One Simple Graph Explains Lawyer Stress

I’m a law nerd.  Out and proud.  Give me an interesting legal question, access to my Westlaw account, and a steady supply of seltzer and pasta, and I’ll be happy for days.  I’m also privileged to have the world’s best law partner (my husband) and the world’s coolest co-counsel, with essential qualities like a sense of humor, appreciation for good beer, and knowledge of excellent restaurants.  Oh, yeah, and they’re really freaking smart lawyers, too.

Why, then, would I ever experience stress?*  I submitted this question to the world’s most powerful computer, which analyzed years of data in the form of briefs, letters, and emails in my cases, applied a complex algorithm** decades in development, and came up with the following answer:  The Merits:Bullshit Ratio.  It is best understood as a graph:

This means, for example, that in the brief we will receive next week, the bullshit level will be at the far right-hand side of the chart.  The question at issue is very simple, and we’re right.***  So why should I stress?  Because the extremely low level of merit in the defendant’s position means — I promise you, this is a scientific fact — there will be an extremely high level of bullshit.


You lawyers know I’m right on this.  When you’re briefing a complex, interesting, multi-faceted question with some merit on both sides, the briefs tend to be substantive and relatively mature.  When you’re simply flat-out correct, and your opponent has no real argument, his briefs are filled with arguments that are the legal equivalent of “I’m rubber, you’re glue,” “takes one to know one,” and “you’re a poopyhead.”  In addition, of course, the level of italicized text goes up.  Further computer analysis generated this chart:


Having achieved the first part of our research goal (the charts above), I have asked the computer to generate a solution to the stress that results from reading too much bullshit.  Preliminary results indicate that the solution involves beer.  Stay tuned.

****************

* There are two other well-known reasons for lawyer stress.  One is the stress people feel when they really don’t want to be lawyers.  This is not my problem:  I really really love being a lawyer; I just hate the bullshit.  The other reason is trying to balance your lawyer-life with your family-life.  I have solved this problem by completely merging the two.  It’s not for everyone, but it works for us!

** I love that word.  Does it really mean anything other than “equation”?  I don’t think so but it makes you sound really cool!

*** We’re always right.  That’s why we take the cases we take.  Only civil defense counsel get paid to represent wrong positions.  If our client has a wrong position, we don’t eat or pay the rent.

Emotional correctness

No one was going to tell me how to mourn Paul Wellstone’s death, and no one is going to tell me how to celebrate Osama bin Laden’s death.

After Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash in 2002, his funeral became a catharsis for those who loved his brand of popular liberalism and had chafed at the pearl-clutching right-wing-defined patriotic correctness that had settled in after the initial bout of unity following the 9/11 attacks.  These were Wellstone’s friends and his political allies, experiencing the unexpected trauma of his death in a plane crash, during the period when that news was still raw.  It would have been an excellent opportunity for conservatives to shut the fuck up, as a polite individual might when talking to family members of some recently deceased jerk.  You would not tell the jerk’s spouse or parents that however they had chosen to express their grief at the funeral was inappropriate.  You would don your poker face and say, “I’m sorry for your loss.”  Yet the former was the uniform conservative — and then, in those days, inevitable mainstream media — response:  Liberals didn’t mourn correctly.

I think what’s saddest, to be honest, is the defensive tone of the Media Matters link, “debunking” the “myth” that Wellstone’s funeral was a political rally.  I say:  fuck yeah!  He was an unabashedly liberal politician; an upbeat, funny, articulate guy.  He would have loved for his funeral to be a political rally.  The only problem was in the heads and hearts of the critics for not understanding this, and in their brain/mouth filter for not stopping the absurd criticism of the mourners before it left their mouths or keyboards.

This criticism was heard again in response to the memorial service for the folks who died recently in Tucson and in the aftermath of Ted Kennedy’s death.  As someone who has lost a close family member I can say this:  anyone telling me how to mourn will be kicked somewhere painful.

