Category: News Feeds

A very long time ago, I had an issue with a client. He claimed to have brought some paperwork to my office the day before. But my spidey sense suspected that he wasn’t being truthful. That was confirmed when my officemates told me that no one came to drop off paperwork that day.

As I am 95% certain he lied, I subtly tried to call him out on it on a later phone call. Unfortunately, this resulted in a heated argument. He continued to claim that he did what he said he did. But a short time later, he deflected by saying “I am the client.” At that point, I tried to end the argument as soon as possible because I realized that he had a point. Even if I won the argument and got him to admit his lie, it could do more damage in the long run.

As lawyers, we occasionally run into people who have trouble being truthful. Sometimes, you find a way to deal with their alternative facts. For others, their constant web of deceit makes it impossible for you to do your job.

Why do clients lie? A lot of reasons, depending on the situation. Sometimes, they do it to gain more sympathy or make their case sound more favorable than it really is. Or they do it to trick you into lowering your fee. Or they don’t want you to get angry at them. For some people, lying is so integral to their manipulative personalities that they don’t even know they are doing it.

Obviously, working with a lying client will make your work more difficult. You have to verify everything the client says, which can take up time. And you will view your client with a degree of skepticism.

You might be tempted to call out you client on the lie, hoping that he will stop doing it moving forward. But you can end up having a very awkward, distrustful relationship or lose the client altogether.

You may have heard that “the customer is always right.” Most businesses know that following it literally is an exercise in futility, particularly in this line of work. But I think it just means that you should endeavor to give the client exceptional service and give the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

Even if you catch the client lying, confrontation requires some discretion. If you react too callously, the client may fear you and might not feel comfortable disclosing information. Also, people in general don’t want to lose face. This is truer in some cultures than others. Clients may end up being difficult and hostile and, in some cases, you may end up losing the client.

Here are a few things I try to do to ensure that the client is truthful with me.

The first thing is to convince the client of the importance of telling the truth. This should be done as soon as they sign the attorney-client contract. How to do this might depend on the client’s personality. Some clients should be told straight out that they need to be upfront with you about everything. For others, you need to assure them that you take the attorney-client privilege seriously. For clients who are sensitive about money, you may want to tell them a story about how a lie forced you to spend additional hours cleaning up the mess and how the client was billed accordingly. The best way to deal with a lying client is to give them every incentive not to.

But let’s suppose you caught them lying. How do you deal with it? It depends on the importance of the lie. Take the example I gave with my client. Looking back, I regret arguing with him as the issue of dropping off documents was not that important in the big picture, and it did not negatively affect my day’s duties. I probably should have talked to him about alternative means of dropping off paperwork.

But what if the client’s lie is serious? In that case, at a minimum, I have to let him know the damage that his lie has caused to his case. He may have prolonged his case, lost credibility (possibly irreparably) with the judge or jury, or could have committed perjury.

Also, I take precautions to ensure this does not happen again, if possible. In my example, I told the client to email me documents from now on. It would be beneficial for him since he could do it at the comfort of his home and not have to drop by my office. You may need to ask clients for documentation to verify their claims. Or meeting face to face more often if that forces the client to be honest. And you may have to make ultimatums that a future lie can be a dealbreaker.

Unfortunately, in this profession, we sometimes run into people who lie for a number of reasons. Simply telling them not to lie might not fix their behavior. I find that it is generally best to establish a relationship where the client feels comfortable telling you the cold, hard truth. But for others, you have to put the fear of God (or prison) in them. And for minor things, it might be best to just let it go. I could say that I’ve got all of this figured out. But then I’d be lying.

Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and resolve tax disputes. He is also sympathetic to people with large student loans. He can be reached via email at sachimalbe@excite.com. Or you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) and connect with him on LinkedIn.

I cannot believe it has been over a year since I started my own law firm. As mentioned in a few prior articles, about a year ago, I decided to quit my job and begin my own legal practice. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t scared to take this drastic step and forge my own path into self-employment. In fact, I distinctly remember sitting on the train on my way home from my last day of my job at another firm feeling absolutely petrified about my decision to begin my own shop. However, I can honestly say that the past year has been one of the most fulfilling and enjoyable times of my life. Since many readers of this column may be considering their own move into self-employment, I wanted to share some reflections on my first year of running my own law firm.

The main thing I want to convey to anyone thinking about starting their own firms is that success as a solo or small firm practitioner is a lot more achievable than you think. Most of the people I know who have started their own law firms either had a client base to start with or had a spouse who has a job or some other income source upon which they could rely. However, I had zero clients when I started my firm, and although I had side hustles that I could rely on for some money, those gigs did not provide all of the income I needed.

Nevertheless, I got my first clients a few weeks after I opened the firm, and I made a modest amount of money that first month. Several months into self-employment, I was earning a respectable amount of money, and right now, my firm is humming. Take it from me, if you believe in yourself and put in the work to be successful, you will be able to make a living by running your own law firm.

