Stop Inconveniencing Me!

To my valued client (you know who you are):

I appreciate that you are (usually) current in paying your bills.  And I do appreciate that you always cooperate with me when I handle your legal affairs.

This time, however, you have let me down.  The package you sent me via international mail caused me lots of grief today.  You knew that the original 300+ page document is filed in the courthouse, and that I already have been e-mailed a pdf scan of it by the opposing attorney.  I do not need a the hard copy you sent me.

By sending me the COPY that was served upon you, and by sending it in a postal modality that required my signature, I had to drive all the way to the other side of town to the postal unit that handles the Israeli version of Registered Mail (I tried going yesterday, but the office was closed in the afternoons, and my commitments for the morning precluded me going when during yesterday's office hours).  Then I had to find parking; the best I could do was about 3 blocks away.  And because my name on my relevant Israeli ID documents is in Hebrew, and the package was addressed in English, the postal bureaucrat got into a shouting match with me over whether I was the real intended recipient.  (Did I mention that it took them about 15 minutes to locate the package?).

Bottom line:  What would, in the USA, amount to a 20-minute excursion at worst, took me over two hours total.

Next time, please don't send unnecessary documents in modes that require my signature!

In order to ensure that you understand the inconvenience you are causing me, my time for this (mis)adventure will be reflected on your next bill.

Working For -- and Against -- Someone's Foolish Client

We all cannot have designer clients.  Some clients are an absolute pleasure to work with, and some you sometimes wish to strangle, and would readily do so were it not violative of the lawyer-client relationship.  I just got finished meeting with a client (actually, a non-client -- more on that shortly) who has attributes of both.

There obviously will be circumspection on the details and particulars, and I shall refrain from commenting on the stupidity and disingenuity of some of the arguments made by the plaintiffs (plural).  But it goes something like this:

This person has been a good friend since we moved to Long Island 20+ years ago.  He is brilliant, has an analytical mind, has run successful business ventures and, though he is not an attorney, he has successfully taken on more than one large corporation or government agency by suing pro se in the courts.  He occasionally has retained my professional services for various matters as appropriate.  Unfortunately, he and his wife have fallen on some hard times, though not nearly as hard as many others in the community. 

This time around, he is the defendant.  He and his small business corporation are being sued for, well, it really doesn't matter what for.  He is now defending himself pro se, and has been asking me and another lawyer from our congregation for some informal legal advice, which I don't particularly mind giving, in light of all he has done for me over the years.

The problem is that while he can defend himself pro se in the courts, his corporation must appear in court by an attorney who is duly admitted and in good standing.  So I am now stuck with defending the corporation of which he is CEO, Chairman of the Board, top technical wonk and a significant shareholder (albeit not quite a majority shareholder).

I now need to walk a thin line.  I need to zealously represent the interests of the corporation, and confer with him in doing so.  I need to avoid, to the greatest extent possible, conflicts between the corporation's interests and my non-client's personal interests (when he first called me, it took a while for me to explain why I would not represent both him and his corporation).  And I really do not wish to see such a good friendship get strained, particularly in light of the fact that my wife is very friendly with his wife.

I expect to mail out the answering papers for the corporation in the next day or two.  My non-client is drafting his own, but needs some pointers here and there as to why some of the arguments and assertions I am making on behalf of the corporation are not applicable or appropriate to him personally, and vice versa.

The time I expect to spend on this one will, on a per-hour basis, bring me paltry compensation for the aggravation.  And, given his personal finances, it will be a while before I see the really significant billings (though historically, this individual has paid his bills to me, even if a year and a half late, and other professionals I know (lawyers, accountants, architects) have had similar experiences with him).

On the other hand, it is an interesting case.  There are some interesting legal questions which I would love to be resolved in published court decisions showing me as the winning attorney.  If things work out well, however, it will never come to that because the case will settle out of court.

But in order for that to happen, I will need to handle the case as though it will work its way all the way up the ranks to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Si vis pacem, pari bellum

Burnout

I'm all burnt out, after a busy week. In no particular order:

My Final Exams are finished -- sort of. There are still 4 students who need to take their Final Exams, what with conflicts and medical issues and the like. I'm not much on making the special arrangements, but these four all had legitimate situations.

Actually, the exams were originally scheduled for first thing this coming Monday morning, but none of the students were too keen on the idea, and I was even less keen on the idea (and I had a conflict, to boot). So I was able to get a room (ironically, the same room in which the class had normally convened during the semester) in the late afternoon to the evening, so I held two exam sessions, and covered all but 4 students. That's not bad. And, what with the snowstorm(s), I guess that the students and their instructor really lucked out.

But now, I need to grade the Exams. That's my project this coming week -- along with grading the Term Papers.


2. Our fatso friend, referred to as "He" in prior postings here and here and here, was our houseguest this Shabbat. He initially had set out to go to the city to visit his son and daughter-in-law, but the snow was coming down and he saw the aftermath of a collision, so he called our rabbi, with whom he also has an open invitation. The rabbi's daughter had 3 friends staying over, and one of the rebbitzin's friends was also there, so the rabbi called me to ask us to put He up for Shabbat. It was no problem, especially because our son was still away at school (his last final exam is this coming Tuesday).

The best thing is that He didn't have a chance to stop at the bakery for his usual fattening cakes and pies, so my wife wasn't tempted to eat those things (believe me, she ate enough as it was, especially for Shabbat lunch, when the Ivy League lawyer mentioned here also joined us, thus replicating the same situation -- and results -- as the Shabbat on Sukkot when I was the only nonfatso at the lunch table. But we all had a good time, as usual.

3. A law review article of mine, written and published a couple of years ago, came to the attention of a lawyer with whom I am acquainted. Turns out that it is relevant to a case he has. The upshot is that I got paid to do an hour's research regarding related issues in his case. If he plays his cards correctly, his client stands to gain a nice piece of change from some of his former business associates.

4. Tonight is the first night of Chanukah. It was just me and my wife, being that our son is still away at school. But that's not so bad either!

Happy Chanukah (to all those who celebrate it)!