Anyway, I had thought it was the province of conservatives to tell us how we should feel — to dictate emotional correctness — following traumatic national events.  But in the past few days, I’ve seen scolding from the left about celebrating the death of Osama Bin Laden.  Gimme a break!  This is a guy who killed 3000 civilians in one day within our borders, and is responsible for all sorts of other death and mayhem around the world.  We get a day or two of emotional catharsis.  I think this scolding reached the point of caricature in an article — I can’t find the link now — in which we were chided for celebrating bin Laden’s death when there were thousands of American children going hungry each night.  So we’re not allowed to celebrate solving one gigantic, hard-to-solve problem until we’ve solved them all?

Per the bumpersticker:  “Fuck Yeah” is not a Foreign Policy.  So if our entire response to bin Laden’s demise is celebratory swearing, it will be a mistake.  But fer pete’s sake — we get a night or two of jubilation that a bunch of kick-ass American soldiers took out a global menace.

Documenting the gelled mullet

Over on my brother’s truly funny blog, he fesses up to a Jim McMahon-style gelled mullet, but only offers indirect proof, that is, in the form of a photo of Jim McMahon.  I, however, have definitive proof of the actual Robertsonian gelled mullet:

My law school graduation in 1988.  I have several other compelling memories from that day, besides the usual getting a diploma, completing a major educational stage in my life, facing the future, blah blah blah.  I seem to recall that Dad spent most of the photography time trying to get Bruce to take off his sunglasses.  Ooops.  I also recall a wonderful family dinner at which Bruce and I had a great time making fun of the way the waiter said the word “Calvados” … not because we were great connoisseurs of  French brandy, but because we’d never heard of it before and thought it sounded hilarious.

Running and Stretching

So today I decided to stretch before running.  It took me a while to get around to it.  By which I mean that it was probably first recommended in about 1976 by my friend Monica when we would run together by the canal in Georgetown.  I’ve thought about it approximately every time I’ve run since then, but not actually gotten around to it until today.  I finally did the math:  scoliosis + couch potato habits + age = predictably bad results.  So: stretching.

Didn’t that last paragraph make it sound like I’ve been a runner since 1976?  Fooled you!  I have run during three phases in my life, which can conveniently be referred to by my running partners:  Monica; Jenny; and Saguaro (with a brief interlude of Laura).

I ran with Monica for a brief period in high school.  She had the decency to slow down and shorten considerably her long, crew-rowing-inspired runs on the towpath by the C&O canal to let me huff and puff alongside her.  This lasted, oh, about five scenic canal runs before the resurgence of my couch potato tendencies coincided with the end of Monica’s almost infinite patience, which end had been cleverly disguised by her almost infinite good manners.

I didn’t run again until college, when I ran with my roommate Jenny.  We were only actually roommates for second semester freshman year, when she very graciously did not object when I moved into the postage-stamp-sized “emergency double” that the housing folks had reassured her she would have as a single for the rest of the year.   But she will forever be “my roommate Jenny.”  We had roughly the same approach to running:  same speed; same frequency; and I believe the same number of runs before we got bored and stopped.  Or at least I did – Jenny probably runs marathons now.  Sigh.

I didn’t run again until we got our second dog, Saguaro, in 2007.  If you know me and are good at math, you’ll already have figured out that this is a roughly 25-year gap in my running career.  I didn’t even start running when we got our first dog in 2002.  Chinook is a very mellow dog, and was a very mellow puppy.  If we wanted to do things, he’d come along; if we wanted to veg, he vegged.  He fit right in.

Even though they are the same breed and technically cousins, Saguaro was a different dog right from the start.  For example, both dogs are golden retrievers, so we expected a certain amount of, well, retrieving.  Chinook fetched* but did not retrieve.  Ever.  He would run after tennis balls, sticks, Frisbees, etc, but would pick up the object and head off in a different direction, lie down, and chew on it.  Or just drop it out of boredom and find something else to do.  When fetching in lakes — which he does purely because he loves to swim — he generally brings the ball back to a point just far enough from shore that a wading human** cannot get to it without getting the bottom of her shorts wet.  The ponds of Chatfield are littered with Chinook’s tennis balls.  Saguaro has retrieved, accurately and persistently, since the day we brought him home at 7 weeks.  No training necessary.  The dog was simply born with a retriever gene that Chinook doesn’t have.