Another thing that is important to convey to anyone thinking about starting a firm is how fulfilling and enjoyable starting a law firm can be. While working at a firm, I hated commuting. It never made sense to me that I had to be in the office whether I had work to do or not, and it seemed like I wasted a lot of time due to the inefficiencies of working for a firm. I also disliked doing work at the office, since I didn’t have the comforts of home while at work. As weird as it sounds, I would sometimes wait to get home to complete work-related tasks because I was more comfortable there.

Now that I run my own firm, I do not waste any time on traveling unnecessarily. If I have to be at a meeting or a court appearance, I know I need to travel, but I don’t take time out of my day just to be present at an office when I don’t need to be there. Furthermore, working from home has added a lot of joy to my life. Watching the news or Netflix in the comfort of my own home while completing legal tasks has made working almost not feel like work at all, and this has made me a lot happier.

Another perspective I have from my first year of self-employment is that there are a lot of negative perceptions about people who start their own firms. Some folks seem to think that people must have started their own firms out of necessity, since they lost their jobs or did not have other opportunities. Other times, people think that self-employed attorneys might not be doing well financially, since they do not earn a salary like many other legal practitioners.

In reality, these perceptions are mostly false. For many people, opening a law firm is the realization of a long-held dream, not a move out of desperation. For me, self-employment has been an aspiration ever since I started practicing law, and I was not forced into self-employment by any stretch.

In addition, you can make a comfortable living running your own law firm, even shortly after you start your own shop. Whereas many law firms have high fixed costs, smaller firms do not have as much overhead. Since smaller firms usually charge similar rates as other non-Biglaw shops and have fewer expenses, it is easy to see how self-employment can be a lucrative proposition.

The most important point I want to convey while reflecting on my first year of self-employment is that anyone reading this article can start their own law firm. Most of the time when I speak with lawyers about starting a law firm, the other attorneys relate that they once aspired to do the same but have obligations that keep them from doing so now. This includes familial responsibilities, a comfortable life in their current roles, and an array of excuses as long as my arm. I always feel like these folks are trying to justify to themselves why they didn’t take the plunge to start their own firms.

However, take it from me, if you have ever thought of starting your own law firm, you should go ahead and do it. Being successful as a self-employed attorney is more achievable than you think, and you can live a comfortable life through self-employment within months of opening your shop. In addition, there are a number of issues with working at a law firm, and the benefits of being your own boss are well worth the risks of starting your own shop.

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

Yesterday, New York confirmed its first community spread case of coronavirus — and the person infected was a lawyer. Members of the legal community wondered who it could be and which firm he worked for, especially after a law student entered self-quarantine due to contact with the lawyer’s firm.

In the evening hours, the lawyer’s identity and the name of his firm were revealed.

As first reported by the New York Post, the lawyer in question is 50 years old and works at Lewis & Garbuz, a boutique trusts and estates law firm with an office located across the street from Grand Central Terminal. The coronavirus patient reportedly works with two of his family members at the firm. According to the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Garbuz is currently in “severe condition.” Here are some additional details from the Post:

Their firm, founded in 2001, is located across 42nd Street from Grand Central Terminal, and Garbuz reportedly commuted there on the Metro-North Railroad from their family home in New Rochelle. …

[The patient] was initially hospitalized Friday at Lawrence Hospital in Bronxville, but was transferred on Monday to NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in Upper Manhattan when his condition worsened.

He’s being treated in the intensive care unit, the hospital said.

We here at Above the Law would like to extend our well wishes for a quick recovery to this attorney’s family, friends, and colleagues during this extremely difficult time.

NYC lawyer with coronavirus in ‘severe’ condition: Health Department [New York Post]
Lawyer at Trusts & Estates Firm Is Severely Ill, Others Being Tested for Coronavirus [New York Law Journal]

Earlier: This Lawyer Has New York’s Second Confirmed Case Of Coronavirus
New York Law Student In Self-Quarantine After Contact With Coronavirus-Infected Lawyer’s Firm

Staci Zaretsky is a senior editor at Above the Law, where she’s worked since 2011. She’d love to hear from you, so please feel free to email her with any tips, questions, comments, or critiques. You can follow her on Twitter or connect with her on LinkedIn.

* An Illinois disciplinary panel has recommended that Rod Blagojevich be disbarred. Can President Trump pardon him from this? [Chicago Tribune]

* Robinhood, the popular stock-trading app, might face litigation over the fact that it went dark on Monday during one of the best days for trading recently. [Business Insider]

* President Trump has tapped a Biglaw associate for a position on the EEOC. [Reuters]

* American Airlines has debuted new uniforms after it defended a “toxic” uniform lawsuit. [USA Today]

* Top lawyer (and Georgetown Law lecturer) Paul Clement used the coronavirus outbreak as an example at oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Too soon? [New York Times]

Jordan Rothman is a partner of The Rothman Law Firm, a full-service New York and New Jersey law firm. He is also the founder of Student Debt Diaries, a website discussing how he paid off his student loans. You can reach Jordan through email at jordan@rothmanlawyer.com.

