Rent-a-desk Lawyering

In these days of outsourcing, it's no wonder that even legal work is being farmed out to off shore "legal help" companies who provide part time and single job work by foreign workers trained in US law. Well, with that happening, it's no surprise that some firms are now looking for other ways to cut costs but keep using their current associate-level lawyer personnel.

One way was found by Canadian law firm Thackray Burgess that decided they didn't need lawyer associates anymore. Instead they just rented out desk space to them and cut them loose, sort of, and renamed them as Consultants. The associates, errrr, consultants, do as much work (or as little) as they want, setting their own hours and even working from home if they want.

The idea certainly has some appeal for the right circumstances. The Firm rents a desk to a lawyer but they don't work for the Firm. Instead, they do piecemeal work for the Firm (and get paid for it) or do work which they have generated on their own (and for which the Firm gets paid a cut of the fees). It's not much different from the kind of business real estate leasing where a business rents a location and pays a base rent (the desk) plus a percentage of the business generated from that location (the cut of other non-Firm-generated fees).

But is it good for you? That depends on which end of the equation you are on and what the terms are, but it certainly could be. Lawyers who want to work but want to balance that workload with a more fulfilling home life may find it a very attractive alternative to the grind that the "partner" path seems to be. And law firms that are looking to cut costs, while providing a different kind oand perhaps more satisfying working relationship, may find this approach suits them perfectly.

And with the glut of new lawyers, Rent-a-desk Lawyering just might be the best answer to the unemployment line blues that can await the new grads who can't find a full time job.

Ronald L. Burdge

www. The Law Coach .com
Helping Attorneys Win Cases Since 1978

Getting Recalls Into Evidence

One of the aggravating parts of handling a product defect case is when the government recalls
the very product in your case and the defendant argues that you shouldn't be able to use the recall in evidence to persuade the jury that the product is defective. Aggravating indeed.

Seems like there's lots of recalls on the news nowadays and the mere existence on the news can help people understand both the reality and the prevalence of defective products in our society. But how can you actually get the recall into evidence so the jury in your case can hear about it?

Well, the first rule is to remember that if the recall indicates that a defect was present when the product left the manufacturer then it is relevant in your case. Relevant evidence is just something that makes it more likely, or less likely, that a disputed fact is true. So, does it?

Some judges will want the defect in your case to be the same as the defect in the recall. Others are more liberal about it. Just remember, your argument should focus on the fact that the recall makes it possible that a defect existed in an entire group of products and your case involves one of those products. Take a look at Bailey v Monaco Coach (ND Ga 2004), 350 F.Supp.2d 1036.

And when the defendant argues that the recall is hearsay, don't forget that you can argue that it is actually admissible as an admission by the defendant so it isn't really hearsay at all. Still, you have to know your evidence rules and be ready to quickly cite the rule numbers that apply.

Keep in mind that if a defendant claims its product is safe or the best or carefully designed, etc, you may be able to use the recall as evidence that can impeach the defendant's claim.

Impeachment, direct, rebuttal, hearsay --- whatever. The bottom line is that you need to carefully plot out how you can use recall evidence in your case and be prepared for a tough fight from the defendant. Recall evidence can be crucial to prove the truth of a product's defective nature or history, so don't give up easy.

Ronald L. Burdge

www. The Law Coach .com
Helping Consumer Law Attorneys Win Cases Since 1978

Click here to see some of our common coaching topics and how we can help you.

Economy Tightens Patience for Legal Services

Okay, the economy is certainly tightening up, thanks to the credit crunch and the mortgage mess.

Clients are getting impatient with the time it takes to get good results. And they can't understand why defendants don't just "do what's right" and settle their case.

Of course the reason is money. It probably has nothing to do with who is right and who is wrong. It has everything to do with holding on to the money for as long as you can.

Defendants are stalling longer than ever before, trying to keep the money in their own pocket for as long as they can. And they are arguing over every nickel and dime like it's someone's eye teeth.

Defense attorneys seem to be practically inventing ways to work their files more, which stalls the file more and builds up more fees, and that costs the plaintiff more. With defense law firms now cutting back and laying off, it's no wonder that the remaining attorneys are looking for ways to pump up their billings.

You'd think their clients would wise up, but then again they appear more willing to pay their lawyers to fight than to pay a plaintiff to settle --- even when it's cheaper to pay to settle. That doesn't make good business sense to us, but apparently it does to them.

And some people wonder why the public disdains the legal profession. Heck, even some lawyers do.

For now, plaintiff's lawyers need to get economically smart in a hurry if they are going to ride out the current economic slump and the settlement slump being cause by defense tactics. Time to watch the billables, income, and expenses very carefully.