Our mission is to expose and remedy corruption in the Probate Court of Cook County, Illinois. We assist, educate and enlighten families of the dead, the dying, the disabled and the aged to better understand their rights in order to protect themselves from the excesses of the Probate Court of Cook County. ProbateSharks.com is dedicated to networking the human element of people to people. We join together in reforming the corrupt Cook County Probate Court system.
Showing posts with label Solo Practitioners. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Solo Practitioners. Show all posts
Editor's note: This Shark would like to see an examination of ethics or lack thereof in the Probate Court of Cook County. Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Like everyone else, I took ethics in law school. We learned the ABA Rules, role-played scenarios such as a client revealing during a deposition that he’s a white supremacist, and generally spent a lot of time discussing what-ifs. Then I had to pass the MPRE, which is ostensibly about ethics, though I suspect it primarily tests one’s ability to answer trick questions (e.g., “which one of these questions is not three-fourths false?”). So when I graduated, hopefully I had a good understanding of ethics.
Then I went to Biglaw and forgot it all.
Well, maybe not exactly, but as an associate getting force-fed work, you don’t really have that many ethical issues. I didn’t have long agonizing brooding sessions about whether it was ethical to draft a 10-K. I’d even say that it takes some effort to be unethical. Starting a Ponzi scheme or telling people the parties to the latest M&A deal aren’t things that are hard to avoid. (I wouldn’t have had a clue who to blab to even if I had wanted to tell someone — it’s not like anyone was demanding I tell them what I’m working on, or even expressing any interest in it — and in the throes of a deal I was too busy to communicate with anyone outside of the circle of trust anyways.) I used to read stories about lawyers being disbarred for “co-mingling” funds and I knew that sounded bad, but I’d wonder what exactly that meant. Why did the lawyer have his client’s funds in the first place? Clients never sent me money and asked me to hold onto it for them for awhile. Odd.
But in SmallLaw, ethics matters are much more upfront and personal. When you have your own practice, it doesn’t take long to become well-versed in the ethics rules. You learn quickly what a lawyer’s trust account is and that when a client pays a retainer it has to go into your trust account and stay there until you earn it. (So no trips to Rio until you actually do some work.)
When I have lunch with my fellow SmallLaw practitioners, something about the ethics rules will invariably come up, conversations which simply didn’t happen in Biglaw. Advertising, for example. There are a lot of ethics rules relating to advertising, and they vary from state to state. In general, you’re not allowed to make promises and you can’t call yourself something that implies a certain result. (So my marketing scheme of being the “Jailbreak Lawyer” went down the tubes.) Because of the New York ethics rules, in my quarterly newsletter I have to include “[ATTORNEY ADVERTISING]” in the subject line. So basically every three months I pull an all-nighter composing something that goes right into everyone’s spam folder. Makes me feel all warm & fuzzy inside.
And in SmallLaw, you get presented with all kinds of shady stuff. People will dream up a get-rich scheme — often involving soliciting medical malpractice cases — and all they need to carry it out is someone with a law degree who doesn’t ask a lot of questions. (You get this a lot if you have a D.C. license, where it’s legal to partner with a non-attorney). Unethical? Hard to say for certain. But close enough to make me nervous.
One thing about being your own boss, you get the chance to find out how ethical you really are. When you don’t have enough in your operating account to cover all your bills for the month yet you have thousands of dollars sitting in your trust account that you could transfer over with two clicks, that is a much more immediate in-your-face ethics situation than resisting puffing your hours or keeping the parties to an M&A deal confidential.
But, like a lot of things about the leap to SmallLaw, it all helps you be a better attorney, and maybe even a better person. You make the decision you’re going to do the right thing, and then go from there. After all, someone needs to be constantly checking the rules of professional responsibility and making sure you’re in compliance. Might as well be you. Gary J. Ross opened his own practice, Jackson Ross PLLC, in 2013 after several years in Biglaw and the federal government. Gary handles corporate and compliance matters for investment funds, small businesses, and non-profits, occasionally dabbling in litigation. You can reach Gary by email at Gary.Ross@JacksonRossLaw.com.
