I have received the Martindale-Hubbell "BV" rating effective September, 1996. The Martindale-Hubbell is probably the largest, oldest and most comprehensive directory of attorneys in the United States. Its first books were published in 1868.
Martindale-Hubbell developed a rating system in which certain select attorneys receive ratings based on legal ability, honesty and ethics. The rating consists of two letters. The first relating to Legal Ability, ranges from "A" (very high to preeminent), "B" (High to Very High), to "C" (Fair to High). The second is the General Recommendation Rating for honesty and ethics, which is always "V". If Martindale-Hubbell cannot give a "V" rating to an attorney, he/she receives no rating.
On June 9, 1997, MSNBC’s "The Site" aired portions of an interview of
me concerning a matter I am currently handling in Orange County.
That matter involves a lawsuit over claimed invasion of privacy.
The program involved a discussion of technology and privacy rights,
and focused in on various aspects of how new forms of technology are affecting
our everday expectations of privacy. The lawsuit pending involves
a new form of "vehicle theft recovery" system which utilizes computers
and telephone menuing systems to pinpoint the whereabouts of the
vehicle.
Recently, I completed a 12 week course which was actually conducted
on the internet. There were no “live lectures”, but the course outline,
assignments, and exams were all handled via email. The course concerned
the creation, management, and use of websites through the hypertext markup
language (HTML) which rules the day on the internet. Within the next
few months, I should have catalogued on the internet, via hyperlink, all
of my past newsletter articles. In the future, I hope to circulate
all future newsletters initially through my website. My website
remains the same: here, at http://home.att.net/~gaspalaw/ (also linked to America On Line).
For those of you “on-line”, stay tuned . Leave me an email as to something you would want researched. Any comments, questions or criticsims would
be welcomed .
The other day, I recognized an old joke posted in one of the discussion
groups I follow regularly on the internet. Since I first heard
the joke many years ago told by a law professor trying to make a
certain point, I thought I might repost it here—in its original form as
I remember it:
“An idiot, a moron and an imbecile are sitting in
a ‘no standing’ zone near a street corner. A car stops at a red light,
and the three of them decide to make a bet among themselves.
The idiot bets that the car will go left. The moron bets that the
car will go right. The imbecile bets that the car will go straight.
The light turns green, the driver proceeds to “rev” his engine in
neutral, and screech his tires loudly in a rabbit start.
He errors in shifting, whereupon his vehicle engages in reverse, smashing
into the car behind him
.
Idiot: He can’t drive backwards, that’s against the law.
Moron: I wonder why he would go in reverse?
Imbecile: I knew he was going to do that!”[The end.]
Moral: Sometimes in life, no matter what happens, you are
still left with an idiot, a moron and an
imbecile—a lot like litigation.
Statesman, diplomat, architect, author, inventor, farmer and founding
father. He is acknowledged as a genius and the smartest of all U.S.presidents—a
renaissance man. A man of vision. A leader. Thomas Jefferson.
He was almost constantly in debt. Big debt. Mr. Jefferson filed several
bankruptcies in his lifetime; and, his debt was huge in comparison to most
bankruptcies today. Remember, bankruptcy is a legal remedy and not
a reflection of who you are.
Kathy Brown named a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise a defendant in
a complaint seeking damages. Brown was a customer at a Redondo Beach KFC
when she was seized and held at gunpoint by a robber who threatened to
kill Brown if employees of KFC did not give him money. An employee
did not comply promptly with the robber's demands and that delay and other
actions caused further injury to her.
In a long awaited decision previously footnoted in this newsletter,
the California Supreme Court recently concluded that a shopkeeper does
not have a duty to comply with the unlawful demand of an armed robber that
property be surrendered. The Court concluded that recognition of a duty
to comply with an unlawful demand would be contrary to public policy
as it would encourage similar unlawful conduct.
