Jane’s comments about holiday cards vs email cards is are worth noting. It is a tough time of year for many with cards and gifts decisions to make … But, as my mother used to say, "… if you don’t remember me364 days of the year, forget me on my birthday!" In other words, the one day a year remembrance doesn’t do much, especially for busy people.
The Grand Hotel has reached the pinnacle of success.
Unless you are staying at the hotel or going for a $40 lunch, you are excluded from entering the hotel!
When they say "Grand," they mean it.
Wisconsin is in the news again. A lawyer, who promoted himself as the "king of lemon law," won a judgment for $12,500 against an auto dealership for unauthorized repairs and an award of attorney’s fees of $150,000. The Republican-controlled legislature was so incensed that they adopted a law (and signed by the governor) limiting attorney’s fees at three times the judgment. With such limitations, lawyers will be less likely to tackle consumer abuses, the obvious intent of the legislature.
Wisconsin, the historical bastion of progressive legislation and politicians, has certainly served up a strange mixture of bedfellows in the last couple of years. It makes for interesting reading … unless it’s your ax that is being gored. The real question is whether this is limited to the state of Wisconsin or a harbinger of things to come on the national level.
A friend once told Ed, "Specialize or Die!" Is that the case, or should it be "Generalize and Survive?" Ed weighs the pros and cons this week.
I just finished watching the film. It was gripping, based on the book by Ayn Rand. I’m not sure I can agree with the portrayal of a future of total incompetence of our government and distorted way of life. But, after listening to some of the political debates recently, one could see how her picture might come into focus. A truly scary thought.
From Lawyers USA, we learn that the American Bar’s Ethics Commission has recommended that states rules be changed to allow non-lawyers to own up to 25% of law firms.
Rules against lawyers sharing fees with non-lawyers might need to be loosened to allow U.S. firms to compete globally. The proposal says that any firm with non-lawyer owners must have “as its sole purpose providing legal services to clients.”
This is the foot in the door.The next thing you’ll see is Latham & Watkins, or other billion dollar law firm opening offices in Wal-Mart or Target stores for curbside service. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It will certainly bring the law to the people … And it will certainly change the perception of the law.
I’ve always maintained that the rules of professional conduct are controlled by the large firms, AmLaw 100 and 250. When their economic needs change, the rules get changed and the sole and small firm practitioners have to adapt accordingly. In other words, the rules are not made in a vacuum, not made because of their inherent righteousness or goodness. They change and are made to serve the economic interests of the few … oh, if the public is served, so much the better.
But if you’re a solo, watch out … your interests may not matter. Such has been the case in recent times when solos’ interests were not protected, in fact hurt, by changes in the rules .. But, here, to allow the larger firms to complete on a global scale, we see the rules begin to change and allow allied professions to join in the ownership of law firms, not merely as allied professionals independently serving the same client.
Economics control .. as always … even here in the rules of professional conduct.
Communication is the single most important issue to consider when keeping your clients happy. From the initial conversation with your receptionist until the case is closed, Ed explains what you need to do in order to ensure that the client is satisfied with your communications with them.
One of many charming lighthouses along the Great Lakes.
Technology/automation has had its impact on these lighthouses as well …
In a recent theft of a laptop … from one’s home … the burglar was caught because of an embedded anti-theft software program.
The homeowners were puzzled and could not figure out how someone was able to get into their home, steal their property, and get away, since there was no sign of forced entry into the house. The owners reported the thefts to the Sheriff’s department.
What the thief didn’t know was that one of the stolen laptop computers was embedded with a “LoJack for Laptops” theft recovery software. The company’s monitoring center was notified of the theft by the owners and the monitoring company kept in close contact with the sheriff’s investigator.
The monitored laptop was also equipped with photo recognition software. When the suspect in possession of the stolen laptop realized he could not log onto the computer, he had a completely new operating system installed and the photo recognition software removed. He incorrectly thought the embedded monitoring software had been removed, but it is very difficult to remove it.
The suspect used the laptop to log on to Facebook. This enabled the monitoring company to gather the suspect’s personal information, including a photo of him, his name, and more. This was given to the Sheriff’s investigator who showed the photo of the suspect to the victims. They immediately recognized him as an unlicensed contractor who had done work at their home two months prior. The victim didn’t know him by name, but their information was sufficient to find and arrest the suspect.
Do you have access to such software?
Do these rules apply to the legislators as well?