WRIT WRIDDLE   

By Jeffrey A. Marks

The last  Wriddle in June turned out to be a gold mine for Nathan Hannah.  He became the latest recipient to be awarded a PCBA mug.  Nathan was the first to identify two U of A basketball-playing lawyers practicing in Tucson.  Actually, the answers I was looking for were Mike Aboud and Matt Muelbach.  Nathan answered Marvin Borodkin and Mo Udall.  Steve Weinstein acknowledged that he was one of the former U of A wrestlers practicing in Tucson, but alas, Nathan already had won the mug.  The other wrestler was Jack Assini.  The defense attorney who is using her softball bat to clobber plaintiff’s lawyers is Karla Starr, who used to play for Stanford.

The latest honorable mentions go to two regular wriddlers.  Judge Chayet, who has already won a mug, wrote to say domestic attorney Annie Rolfe also played softball, and that she played at Yale.  Doug Clark had more correct answers than Nathan, but he waited too long to answer, and Nathan already had been awarded his mug.  Doug, keep trying, winning a mug is definitely in your future.  Conversely, maybe Nathan will share his with you.

This month’s Wriddle is dedicated to the FEMALE JUDGES OF PIMA COUNTY.  Ready?

A)   Who was the first female instructor of U of A’s law school? 

       (She taught both Jack Lasseter and Senator Kyle.)

B)   Who used to be a bomber pilot?

C)   Who used to teach Spanish in Nogales?

D)   Who can literally run circles around you?

E)   Name two members of the bench who are married to professors at

       the U of A law school.

F)   Who is Judge Kelly married to?

G)   Which retired judge is Kathleen Quigley related to?

H)   Who is married to the U of A Chief of Police?

       A nice shiny mug (and featured Writ Mug Shot) await you if you are the

first with all the correct answers, or at least with a substantive amount of them.

 Send responses to JeffreyAMarksPC@aol.com.  Good Luck!     

He Speaks Softly But Carries a Big Message 

By Mike Franklin

     In 2006, the State Bar of Arizona's Board of Governors appointed a Diversity Task Force to support the Bar’s commitment to diversity as set forth in the State Bar’s 2004-2007 Strategic Plan.  The Task Force recommended the establishment of a Diversity Director position within the State Bar’s staff infrastructure and the creation and implementation of a State Bar of Arizona Leadership Institute.  Subsequently, the Diversity Department was created and I. Godwin Otu was hired as the Bar’s first Diversity director.   

     The soft-spoken Otu, as he prefers to be called, brings a wealth of diversity experience to the Bar having managed a number of diversity initiatives for the City of Phoenix for several years before accepting the challenge of facilitating diversity for the Bar.  Otu feels his main challenge is assisting lawyers to understand the true meaning of diversity.  Otu believes when one thinks of diversity, there is the temptation to have a myopic view of what he or she thinks diversity is all about.  Typically, race and gender are usually characterized as diversity.  Categories like race, gender, sexual orientation, or disability are just barometers for organizations to tout how diverse an organization they have.  True diversity comes from the empowerment of traditionally underrepresented groups within the work place.  Otu is fond of saying, “Representation without empowerment is just a quota system and no one wants that.” 

     Under his direction, Otu has laid out a long-range plan where he envisions the improvement of diversity within Arizona’s legal profession by initiatives that center around changing people’s attitude through education and unabashed dialogue. 

     The Bar leadership Institute is a one-year program designed to foster the professional growth and enhance the leadership skills of a diverse group of Arizona attorneys. The Diversity Pipeline Project is one of the cornerstones of the State Bar’s diversity and inclusion efforts. The project seeks to work in partnership with law firms, schools, and organizations to encourage young people to consider careers in the law profession.  The Diversity-In-Action Alliance seeks to bring participating law firms together for the purpose of furthering diversity in Arizona’s legal community (www.myazbar.org). 

