HOUSE OKS BUGET PACKAGE THAT CUTS PROGRAMS FOR POOR

House Republicans on Thursday (May 10, 2012) approved a sweeping package of budget cuts to food stamps, Meals on Wheels and other domestic programs-while sparing the Pentagon. …

If the bill becomes law the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates more than 20 million children will face reduced food and nutrition support, almost 300,000 will be knocked off the federal school lunch program, and at least 300,000 will lose access to the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The cuts will replace across-the-board reductions to defense and non security programs that were agreed to as part of last summer’s debt ceiling deal.

by Lisa Mascaro Tribune Washington Bureau (5/11/12).

My first reading of this article made me mad as a lawyer dedicated to helping people. On further reflection, however, my mad reaction changed to a sad reaction. Sad our legislators chose to take from those less fortunate, those who need the most in these hard times, and divert funds for the needy by “literally taking food out of the mouth of babies while continuing tax breaks for the wealthy.” (Nancy Pelosi Rep. Cal.).

As trial lawyers dedicated to helping those in need we can and should speak out about this budget cutting proposal of the House of Representatives. E-mail your Congressman telling him or her:

“Recently heard of the House Budget Package vote of May 10, 2012. As a voting member of your district you need to know a yes vote  fails to represent what the majority of people in our district stand for. The May 10, 2012 proposed House Budget cuts take food and health benefits from children and the poor at a time when they need them most. Your vote on this package will be remembered in November. A yes vote translates to votes against you for reelection.  A no demonstrates you like the majority of our district care about those in need, and  stand tall for our district because “we care.”

Still reading (listening to) Malcolm Gladwell, What The Dog Saw (2009). Gladwell is talking about “Late Bloomers.” To Gladwell there are prodigies and there are late bloomers. We all know prodigies. In art a prodigy is Paublo Picasso. Late bloomers are known but not until they are old. This is because the late bloomer takes years to show his talent. Gladwell uses the example of Paul Cezanne who was not known as a great painter until old age.

In the practice of law we also have late bloomers. The traits of a late bloomer include: being well organized; being methodical; making mistakes; but, learning from mistakes. Let’s explore these traits to determine if we are a late blooming trial lawyer.

Well Organized. Do we take the time to organize our files? Do we know where to find documents? Do we have a case management system computerized or written where we have at our finger tips all information on client’s case? Are we organized  in any court appearance? If  yes to these questions, and we are not recognized as a legal prodigy then we may be a late bloomer.

Methodical. Late bloomers are also plodding. They are in no hurry. They know haste makes waste. They take the time to prepare by internalizing the facts and having the law researched. Little comes as a surprise because we have been there done that. If this is you you are looking more like a late bloomer.

Early Mistakes. Although we have had success we have had failures. Failure is seen when we start trying cases.  All phases of  jury trial present problems, and all  of the problems present opportunities to stumble. But we cannot be a late bloomer unless we make lots of mistakes.

Learning from Mistakes. The key to being a late bloomer is learning from mistakes. It is through mistakes that we grow as a late bloomer. Gladwell teaches late bloomers make tons of mistakes and they take years in making them. But they get better through their mistakes. The same is true as the late bloomer trial lawyer. In fact without the mistakes we have no hope of getting to the late bloomer level of accomplishment. The level where we are in the same light as the prodigy.

Recently appeared in a Washington Superior Court away from home County of King. It is a 132 mile 213 km drive to the court house. On the way listened to Malcolm Gladwell’s book What the Dog Saw. As we learn from Mr. Gladwell:

“We want to know what it feels like to be a doctor,” rather than what doctors do every day, because ”Curiosity about the interior life of other people’s day-to-day work is one of the most fundamental of human impulses.”

Gladwell then discuses famous “pitchmen” by distinguishing between an athlete who sells a product by pitching himself and a true salesman who sells a product by pitching the product. The great pitchman has an internal belief in his product. The great pitchmen in Gladwell’s book have internalized their product by inventing a better mousetrap so to speak. Thus, they have the enthusiasm that comes from a knowing understanding of the superior nature of their product.

Listening to Gladwell made me think the same is true for a lawyer who is selling his client’s case. The lawyer has a story to tell and the story is not about himself. The story is the story of his client. The story can be told with full conviction only when the lawyer has taken the time to climb into the skin of his client. The lawyer must internalize the facts of his client’s story at the same emotional level his client has lived the events giving rise to the case.

When this has been done and only when this has been done is the lawyer ready to present his client’s case. At this point the lawyer can talk to the judge or jury on a personal and intimate level. Notes are not necessary, just as when Gladwell’s pitchman naturally discusses the product he  invents and in which he has total belief. Although the lawyer has not invented the case, he knows the case internally so he relates to his client’s story as his story. The effect on the judge or the jury is to know “what it feels like” to be the injured plaintiff.

This week I received a verdict in a eleven day survival action case. The verdict is a total defeat. My client the estate of decedent takes nothing. I estimate my law partner and I including our legal staff spent over 400 hours on the case. We likely have $40,000 in costs advanced which we will not be paid by the insolvent estate. Below are my thoughts:

What We Control. We cannot control the result. What we control is preparation and work before and during trial. For me this means  countless hours before trial and 15 hour work days including weekends after the trial begins. We gave our best effort and there is nothing more we could have or would have done. There is satisfaction in knowing this.

Taking Cases. They say if a lawyer wins all of his trials he is not trying enough cases. Well I am trying enough cases because I lose sometimes. The case I just lost was a hard case factually and legally. I know the decedent’s family. I took the case because I am their lawyer. They wanted justice for the death of their son and for this they came to me.

Jury Instructions. Before I file a case I have a solid understanding of the facts and law. Now I will also do the jury instructions to better appreciate the roads the jury may take when making its decision. This will give me a more complete appreciation for the detours the jury may take, and the likelihood a detour will take the case down the road of defeat.

Continue to Stand for Justice. I will continue to take tough cases. After all I am a trial lawyer and this means I must enter the arena. To quote Theodore Roosevelt:

It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points how the strong man stumbled or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly…who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at best, knows the triumph of high achievement; and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt, 1910