Personal Injury Lawyers Set To Purchase Ambulance Company

Several partners in a prominent personal injury firm are rumored to be the owners of a company that is close to purchasing an ambulance company.

A lawyer who writes about the future of the legal profession, but who requested anonymity, said law firms are continually looking for ways to attract new business, to operate more efficiently and to provide more distinctive customer service. She declined, however, to speculate on the advertising and evidence gathering possibilities of personal injury lawyers owning an ambulance service.  See below:

Note:  Some of the above is, in all likelihood, pure fiction.

From the sports (metaphor) department: Senator Bunning throws high and inside to Justice Ginsburg

Former major league pitcher, Hall of Famer Jim Bunning, Republican Senator from Kentucky, recently fired a beanball at Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  The story is here courtesy of Michael Doyle’s blog, Suits and Sentences.  Drawing on his experience as a ball player, investment broker and U.S. Senator, Bunning predicted that Justice Ginsburg would be dead in nine months from pancreatic cancer  

There’s not much to say.  

Senator Bunning’s double shoe removal surgery is scheduled for later this week.  Doctors are seekng a suitable donor for a manners transplant.

All Hell Could Break Loose

Possibly in reaction to the reform proposal reported in the immediately preceding post (the grapevine has been upgraded to fiber optic cable) some fictitious judges are privately discussing whether there might be a way for judges to charge lawyers (specifically not litigants) for wasting the court’s time, boring a judge’s socks off, looking as if he has come directly from last night to short calendar, coping an attitude with no justification, misleading the court about a fact or law or scheduling problem, or in some other way demeaning the the judiciary and the legal system.

In reaction to rumors about what some fictitious judges are considering in private, some imaginary lawyers are considering a class action against only a very few select judges who routinely behave as if cases, litigants, law and lawyers were impediments to what otherwise would be a very nice gig.

The End of Life as We Know It?

An unnamed consumer group with the support of the The Gates Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, HALT and is considering a nationwide effort to require detailed itemization of time spent by lawyers that relate to fees lawyers charge for doing nothing or not much.  The group, reportedly led by former lawyers, judges and litigants, is focusing on time spent in court waiting forever, accomplishing little or nothing when a lawyer or judge is unprepared or doesn’t show up and on transactional lawyers who bill for time “thinking” or “re-drafting” or “work on file,” or who bill 3 hours for “review and analysis of file” especially when an hour or more was spent trying to find the file.

An anonymous spokesman for the fictitious group is considering a modest proposal it believes is entirely consistent with existing Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically with Rule 1.5, Fees.  Interestingly, the group opposes attempts to explicitly limit the amount of fees.  Instead, the group proposes an amendment to Rule 1.5 requiring lawyers to describe in specific detail exactly what happened during the time assigned to each billing entry.  The group gives these examples:

4.5 hours arguing short calendar motion would have to itemized as follows:  .8 travel to court; 3.00 wait; .3 argue motion in front of Judge ______; .8 return to office.

Another example: 2.4 hours attendance at Probate Court for hearing on opposing counsel’s objection to admission of will to probate itemized as follows:  .8 travel to court;  .8 discussion with opposing counsel and judge – opposing counsel, who had objected to will on the sole ground of a defect in execution of the will, seeing the judge’s negative reaction to that argument, announces that his client intends to challenge the will on the heretofore undisclosed ground of improper influence; judge reschedules the matter for an evidentiary hearing that will require the beneficiary under the will offered for admission to probate to fly to Connecticut from California; .8 travel back to office. Opposing counsel’s client, the deceased’s mother, abandoned the deceased at the age of three and resurfaced after 20 years to claim her status as a mother and to assert her status as a statutory beneficiary

The group spokesman, talking on condition that he remain fictitious, explained that if lawyers, judges and clients actually looked at and thought about who and what causes significant wasting of time that sometimes reaches the “you can’t make this stuff up” category, the cost of wasted time would be imposed on the lawyer/client/judge or “system” responsible.

Lawyers and judges who have gotten wind of the group’s idea have not liked the wind. Some judges consider the proposal a challenge to judicial independence in a way that ought to, if it doesn’t, violate some provision of the state or federal constitution. Some lawyers claim that the proposal constitutes an attempt by a third party to improperly influence lawyers in violation of Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4, Professional Independence of Aa Lawyer