Welcome to the ShTexaslawyer.com Blog

You came here looking for answers. If you didn't find what you are looking for, ask!

I've yet to ever charge someone for a phone or email consultation.

Go on, ask!

You know you wanna.

It is tempting in emotionally driven litigation to find yourself with the upper hand, and to seek total domination. A desire to utterly destroy your opponent for the trouble and affront they have brought on you. This is true for clients and lawyers. A better course though is to seek a just win. A win that leaves dignity for your opponent. A victory that is balanced. The reality is that in life there are no "stories". Our lives are not novels with climactic moments and final resolutions. If you seek a total domination win, you run the risk of creating a problem that will come back to you in the future. Hatreds and rivalries begin when one side goes too far. Right or wrong, when the victor goes from just rewards to spoils of war, the loser never forgets. The loser will inevitably wait, looking for the right moment to seek retribution. When the victor takes only what is due, leaving the loser with dignity, the loser is less likely to harbor a smoldering grudge.

This advice applies not only to law, but life, sports and relationships.
Be just, and always take the higher road.

There was a time when lawyers, doctors and professors were seen as very noble people. Wise, well educated, and held to a code of conduct that was hirer than that of most people. Lawyers still are those things. To get a law degree requires a four year undergraduate degree and a three year juris doctorate course. Lawyers deal with life issues, not only their own, but of their clients. As a result of that life experience, lawyers become learned in human behavior and human nature. Lawyers are also held to standards of conduct that are greater than those for most people by the state bar, the courts and the public. Even though the qualities of a lawyer have not changed, the public view of lawyers has changed.

In part, the change is due to the fact that more people than ever before have a higher education. At a time when most did not get a full primary education, a juris doctorate seemed an insurmountable amount of education. Now, when many finish all or some college, a three year degree does not seem that much more to accomplish. The popularization of psychology and a general thought that everyone knows human behavior makes the experience of lawyers seem duplicitous. The rules regulating everyday interaction of people in all areas of their lives makes a code of conduct seem like just another set of rules.

I've written before that lawyers must accept some of the blame for their perception. I've also mentioned before that for every satisfied client, there is another client who lost and is mad at their lawyer and the other side's lawyer. Lawyers need to remind the public of who they are, why they exist, and what they do. For most people a lawyer is a greedy professional who charges outrageous fees to take advantage of people in difficult circumstances. They forget that most politicians have some legal training, that many clergy have legal training, that legal training and thought is what created the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers form an integral part of the functions of society. Lawyers, for the most part, are striving to make life better for all. Lawyers want an ordered society that seeks fairness, justice and peace.

One thing I haven't discussed is how the perception of lawyers is spoiled by a general negativity in society for anyone that stands in the way of a special interest agenda. When people want to ban flag burning, it is lawyers who fight to preserve the right of free speech. When a group wants to force a religious doctrine onto public policy, it is lawyers who fight to preserve the separation of church and state. When one group wants to persecute another, or deny them equal treatment, it is lawyers who fight for equality. Lawyers, placing themselves against special interest groups also place the public eye on the profession. Perhaps it is in this effort that lawyers still exhibit nobility. It is noble of a lawyer to fight for the underdog in the face of public opinion. Maybe, in time, looking back, lawyers will be seen as those valiant champions who fought to preserve the Constitution and ensure that justice was done.

Many clients recently have used email to seek updates to their cases, most still call. I've toyed with the idea of some form of Twitter style updating. Some legal case management solutions offer web based access to clients to their case's calendars are notes, so the client can see for themselves what is or is not happening on their case. The problem with such communications is privacy/security and the void of updates. Law is a slow process.

I worry about protecting attorney client privileged information in electronic communications. The worst thing that could happen in a negotiation would be for the other side to gain access to the strategy for settlement. If they know your bottom desired outcome, you can guarantee the other side will not offer better than the bottom at any time. By example, imagine going to buy a used car and the dealer knowing exactly what you were willing to pay before you walked in the door.

The void of updates is a function of the practice. There are long periods of time where documents are being gathered, responses are "in the mail", or where there is just a wait for legislated waiting periods to pass and court dockets to clear. Twitter is for fast updates on quickly evolving situations. It is already difficult to explain to clients why a case takes, what to them, seems an extraordinarily long time to finish. Tweeting would just add to that frustration.

The advantage to email updates is that they are brief and can be responded to at leisure. I have found though that email updates frequently result in phone calls to explain what was written. The reality is that for most people legal issues are not common. Lawyers don't try to use legal-speak to confuse people, its just that certain terms are used to explain complex issues, and those terms aren't used by everyday people in normal conversation.

I imagine a Twitter style update would generate even more confusion than email. Being limited to a small number of characters would cause a flurry of tweets to define terms used.

Perhaps it is better to encourage email usage, for now.

I have been contemplating supplementing the blog and website with video. I personally think seeing me talk about law couldn't be that exciting, but I understand many people garner information better with pictures and sound. I'm torn as to how to present the information. A part of me feels compelled to have a formal setting, wear a suit, and speak as a "lawyer". However, Youtube and other similar sites have shown the most appealing messages are informal, as if you are in a personal conversation with the speaker. In which case, videos recorded in home settings and such might be just as, if not more effective, in getting the information across.

If you have thoughts or opinions about adding video, how the video should appear, or what things you might want more information on, please feel free to comment.