It has often been observed that litigation is war. The analogy is not perfect, but studying military strategy and tactics can prove fruitful for litigators. While many people often turn to Sun Tzu’s Art of War, for guidance in the applicability of military thought to modern business and litigation, I have a soft spot for von Clausewitz’s Vom Kriege (affiliate links). Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz (July 1, 1780 – November 16, 1831) was a Prussian soldier and military theorist who stressed the “moral” (in modern terms, psychological) and political aspects of war. His most notable work, Vom Kriege (On War), was unfinished at his death.
While all of Vom Kriege is worth your time, I wanted to highlight one passage in particular…
From On War:
I. Warfare has three main objects: (a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy; (b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and (c) To gain public opinion.
These three main objectives align very closely with litigation. Lawyers engage in an adversarial contest in the context of the legal system in order to best the opposing party. Plaintiffs seek to recover awards; Defendants seek to deny them. And both sides seek to win the opinion of the judge, jury — and if the case is large enough — to spin, brand, and direct the media narrative.
Von Clausewitz also laid out four rules to follow when in pursuit of these objectives:
I. The first and most important rule to observe in order to accomplish these purposes, is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. Any moderation shown would leave us short of our aim. Even with everything in our favor, we should be unwise not to make the greatest effort in order to make the result perfectly certain. For such effort can never produce negative results.
This rule, often referred to as “Total War,” states that if warfare is to be pursued, it should be pursued with all the weight and power that can be summoned. The same is true for litigation. Organization, preparation, and planning are of the utmost performance. Litigation cannot be “phoned in.” Nor does it follow a nice pre-set path. As has been noted many times at What About Clients:
“Complexity. Ambiguity. A messy problem. A “hard” thing. More and more employees don’t like it. They can’t deal with it. They want a “form”, a template, a program. But great work doesn’t have “forms.” Am terribly sorry about that. You will just have to think, and suffer through this, on your own. We hired you–all of you–to solve problems.”
When going into litigation, one must marshal all their forces to bare. Each argument, motion, and letter must be drafted with the intent to win. There is never room for “good enough.” You might win here and there on small matters and in small venues. But eventually you will come up against a party opponent who has adopted the mindset of “Total War” and you will be crushed. Only if you bring your full attention and effort into each litigation matter will you be able to put up a fight. Instead of being routed, you will engage in a battle of will.
II. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. This will compensate for all other disadvantages.
III.The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly.
Surprise plays a much greater role in strategy than in tactics. It is the most important element of victory. Napoleon, Frederick II, Gustavus Adolphus, Caesar, Hannibal, and Alexander owe the brightest rays of their fame to their swiftness.
Strike hard, strike fast. While this is a common practice in the plaintiffs bar, it is equally important for defendants. When a fully formed complaint and extensive discovery lands on your desk — which the client sent to you two weeks after they had been served with them — speed is of the essence. But there are times for repose as well. The plaintiffs bar generally is poor at patience, preferring to file as soon as possible. But careful planning and investigation can yield dividends down the road. And defendants, especially corporate ones, have the advantage of time on their side in drawn out discovery that may weaken a plaintiff.
IV. Finally, the fourth rule is to follow up our successes with the utmost energy. Only pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory.
The trial is done. The jury has reached a verdict. You won! Congratulations! Immediately begin to prepare for an appeal. Don’t wait to get the Notice of Appeal 42 days from now. Even worse, especially don’t wait to prepare until you receive the opposing parties appellate brief.
If you have never read On War, it would be well worth your time to do so. It’s also not something to be read once and put onto the bookshelf to never look at again. As with most of the Classics, repeated readings lend new insight and deeper understanding of the principles within. The Classics are not meant to be read, they are meant to be studied.
You can find the entire book online here. Or you can purchase a hardcopy on Amazon (affiliate link) for $10, or a Kindle edition for $0.99. Keith Lee practices law at Hamer Law Group, LLC in Birmingham, Alabama. He writes about professional development, the law, the universe, and everything at Associate’s Mind. He is also the author of The Marble and The Sculptor: From Law School To Law Practice (affiliate link), published by the ABA. You can reach him at keith.lee@hamerlawgroup.com or on Twitter at @associatesmind.
