But that ain’t necessarily so.  But for smart businesses, “the law becomes a very powerful tool, because it’s simply an input into your business.” The trick is to involve lawyers early on. One example is to have the lawyers draft contracts with incentive clauses so payments only are made when goals are met.  That tends to cut down on failure to live up to the deal.  This is trickier with new business relationships since there is no reservoir of good will to rely on.  When you start from scratch you really need the law and lawyers because if you make a mistake it’s harder to resolve and you end up paying through the nose to get it solved.

Here’s how to use the law to your advantage:

I. Lawyers are good at spotting risks and figuring out how to reduce them;

II.  If you get the lawyer involved early on to help structure the transaction you can add value by reducing collateral expenses; and

III. Lawyers can help businesses understand their property rights, including intellectual property, to protect themselves from unfair competition.

Finally, it’s worth noting that good project management techniques can help reduce legal costs (or at least make them more predictable).

I.                    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

II.                 Don’t worry about what people think, they don’t do it very often.

III.              If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you’ve never tried before.

IV.             It is easier to ask for forgiveness than get permission.

V.                For every action, there is an equal and opposite government program.

VI.             If you look like your passport picture, you probably need the trip.

VII.          A conscience is what hurts when all of your other parts feel so good.

VIII.       Eat well, stay fit, die anyway.

IX.             Men are from earth. Women are from earth. Deal with it.

X.                No man has ever been shot while doing the dishes.

XI.             Middle age is when broadness of the mind and narrowness of the waist change places.

XII.          Opportunities always look bigger going than coming.

XIII.       Junk is something you’ve kept for years and throw away three weeks before you need it.

XIV.      There is always one more imbecile than you counted on.

XV.         Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognize a mistake when you make it again.

XVI.      By the time you can make ends meet, they move the ends.

XVII.   Thou shalt not weigh more than thy refrigerator.

Someone who thinks logically provides a nice contrast to the real world.

A lawyer friend of mine who represents consumers sued a bill collector on behalf of a client and won including fines, penalties and attorneys fees. To stop my friend from collecting, the collector then sues my friend.  Separately, the collector went after another person who hires my friend to sue them.  He does.  Now my friend got a letter from the collector offering to drop the lawsuit against my friend if my friend will drop his client’s case.

WHAT?  This bill collector, through his attorney, is suggesting that my friend betray his client.  That’s immoral.  It’s also unethical.  And it’s illegal.  It could easily be called extortion.  I know my friend has reported this to the authorities.  They are investigating.  I don’t know how this one will end, but I certainly hope that the local authorities slam both the bill collector and his attorney for this nonsense.

Let’s assume that you don’t have a contract which provides that you can recover your attorney’s fees and costs.  After all, this is the USA, not the UK where loser pays is the rule.  Here in the USA, both sides pay their own lawyers.  Except.  Except when?  Well, if there is a contract which says, in effect, “Loser Pays.”  Is that the only time?  No, there are other exceptions. (Aren’t there always?)  One little-known exception to this rule is when the other side files an absolutely ridiculous lawsuit or appeal.  Huh?  How can that be?

Well, it’s complicated. (Isn’t it always?)  Not really.  What’s needed is the judge to order that the other side be sanctioned for frivolous litigation.  What’s frivolous?  A lawsuit is frivolous if it is completely without merit, does not either have the facts, the law or a good faith argument for changing the law, in its favor.  This is a hard standard to meet.  Almost all cases will meet at least 1 of these 3 tests. But not always.  Some lawyers do more than push the boundaries–they break them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/06/5-steps-for-fixing-the-civil-justice-system/258295/

The article describes the problem well. But we all know it: to get civil justice you have to be able to pay for it.  In fact, I just recently told a client “A contract is only as good as your willingness to fight to enforce it.”  If you aren’t willing to fight about something, they you get only what the other side will give you.  This article discusses 5 steps to make things easier.  They boil down to 3 things: more money, better people and rules to control costs.  Ain’t gonna work.  I’d like the fixes to work but they ain’t gonna work. Why not?  Well,

1. How do we get the money?  Taxes are too high?  People don’t want to pay more taxes, even for firefighters and police and teachers.  Or do they?  But will they pay to give courts more money to hire clerks, supervisors, and bailiffs?  Of are they just more “bureaucrats” nobody wants?
2. To get better people you have to pay more.  See statements above on taxes.  Would you agree to increase the judge’s pay by 50% or more?  So the judge would be making as much as a senior partner is a BigLaw firm?  Where would the money come from?
3. To get better oversight and rules the judges need to be more involved. Which means that we would have to hire more judges. Which means more taxes.
4.  Removing divorce cases from the courts and giving an alternative would increase costs too–somebody has to pay for the needed counseling and other services.  So, more taxes please?  To pay for interfering busybodies and bureaucrats?  I don’t think so.

I could go on but won’t.  You get the idea.

I’ve been practicing law for 21 years.  I’m aggressive.  Very aggressive. But this is ridiculous.  Up until this year, once has any other lawyer ever sought sanctions against me.  They lost. But they were BigLaw and I understood: their client got caught with his fingers in the wringer and they had to do something so they attempted to discredit me.  Sort of like politics: if you don’t like the argument just say something derogatory about the messenger.  Logicians call it ad hominum attacks.  Amazing how often it works too.  But this rant isn’t about politics.  It’s about the law or how the practice of law is deteriorating or something.

