Corporate Finance

Corporate Finance

You are the best. Thank you http://www.bignews.com

You are the best. Thank you http://www.bignews.com

Dear Anonymous MassAtty,   “Rubbish” is a nice pithy legal argument, but not particularly persuasive.  Wishing away the antitrust laws won’t make them go away.  Same thing for your ethical responsibilities to the judicial system and to clients.   
As in many other states, Massachusetts assigned counsel have been complaining about low fees for years and yet still taking the assignments.   As individuals, you have the absolute right to get off the panel or refuse new cases.  But, the vast majority continue to take them, whether out of magnanimity or financial need, I cannot say.   That’s how the marketplace works — you each decide if the terms offered are adequate for you to sell your services to the buyer.  No matter what is said about the current rate being below market rates, so far, it appears that the State’s proffered price IS adequate to attract the necessary providers.  Bar advocates can lobby for a fairer fee level and quicker payments, but they may not use a group boycott to pressure the State, in order to alter market forces.  Most members of the bar can be expected to understand the difference and to act accordingly.
Predicting calamities that are caused by your own joint, coercive action is neither ethically responsible nor helpful to your cause.   It is, however, a good way to get attention from federal and state antitrust authorities — and, hopefully, from your Bar Counsel.   I continue to hope that the State raises your fees, but I hope it can happen without further harm to the rule of law and the public’s respect for lawyers.

Dear Anonymous MassAtty,   “Rubbish” is a nice pithy legal argument, but not particularly persuasive.  Wishing away the antitrust laws won’t make them go away.  Same thing for your ethical responsibilities to the judicial system and to clients.   
As in many other states, Massachusetts assigned counsel have been complaining about low fees for years and yet still taking the assignments.   As individuals, you have the absolute right to get off the panel or refuse new cases.  But, the vast majority continue to take them, whether out of magnanimity or financial need, I cannot say.   That’s how the marketplace works — you each decide if the terms offered are adequate for you to sell your services to the buyer.  No matter what is said about the current rate being below market rates, so far, it appears that the State’s proffered price IS adequate to attract the necessary providers.  Bar advocates can lobby for a fairer fee level and quicker payments, but they may not use a group boycott to pressure the State, in order to alter market forces.  Most members of the bar can be expected to understand the difference and to act accordingly.
Predicting calamities that are caused by your own joint, coercive action is neither ethically responsible nor helpful to your cause.   It is, however, a good way to get attention from federal and state antitrust authorities — and, hopefully, from your Bar Counsel.   I continue to hope that the State raises your fees, but I hope it can happen without further harm to the rule of law and the public’s respect for lawyers.

What rubbish . . .
Who needs to strike? Let’s see what Romney, Locke AND CPCS does when July 1, 2004 comes around and 2500 “Bar Advocates” don’t appear because they have opted-out or otherwise refused to sign contracts with their respective County Advocate Programs.
How long will it take the Governor and CPCS to burn out the “pro-bonos” and other hot-shots who step into the breach? Hmm… now there’s an interesting “ethical” concern. Just how many cases does one take, involuntarily or otherwise, before one stumbles into malpractice? Will the appointing Judge indemnify the inexperienced or “drafted” lawyer who gets hammered by a civil jury? That’s what happened to Worcester Lawyer Edward Healy back in 1985 after he unwittingly tried to help out the presiding justice William Luby in a case involving an arraignment and mental health evaluation on a fellow named Ronald Wagenmann. Seems Luby needed counsel to stand-in, nobody was around, Healy said O.K.,and oops! I Guess it wasn’t sufficient enough representation for Wagenmann and a federal jury in Springfield that awarded Wagenmann 1.7 miilion in damages, $500K of which was against Healy.

What rubbish . . .
Who needs to strike? Let’s see what Romney, Locke AND CPCS does when July 1, 2004 comes around and 2500 “Bar Advocates” don’t appear because they have opted-out or otherwise refused to sign contracts with their respective County Advocate Programs.
How long will it take the Governor and CPCS to burn out the “pro-bonos” and other hot-shots who step into the breach? Hmm… now there’s an interesting “ethical” concern. Just how many cases does one take, involuntarily or otherwise, before one stumbles into malpractice? Will the appointing Judge indemnify the inexperienced or “drafted” lawyer who gets hammered by a civil jury? That’s what happened to Worcester Lawyer Edward Healy back in 1985 after he unwittingly tried to help out the presiding justice William Luby in a case involving an arraignment and mental health evaluation on a fellow named Ronald Wagenmann. Seems Luby needed counsel to stand-in, nobody was around, Healy said O.K.,and oops! I Guess it wasn’t sufficient enough representation for Wagenmann and a federal jury in Springfield that awarded Wagenmann 1.7 miilion in damages, $500K of which was against Healy.