Editor's note: Your ProbateShark finds it interesting that within the ProbateShark.com blog there is a link to a special older newsletter authored by an attorney. This newsletter and its video describe the complete technique of "Elder Cleansing". Lucius Verenus, Schoolmaster, ProbateSharks.com
Ever since December 9, 2002, when I launched my first blog, MyShingle.com, I’ve extolled the virtues of blogging for lawyers all over the Internet, every chance I’d get. Way back in 2003, before the term “blog” entered the vernacular, I created a comprehensive presentation on the 13 benefits of blogging (in blog format, naturally) that’s largely still relevant today. I also published dozens of articles and blog posts about blogging, spoke about blogging, and produced a short video on blogging as the centerpiece of social media campaign. My blogging has lead to a couple of clients and many professional opportunities; most recently, a blog post that I penned right here at ATL earned me a twenty-second spot on the Daily Show. Heck, I’ve even been sued for blogging!
Yet in spite of my love affair blogging, these days, I no longer believe as ardently as I once did that solo and small firm lawyers should take up blogging to market their practice or to show what they know to prospective clients. Sure, there are exceptions. For lawyers who’ve already taken up blogging in law school or who have a unique viewpoint about practice area that they yearn to share, starting a blog is a no-brainer. Likewise, blogging makes sense if writing about the challenges of practicing law or handling particular types of cases offers a pleasurable release from the stress. If mind and computer keyboard operate as a seamless unit, with thoughts effortlessly transforming into cogent and compelling prose, then blogging makes sense as well.
But let’s face it: most lawyers aren’t built that way….
The reality is that most lawyers, particularly those just out of school, are strapped for time or still learning the craft and the pressure to write even more after a tough day at the office is really the last thing they want to do. At the same time, having been led to believe by persistent marketers that blogging is the end all and be all, many lawyers waste thousands of dollars a year on pallid, SEO-laden, canned, ghost-written blog content that does little to generate web traffic or clients. Other lawyers start a blog with the best of intentions, only to have it wither and die on the vine just a few months later.
It’s not just lawyers’ schedules that stand in the way of blogging success. There’s also substantially more online content competing for consumer attention than ever before – though the number of potential clients reading blogs hasn’t increased in the same proportions. And while large firms have the manpower, in the form of associates and paralegals, to keep churning out blog content, most solos simply don’t have the resources to compete. The confluence of all of these factors means that there’s less ROI (return on investment) from blogging — at least in its current form — than ever before.
That’s not to say that solos and smalls should give up on content marketing. Instead, they need to seek out a more effective way to disseminate content. And in my view, that’s the e-newsletter — a newsletter that’s distributed entirely by email. Here’s six reasons why. 1. More Depth, Less Frequency
Although I write endless blog posts (this one being Exhibit A), many web readers lack the attention for a 2,000-word blog posts. Yet often, short posts result in over-simplification of issues that can be misleading for consumer clients and not particularly useful for a more sophisticated business audience. Newsletters allow more flexibility for longer articles, since readers are more likely to print out or save newsletters than blog posts. On the other hand, newsletters don’t demand the same consistency as blog posts. If you start a blog and only write every month or two, chances are, you’ll lose most of the audience. By contrast, lawyers can send just 2-3 newsletters a year and retain the same level of readership. 2. Ability to Build Contact Lists
Because blogs are publicly posted, they’re available to anyone who happens by. Trouble is, even if a blog receives hundreds of visitors daily, that’s useless from a marketing perspective if a lawyer doesn’t know who those readers are and has no way of contacting them. An e-newsletter enables lawyers to build the all-important contact list. Each time a user registers for the newsletter, or you add a contact with their permission, you build a valuable contact list that you can use to promote law firm events or offer new services such as business audits or a free consultation.