The difference in the dogs was also evident in their energy levels.  Chinook’s favorite exercise is rolling in the grass or snow

eating mulch, and sleeping.  Saguaro, if he doesn’t exercise fairly constantly, is (how can I put this gently about a dog I love with all my heart) a monumental pain in the ass.  He whines.  He paces.  He finds the Frisbee and shoves it in your face as you lie on the sofa taking your first break from the computer in six days.

When we spent a month vacationing in Tucson when Saguaro was four months old, it became clear that we needed a different approach to exercise than we had taken with Chinook (none).  Here, for example, is Saguaro in Tucson not getting the point of the afternoon’s activities:

So then began the third phase of my often-interrupted running career.  For those of you who want to know how to get back into running when you’re a 46-year-old couch potato, here’s how:  run with two dogs, at least one of whom will need to pee or poop every 50 yards or so, for approximately ¼ mile, turn around, and run home.  You will get slightly more exercise than this suggests mathematically because at two points in the run, you will need to find — and run to and from — a dumpster.  But I have run — with some brief interruptions — since then, working gradually up to my current distance:  one mile or two dog poops, whichever comes first.

The brief Laura interlude to the Saguaro phase:  My friend Laura does amazing things like teaching the next generation of lawyers how to be good litigators without being assholes . . . . AND running marathons.  Although she is generally brilliant, when I said I had taken up running, she made a category error and assumed that when I used the word “run” it meant the same thing as when she used the word “run.”  And so she invited me to “run” with her.  Once.  After the obligatory stops to wait for and clean up from doggie bathroom breaks, and after seriously considering calling an ambulance for me at about the 2 mile mark, she caught on, and has graciously limited herself to inviting me to run in charity races of 5K or less, which I still don’t finish, but which give us an extra chance to gossip in the car on the way over.

But I started to write about stretching because I finally stretched.  Today.  For the first time.  I discovered two things.   The first is that between being a body-unaware klutz and not being able to tell left from right,* it took me a freakishly long time to figure out what this diagram was telling me to do:

And I discovered that, like running, stretching is a group activity in our house.  The view from my stretches:

***************************************

* Past tense.  Since being joined by Saguaro, he doesn’t even fetch any more, but lets Saguaro handle the whole annoying process.

** A wading 5’2” human.

*** I read somewhere that this is called “directional dyslexia” which sounds way cooler than “can’t tell left from right.”  But whatever it is, I have it, and it provides hours of amusement to Tim, who has learned to say things like “turn toward me” (for a right turn when I’m driving) or “do you mean left left or right left?”

Profiling Muslims at airport security is stupid and unAmerican

For the past few days, I’ve been a bystander in a ridiculous email discussion about airport security and decided that, once I’d spent the entire drive up University Boulevard from County Line to Evans composing a rant in my head, that rant needed to be freed from my head and posted on the blog.

Airport security is a pain in the ass.  But that’s all it is.  Buck up, folks.  I always choose the pat-down because the nude photo thingy creeps me out.  It’s not fun, but it’s not, say, dental surgery.  Hell, it’s not even flossing.  Yup, I’d rather go through airport security than floss.  Life is full of annoying things.  Get over it.

And the thought that — to avoid this mild pain in the ass — we would sacrifice core American values is just beyond me.  I am constantly baffled by what it is conservatives love when they say they love America. It was the question addressed at fabulous verbose length by this guy.

What I really wanted to ask is this: Proud American? Really? What is it exactly that you’re proud of?  You say you love your country? You say you love the United States? Really? Which part? What is it that you love about it? Specifically, what exactly do you love about America?

Because, see, so far as I can tell, people like you seem to hate just about everything that makes the United States what it is.

And so on for like 45 paragraphs or so.  It really is hilarious, but I recommend skimming.

