The Importance of Asking Questions by Justin Steele

            When I first started here at Rice, Amundsen & Caperton I was told that I should ask as many questions as was necessary to get the job done right.   I was, of course, reluctant to do that because I believed that it would seem like dumb questions or like I was less capable than other people in the office.  However, the truth of the matter is that everyone asks questions and asks a lot of questions.  I quickly learned the value of making sure to get all the information on the front end. 

             

            All of the staff here and Larry himself are very accepting and understanding of asking a lot of questions.  When I get a new assignment or project I spend a significant amount of time asking questions.  Who is it for?  What’s the story behind this?  What are we trying to accomplish?  How long do I have to get it done?  Where do you want me to send it, file it, save it?  In my opinion, this is one of the most fundamental skills of working in a law office.  Whether it’s a big firm with big name clients, or a small firm, cases get complicated and it can be difficult to know about all the developments or positions that need to be taken.  Therefore, we ask a lot of questions.

           

           While asking questions is fundamental to understanding the goals and tasks that are assigned to you, it is not the only thing that we do to make sure everyone is on the same page.  We spend time discussing the cases in meetings and trying to figure out the best way to approach each case.  These meetings are the place where law clerks like me get to sit down and ask a lot of questions and see how attorneys organize and strategize in complex litigation.  Asking questions in and out of meetings and before or during assignments is the best way to start learning the practice of law.

The Legal Field and Innovation by Bo Murphy

In law we have an affinity for unique and old things, like historic court houses, old cases that set precedents that have been followed for generations, and hard copies in our hands. However, as almost all fields in everyday life are transforming to being “Green” and more sustainable, the legal field in most places is intent on staying the way they have been, and is reluctant to change. While this is not exceptionally bad that we do not want to change, and perhaps a lot of change is not needed because the law field is dictated by formalities, some parts of the field can and should be revolutionized.

            In any courtroom trial, both sides will have tens of boxes filled with paper that costs the client a varying amount per page, and it is not just the lawyer’s way of getting money out of the client, all of this printing is required.  When someone goes to court to file a document, they must have several copies of each document, and each party must get a paper copy. While we understand the reason for this, it can become costly in both mailing and printing for the client, and with our technology today, we should be able to minimize these costs through electronic means, instead of having to pay for the printing of four separate counterparts and the shipping to the respective counsel we should be able to electronically mail each party a copy.

            While some counties have now institutionalized filing and made filing available electronically, still many, many, many others continue to insist on in personam filings and do not have electronic means to allow filing. For instance, if there is a trial a county over from where the attorney hired is located, most jurisdictions require someone from that office to personally drive to the respective court clerk to file the document, which expenses time, resources, and the client’s hard earned money, when the technology is more than capable of reducing these costs by electronic means.

            Some may think of this is as a completely ignorant idea and believe that there is no place for a complete electronic take over in the legal field, and they are correct. I have not said that everything should be electronic; I understand that some things must be in hard copy, but I firmly believe that other things should be allowed to be sent electronically, not in paper form. I further think that having the documents on a computer and sending them electronically to the court in preparation for trial instead of having to print of thousands of pages of documents in preparation for trial would be the more responsible and a much more cost effective way to conduct business in the future. Will this happen any time soon, the answer is affirmatively “No,” but will it happen in the future, I will just say it is hard to imagine it not.

Meetings by Justin Steele

6.11.14

Meetings

            This past Friday we closed the doors and hung up the phones a little early so that we could have an end of the month meeting.  Everyone here at Rice, Amundsen & Caperton works very hard but they also knows how to have a good time and actually enjoys being around each other. These meetings are some of my favorite times at work.  There is always a purpose to the meetings (this time it was bonuses) which is nice. However, my favorite part sitting back with everyone and telling stories, jokes and just having a good time.

            In my opinion, it’s a rare thing that staff in an office is willing to stay past five on a Friday for anything, much less an informal meeting.  The fact that the majority of the staff was here and laughing along until past six is a good indicator of what a fun place to work this is.  Prior to becoming a law clerk, I always assumed that law offices were the types of places where everyone was very upset and no one liked each other.  I guess, somewhat juvenilely, I expected something similar to Scrooge’s office in A Christmas Carol, maybe without the ghosts. By working here, I got the exact opposite.  Normally, everyone is in a good mood and, even though they are working hard and getting a lot done for a lot of clients, they have time to tell a good story or make a joke.

            I feel very fortunate that I get to work at an office with such fine, hardworking, and interesting people.