A blog simply isn’t as effective for this purpose. If you blog erratically, chances are no one will see any of your announcements, and if you have a substantial following, you may wind up giving away benefits to a far larger audience than anticipated. Contact lists are the lifeblood of law firm business marketing. E-newsletters help build them. Blogs don’t. 3. Ability to Share Higher Quality and Personal Content
For all the talk about free sharing of information, no one wants to — or should, for that matter — put out valuable content with nothing in return. Certainly, when lawyers blog, they want to write in enough detail to demonstrate command of a practice area. But let’s face it, no one wants to publicly post a step-by-step game plan for handling a case that every other competitor law firm can pick up and use for its own benefit. By putting quality information into a newsletter, you have more control over where it’s disseminated. In addition, many times lawyers want to share tidbits of personal information about hobbies or even photos of their family or pets — but may feel uncomfortable doing so publicly on a blog. By contrast, if you choose to share this information in a newsletter, it won’t be available to the entire Internet (unless of course, as discussed below, you decide to post the newsletter publicly). 4. More Likely To Attract Readers
Perhaps it’s anecdotal, but even when I blogged regularly on energy regulatory topics, I had few readers. It wasn’t the content; rather, it’s just that most of my target audience — small energy developers and entrepreneurs, corporate utility counsel and large firm lawyers — generally keep up to date on developments through one or two paid news services and rarely if ever read blogs. When I finally understood my potential clients’ reading preferences, I decided to launch an e-newsletter, which generated far better feedback than my blogs ever had. For example, I noticed through the tracking tool that at least half of the subscribers were opening the newsletter and clicking on the article. In addition, at least every issue of the newsletter generates one or two complimentary emails from readers or acknowledgements during conversations at industry events. So for me, e-newsletters have been far more effective in reaching my target audience in my energy practice than blogging — though your mileage may vary, of course. 5. Cheaper and Easier to Set Up
It’s not difficult to set up a blog using out-of-the-box platforms like WordPress or Tumblr or Blogger — but it can be tough to actually make your blog look decent. By contrast, most newsletter templates like Mail Chimp or Constant Contact are easier to create and personalize. Plus, MailChimp offers a free service so you can experiment without commitment. 6. Best of Both Worlds
Understandably, some lawyers may be reluctant to focus their efforts on e-newsletters instead of increasing online visibility through blogging and SEO. But with e-newsletters, you don’t have to choose. Once you’ve issued a newsletter, you can re-circulate it either through a blog (if you choose to maintain one) or post it on JD Supra (as I do here or here). You can also generate links to newsletter content and disseminate them on Twitter or Facebook. As you introduce more readers to your newsletter through other sources, they may decide to subscribe as well.
Interested in getting started on your own e-newsletter? For added inspiration, check out this collection of solo and small firm newsletters that I’ve gathered — and feel free to drop me a line if you’d like to add your own. And feel free to add your comments to the blogging versus e-newsletter marketing smackdown below.
P.S. Speaking of newsletters, you can sign up for ATL’s various newsletters here. Carolyn Elefant has been blogging about solo and small firm practice at MyShingle.com since 2002 and operated her firm, the Law Offices of Carolyn Elefant PLLC, even longer than that. She’s also authored a bunch of books on topics like starting a law practice, social media, and 21st century lawyer representation agreements (affiliate links). If you’re really that interested in learning more about Carolyn, just Google her. The Internet never lies, right? You can contact Carolyn by email at elefant@myshingle.com or follow her on Twitter at @carolynelefant.
I was on Facebook the other day (no, I don’t want to be your friend), and a status update from a lawyer I’m friends with caught my eye. She was walking into the courthouse and was confronted by a “protester” who was yelling at everyone, proclaiming that attorneys are liars, are not to be trusted, are scum, etc. The usual.