I’ll tell you what I love:  I love the Constitution.  I love the 14th Amendment, the one that promises equal protection of the laws.  Do we really want to violate one of the most fundamental American principles to save 15 minutes at the airport?  Really?

Oh and another thing:  it doesn’t work.  If we start profiling, we would be sacrificing our values for nothing.

[P]rofiling creates two paths through security: one with less scrutiny and one with more. And once you do that, you invite the terrorists to take the path with less scrutiny. That is, a terrorist group can safely probe any profiling system and figure out how to beat the profile. And once they do, they’re going to get through airport security with the minimum level of screening every time.

As counterintuitive as it may seem, we’re all more secure when we randomly select people for secondary screening — even if it means occasionally screening wheelchair-bound grandmothers and innocent looking children. And, as an added bonus, it doesn’t needlessly anger the ethnic groups we need on our side if we’re going to be more secure against terrorism.

But more than that, how would it work?  As another security expert noted,

But what do we go by? Name? Appearance? The vast majority of Arab Americans, for instance, are not only innocent of sympathy for terrorism, they’re actually Christian. To profile Muslims you’d have to target blacks, Asians, whites and Hispanics (remember Jose Padilla?). How could that work, and would it really help identify those who are intending harm or would it simply divert resources that could be better used on investigations?

So we set out to profile Muslims, but we can’t use name or appearance. What then?  Seriously, profiling advocates, if you want to target Muslims, you have to figure out a way to do it.  Religious identity cards?  A quick religious catechism with the TSA dudes?  I’m loving the idea of small-government conservatives authorizing the Federales to investigate individual religious beliefs to determine whether you get groped in the security line.

But ultimately, of course, it’s not just Muslims who commit terrorism:

The biggest terrorist attack in U.S. history prior to 9/11—the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing—was carried out by a white ex-Marine with a crew cut. The only major WMD attack of the “war on terror” era—the 2001 anthrax mailings—was apparently the handiwork of a white, Christian microbiologist angry that prominent Catholic politicians were pro-choice. And who stormed the Holocaust Museum last year, killing a security guard? Ayman-al Zawahiri? No, neo-Nazi octogenarian nutcase James Wenneker von Brunn.

I have to wait in line to take off my shoes, start up my computer, and step through a metal detector every time I go to court because Christians like to shoot at, blow up, and threaten federal buildings and officials.  That’s right, Christians.  Oh, right, of course, not Christians like you.  Bad Christians.  Maybe people calling themselves Christians who do not remotely have the values you would call Christian.

Exactly my point.

VooDoo?

While replying to an email in gmail today, one of the ads along the side of the post touted:  “Accurate VooDoo Spells.”  Of course I had to check out the website.   Turns out she will help with “whatever problems [I’ve]* been having” and provides a “100% guarantee.”

Any thoughts on where that falls in the Rules of Professional Conduct?

*********************

*Yes, I’m such a grammar & punctuation nerd that I had to square-bracket the VooDoo lady’s ad quote.

Amy’s Rules of Professional Conduct

We lawyers have to sit through hours of sanctimonious crap about professionalism.  Crap not because professionalism is crap.  Crap because what we’re sitting through is generally a lot of theoretical hand-wringing and brow-furrowing by Leading Lights of the Bar — for whom professionalism means kissing the right behinds over G&T’s at The Palm — and judges and magistrates who would prefer it if we all played better together but are so afraid of appearing partisan that they won’t admonish obviously unprofessional behavior.

Memo to judges and magistrates:  There would be a lot more civil behavior in the legal profession if you increased even slightly your level of knuckle-rapping.  When one party argues the law and the other presents briefs full of underlined, italicized, bolded, legally-irrelevant ad hominem arguments, say something.  You can even rule in favor of the font-abusing jerks — if, counterfactually, they were ever right — but damn, lawyers are not going to get any more civil unless you are willing to call them on their incivility.  In real time, too, not theoretically at later hand-wringing professionalism lectures.

