution was sort of tenuous, in that he seemed to think that the right to due process and equal protection had to be put to popular vote.

Today, thanks to the intrepid frustrated anthropology majors at the Washington Post, we can examine Justice Roberts’s grasp of that subject.

Justice Roberts’s dissent in the marriage equality case provided examples of long-standing, widespread history of sanctimonous sanctified man/woman marriages, harrumphing that, with the Obergefell decision,

the Court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the States and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs. Just who do we think we are?

Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556, 2015 WL 2473451, at *24 (U.S. June 26, 2015).

Before we get to anthropology, I’ll visit the last question quickly:  I hope you think you’re Supreme Court justices, because that’s what we’re paying you to be.  In that case, again Con Law 101, you get to “say what the law is.”   Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803).

But the WaPo had some fun with Roberts’s reference to the Kalahari, the Chinese, the Carthaginians, and the Aztecs.  Read the whole article, but here are some highlights:

  • Kalahari Bushman apparently had “polygamous households where lesbianism was common.”
  • During the Han dynasty in China, “homosexuality was rife” and almost all of the emperors apparently “had same-sex lovers.”*
  • According to at least one right-wing Italian scholar, Carthage “was a paradise for homosexuals.”
  • In Aztec law and custom, marriage could be “conditional” and “[p]olygamy and concubines were permitted.”**  And then there’s “the whole human sacrifice thing,” not directly related to the gender of people permitted to marry, but a cautionary note on taking legal advice from ancient cultures.

Image: drawing of several people stabbing and removing the hearts from others, with much blood.

Human sacrifice as shown in the Codex Magliabechiano, Folio 70, via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice_in_Aztec_culture

All of the justices have law clerks, who are all the biggest nerds from each Ivy League law school class each year.  Justice Roberts’s clerks couldn’t find examples that were not deflatable by a couple of minutes of Google research by a WaPo intern?

********

* Possibly Justice Roberts was comparing the Han Chinese to American government of the the Republican variety, where conservative lawmakers inveigh against marriage equality while keeping gay lovers or picking up guys in airport bathrooms.

** Again, Roberts may have been thinking of the subset of Republican marital values embodied by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.