BULLETINS FROM ALOHA

Lawyers Who Fall in Love  --  Agnes Peterson from St. Helens appeared at a Washington County Bar Association meeting many years back to announce she was running for the Oregon State Bar Board of Governors for Region Four.  She opened her pitch by announcing genuinely that she ".....loved lawyers."   Her statement has always fascinated me.  She meant it.  It is so uncommon.  And it should always be able to be true for all of us.  We should love our brothers and sisters in this difficult profession. 

For me, I love the profession and I love and admire other lawyers.  Some of them don't love me back.  My education began shortly after I returned from a short vacation and my stable-mate reported that "...his client" needed some help while I was away and announced to me what "he" was going to do for "his client".   Wait a durn minute.  This is my client that I asked my mate to cover for me while I was gone.  My mate had inappropriately taken possession of my client for himself by virtue of this temporary cover for me.  Odd.

Several years later during a romantic alliance with a special person, I referred her divorcing mother to a local lawyer, of whom I had respect, and all went well.  Later, I fired a divorcing professional client because he was laundering money in an effort to hide some of his assets from his other half.   I went to some effort to arrange for his alternative representation with this same local divorce lawyer.  About a year later I got an odd call from her.  It didn't take a Philadelphia lawyer to realize this local lawyer was turning on me in this matter that I had gratuitously arranged for her to handle for this client whom I had fired (and who still owed me lotsa money).  Odd.  Why would she go out of her way to do bad for me when I had just gone out of my way to do good for her twice?

My final story in the me'lange (though I could present quite a few others) was again a local lawyer (who I socialized with and served with in a professional organization)  who specialized in something I knew how to do, but didn't like.  So, he was first on my list to refer those sorts of cases to and I did so often since there were many clients in this sort of pickle.  Lo, and behold, on an important client he also turned and began an aggressive advocacy against me for no apparent reason I could discern.

Now I can understand the give and take of normal advocacy, but even there, at the end of the case we should be able to at least have coffee together sometime, in lieu of meetings at the old Green Meadows where an even better social lubricant was available.  What I don't understand at all is why a lawyer does not love a lawyer who is referring, without condition, good clients to that lawyer.  Even more strange is why the turn and facility to insert the metal fang in the back.  Where does that get anybody in our profession?  If anybody has some insight here, I would love to have it.  In the meantime, I will continue to love this dysfunctional profession housing dysfunctional judges abusing turncoat lawyers.    Well, let me rethink this love business.......................

JUDGES/JUSTICES WHO LIE  --  After fifteen years of public service on the United States Supreme Court, Chief Justice Earl Warren decided in 1968  it was time to plan his departure and so notified President Lyndon Johnson.   President Johnson decided to tap his close friend and Associate Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice.  Because Johnson was a lame duck and the Democratic leaders in Congress had become weak, it was not altogether certain Justice Fortas's nomination would be approved.   Even though he would not necessarily have to testify before the Judiciary Committee because Justice Fortas was already sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court, he decided to appear anyway, confident in his abilities before the Senate committee.  Ego and greed spelled his undoing.  When asked about his relationship with President Johnson, he elected to lie.  In truth and in fact, Justice Fortas had a direct (red-button) telephone line to President Johnson where he proposed candidates for presidential appointments, drafted presidential statements and was active on weekly war luncheons with President Johnson regarding Vietnam.  Yet, when asked about same, he lied to the senators.  It was then disclosed that his former law firm was laundering money in order that he got paid $15,000 for teaching during the summer at American University.  The final straw that took even his Associate Justice job was the further disclosure that he had accepted (then returned) $20,000 per year for life for advising a client while also sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.  (Keep in mind that justices on the U.S. Supreme Court were only paid $39,000 at the time.) 

FUN SUPREME COURT FACTS  --  Can you guess whether sitting Supreme Court justices rule without reading the materials sent to them by lawyers, relying instead on memorandums provided them by their staff?   Is it legal to delegate the responsibility to read the briefs and other materials submitted to them by the parties then rule based on the clerk's memorandums rather than the submitted materials themselves?

The United States Supreme Court had over 8,000 petitions for certiorari submitted to them last year and accepted only 80 of them for an opinion   --   this is the lowest number of opinions for the last ten years. (Source  --  Linda Greenhouse, NY Times) 

The American Bar Association goal is that 90% of all discretionary cases taken for review should be disposed of within 365 days of filing.  The Supreme Court of Oregon takes 834 days.    The Oregon State Bar  and the Appellate Process Review Committee is to reexamine the appellate process in Oregon in 2007.  Chief Justice Paul De Muniz delivered the first ever "State of the Oregon Courts" to the Salem City Club on January 12, 2007.  You can watch a video of this presentation at www.cctvsalem.org then select 'archived government meetings' then find 'State of the Courts.'  For the written materials contact the Oregon Department of Justice. 

BIZZARE LAWSUITS  --  The Plaintiff, an Episcopal Bishop,  hurt his knee while playing tennis at the Naval Training Center.  He claimed the injury prevented him from genuflecting and sued the U.S. government for $200,000.  The government counterclaimed alleging the holy man had been sneaking onto the tennis courts in the first place and otherwise had no right to be there.  The case was dismissed with neither side paying anything.

Some years ago Nike sued Runners World because Nike was unhappy with the test results on Nike shoes as published in Runners World, a magazine for joggers and the like.  The battle of titans ensued with both sides alleging libel and other bad things.  Each side hired the top law firms in Portland and San Francisco.  After each side expended about $1 million dollars in attorney fees,  the entire matter was dismissed with neither side paying anything.  Epilogue  --  Nike, ever the aggressive company,  then sued their own insurance company for the cost of defense even though they sued in the first place.