Lots of people just don’t like lawyers. It’s a common trope. See yesterday’s post about a lawyer asking a teacher what he makes. Lawyers have become the punching bag for much of society. The butt of jokes, the target of scorn. Why is it that people dislike lawyers so much? Has it been the race to the bottom in lawyer advertising? Manipulative conduct in court? Taking advantage of “the little guy?” Personally, I think it comes down to one thing: Lawyers are professional a-holes…
Sure there are times that lawyers play nice with each other. And lawyers in certain practice areas can probably act nicer than others. But, generally speaking, nice isn’t exactly a quality that most people are looking for in an attorney. When you’re in a contested will battle, you don’t want your lawyer playing nice with the other side. When your child was run over by a municipal garbage truck, you don’t want your lawyer playing nice with the city. When you’re falsely accused of murder, you don’t want your lawyer playing nice with the prosecutor. You want your lawyer to fight and advocate for your position with everything they’ve got.
That’s not to say that there isn’t professional responsibility between opposing lawyers on a matter. There generally is. But at various points, a contested issue is going to come up and neither side will be willing to budge. And so the lawyers have to push and push until they get what they want.
Once a matter has made it to litigation, often times it’s because the parties can’t work it out. If people on opposite sides of an issue could work it out on their own, there wouldn’t be a need to involve lawyers. But because the parties are so opposed, so wronged, so injured, so unbelievably pissed off at one another, they can’t come to terms and need to hire professionals to handle the matter for them. The parties are too riled up to work it out themselves. They need someone else to be an a-hole in their place, but one who has professional distance and no emotional baggage, enabling them to actually resolve the problem.
And when non-lawyers get involved in this process, and see how the opposing counsel is acting towards their lawyer, their perspective, to them themselves — they become angry. They think lawyers are scum. Lawyers lie and misrepresent the truth. They protect “the man” and squash “the little guy.” They bring frivolous lawsuits and cause insurance prices to go up. They take advantage of society and make things much more complicated than they really are.
Except of course, their lawyer. Their lawyer is the best.
By the way, my friend’s response to the “protester”: Keith Lee practices law at Hamer Law Group, LLC in Birmingham, Alabama. He writes about professional development, the law, the universe, and everything at Associate’s Mind. He is also the author of The Marble and The Sculptor: From Law School To Law Practice (affiliate link), published by the ABA. You can reach him at keith.lee@hamerlawgroup.com or on Twitter at @associatesmind.
How much do you think it costs to kill a lawyer these days? Would it depend on the lawyer’s pedigree and prestige? How big is his book of business? Does he wear a pocket square?
These are just some of the important questions that factor into the price for a lawyer’s head, and if we had to guess, we’d start the bidding at about $75,000, since that’s likely what the very average lawyer who’s been practicing for a while could expect to earn in a year’s time.
Using that number as a starting point, if you found out that someone you loved wanted to kill you and offered just a measly $1,000 to the contract killer, you’d probably be insulted. But wait — what if she also offered sex as an additional incentive to “blow [your] brains out”?
Honey, no offense, but you really aren’t that good of a lay….
Meet Jessica Strom, pictured above in a fabulous orange jumpsuit with a V-neck so deep you can almost see cleavage. Prison couture is simply scandalous right now. Strom, a mother of three, is engaged to John Schellpfeffer, a solo practitioner whom she allegedly wanted to kill in cold blood. Strom was charged with conspiracy to commit first-degree intentional homicide, a felony that could earn her a 60-year sentence.
Here’s more info from the Wisconsin Rapids Tribune, the paper that first reported on these allegations:
Police were tipped off Wednesday to the murder-for-hire plot by a confidential informant who told them that Strom asked him to kill her fiance and fly to Door County to dispose of the victim’s body, according to a criminal complaint. The informant is a licensed pilot who met Strom several years ago while the two were taking criminal justice courses, according to the complaint.
After contacting police, the informant met with Strom on Thursday evening at a cafe in downtown Wausau, where Strom detailed a plan for the informant to make a bogus appointment at the intended victim’s law office, “blow his brains out and walk out,” according to court documents.
Strom offered sex and $1,000 as payment for the hit, according to the police report.
Pop quiz, hotshot. A federal judge issues an order to show cause that you should be “sanctioned for repeated failure to prosecute cases” and “barred from practicing in this District.” What do you do? What do you do?
The correct answer begins with “responding,” obviously. And when you’re in trouble over “failure to prosecute,” maybe that should light a fire under you to respond thoroughly and on time.