     The Diversity Department has an uphill climb ahead.  Understandably, change is not going to happen overnight.  However, matters of diversity begs the question, is the opposition or lack of meaningful diversity ignorance or arrogance?  Perhaps those organizations that plead ignorance can be enlightened and begin embracing diversity if not as a core value than at least as a sound business practice.  However, if firms understand the positive impact of diversity and refuse to accept it, then that is arrogance and there is little one can do about that.  It is a wide-held belief that traditionally underrepresented people have to work twice as hard to get half as much compensation and recognition.  If that truly were the case, then it would appear that employers would receive an excellent employee.  So what’s the problem?

Furthering the Discussion of Collaborative Divorce

By Edina A.T. Strum

I was thrilled to see “A Response to Collaborative Divorce” by Peter Economidis in last month’s Writ.  It’s good to see the concept of Collaborative Divorce is making its way into the greater consciousness and provoking discussion.

Although I have not worked with Peter Economidis, I attended a CLE at which he spoke on mediation so I am familiar with his commitment to settling domestic cases. I have worked with two domestic relations attorneys in his firm, and I have found them to be professional, respectful and to hold their clients and the process in high regard.

I never intended my overview of Collaborative Divorce to be taken as an indictment of the litigation method, or its practitioners, or to be a side-by-side comparison. Each approach has its place.

Collaborative Divorce is more than a commitment not to litigate; it’s a different philosophy and approach to divorce. It’s all too easy for those going through divorce to get caught up in their emotions. This can, and often does, lead to the “scorched earth” dissolution where clients spend too much for a result far worse than could have been achieved working together – despite the best efforts of their attorneys to limit the conflict. Following such an epic battle, it can be all but impossible for parents to work together or to maintain any positive feeling from the marriage.

I did not intend to give the impression that the lawyers are to blame for this outcome. It is the litigation process itself that isn’t designed to deal effectively with family issues. The dynamics of divorce are too complex to fit into a win/lose paradigm. Despite the best efforts of litigation attorneys, the process itself tends to increase anger, fear, distrust and bitterness. Collaborative Divorce, by contrast, is designed to work with the parties’ complex emotions and to move beyond their fears and anger, which allows them to move from position-based to interest-based decisions.   

Peter Economidis discusses the risk collaborative professionals will have to withdraw from the case if it cannot be settled and questions whether such representation is ethical. The American Bar Association ethics opinion approved Collaborative Divorce as a form of limited scope representation requiring full disclosure and informed consent by the client.  Kentucky, Minnesota, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey and Pennsylvania have issued ethics opinion that echo the ABA opinion. North Carolina, California and Texas all have adopted Collaborative Divorce by statue.

Clients considering Collaborative law will have different needs and levels of sophistication to which a lawyer must adopt measures to secure informed consent. Just as in medical informed consent, the consent depends on a joint decision-making process. Trained collaborative lawyers will seek to ensure the highest level of client understanding of the process. In my opinion, the same disclosure of litigation risks should be required, but isn’t.

Thanks to Dean Christoffel and Roy Martin who offered their critiques (and some words) to this piece.   

Young Lawyers Division

By Heather Anson

ENGLAND YOUNG LAWYERS:

Making Changes to Make a Difference.

I have had the privilege over the last few years to serve as liaison for the PCBA Young Lawyers’ Division to the American Bar Association’s Young Lawyers’ Division.  This has given me the opportunity to travel all over the country to conferences and meetings to not only show the ABA/YLD what PCBA/YLD is doing but to bring back valuable information, resources, materials and even grant money for special projects.

This year I got an even more exciting opportunity thanks to my involvement as a liaison.  I was invited by colleagues from the UK that I have met over the years attending ABA meetings to attend a law conference in London in July.  I was thrilled to be able to accept the invitation and brought back a wealth of knowledge about how the new lawyers in the UK are working to change how their profession is overseen and how they are educated as new lawyers. 

