On The Merits
Critics of the legal profession often point out – with some justification – that lawyers are slow to adapt to changes in culture and the legal marketplace. They also note that lawyers are too expensive for the average person, especially for certain basic legal needs that most Americans will need at some point, such as assistance with creating wills and getting divorced.
Responding to this dynamic, lawyers in Washington state are doing something about it. Several years ago, Washington created a novel new program to create a category of legal professionals that could handle certain, basic legal matters that the state determined could be sufficiently handled by non-lawyers with basic training in certain areas of law. These professionals – called Limited License Legal Technicians – are licensed to provide legal advice and assistance to clients in certain areas of law without the supervision of a lawyer. LLLTs can practice either under the umbrella of a law firm or on their own.
Now comes word that seven people have completed all requirements, including passing the licensing exams, to become the first LLLTs in the nation. Washington is hoping that these new entrants to the legal profession can help close the “justice gap,” which keeps the price of legal services out of reach for too many people who need them. Other states are watching closely to see how the Washington model progresses and whether it might be a viable solution to the justice gap, which is present in Texas and every other state as well.
Lawyers traditionally are very protective of their prerogatives, and for good reason, but this can sometime stifle innovative ways of improving our duty to provide justice to all Americans. Kudos to the lawyers in Washington for bravely venturing forth into what is likely to be the wave of the future, whether some attorneys like it or not.
Posted: 6/5/2015 11:04:26 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
The PGA Tour is a billion-dollar business led by recovering-attorney-turned-commissioner Tim Finchem. Based on its affiliations with several charities, the Tour operates as a non-profit entity, which ensures millions of dollars in tax breaks every year. Those savings help the Tour provide professional golfers with hundreds of millions of dollars in annual tournament payouts and a yearly salary for Finchem eclipsing $5 million. The Tour’s pocketbook also isn’t hurt by the fact that many of the people who work at its events are unpaid volunteers affiliated with charity partners.
Despite the PGA Tour’s ability to avoid taxes and turn players into multimillionaires, it seems there’s not much left in the kitty for one group of workers who make far less than the players themselves. We’re talking, of course, about the caddies, who recently filed a lawsuit over being required to wear so called “bibs,” which cover the valuable space on their shirts that otherwise could be sold for corporate sponsorships.
According to the lawsuit, the PGA Tour makes roughly $50 million each year for including corporate logos on the bibs that the Tour requires caddies to wear, while the caddie themselves actually make, well, nothing. Not a dime. Instead, the caddies work for the players themselves, but they’ve acquiesced to the Tour’s demand that they wear the bibs for years for fear that not doing so would put them, or their player employers, in peril. That was until the recent lawsuit was filed.
The highest-profile caddie in the world, Steve Williams of “I-used-to-be-Tiger Woods’-caddie” fame, recently joined the lawsuit and told reporters he was fined by the PGA Tour seven different times at $500 a pop during one season for taking off his bib on the 18th hole of various tournaments. Williams, a multimillionaire himself, certainly had the money to pay up. However, risking such fines is unthinkable for the many caddies who actually lose money when they work a tournament where their player doesn’t finish high on the leader board.
Thanks to lawyers, this may change. Lawyers are often accused of stirring up trouble, but here they are doing what they do best: representing the little guy. We don’t know if the caddies will ultimately prevail and be allowed to share in some of the massive revenue that they help make possible, but thanks to lawyers they will get the chance to make their case.
Posted: 3/31/2015 11:52:11 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
In addition to limiting damages in civil lawsuits, tort reform has become a relied-upon weapon in the campaign arsenals for local, state and federal politicians in Texas and across the U.S. By further demonizing the legal profession and highlighting outlier verdicts, albeit sometimes incorrectly, tort reform advocates have amassed intense support from the public and political parties alike.
The Texas Tort Reform Act was signed into law in 2003 under the notion of establishing and maintaining a fair, honest and predictable system of justice that balances the rights of everyone involved. Supporters point to Texas’ tort reform efforts as the reason why thousands of additional doctors have begun working in the state since 2003 and why they pay lower medical malpractice insurance rates, although many prominent studies and researchers disagree.
One stark example of tort reform’s impact on certain tort victims is the subject of a recent, lengthy article from The New York Times focusing on victims of the well-publicized ignition switch defect in General Motors automobiles. The GM ignition switch defect has allegedly been responsible for more than 40 deaths and countless injuries during the past 10 years. Attorneys for those victims and several media organizations have exposed GM’s extensive efforts to conceal the related dangers and the government’s inability to monitor and stem the problem.
According to the NY Times story, many GM ignition switch cases were settled under confidential terms before the public even knew about the defect. In those cases, what GM knew about the defect and when may never be known. The article also details individual cases where victims’ families have been unable to find a lawyer willing to take on their cases based on restrictive limits on damages, including Wisconsin’s $350,000 cap on loss of society claims.
While tort reformers’ stated goal of achieving a “fair” and “honest” justice system sounds great in theory, those are not the words that come to mind when potentially meritorious claims are left by the wayside because there’s no chance for a victim to have her day in court to seek a reasonable financial recovery.
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:57:41 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
Ah, to be a lead actor in Hollywood. Swimming pools. Movie stars. And no jury duty?
That’s apparently the case if you’re leading man Brad Pitt, who reportedly was dismissed from serving on a Los Angeles Criminal Court jury recently. According to media accounts, the big screen star was waiting for his number to be called when he was quietly approached by court officials and told that his civil service wasn’t needed based on the notion that his presence would be “too distracting.”
Seriously? Too famous for jury duty? Is that a thing?
Although Dallas billionaire and international TV star Mark Cuban told reporters he’s previously been dismissed from jury duty for the same reason, he still was selected to sit on a Dallas civil jury in November and helped decide a personal injury claim in which the plaintiff was awarded no damages.
Giving a free pass to Pitt, Cuban or any famous person is a bad idea if for nothing more than implying that they are somehow immune from the same civic duty that other potential jurors are there to perform. If lawyers believe their client can’t get a fair case with a celebrity sitting on the jury, then they can strike them from the panel. When courts preemptively make that decision for them, it only lessens the public’s view of our justice system.
Posted: 3/10/2015 9:48:57 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments
The rapid expansion of new technology and the resulting impact in the courtroom are topics we have covered here for some time, including a few recommended guidelines that have been offered for federal jurisdictions.
Now, the New Jersey Supreme Court has taken the next step by issuing uniform rules governing how attorneys and others in the courtroom are expected to behave when it comes to their smartphones and other wireless devices.
Taking effect in early February, the new rules are designed to allow courthouse goers to use their high-tech gadgets without harming the parties’ cases or delaying courtroom proceedings. Restrictions and allowances governing cameras in the courtroom have been on the books in many states for years, but the New Jersey rules covering today’s mobile devices appear to be the first of their kind.
In addition to limiting where such devices can be used within the courthouse, the new rules also dictate how they can be used. For example, email communications in the hallway will be permitted, while taking photographs is banned. The rules also will require annual, renewable written agreements from lawyers and others who use their devices inside New Jersey courtrooms. Failure to honor the agreement can result in sanctions, including contempt of court.
No doubt we have entered an era where the rapid change of technological life will continually test the ability of courts and lawyers to keep up. But the move by the New Jersey Supreme Court demonstrates that the courts are neither unaware of the issue nor unwilling to take steps to insure the fair administration of justice while permitting the technology we all use today.
Posted: 3/6/2015 9:20:19 AM by On the Merits Editor | with 0 comments