“[G]ratutious interference in other people’s lives is bigotry. The fact that it is often religiously motivated does not make it less so.” — Richard A. Posner

It is a continually remarkable fact that, nearly every week, one can see, in a nationally respected publication, religion being described as though it is under some form of attack through “punitive action” by the state. It is remarkable because it is a rather obvious, legal fact the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause has been operating for decades at its absolute zenith of protection. Indeed, the expansion of free conscience liberty entirely has proceeded in a way that facially favors religious belief at the great expense of the deeply held personal convictions of nonbelievers. The fact that criminal liability for the same act is now dependent upon whether you subscribe to religion or not, for example, grossly offends the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

It is also remarkable to see those who are supposedly so concerned with the state of free conscience rights never say anything about the current Attorney General repeatedly declaring that anyone who does not subscribe to Christianity or Judaism is not morally fit to be a citizen. Or, more importantly, that nonbelievers are regularly stripped of their basic civil liberties on a scale no religious group in this country could possibly identify with, such as the right of nonbelievers to address their own legislatures with messages of inclusiveness, teamwork, and a government that serves all regardless of religious belief. Or that religious advocates are currently fighting for (and winning in federal courts!), to deny nonbelievers the ability to hire celebrants that share the couple’s personal beliefs at their own weddings. It is in this context, with a Free Exercise Clause operating at its zenith (for Christians only), and where support for, or adherence to, religion is regularly being forced onto nonbelievers by the state, that the upcoming Fulton v. City of Philadelphia case is going to take place in.

The Fulton case was brought after Philadelphia refused to refer any of its foster children to a religious institution for adoption placement after the city became aware the institution would refuse to place children with any same-sex couple, regardless of how qualified the couple is to take care of the child. In lay terms, what the religious institution in the Fulton case is asking the Supreme Court for is to interpret the Free Exercise Clause as empowering the religious institution with the ability to strip adoption benefits from qualifying foster children in a government-run program.

I describe the case in those terms because the simple fact is the children that qualifying same-sex couples adopt derive substantial economic and social benefits. These substantial benefits are precisely why Philadelphia does not want institutions operating within its adoption program to exclude same-sex couples. In other words, the city wants each child to have access to the entire eligible adoption applicant pool. Moreover, the religious institutions denial to same-sex couples when they would otherwise qualify confers no benefits for the children in any way, shape, or form. The only justification for the institutions policy therefore is “gratifying feelings of hostility towards” same-sex couples.

In what should be a conscience-shocking irony, the religious institution in Fulton is arguing that if the government does not allow religious institutions to deny foster children access to qualifying same-sex couples within government adoption programs, it is the government that is being offensively discriminatory. If the Supreme Court agrees with the religious institution’s argument (which it will, more on that below), it would, in effect make “the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.” Put simply, any local or state government that wanted to create an adoption program that offered every foster child the full spectrum of qualifying parents would not be able to. States and local governments would be forced to place children in institutions that deny access based on reasons that violate government law. Moreover, in Fulton the discrimination by the religious institution involves same-sex couples. If the institution wins, however, it is difficult to see how religious institutions that discriminate based on race could be denied either.

To be clear, whether a private religious institution that runs its own adoption program can discriminate against same-sex couples is an entirely different question that the one presented in Fulton, which deals with a government-run program. Furthermore, although I view the refusal to place foster children in the loving homes of caring, qualified, couples based entirely on the sex of the parents as grotesque and appalling, unlike the religious institution in Fulton, I am not demanding in this piece that government step in and enforce my views onto third parties. In other words, the key issue in Fulton is not my or the institution’s beliefs, it is about the children, and their right to access to the entire pool of eligible, loving adoptive homes.

Because a majority of this current Supreme Court has shown a willingness to favor Christianity in the law, however, those that have been following religious liberty cases know that a decision in Fulton favoring the religious institution is all but assured. Accordingly, we have a religious liberty standard that allows the state of Texas to disqualify, literally, a fifth of its population from performing private wedding ceremonies simply because they do not subscribe to religion. The City of Philadelphia will be denied the ability to disqualify religious institutions from government programs even when the religious institution refuses to execute the essential goal of the government program, and in fact seeks to deny foster children access to loving homes. Such a standard could not honestly be described as upholding free conscience “liberty” for all, but rather one that effectuates theocracy on the express behalf of Christion nationalists.

Tyler Broker’s work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review, the Albany Law Review, and is forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.