– – a friday night pick-up line: “Wanna see my Paintings?” —
open grave
I resist the urge
to jump
“spring breakup” & “false dawn” – The Heron’s Nest
“open grave” — Frogpond XXVIII No.2 (Spring/Summer 2005)
June 17, 2005
resist the urge
ethical headaches
potluck
A few days ago, Mike Cernovich wondered aloud [“eloud”] why
there has been no discussion by any of the blawgosphere’s 100+ law
professors (who enjoy academic freedom) of the case of Carin Manders
Constantine v. George Mason Univ. (4th Circ., June 13, 2005, No.
04-1410). Constantine claims that she was discriminated against by
GMU’s law school, because it failed to accommodate her severe migraine
headaches — resulting in her failing Constitutional Law — and then was
relaliated against by the School, when she went public with her story.
[Mike sets out Constantine’s basic assertions, which were taken as fact
for purposes of her appeal, but are somewhat vague and have yet to be
proven.]
I would also like to know what law professors think about the issues
of student disability and free speech law were raised. Not knowing
the actual facts yet should make it easier for the professors to opine —
offering hypotheticals — without fearing some kind of retaliation by their
schools.
One issue that I want to raise, however, is what Ms. Constantine’s
“intractable migraine syndrome” means for her ability to practice law
in compliance with Model Rule 1.3 on Diligence. No law school should
decide that a particular disability would make it inappropriate to grant a law
degree to a student able (with reasonable accommodations) to complete its
course of study . But, the existence of a disability should bear very directly
on what types of law a particular graduate (or veteran lawyer) chooses to
practice. If stress triggers severe headaches, or such headaches occur often
and keep an attorney from meeting deadlines, the lawyer needs to make some
very hard choices. Some kinds of law practice should be considered off limits
and, in some instances, clients may need to be informed of the issue.
Despite causing a financial disaster, there came a time eight
years ago when I had to end my law practice — after cutting
back significantly more and more for a few years — due to my
health problems. I could not in good faith hold myself out as
being able to give diligent service to my clients. I don’t think
I deserve a pat on the back for doing so — it was my ethical
responsibility, one assumed when I became a member of the
Bar.
Thanks to the wonders of search engine technology, the name of
Carin Manders Constantine will be connected with her lawsuit and
migraine problems forever. Googling her name already demonstrates
her “in[ternet]famy.” Washington Post coverage, the 4th Circuit’s
decision and subsequent developments in the case, Associated Press
stories across the nation, weblog coverage, and many other internet
sources, will put many potential clients and employers on notice about
Carin Constantine’s condition. Can we count on other lawyers with
serious “hidden” health problems, who do not come under an internet
spotlight, to make the right choices? Or do we have to wait for a long
series of injured clients before a grievance committee takes action?
I sure hope the lawyer’s oath will help our brethren make responsible
choices.
Read more about Ms. Constantine’s interesting
life — e.g., she met her husband skydiving — here.
again with Carolyn Elefant’s complaint that a discipline committee treated
a solo unfairly and applied archaic rules mechanically. This time, South
Carolina reprimanded attorney Theo Mitchell for calling his firm “Mitchell
and Associates,” notwithstanding that he he was the sole lawyer in his
licensed in the state. Carolyn explains:
“Mitchell had contended that the use of the phrase
“and Associates” was appropriate because it referred
to other lawyers in Greenville who help him in specialty
cases such as real estate and foreclosure matters.”
“potladle” Carolyn says that modern practice and technology let a lawyer
“associate” with lots of other lawyers, in ways that benefit clients, so they
should be able to claim to have associates. I’m sorry, but the touchstone is
whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived. There is no doubt in my
mind that the average client assumes that “& Associates” means a lawyer who
owns a firm has hired and directly controls non-partner lawyers within the
umbrella of his or her firm. Farming out work to other lawyers, or getting
email or blogwise advice from them, doesn’t count. This isn’t even close.
When you have new kinds of affiliations, you need to find terminology
that adequately describe them — not co-opt terminology that has other
connotations and meanings and that just happen to make your firm seem
more substantial than it really is.
Long Island seems to have more than its share of crooked lawyers.
Some of the answers where provided here last year, when similar
statistics came to light concerning the NYS Lawyers’ Fund for Client
Protection.
Happy 51st Birthday to Bob Ambrogi of LawSites & More! Bob
has a very useful pointer to For Freedom’s Sake, the Legal Guide for Bloggers,
presented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
“tinyredcheck” Enough lawyer stuff!! Here’s some great haiku from our
recovering — but, perhaps relapsing — lawyer-haijin. Barry George:
summer morning–
a hawk’s cry slips
in through the fan
a dandelion field
today…wisps
beneath this moon
Yellow maples–
the river gleams with sunlight
shaped like a cross
Barry George from Haiku Spirit
Comments Off on ethical headaches