Professional Conduct - Scott Key & Associates

It’s been a long week. I’ve had to have “the talk” with several of my clients. In case you don’t know what I mean by “the talk,” allow me to explain. There comes a point in just about every attorney-client relationship where there is an important decision to be made. You give your assessment, and the client takes your advice or rejects it. This week has brought with it a mixture of rejection with a healthy dose of acceptance laced with insults. Weeks like this always make me examine the complexities of the attorney-client relationship.

These thoughts have been in process for about a week or so anyway. Scott Greenfield posted a great post on his blog about the importance of keeping your professional distance and how the failure to do so actually does the client a disservice. However, he does so while criticizing a law firm in Florida that overdoes the whole boundary thing. That firm, a family law firm, writes that they do not work weekends and do not deal with emergencies over the weekend. Of course, sometimes things happen with clients over the weekend, and you should respond. Mr. Greenfield talks about that fact at length.

Of course, balance is a factor, too. It is possible to go too far in the other direction, which may actually be worse for the client that being impersonal. Mr. Greenfield writes:

Ironically, one of the most troublesome ways to deal with clients is to become their best friend. Clients need lawyers. If they want companionship, they should get a dog. It confuses roles when lawyers assume the position of mother, therapist or pet. Clients often need someone to talk to, to vent, catharsis, during the pendency of a case. To some extent, lawyers can offer their ear. But when the ear gets chewed off, we’re appeasing the client but no longer serving him.

Very true. But it seems like there’s something more to this idea of client management/client relationship issue. I’ve thought about it all week and have drafted a Professionalism Matrix.pdf to help me think about client management issues. It helps me, and I hope it will help you.

The best place to be is objective and empathic. If you are subjective and empathic, you do your client the kind of disservice Mr. Greenfield discusses. If you are cold and subjective, you’re the kind of lawyer I sometimes encounter at general bar functions who wonders how I could possibly do a job like mine. Or you’re a prosecutor. If you are objective and cold, then you are the kind of person that many of your classmates were in law school — robotic and efficient.

What does objective and empathic look like? It probably looks like a stroll across a tightrope. And it probably looks different for every client. Many of whom won’t like your objective advice. Many of whom would like for you to be their friend because you’re the only person who hasn’t rejected their personhood in the midst of an accusation or conviction or sentence. What does it look like? It looks like a worn out lawyer. It’s hard to have hard discussions. It would be easier to land somewhere else in the matrix. But then you’d be less than your calling requires.

Jay O’Keeffe, in his blog reports that he is bothered by a recent development involving a lawyer who has been summoned to show cause and explain comments he made in a lower court transcript about the Virginia Supreme Court.

Bothered is a mild way to describe my reaction to the story. Put more accurately, I think I feel hot water in the back of my mouth, and I don’t even practice law in Virginia. The story is the ultimate in “there but by the grace of God go I” cautionary tales for lawyer like myself.

So, here’s the story. A lawyer in Virginia was representing someone on a criminal case that was appealed successively. When the lower court asked the lawyer about an issue that the appellate court never reached on appeal, the lawyer responded that the appellate court had decided to “stuff it” because it “did not have the guts to handle it.”

Low and behold, the matter reached the Virginia Supreme Court and the powers that be read it. They were not amused and have summoned the lawyer to appear and explain himself in person. Did I mention the hot water in the back of my mouth?

The problem is that law is all about analyzing what and how judges and courts rule. Every brief contains those things more or less. One court revisits the analysis of a previous court. In fact, law could be reduced down essentially to a bunch of people criticizing each other. I’m not defending the “stuff it” language, but would he be in trouble had he said that the issue was a hot potato, and the Court did not appear to want to touch it.

Court of Appeals Rule 10

Under Georgia Court of Appeals Rule 10, “Personal remarks, whether oral or written, which are discourteous or disparaging to any judge, opposing counsel, or any court, are strictly forbidden.” I did some research, and it turns out that Rule 10 has only come up once in a published opinion. In Hampton v. Bank of LaFayette, a party tried to have the other side sanctioned for personal remarks made in a brief, and the Court declined to do so. They didn’t even include the remarks for our voyeuristic reading pleasure (although, I am sure the most honorable Court had a very wise reason for doing so, because our appellate court is very wise. We also have the most attractive court in all the land).

Our appellate bench seems to be a little more thick skinned than Virginia’s. Keep in mind, Virginians have always been about honor. I sure hope that the lawyer isn’t handed a dueling pistol when he arrives for his hearing.

My Shameless Attempt to Capitalize in the Past.

A few years ago, an opponent was being obnoxious to me in a motion for new trial hearing. He was getting personal in one of those cases where it seemed kind of pointless to be that way. I had nothing. It was one of those cases that makes you miss Anders briefs. But I was getting annoyed by the gratuitous “go for the jugular” approach opposing counsel was taking.

Then came a little gift from the prosecutor. He turned his attention from me to appellate courts, and he commented that he could do his job if “those courts in Atlanta would just get their foot off my neck.”

With little else to argue on this appeal, I devoted a good portion of the statement of facts to his comments about the Court of Appeals. In fact, I think the brief began with a quotation about the appellate courts and a neck and some feet.

The Court affirmed the conviction without so much as a peep about the lawyers statement. Oh, to have been in Virginia. However, if I had made a comment like that, I wonder if it would have made a splash?

Conclusion

Of course, in Georgia I wouldn’t press my luck. There can sometimes be a fine line between criticism and being insulting. The key, I think, is to be critical of reasoning, application of precedent, and judgment without discussing motivations and personalities.

For instance, in motions for reconsideration, I always ask for reconsideration because I was unclear and failed to communicate the law in a good way. If the Court reached an erroneous decision, it came as a result of a failure in advocacy on my part.

I don’t think being passive aggressive is actionable under Rule 10. And I’m sure the ole malpractice carrier loves this language.

Tag Archive for: Professional Conduct

Some Thoughts on Relating to Clients in Georgia Criminal Cases

A Very Disturbing Appellate Sanction Story

Court of Appeals Rule 10

My Shameless Attempt to Capitalize in the Past.

Conclusion

ADDRESS

PHONE

EMAIL