What am I talking about?  I’ll tell you: Three times!  Yes, Three Times!  This year alone I’ve had some lawyer file a personal claim against me for sanctions.  I don’t know why.  I haven’t changed how I practice law.  They haven’t won.  Judges understand what I’m doing and why.  In fact, in the most recent case the Judge specifically stated in writing that “the Court finds no evidence to support the [Defendant’s] motion. [Defendant] presented no evidence indicating that Plaintiff s counsel [me] lacked a reasonable basis that the Complaint was well grounded in fact at the time of filing.  Therefore, the Court denies [Defendant’s] s Motion for Sanctions.”  So if you have no evidence that sanctions are appropriate, why on earth demand them?  Worse, if you have no evidence that sanctions are appropriate, isn’t the demand for sanctions itself sanctionable?  This is ridiculous.  It’s worse than ridiculous–it’s wasting the court’s time, it’s wasting my time and my client’s money, and it’s wasting the other lawyer’s time and his client’s money.

O wait, maybe that’s what all this is about–justifying your fees to your client by claiming that I did something wrong.  That’s disgusting.  And it’s getting more and more prevalent if my own experiences are any guide.  This has got to stop.

Ok, here is the scenario.  A gentleman is offered a judgeship in the Commonwealth of Virginia.  So far, so good.  This guy has it all.  He was a Navy officer and fighter pilot.  He left the Navy 20 years ago and has been serving the public since as a prosecutor for the state.  He is also openly gay.

His name is Tracy Thorne-Begland.  His nomination was killed by the openly antagonistic Virginia House of Delegates last night.  One of the loudest voices raised against the nomination was Republican Delegate Robert Marshall.  Delegate Marshall’s nicest words were that the “… country was cheated out of the investment in him” when Mr. Thorne-Begland was in the Navy.  And those are the nicest words.  Those of us with long memories, remember Delegate Marshall being against everything from immigration in Prince William County, the vaginal inspection of women requesting an abortion, and the theory of personhood in Virginia.

The Honorable Delegate has done Virginians a favor by being as strident on this issue.  We all knew that Virginia never stopped fighting the Civil War.  See,  http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/lee-jackson-day-and-the-souths-continuing-confederate-fetish

Virginia is not alone in hating change and people who do not match what the State values.  Racism, hatred of homosexuals, throwing caltrops in front of women trying to get abortions are all a part of the game folks.

And all of these are just wrong.

What do you do if your expert (who you hired at great cost) gets disciplined by his licensing authority (like a Doctor being disciplined by the State Medical Board)?

You have 2 obvious options: 1.) Ditch the expert, and go back to square 1 or 2.) Keep the expert, and try to make the best of it. There is no obvious answer. But to make a decision the lawyer needs to determine whether the expert was disciplined for something that would call into question his veracity, moral character, or technical competence? (All three are bad). The answers to these questions are key. If “yes” then you must either find a surefire way to exclude the testimony or get another expert.

Depending on your budget, you might consider having a 2nd expert on tap anyway but too much depends on the relative qualifications of the 2nd expert v. the 1st expert v. OC’s expert to give a definitive opinion.

Note: If you do go with 1st expert, be prepared to reveal damaging information yourself rather than let them do it. When it is revealed, make sure it is clear that the bad stuff had nothing to do with his/her opinions.

Oh yeah: One thing I almost forgot: you can always settle the case.

I’m just going to quote  other lawyers who responded to the basic question phrased like this:  “Two detectives visited [client] while he was away. They left business card and wanted him to call back to them.”  What should I do?  Each of the responses is quoted below (anonymously).

Answers:

I. Say it with me: Clients NEVER talk to the cops. Under any and all circumstances. They want to talk to him for a reason, and it is almost certainly not to give him the Publisher’s Clearing House Sweepstakes prize. And it doesn’t matter what the PC says, they will twist it into something that sounds enough like a confession to fool 12 strangers.

II. As his lawyer you can always call up and ask what it is regarding. He was not subpoenaed. If they have a warrant they’ll likely say so.

III. DO NOT let your client talk to the police.  You know how the Miranda warnings say “anything you say may be used against you …”?  That means, SHUT THE HELL UP!  Also, DO NOT “speak for” your client from now on.  *Represent* your client.  Don’t be merely a mouthpiece.  Don’t try to “be the client”.  You can be indicted, too!

IV. O and BTW:  Notice that the Miranda Warning does not go further to say “Anything you say can be used to HELP you in a court of law.”   If it hurts admissible.    If it helps it is inadmissible hearsay!  In other words, Whatever you say will NOT be used to get you out of trouble.  They WANT to believe they got your client (and maybe you too).

V. PS:  I am sure he means never.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

The lawyer’s favorite answer: It depends.  What does it depend on?  Well, what do the corporate documents say?  Was this contingency included in the firm’s Bylaws or Operating Agreement?  Did the firm follow the precise legal requirements so that the creditor cannot “pierce the veil” and get to the owner’s personal assets?  Did the creditor(s) demand a personal guarantee from the owners or someone else?  It may also depend on how much debt it is.  It is financially worth fighting about?  Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.