Structure and oversight of lawyers in the United Kingdom:

It would help to start with a brief explanation on how the practice works there and what their governance has been like.  First, it should be noted that I am referencing attorneys in England and Wales who are what they call Solicitors.  In somewhat simplistic terms, solicitors are lawyers who engage in the general practice of law either through firms, in solo practice, in-house or similar environments.  They are distinguished from Barristers who we would recognize as those who wear the robes and powdered wigs.  Barristers are “called to the bar”for service and are governed by a separate entity. 

The primary governing body for solicitors in the UK has been the Law Society of England and Wales based in London.  The Law Society’s job used to be all encompassing as regulators, educators, certifying body and outreach.  However, the Law Society felt it necessary to make changes in order to clarify their role as well as insure to both solicitors and the public that the profession was being properly monitors as well as supported.  So there are now three separate entities where there used to be one.  The Law Society is still the body that provides support, training and outreach to solicitors as their advocates and lobbying body in the profession much like what a union might do for a profession here in the States.  Regulatory and Disciplinary issues are now the purview of the Solicitors Regulations Authority (SRA).  The Legal Complaint Services (LCS) then provides support to solicitors in resolving complaints brought to the SRA. 

The final piece of the puzzle before the rest of this article makes sense would be an explanation of the process for new lawyers becoming qualified solicitors and their role in these new entities.  Unlike in the U.S., a student graduating from law school in the UK does not get to practice law immediately upon passing a licensing exam like our Bar Exam.  When they graduate they are given a “level” that reflects their academic achievements in law school.  The top level is a 1-1 and is roughly equivalent to being top of your class in the US.  A 1-1 or a 1-2 is really ideal for starting a law career off well.  However, a 2-1 is still good but 2-2's have a harder road.  But, like attorneys here who don’t get a great GPA in law school, these “levels” make less and less of a difference the farther out of school you go.  If you get a 3 you probably should think about doing something else apparently.

Once a person gets their level they must get what is called a “training contract”.  This is somewhat similar to a law clerk position in a firm but it is a regulated term of two years in which the “trainee” must work with a trainer attorney or firm and have exposure to both contentious and non-contentious areas of law practice.  Training Contracts can be as difficult to get as that first job out of law school here and are not inevitable.  If someone cannot obtain a training contract or cannot complete this two year training they will not be permitted to practice law.  Once they do complete the training successfully they become “newly qualified” (NQ) solicitors.  There is still restrictions on NQ solicitors for years afterwards regarding how much independence and responsibility they can take on as a solicitor.  They cannot immediately start their own private practice or even become a partner in a firm until they have been qualified for a number of years.  

As to the organizations these young lawyers are affiliated with there have been changes recently as well.  There used to be two entities that trainees and NQ solicitors would belong to.  There was the Trainee Solicitor Group (TSG) and the Young Solicitors’ Group (YSG).  TSG would clearly be comprised of those in Training Contracts while the YSG was for any NQ solicitor in practice for ten years or less.  These entities were independent of the Law Society but received nearly all of their funding and support from the Law Society.  That changed in January when the two entities merged under the umbrella of the Law Society and became the Junior Lawyers’ Division (JLD) of the Law Society of England and Wales.  They are now the source of support for both Trainee’s and NQ solicitors.

The First Annual Junior Lawyers Division Conference - LONDON!

Because the JLD has just recently become a new entity under the Law Society of England and Wales the conference I attended in London was their first official conference.  This made the experience all the more interesting and exciting.  Their first Chair is someone I met and have gotten to know through my ABA/YLD involvement.  Her name is Kat Gibson and she works as in-house council to Nortel in London.  This was not only the infant JLD’s first test but hers as well being its fledgling Chair. 

The conference meetings were held at the Law Society offices in London.  The building, like many in central London, is quite old and quite opulent.  It felt like I was attending a conference at an fancy hotel such as the Palace in San Francisco or the Brown in Louisville.  Their facility also contains a law library with legal texts and materials dating back centuries.  This is the place our text books were born essentially!

