Comments on: Special Rules for Solos? http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/ breathless punditry and one-breath poetry with David Giacalone Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:58:52 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Carolyn Elefant http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-5389 Carolyn Elefant Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:19:08 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/#comment-5389 <a></a> David - Certainly no need for any apologies. I didn't take offense - and you were right in that I was excited to see a committee formed to explore the needs of solos and small firms. So it's not the committee idea per se that I didn't like - just some of the topics up for discussion. Carolyn

David – Certainly no need for any apologies. I didn’t take offense – and you were right in that I was excited to see a committee formed to explore the needs of solos and small firms. So it’s not the committee idea per se that I didn’t like – just some of the topics up for discussion. Carolyn

]]> By: Carolyn Elefant http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-7309 Carolyn Elefant Sun, 25 Apr 2004 20:19:08 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/#comment-7309 <a></a> David - Certainly no need for any apologies. I didn't take offense - and you were right in that I was excited to see a committee formed to explore the needs of solos and small firms. So it's not the committee idea per se that I didn't like - just some of the topics up for discussion. Carolyn

David – Certainly no need for any apologies. I didn’t take offense – and you were right in that I was excited to see a committee formed to explore the needs of solos and small firms. So it’s not the committee idea per se that I didn’t like – just some of the topics up for discussion. Carolyn

]]> By: David Giacalone http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-5379 David Giacalone Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:22:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/#comment-5379 <a></a> Thank you for straightening me out on this one, Carolyn.  This is one time that I'm pleased to have been wrong -- and it proves that when one "assumes" he only makes an ass of himself and not of the subject of the assumption.  I just corrected the mis-impression and linked over to your post.  This Comment made my day.

Thank you for straightening me out on this one, Carolyn.  This is one time that I’m pleased to have been wrong — and it proves that when one “assumes” he only makes an ass of himself and not of the subject of the assumption.  I just corrected the mis-impression and linked over to your post.  This Comment made my day.

]]> By: David Giacalone http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-7299 David Giacalone Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:22:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/#comment-7299 <a></a> Thank you for straightening me out on this one, Carolyn.  This is one time that I'm pleased to have been wrong -- and it proves that when one "assumes" he only makes an ass of himself and not of the subject of the assumption.  I just corrected the mis-impression and linked over to your post.  This Comment made my day.

Thank you for straightening me out on this one, Carolyn.  This is one time that I’m pleased to have been wrong — and it proves that when one “assumes” he only makes an ass of himself and not of the subject of the assumption.  I just corrected the mis-impression and linked over to your post.  This Comment made my day.

]]> By: Carolyn Elefant http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-5378 Carolyn Elefant Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:34:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/#comment-5378 <a></a> David: I'm not sure how I missed this post yesterday; I commented on the article independently and linked to it <A HREF="http://myshingle.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/23/0259238">here</A>. But I just wanted to say that you pegged me wrong on this one. I see no reason to treat solo and small firm lawyers differently or more leniently because of our size. One of the goals at MyShingle is to help solos and small law firms improve the quality of our work so that we are perceived on par with biglaw firms which are supposedly the barometer of quality in the legal profession. Many of us meet that goal and surpass it. To be honest (and as discussed further in my <A HREF="http://myshingle.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/23/0259238">post</A> at my site, I found some of the proposals -- like allowing unlimited fees for fiduciary appointments or slowing down speedy case resolution -- to be downright offensive.

David:

I’m not sure how I missed this post yesterday; I commented on the article independently and linked to it
here. But I just wanted to say that you pegged me wrong on this one. I see no reason to treat solo and small firm lawyers differently or more leniently because of our size. One of the goals at MyShingle is to help solos and small law firms improve the quality of our work so that we are perceived on par with biglaw firms which are supposedly the barometer of quality in the legal profession. Many of us meet that goal and surpass it. To be honest (and as discussed further in my post at my site, I found some of the proposals — like allowing unlimited fees for fiduciary appointments or slowing down speedy case resolution — to be downright offensive.

]]> By: Carolyn Elefant http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/comment-page-1/#comment-7298 Carolyn Elefant Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:34:05 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/formerlyknownas/2004/04/21/special-rules-for-solos/#comment-7298 <a></a> David: I'm not sure how I missed this post yesterday; I commented on the article independently and linked to it <A HREF="http://myshingle.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/23/0259238">here</A>. But I just wanted to say that you pegged me wrong on this one. I see no reason to treat solo and small firm lawyers differently or more leniently because of our size. One of the goals at MyShingle is to help solos and small law firms improve the quality of our work so that we are perceived on par with biglaw firms which are supposedly the barometer of quality in the legal profession. Many of us meet that goal and surpass it. To be honest (and as discussed further in my <A HREF="http://myshingle.com/article.pl?sid=04/04/23/0259238">post</A> at my site, I found some of the proposals -- like allowing unlimited fees for fiduciary appointments or slowing down speedy case resolution -- to be downright offensive.

David:

I’m not sure how I missed this post yesterday; I commented on the article independently and linked to it
here. But I just wanted to say that you pegged me wrong on this one. I see no reason to treat solo and small firm lawyers differently or more leniently because of our size. One of the goals at MyShingle is to help solos and small law firms improve the quality of our work so that we are perceived on par with biglaw firms which are supposedly the barometer of quality in the legal profession. Many of us meet that goal and surpass it. To be honest (and as discussed further in my post at my site, I found some of the proposals — like allowing unlimited fees for fiduciary appointments or slowing down speedy case resolution — to be downright offensive.

]]>