Of course, judges and magistrates are not generally party to lawyers’ emails, so we’re  sort of on our own there.  In that medium, to steal a phrase from my step-brother Duncan, we* are often like a classroom full of five-year-olds with guns and liquor.  We recently endured over a month of bold/italicized emails from opposing counsel to schedule a single deposition, the highlight of which was the accusation that we were “playing games” by not disclosing our witnesses a week before the deadline.

In every state, there are rules governing lawyer behavior, for example, in Colorado we have the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.  These rules tell you helpful things like don’t steal money from your clients or disclose their secrets.  Things that we’d never figure out if they were not written down for us.**  The CRPC don’t teach you the important stuff, though.  So herewith the ARPC:  Amy’s Rules of Professional Conduct.

1.    Don’t be a jerk.***

2.    Respect, or at least act respectfully toward, other lawyers.  Older lawyers in fact know more than you do.  Younger lawyers are learning how to behave; if you act like a jerk to them, you contribute to the replication of jerk lawyer culture.****  And most important, (she says hopefully) acting like a jerk to opposing counsel in court just makes you look like a jerk.  And desperate.  And wrong.

3.    Don’t be sarcastic, at least not outside your own litigation team.  That means, when your OC claims he couldn’t find ten names in a searchable 300-page document over the course of almost two years, do not send an email that reads:

I have one question:  does anyone in your 1,200-laywer firm know how to use the “Control-F” function in a pdf document?   Because if you had such advanced technical capabilities, you would have discovered those ten people using that complex combination of two of the keys found on all modern computer keyboards sometime in the 18 months since you received our disclosures.   Just sayin’.

It was fun to write, but — on sober reflection — I should not have sent it.  At least not to OC —  that’s what the blog is for.  This is clearly the ARPC rule that I violate most frequently.  For example, I also once sent an email to an OC the entire content of which was, “Oh, snap!”  Luckily, that OC has a sense of humor, so the offense was not as grave.  It was a violation, nonetheless.

4.    Italics are for case names.  Bold text is for celebrity names in gossip columns.  Neither font is appropriate as a written representation of raising your voice in briefs and correspondence.  Bolding and italicizing the same chunk of text makes you look desperate.  And wrong.

5.    There is such a thing as deadline karma.  Say “yes” to at least the first few requests for extensions if they do not actually imperil your client’s interests.  Someday, you’ll need an extension, maybe even in an unrelated case.  If you gratuitously refuse a reasonable extension, deadline karma will kick your ass.

6.    Learn synonyms for the world “lie.”  The judge doesn’t want to hear that your OC is lying, even when he is.  In one of our cases, OC asserted to the judge that his client was unfamiliar with the way an expert took measurements.  We produced a photo of OC’s client watching the expert take measurements.  The judge was completely uninterested in photographic evidence of OC’s lie.   Instead of “lie,” I have learned to say, “that argument is incorrect,” or “that assertion is inaccurate.”  Same idea; less emotion.

7.     Do not attempt to bond with a party or lawyer who is different from you by telling stories about relatives you imagine they have something in common with.  If your client violated the ADA, I don’t want to hear about your aunt who uses a wheelchair.*****  If you’re a sexist windbag, I don’t care that your daughter just graduated from law school.  In a fair housing case, please don’t tell me your son dated an African-American woman.  All of these examples are true, several of them repeatedly.

8.    Do not send aggressive or offensive correspondence on Friday evening.  I know you’ll want to do this to get your desk clear for the weekend.  Right?  That’s why you want to do it, right?  Not that you’d ever think about doing that intentionally to ruin your opposing counsel’s weekend?  We have found that our most annoying OCs also have this habit and that, if you’re not careful to shut down your email program on Friday afternoon (or, back in the day, avoid the fax machine), you end up with a sour stomach the whole weekend.  Don’t be that guy.

9.    Have a sense of humor.  The pompous ass quotient is law is, statistically speaking, the highest of any profession except right-wing talk show host.******   Do your part to reduce pomposity by regularly laughing at yourself, your arguments, (privately) your opposing counsel and (privately if you’re wise; publicly if you have a blog) our entire self-important profession.

