Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/2011/08/31/
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 23:07:37+00:00

Document:
Many attorneys in practice have wished that their newly hired law school graduates had more training in what attorneys actually do. Traditionally, law school has offered courses that were mostly grounded in the major doctrinal areas of law. While this foundation is certainly important, there has long been a gap between law school and the profession. But this is starting to change.
There has been a broad ranging discussion going on for several years in the legal academy about how to provide a more balanced curriculum to our students. This discussion – which had been simmering for many years – received an impetus from a critical report from The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 2007. The Carnegie Report was soon followed by the econalypse of 2008, which has had a profound impact on the economics of the legal profession.
The Carnegie Report mostly commended legal education for the work it does in the first year of law school, noting that the critical analytical skill lawyers must have is formed there. But when law school continues to use the “doctrine focused” method of teaching in the second and third year it loses the opportunity to teach critical lawyering skills and to help students form their professional identity as ethical lawyers. The Report advocates a movement toward teaching what it calls the three “apprenticeships” – analysis, skills, and identity – in an integrated fashion, i.e., all together in each course.
When I graduated from law school, I found myself less prepared than I expected to be for life in a large litigation firm in New York City. I certainly knew the basic doctrines and rules that one learns in Civil Procedure, but I had never drafted a set of interrogatories, much less answered a set or handled a document review. I learned all of that at the expense of the firm’s clients, which was a fairly common practice at the time. Today, clients have less tolerance for paying for the training of first year associates.
When I moved to the Rothgerber firm Denver in 1990, I contacted the University of Denver’s law school to see if they would be interested in having someone teach an advanced course in Discovery law. It turned out they did, and I served as an adjunct professor for six years. In those years, I developed a course that was a “Carnegie integrated course” before such a thing existed. It integrated the doctrine, skills, and ethical identity apprenticeships in myriad ways throughout the course.
Since I came to teach at DU full-time eight years ago, I have continued to refine the course, and I have now it taught almost a dozen times. I also have recently authored a hybrid textbook (with print and online components) to support this different method of teaching.
In the course, students learn the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that govern civil discovery law, and we study important cases that interpret those rules. Throughout, the students are not just learning but also doing. That is, they are working on a litigation, assigned to represent a party, and assigned to an opposing counsel (who is another student in the course). In the mock litigation, the students are only given part of the relevant information, so at least they can get started. The rest of the semester, they use the discovery rules to learn the rest of what they need to know – just like in a real litigation. So, we learn about Rule 33 and how it operates in practice, and then the students prepare a set of interrogatories and serve it on their opposing counsel. In the next class, we learn about answering interrogatories (which is mostly about privileges and objections), and then the students answer the set that they received from their opposing counsel. And so on throughout the semester. The students also conduct a deposition, and at the end of the course, they settle the case and prepare a settlement agreement. In the deposition, student court reporters from the Denver Academy of Court Reporting take down the testimony and produce a transcript for each student to review. Students take, defend and act as a witness in the deposition; that way they experience it from all vantage points.
I created this course so that at least those students who had taken it would never enter their first legal job (as I did) with little idea of how the rules of civil procedure actually apply in practice. I discovered to my immense joy that it is massively more fun to teach in this way. And students are highly engaged: if you have heard stories about students tuning out in class to check their email or Facebook page (or perhaps you did that occasionally in law school?), I can tell you that does not happen in this class – student engagement is very high. A teacher’s greatest joy is to teach engaged and motivated students.
David Thomson is a Professor and Director of the Lawyering Process Program at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. David is well known for his expertise in using technology in teaching, and has presented widely across the country on this topic over the last few years. He is the author of Law School 2.0: Legal Education for a Digital Age (LexisNexis/Matthew Bender 2009). David’s Discovery Practicum course is one of the three innovative courses featured by IAALS‘ Educating Tomorrow’s Lawyers project at DU.
Modification of an existing fee agreement is permissible under the Model Rules, but the lawyer must show that any modification was reasonable under the circumstances at the time of the modification as well as communicated to and accepted by the client. Periodic, incremental increases in a lawyer’s regular hourly billing rates are generally permissible if such practice is communicated clearly to and accepted by the client at the commencement of the client-lawyer relationship and any periodic increases are reasonable under the circumstances. Modifications sought by a lawyer that change the basic nature of a fee arrangement or significantly increase the lawyer’s compensation absent an unanticipated change in circumstances ordinarily will be unreasonable. Changes in fee arrangements that involve a lawyer acquiring an interest in the client’s business, real estate, or other non-monetary property will ordinarily require compliance with Rule 1.8(a).
the client gives informed consent to the essential terms of the transaction and the lawyer’s role in the transaction in a writing signed by the client.
Compliance with Rule 1.8(a) is appropriate in such situations to protect clients from potential overreaching by lawyers. When the client takes advantage of the advice to consult independent counsel, it also provides an opportunity for a neutral evaluation of the reasonableness of a fee that may be paid or secured by non-monetary property.
Click here to read the full opinion.
When was the last time you personally contacted a former client to see how she or he was doing?
This year? Last year? Never?
Make a concerted effort to reach out and contact former clients. Pick up the phone or visit with the former client in person. This can be a no-charge “I was thinking of you” check-in or a free legal check-up if the type of work you did for the client lends itself to periodic review. The goal is to rebuild and refresh client relationships.