There are many instances when California law will impose upon another
the affirmative duty to take action to protect others from the intentional
wrongs of others. However, where one’s conduct is generally a result
of protecting oneself or one’s property, and harm happens to another from
a common threat of intentional or criminal conduct, the actor will
not be faulted.
In last quarter’s newsletter I mentioned a Third Circuit Court’s opinion
in a case which gave local
California lawyers some ammunition to wage battle on the issue of protecting
private IRA funds from the long reach of the Trustee. I am pleased
to report, we have even more case law, coming from California’s own Ninth
Circuit. And it is favorable. The law has previously granted
clear protection to public employee and corporate ERISA plans.
In re Rawlinson, an opinion formally filed May 30, 1997, the Court held
“We are persuaded . . .that a debtor should be allowed to exempt an IRA.
By the terms of the statute, the debtors may exempt an IRA to the extent
that it is reasonably necessary for support. “ The debate is pretty
much over as to the protectibility of private IRA funds in bankruptcy
(in California). The only issue in Bankruptcy is whether or not the
total funding in the IRA exceeds the needs of the debtor(s) and their dependents.
This is a very subjective inquiry favoring the debtor because of life expectancy,
inflation, and the lifestyle to which debtors have become accustomed.
An attorney and law professor in Ohio did a study and wrote an article
about the recent fee request submitted by the lawyers involved in the notorious
“Texaco” boardroom discrimination case. The fee request was for 29
million dollars. 29 million. This worked out to 72,500 hours
at the given billing rate of $400 per hour. That is one lawyer
working approximately 37 years on one case. Or, that is ten lawyers
working nearly four
years at New York City legal rates on nothing but the case at hand.
The case was settled within 3 months of inception, for the Texaco offer
of $115 million.
Recently, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors audited the
legal lobbying billing of Webster Hubbell, the Arkansas lawyer formerly
with the U. S. Attorney’s office and friend of the President. Although
fifty hours had been billed, it was determined that only seven had been
actually worked. The bill submitted was for a figure just under $50,000—the
level which would have required Supervisor approval.
Like the Nixon era, once again, the legal profession is cast in the
center of a storm of controversy and dishonesty dominated by lawyers, twisting
language, logic, and fact. And the consuming public certainly
deserves better. All that such controversy serves to do is erode
confidence in the many other practitioners that earn their living with
humble retainers, and very often, reduced fees. Lost forever is mention
of the startling statistic that 90% of all pro bono (for free) legal work
is performed by the sole practitioner or small firm. Lost in the
spin and constant public relations jargon is that many of the attorneys
in the center of the storm have never actively practiced law, produced
a client, or tried a lawsuit their entire career—having spent the same
in a relentless egoistic pursuit of power confined to government bureaucracy.
As a result they have lost sight of the true meaning of the practice of
law. In my humble opinion.
It was recently reported in the newspaper that the United States has nearly 1.2 million people incarcerated, more than any other industrialized country. California alone has almost as many people incarcerated as China. The Correctional Officers Union is second only to the American Medical Association in lobbying power. Havoc exists in most civil trial calendars throughout America because of criminal calendars. Some civil law scholars are also theorizing that the civil system of “justice” is being forced to handle more unusual matters, garnering unwelcome or critical attention, simply because the criminal justice system is delivering inadequate justice. One only need to look to the publicized O. J. Simpson trial(s) for comparison. Examples of this include not only the unusually large verdicts we hear about that originate in criminal conduct, but such things as the new laws giving one the right to sue for “stalking’ and “elder abuse”.
Something to think about the next time you wonder why there is so
much “suing” going on.
My further updates will follow.
Sincerely,
Gerald Spala
June 15, 1997
Copyright, 1997, Gerald A. Spala, Esq. All rights reserved. The
materials and opinions contained herein are not intended as legal advice,
nor should be relied upon as legal advice in the absence of a complete
and thorough consultation or review of your matter by a licensed attorney.