10.    Oh yeah, and don’t steal from your clients or divulge their secrets, you doorknob.

***************
*  By “we” I mean, of course, the other guys.

** That’s a joke.  Be polite and just pretend you knew that was a joke.

*** Careful readers will observe that this is closely related to Rule 1.5 of the Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

**** I’m operating under the assumption that we all share the goal of eradicating jerk lawyer culture.  This assumption, alas, does not have a lot of empirical support.

***** My favorite example of this was an OC whose brother was quadriplegic, telling my husband (a quad) and co-counsel (also a quad) that fact and adding something like, “yeah, we visit him in the nursing home.”

****** And Keith Olbermann.  I never got the attraction of hearing what was more or less the political truth from an ass almost as pompous as the conservative asses he was refuting.

Nerds in South Beach

Tim and I spent three lazy days in South Beach, defrosting after a long, cold Denver winter.  This is sort of a photoblog of our trip.  Enjoy — and at least have the decency to be a little jealous!

We stayed at a hotel right on Ocean Avenue.

with a very hip lobby

The first day brought a very unusual event:  Tim and Amy eating breakfast at 10:30.

Tim chose the restaurant.  Wonder why?

The great thing about breakfast at 10:30 is that there is very little elapsed time between breakfast and happy hour.  Say, 20 minutes.

After our first night, when we had the pleasure of finally meeting Matt and Debbie Dietz for dinner, but the misfortune of sitting in causeway traffic to get there, we decided to ditch the van and just goof around South Beach.  This mostly involved rolling/roller blading around, soaking up sun, and people watching.

We connected with some great food, including the famous Joe’s Stone Crab.  Mmmm!  Curry aioli, where have you been all my life?

While New York may have the Met and Washington, the Smithsonian, South Beach apparently has its own intellectual life.

So sorry Laura Hershey is not around to see this, though I would have had to confess to her — and she would have gotten to make fun of us for — the fact that we didn’t, um, take a tour.

I’m not at all sure what this museum is about:


or these excellent public murals:

The water was gorgeous

Though as we’ve previously established, I don’t swim.

Saw some local wildlife

And the city was obviously trying to make Denverites feel at home with a random blue bear statue:

I loved the architecture, especially against the blue sky.

So very sorry that we ever had to come back to reality!

We’ll miss you, Judge Williams.

“Are y’all some kind of thrillseeker?”  That was the question to litigants who were stupid or ballsy enough to defy Judge Richard Williams’s courtroom procedures or, God forbid, direct order.  I had the honor to clerk for him the year after I graduated, and Tim and I were lucky enough to persuade him to marry us in 1993.  Now, with deepest sadness, I mourn his passing.

I can’t begin to list all the things I learned from my clerkship year with Judge Williams.  He was a brilliant jurist, a gentle and good-humored teacher, and a hilarious storyteller.  Late last year when my friend Laura Hershey passed, I explained how she was part of my Mental Greek Chorus.  Well, Judge Williams is right there in my head every time I stand up before a Court or sit down at my computer to write a motion or brief.  I aspire to be both smart enough and professional enough that I would not risk his good-natured admonition.

Herewith some random photos and memories.

Chambers the year I clerked:  Randy; Spence; Maria; Skip; Mark; and of course, The Judge.

Others will do a better job of telling his story; even the outline is amazing.  Raised on a peach orchard in rural Virginia and educated in a one room schoolhouse, he joined the army and ended up surviving the attack on Pearl Harbor.  After the war, he benefited from (in his words) “the biggest affirmative action program of all time,” and attended the University of Virginia and UVa law school on the GI Bill.  He was in private practice in Richmond, then served on the state bench before being appointed by President Carter to the federal bench.

Learning from the Judge went far beyond the courtroom.  In chambers, we heard stories from his practice and his tenure as a judge that were generally hilarious and ultimately provided an education toward the legal Holy Grail:   how to be a good advocate, while being professional to your colleagues and opponents, and keeping a sense of humor about the whole business of law.  My only complaint is that he completely spoiled us.  I left my clerkship after a year expecting the practice of law to be as fair, learned, efficient, and humorous as I had experienced in Judge Williams’s chambers.  Alas, this turns out not to be the case.