Texting or e-mailing is not my first choice for this type of follow-up, but you know your clients and I don’t. Use the communication tool you know your client would prefer. The whole idea here is to personalize the contact. Therefore, do not fall into the trap of believing that mass e-mail marketing, e-zines, or holiday cards constitute keeping in touch with former clients.
Why make the effort? Because no happy client is insignificant.
When I was in private practice, one of the best referral sources our firm ever had was a client with a modest slip-and-fall case. Liability was clear, but damages were nominal – soft tissue injuries, only a few days missed from work, no significant medical specials. We negotiated a decent settlement and the client was happy.
Ironically, I’m not sure we would have taken this client’s case a few years later. The damages weren’t that great and we didn’t generate much in the way of fees. Thankfully, we represented the right person at the right time. Our client with the modest slip-and-fall case turned out to be one of our biggest cheerleaders. He referred many clients to us over the years.
The moral of the story is pretty clear: keep in touch, keep it personal, keep clients happy.
Beverly Michaelis received a J.D. from the Northwestern School of Law at Lewis & Clark College and is a member of the Oregon State Bar, Oregon Trial Lawyers Association, and American Bar Association. With over 25 years’ experience in the legal field, Ms. Michaelis provides confidential practice management assistance to attorneys to reduce their risk of malpractice claims, enhance their enjoyment of practicing law, and improve their client relationships. She blogs at Oregon Law Practice Management, where this post originally appeared on August 29, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Hong on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Sigala v. Bravo on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit denied Petitioner’s application for certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder, armed robbery, tampering with evidence, and conspiracy; having no success with appeals and habeas relief in state courts, he turned to the federal courts. The petition came before a magistrate judge, who recommended it be dismissed with prejudice because it was filed several years after Petitioner’s conviction became final. The district court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the petition.
The Court agree with the lower courts’ decisions. Petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing extraordinary circumstances justifying equitable relief. And since his habeas petition was otherwise untimely, no reasonable jury could conclude the dismissal of the petition was incorrect.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Acosta-Gallardo on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s conviction. Petitioner was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in methamphetamine and using a telephone to facilitate a felony drug offense. Petitioner appeals his conviction, alleging a variance between his indictment and the facts proven at trial, a Brady violation, improper venue, and that insufficient evidence was presented to sustain his conviction for alleged trafficking in methamphetamine.
The Court disagreed with all of Petitioner’s contentions. First, the Court found that no variance occurred because the facts proven at trial were the same as those alleged in the indictment. Second, to succeed on his claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Petitioner must demonstrate that the prosecution suppressed evidence, that the evidence was favorable to him, and that the evidence was material; Petitioner failed to prove these factors. Third, even assuming that Petitioner never set foot in the District of Wyoming, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, ample evidence was introduced showing that acts in furtherance of the conspiracy were committed there, making venue proper. Fourth, a conspirator need not know of the existence or identity of the other members of the conspiracy or the full extent of the conspiracy; the evidence need only show that a conspirator has at least a general awareness of both the scope and the objectives of the conspiracy. Such evidence was presented at trial.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.
The Tenth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. A member of the petitioner tribe wanted to transfer to Petitioners a portion of his property interest in the Maria Christiana Reserve No. 35, where the tribe has plans to develop gaming facilities. Federal law and restrictions on his fee interest required the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to approve any transfer. Citing concerns regarding fractionation of the land interests in the Reserve as well as the long-range best interests of Reserve landowners, the BIA denied the application to transfer the land. Petitioners challenge that decision.
The Court held that the BIA properly exercised its discretion in denying the application. The BIA’s denial of the land transfer application was a valid exercise of its administrative discretion. It was neither arbitrary nor capricious for the BIA to conclude the partial transfer of the property interest to the tribe was not in his or other Reserve landowners’ long-range best interests and would increase fractionation of the Reserve.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Cordery on Tuesday, August 30, 2011.
After oral argument in the case, the Tenth Circuit issued an opinion in a different case concluding that a district court cannot rely on rehabilitative goals in imposing a term of incarceration. United States v. Story, 635 F.3d 1241 (10th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court also reached the same conclusion recently in Tapia v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2382 (2011). As such, the Court remanded to the district court for resentencing without reliance on rehabilitative goals.
On Tuesday, August 30, 2011, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued five published opinions and eleven unpublished opinions.
The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
Focus on sales. The most direct avenue from you to your prospective client – is the best avenue to take.
Focus on expanding the number of prospective clients you are selling to every day.
Work on advancing the ball with each prospective client on a daily basis.
Review your lead list every day, update it, and begin selling again the next day.
Be flexible when pricing your services.
Offer services that meet the commercial needs of clients. Update your service offer to meet the market.
Be persistent, patient – and over time, your practice and income will grow beyond your expectations.
John Grimley specializes in assisting lawyers and other professional service providers create and implement comprehensive domestic and international business development initiatives. A licensed American lawyer, Mr. Grimley formerly served as a writer in the Executive Office of the President in the White House. He blogs at legalbusinessdevelopment, where this post originally appeared on August 26, 2011.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.