Yeah… this guy didn’t. Instead he provided a detailed, if legally irrelevant, explanation of how he was just too busy to worry about responding on time. Think of this as “Prelude to a Benchslap”…
Two weeks ago, Judge Ronald Leighton of the Western District of Washington issued an order to show cause aimed at attorney Robert J. Penfield. Judge Leighton observed that defendants in the case at hand reported that Penfield was entirely MIA on the case, having skipped out on initial disclosures and the 26(f) conference. Judge Leighton also noticed other cases in the district where Penfield followed a similar pattern:
This Court’s cursory review of the CM-ECF filings in this District disclosed two additional cases following the same script: file a case on behalf of a client facing foreclosure, do nothing else, and have the case dismissed for failure to prosecute.
In the aftermath of the housing crisis, attorneys offering a lifeline to victims of foreclosure and then pocketing their cash and walking away is a lucrative — if awful — business model. Judge Leighton had reason, based on the record, to fear that Penfield had taken a stroll down the Dark Side, so he issued the order to show cause threatening to disbar Penfield from the District.
Penfield had one week to respond.
Penfield did not respond by the deadline.
But at least he got close. He only blew the deadline by seven and a half hours:
1. First, I apologize to the Court for this response being 7 and one half hours late. My day yesterday was booked solid from 7 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. with business-related meetings, and I was unable to meet my obligation to find an hour to sit quietly and type this response. Monday the was similar in schedule, as were May 15 – 17. My weekend is my only time with my 5 year old Daughter Paige, since being freshly divorce from her Mother on April 29, 2013, and Saturday and Sunday were booked solid with 5-year-old girl-related things, which is how I keep my heart from exploding from too much work and too little time with my three kids. No disrespect is intended to the Court personally or professionally by this failure.
Oh. Well, if no disrespect was intended, I’m sure Judge Leighton will forgive and forget. Except going on about how every other meeting on your agenda was more pressing than responding to a federal judge is kind of per se disrespect. Never mind that the first paragraph in response to charges that he accepts cases and fails to prosecute is “I had lots of meetings with other/new clients so I couldn’t respond to a looming deadline in a case involving AN EXISTING CLIENT.” He writes this unironically.
Penfield and his daughter while he blew off his professional obligations?
I’d love more color on what constitutes being “booked solid with 5-year-old girl-related things.” I’m assuming tea parties with Polly Prissy Pants. Look, I feel for the guy wanting to devote time to his family. The problem is he also admits that it took him only an hour to draft his response. And let me tell you something about five-year-olds: they do this thing called “go to sleep.” Usually relatively early. Does Penfield expect Judge Leighton to believe that he couldn’t be bothered to take an hour after his daughter went to bed to pen a response that could implicate his very career?
Penfield later explained that he missed the hearing that resulted in this Order to Show Cause because he misjudged his family obligations:
On May 14, 2013, I was asked by my ex-wife the night before to pick up our three children and deliver them to their school, and believed that I could do so and still make it to the hearing. I was wrong. I did attempt to call counsel opposite and advise him that I would be late for the hearing, and my failure to appear was not intentional. I spoke with him shortly after the hearing, and will comply with Your Honor’s case schedule hereafter.
Not to sound jaded, but Alec Baldwin’s speech in Glengarry Glen Ross is relevant here: “Good father? F**k you! Go home and play with your kids. You wanna work here — close!”
It’s not wrong to want to be a good father. It’s actually great. But if your conception of good fathering could jeopardize the trust that clients (who are financially and psychologically depending on you, too) are putting in a lawyer to zealously prosecute their case, then you probably should be cutting back.
And the end of his marriage is unfortunate, but it sounds like he might be better off:
After enduring my ex-wife Jacki’s daily screeching that I should get out of the house and open a public office from the day after we married in 2006, I finally decided to do so on January 1, 2012.
Gratuitously describing the ex-wife to a federal judge as “screeching.” Awesome. All kidding aside, divorce is difficult, but also probably a reason Penfield shouldn’t have taken on 85 clients by himself.