He was also a learned naturalist, and both during the clerkship and during later visits to Denver, we had long, educational hikes with the Judge and his wife, Gene.  I became very comfortable answering the Judge’s Socratic questions about my bench memos.  What I didn’t realize is that this this mode of interaction would extend to the natural world, as well.  When we hiked near Richmond,

I was happy to learn (= internalize briefly) the names of the local flora and fauna.  When we hiked Waterton Canyon near Denver,

it turned out I was actually supposed to know things about the natural world near my adopted home town.  The dialog went something like this:

Judge:     What is that?

Me:        A bird.

Judge:    And that?

Me:        A tree.

I think he came away very relieved that I had only been his law clerk, and that he had not had to rely on me for Birding Memos.  During that visit, we also took the Judge to a Rockies game

and, if memory services, convened an “investment opportunity” — of the seven-card variety — in our apartment with former clerk Sunhee Juhon and her husband, Arthur Hodges.  We called the judge “Judge.”  Once during an “investment opportunity” at the Judge’s cabin, my co-clerk Mark Batten called him “Coach.”  Although it didn’t stick (and probably would not have been preferred) it was accurate.  He was our coach, during our clerkship year and after.

Judge Williams was also — for some unknown and, for us, heartwarming reason — a big John Elway fan.

When we sent him a jersey one year, we were very pleased to get back the photo above, which remains one of my favorites of him.  But my all time favorite is this:

Of all the wonderful things Judge Williams brought to my life, marrying Tim and me was the one for which I am the most grateful.

Today we attended his funeral and met and heard stories from many of the people whose lives he had touched.  It’s hard to believe I’ll never again hear his gravel-inflected voice telling us a rip-roaring tale of the cast of characters who populated his practice and his courtroom.

We’ll miss you, Judge.  Thank you.

New Business Plan

Here is our existing business plan:

  • Focus your legal practice on a statute that permits liability to be established using a tape measure and smart level.  No sobbing witnesses who later turn out to be axe murderers.  Just data.
  • Establish the data incontrovertibly.  Tape measures + photos.  Occasionally add in a jointly-selected, court-appointed expert.
  • Hear from even your most civil — even friendly — defendant that while you’re likely right and will likely prevail, it is economically preferable to the defendant to keep litigating for a few more years.  Unless of course you’d like to cut your fees in half.  (The defendant at the other end of the spectrum has kept this up for 8 years.  Someday, it will be our annuity.)

Here is my Alternative Business Plan

  • Find smart friends to write simple software connecting a database to document images.
  • Print money.
  • Buy bonbons & retire.

My alternative plan comes from our recent experience with document software.  We’ve had one program — rhymes (almost) with Mummification — since we started our practice, dutifully shelling out $2,500 per year for a supremely annoying program that, for us, is basically a flat Excel file attached to a bunch of document images.  We decided not to pay last year; this year we find ourselves needing the software again and have to pay a penalty to start up again:  all fees in arrears plus one year going forward.  That’s right, our reward for 15 years of faithful patronage is to be charged twice what we’d be charged if we were signing up for the first time.

Did I mention how annoying Mummification’s software is?

Their chief competitor wants $6,000 just to get started.  Won’t name them either, but in the spirit of Talking Back to Westlaw, I’ll just say:  nothing says cutting edge legal software like a middle aged white guy in a bowler hat apparently literally being put out to pasture.

And the supposedly small-firm-friendly upstart enthuses over the phone that the “software is free!  it’s all web-based!  you just pay for storage!”  That’s right, $1,600 PER MONTH to store the documents in our biggest case on their servers when we just paid several thousand dollars for a two terabyte* server, not to mention the Citrix server that lets our beloved co-counsel have the privilege of hating on Mummification as much as we do working on the case remotely.

So seriously, my computer-nerd friends — and you know who you are, especially the one I’m married to — this just can’t be that hard. Database + Images = Bonbons.  Let’s get to work!

**************

* We have terabytes right there in our office!  Isn’t that cool!?  I love that word!