Amendment Two by Justin Steele

            The other day Larry asked me to do a research on Amendment 2 and come up with arguments for what he wanted to say in an address he was about to give.  Regrettably, I did not know anything about Amendment 2, which will be on the ballot in November, but I started and researching and was a little disappointed with what I found.  

Currently, the Tennessee Constitution says, “The judges of the Supreme Court shall be elected by the qualified voters of the state…”.  From “shall be elected by the qualified voters” we derived an interesting process.  Step one, a committee of attorneys, non-attorneys, and judges choose three candidates for the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. Step two, the governor chooses from those three candidates.  However, if the governor does not find any of the three candidates satisfactory, he can deny all of them but the governor must choose from the second round of three. Step three, once the governor has made his decision, the appointed (not elected) judge starts to work immediately, finishing out whatever term is left from the previous judge.  At the end of that term, the judge comes up for a retention election.   A retention election is simply the judges name is placed on a ballot with a “yes” or “no” option with no other candidates for judge.  If the people happen to all vote no, then the process restarts and a new judge is appointed. 

Amendment two attempts to change the language of the Tennessee Constitution to say,

Judges of the Supreme Court or any intermediate appellate court shall be appointed for a full term or to fill a vacancy by and at the discretion of the governor; shall be confirmed by the Legislature; and thereafter, shall be elected in a retention election by the qualified voters of the state.

While the amendment does not actually change the current process much.  For instance, it only switches the order by which the governors are chosen.  Step one, the governor appoints a judge from whatever pool of candidates he likes.  Step two, the legislature either approves or denies the candidate within sixty days.  Step three, the people have a say in the same sort of retention election as before.  However, this new amendment does allow for the legislature and governor to pretend like they have always been following the constitution.

            Personally, I think that this is a bad amendment and I would prefer we go back to what the constitution originally required where the qualified voters get to  elect the supreme court.

Also, don’t forget to go to http://commercialappeal.secondstreetapp.com/l/Memphis-Most-2014/Ballot/MemphisServices and vote for Rice, Amundsen & Caperton as the best law firm in Memphis.  Voting continues every hour until June 9^th.

Extention of Gideon v. Wainwright by Justin Steele

            For the past couple weeks I have been thinking about Gideon v. Wainwright and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.   In Gideon, a man was arrested, for public intoxication and for allegedly stealing the money from a jukebox.  The Florida court would not give him counsel despite the fact that he had no money to afford counsel.  During that time, the states were not required to give indigent defendants the assistance of counsel.  Because of this, the state of Florida had determined they would only provide assistance of counsel when a party was unable to afford one and it was a capital offense.  Eventually, after certiorari was granted, the United States Supreme Court determined that the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel was going to be applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.   While Gideon forced the states to provide assistance of counsel to insolvent defendants in criminal matters, it does not require the state to provide insolvent individuals assistance of counsel in civil matters.

            States are not required to provide assistance of counsel in any kind of civil proceeding.  However, in 2006, the ABA’s Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants (SCLAID) drafted basic principles for when the civil right to counsel should exist.  As a result, many states have either tracked the ABA’s basic principles exactly, or adopted a large portion of it.  These basic principles recognized a governmental obligation to fund and supply effective legal representation to all poor persons involved in the type of high stakes proceedings within the civil justice system that place them at risk of losing their homes, custody of their children, protection from actual or threatened violence, access to basic health care, their sole source of financial support, or other fundamental necessities of life. 

            Civil right to counsel is obviously a hard thing for a lot of people to get behind because of the obvious costs that will be put onto the public.  To fix this, California in 2009 enacted legislation that added a ten dollar charge to certain post judgment fees that was going on in the state to fund a civil right to counsel pilot program.  While I think that an additional fee and pilot program is a fine option for the state of California, other states have been trying different ideas. For instance, Tennessee does not provide any kind of civil right to counsel but it does suggest that attorneys within the state report their pro bono hours that they do each year.  While Tennessee’s method does not provide a guaranteed right to counsel, it gives attorneys an incentive to help people that do not have the ability to pay.  Some states have gone even further and changed the should do pro bono work to the must do a set amount of hours each year in pro bono work. 

            I think that an extension of Gideon v. Wainright to certain high risk civil cases is approaching quickly.  Other than the SCLAID, there are several organizations that are lobbying, writing amicus briefs, and organizing to force the state legislatures to look into civil right to counsel, such as, National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel (NCCRC), which has no set base and Committee for Indigent Representation and Civil Legal Equality (CIRCLE) which, is based at Seattle University.   This will be an interesting development in the law and I look forward to seeing how it plays out.