And Penfield does have some complaints of his own. He explains his woes dealing with the independent contractors that he relies upon to prosecute his cases.
As a solo-practice law-firm, it sometimes occurs that checks for independent contractors are paid not on the dates I intend to pay them, which in my case was the 7th and 22nd of each calendar month. On October 7, 2012, I did not have enough cash to pay my contractors, all of whom were laboring under the incorrect impression that they were employees rather than independent contractors, and when I advised them they would be paid on October 9, 2012, I began to receive threatening e-mails and texts from several of them, which of course resulted in their contracts being immediately terminated.
Well they might be a little melodramatic, but again, he admits that he did fail to pay them in a timely fashion basically because he was overworked. You can blame them for their reactions, but admitting that the firm can’t pay its experts is kind of conceding that the Penfield has trouble effectively representing the clients he takes on right now.
That’s why even if Penfield’s narrative is 100% true, he needs to get a grip on his professional obligations and start, at the very least, shipping some clients off to other counsel. Something that Penfield, to his great credit, seems to understand by the end of his response:
With respect to the Court, I do not feel the above shows good cause for my banning from practice in this District, though such a banning might result in a well-deserved rest. This last comment containing no sarcasm whatsoever, but merely a statement of exhausted fact. Your Honor is respectfully requested to utilize the Wisdom of Solomon and considerable Mercy in making this decision.
Whatever the result, let’s hope Penfield takes his own advice and considers some rest. (Penfield’s response, in all its glory, appears on the next page.)
In June 2011, we brought you the story of Reema Bajaj, a lovely young lawyer in Illinois who was accused of prostitution. I expressed a belief in her innocence, although my faith was somewhat shaken by the nude photos of her that circulated on the web. And then, in June 2012, Bajaj pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor charge of prostitution.
After covering her guilty plea, we thought we had seen the last of her. As I wrote, “The post you’re now reading could very well represent the final story we write about Reema Bajaj…. We will miss writing about this colorful young woman, but we wish her the best in getting on with her life and her law practice.”
I spoke too soon. Now Bajaj is back — with a vengeance….
Note the UPDATE at the end of this post, based on comments from Bajaj’s counsel.
It appears that Bajaj had difficulty getting on with her life and her law practice in the wake of her prostitution plea. Although she kept her Illinois law license, as a legal ethics expert we interviewed predicted she would, Bajaj had trouble attracting clients.
Earlier this month, she dissolved her law practice. And yesterday she sued three local lawyers: a former prosecutor who worked on her case, Calvin Campbell; one of her own former defense attorneys, Timothy Johnson, who is now law partners with Campbell; and a “John Doe” defendant. Bajaj alleges that the three lawyers circulated nude photos of her, causing her emotional distress and hurting her ability to generate business (for her law practice). From the DeKalb Daily Chronicle:
The lawsuit, filed Monday in DeKalb County court by Reema “Nicki” Bajaj, 27, alleges that Campbell and local lawyer Timothy W. Johnson, who was acting as her defense attorney, showed nude photographs of her to other lawyers at the DeKalb County Courthouse in June 2011. The complaint also identified an unnamed “John Doe” lawyer working for the state’s attorney’s office.
Bajaj is seeking more than $50,000 from Campbell, Johnson, and [John Doe] in the suit for emotional distress and economic damage.
Bajaj is represented by Kevin D. McHugh and Amanda T. Adams, two 2007 graduates of Bajaj’s alma mater, Northern Illinois University College of Law, who now have their own law firms. McHugh, who appears to be taking the lead on the case, is a litigator, while Adams focuses on family law.
We heard about Bajaj’s complaint from multiple readers. This tipster plays for Team Reema:
Hi Guy! I’m a big fan of the BEAUTIFUL Nicki or Reema Bajaj. That’s how I found your site! I even requested you forward some of her pictures to me. Sadly, you didn’t.
(Though you mentioned me in one of your articles. Hee-hee, yes I’m a dirty old man.)