Like most legal conferences I’ve attended there where times when the participants could choose between a variety of “break out” sessions.  One unique session they offered that we might not see here in the States was called “Style Guide”, sponsored by a professional clothier, TM Lewin.  Although I did not attend this session I did meet the individuals who ran the session who told me that important lawyer advice was given such as what colors and styles were appropriate in various setting (vital information for new lawyers now expected to attend important meetings as well as social events) and also how to properly tie a tie (Windsor or double-Windsor of course) and a real bowtie! 

The other feature of the conference that was similar to other conferences I’ve attended was what I’m used to referring to as a “plenary session”.  This is when all attendees are together and the Chair and Sponsors have an opportunity to speak to the attendees.  There is then a program given on the main focus of the conference which will be one the JLD’s main focuses for the year to come.  In this case, the JLD wants to improve the training process that is required of all lawyers before they can become qualified.  The speakers were very dynamic and the attendees were required to become actively involved in the process of evaluating and giving new ideas for changing the way the program works going forward. 

Although the conference was attended by over 150 solicitors from all over the UK as well as other European Union countries and India I was the only “official” attorney there from the United States.  Others from the ABA and other State and County bars were invited and often attend these conferences but scheduling conflicts did not allow the usual folks (like the ABA/YLD Chair) to attend.  That made me a bit of a novelty once Kat Gibson introduced me to the attendees. 

There was a tremendous amount of interest in learning about how our system in the US is different from theirs as well as how they might pursue licensing in the US.  The biggest surprises they seemed to get where that 1) we don’t have a “central government” licensing process as licensing of attorneys occurs on a State by State basis and; 2) There is no “trainee” period for attorneys after law school.  

The conference was concluded with a Black-tie Ball at the Four Season.  Again, the JLD and Kat did a fantastic job with this event.  The setting was wonderful, there was very well planned opportunities for networking as well as entertainment in a vaudevillian style circus theme with knife throwing and all!

Overall I found this experience to be enlightening as well as a great deal of fun.  I learned a lot about how our colleagues oversees approach the profession and how they are changing.  It has made me think much more about our system and what we either do better or might be able to improve on if we are open and willing to learn.  I give my thanks to the PCBA Young Lawyers Division for their encouragement and support of this adventure.  I look forward to sharing more of what I learned to this coming year’s members as well as anyone else who is interested.

For more information about the Law Society of England and Wales you can visit their website at www.lawsociety.org/uk or email me at Heather@ansonlaw.com.  

     Small Law Firms Get big Results with "Contract" Attorneys

 in Their Strategic Business Development Plan

By Dean Axelrod, JD, MB\

PART TWO

As with all good things, there is also a potential downside. “There is always a risk that the independent contractor is really trying to build a conventional practice and will try to steal your clients. Watch your files and case lists. To protect yourself don’t give too much access to your law firm data,” Lloyd Rabb advises. Remember that your independent contractor is just that, and is not a substitute for an employee attorney.  

Sally Simpson manages this risk for her clients by demonstrating her track record. “I have made this kind of work my career. I make that very clear to my client firms, and I have the track record to back it up. When they see that I have been doing this successfully for several years and producing consistently high quality work, they know they can trust me. I’m no threat to their business objectives. In some cases, I’m the best thing that ever happened to their strategic plan!”

She also reminds her attorney clients that as a licensed attorney she is subject to the same ethics rules as they are. Those rules require her to maintain confidentiality with respect to all of her work, and impose a duty to protect her clients’ files and records. “There is probably a greater business risk to my client law firms from their associates and non-attorney staff because the attorney-client relationship that governs my conduct toward the firm does not apply to them,” she explains. 

Rabb stresses that another risk comes from the client attorney himself:  the possibility of losing control of the project. “It’s the out-of-sight-out-of-mind syndrome. With the project delegated to a competent and reliable independent contractor, your thoughts turn to other matters leaving your independent contractor to her own devices. Even with a good attorney the project can run out of control or languish,” Rabb explains. His advice is to get daily or weekly status reports, and remember that it is still your project. “You need better project management skills than you do if you are handling everything yourself.”  Even though things can go wrong, Rabb emphasizes that he has used independent contractors as part of successful business development growth strategy.