ANYWAY! I just heard on WBBM NewsRadio 78 that Miss Bajaj is in the news again! Since you like her too you might want to look into it. I guess she dissolved her law firm…. And she’s suing people….
DERP!!!!
A second source expressed skepticism towards her lawsuit:
Reema is back for revenge! She is suing the former State’s Attorney and her defense attorney for distributing nude photos of her. She claims intentional infliction of emotional distress and interference with her business. Of course, her conviction for prostitution might limit her damages….
Reema Bajaj’s civil case is captioned — wait for it — Bajaj v. Johnson. I wouldn’t bet against her in this litigation. She has plenty of experience eating Johnsons for breakfast. UPDATE (5:30 p.m.): An earlier version of this story bore a headline stating that Bajaj had been “convicted” of prostitution. We’ve spoken with her lawyers, who declined to comment on her new lawsuit but stated that although Bajaj pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of prostitution, she was not “convicted” of prostitution as a matter of Illinois law. We have amended the headline accordingly. (You can check out the full complaint in Bajaj v. Johnson on the next page.)
Okay, we can all stop worrying. Lindsay Lohan’s new attorney Mark Heller is pretty sure he knows how to “fix” the actress and he’s written a letter to the prosecutors extolling his power to succeed where all others have failed. And it involves establishing the “Lindsay Lohan Foundation.” I’m eagerly awaiting the mission statement for that organization.
The judge is not pleased with Heller’s letter. The exact term used in reports of the judge’s reaction is “pissed.” Pissing off the judge within the first month on the case. Hey, Lindsay, maybe Heller isn’t the best choice for representation. I mean, who is this guy?
Mark Heller’s decades-long legal career is described by observers as publicity-seeking and erratic.
Oh, wait. So maybe this is actually a match made in Heaven to work with LiLo….
This letter snafu is not the first misstep for Heller, who only recently joined LiLo’s legal team, and has already botched a Miranda argument. At least he hasn’t gotten sanctioned like her attorney in the Pitbull case. Yet.
But how do you sum up the career of Lohan’s latest attorney? The New York Times gives it a go:
Even within the colorful, eccentric, sometimes disreputable and profane galaxy that is the New York City bar, Mr. Heller stands out for the severe thrashings he has endured and his audacious aspirations for high-profile work. He has been disparaged and roundly dressed down by clients and judges alike, called a “menace to the public,” “shockingly cavalier and abusive” and rife with “puffery” by a disciplinary panel that recommended his five-year suspension in the mid-1990s. Opposing counsel has been known to quietly suggest that his clients consider finding a new lawyer. Among his most outspoken fans is a serial killer.
The serial killer in question is David Berkowitz, the notorious “Son of Sam,” whom Heller briefly represented as a young lawyer. Heller has corresponded with Berkowitz in the years since the case. At least these days, Berkowitz is talking to lawyers instead of dogs.
Heller represented Jon Gosselin (or tried to) during his divorce and the associated TV contract issues it created. Heller’s role in the case was characteristically warm and fuzzy:
At the same time, Discovery Talent Services, which represents the TLC network and “Jon & Kate,” sued Mr. Gosselin in Maryland for breach of contract. Edward Sabin, chief operating officer of TLC, testified at a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction against Mr. Gosselin in Circuit Court in Montgomery County, Md., on Dec. 10 that Mr. Heller screamed at a TLC lawyer — “shook her up quite a bit, and hung up on her eventually.” Later, when Mr. Sabin rejected Mr. Heller’s request for Mr. Gosselin to appear on the E! Entertainment network for a “tell-all interview,” Mr. Sabin said that Mr. Heller responded “explosively.”
“I’m going to embarrass you! You’re going to regret this!” he recalled Mr. Heller shouting.
Ever since December 9, 2002, when I launched my first blog, 
Pop quiz, hotshot. A federal judge issues an order to show cause that you should be “sanctioned for repeated failure to prosecute cases” and “barred from practicing in this District.” What do you do? What do you do?
Bajaj is represented by 
Okay, we can all stop worrying. Lindsay Lohan’s new attorney Mark Heller is pretty sure he