Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
It's nice to be recognized: UNLV (Boyd) Law is 45th in most-cited study.
See here. Hat tip to TaxProf Blog.
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Very bad customer service.
Why I will never order from Premier Audio Video again:
What I received:
Order [snip]:
1 of Western Digital WD Elements 1 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive WDBAAU0010HBK-NESN [ASIN: B002QEBMB4]
------------- Begin message -------------
Please box it back up the same way you received and send to:
Returns Dept
ATTN: RMA 27152667
9997 Rose Hills Rd.
Whittier, CA 90601-1701
Does need to be returned complete in original box with all accessories, paperwork and packaging.
There is a 15% restocking fee charged on non-defective returns. Refunds issued on return. Thank you.
What I replied:
Thank you. Please be advised that I will post my interactions with you--including the discussion of a 15% restocking fee for a product that does not work with the current Mac operating system--every possible place that I can post it, including but not limited to your seller review on Amazon, my blog, Twitter, and Facebook.
UPDATE: The explanation that Premier Audio Video gave me when I sent my reply? "We didn't say that it WOULD work w/Lion." Sigh....
What I received:
|
2:14 PM (16 hours ago)
| | ||
| ||||
1 of Western Digital WD Elements 1 TB USB 2.0 Desktop External Hard Drive WDBAAU0010HBK-NESN [ASIN: B002QEBMB4]
------------- Begin message -------------
Please box it back up the same way you received and send to:
Returns Dept
ATTN: RMA 27152667
9997 Rose Hills Rd.
Whittier, CA 90601-1701
Does need to be returned complete in original box with all accessories, paperwork and packaging.
There is a 15% restocking fee charged on non-defective returns. Refunds issued on return. Thank you.
What I replied:
Thank you. Please be advised that I will post my interactions with you--including the discussion of a 15% restocking fee for a product that does not work with the current Mac operating system--every possible place that I can post it, including but not limited to your seller review on Amazon, my blog, Twitter, and Facebook.
UPDATE: The explanation that Premier Audio Video gave me when I sent my reply? "We didn't say that it WOULD work w/Lion." Sigh....
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
R.I.P. Nora Ephron.
Not only did she make the front page of the New York Times with her obituary (which she deserved), but she touched so many of us with her poignant and funny work. Thank you, Nora Ephron. We'll miss you.
"Call Me, Pay Fee" -- I wish I'd written it.
See here for a great column about the über-annoying robo-calls we're all getting on our landlines and cell phones. I'm none too thrilled about all of the political calls we're getting as well.
Jeff and I are at the point of changing our outgoing message to "if you're calling us about a political campaign, a get-rich-quick scheme, or anything else that someone's paying you to convey to us, rest assured that whatever you're selling, we will not be buying."
Jeff and I are at the point of changing our outgoing message to "if you're calling us about a political campaign, a get-rich-quick scheme, or anything else that someone's paying you to convey to us, rest assured that whatever you're selling, we will not be buying."
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Dear Dad: OK, maybe now.
Got to say that today's NYT letter to the editor by Donald Bernstein made my day (here).
Friday, June 15, 2012
How bad is Boingo Wireless's customer support? Very, very bad.
I have been sitting in LaGuardia trying to add a third device to Boingo for 45 minutes. The good news is that ALL FIVE times that I called customer service, I spoke with nice people. The bad news is that, no matter how many times I try, I can't add a third device to my account. All that I've managed to do is get the other two deauthorized. (If you're keeping track, that leaves me with zero authorized devices.) Here's what Boingo says to do:
1. Login with the new device.
2. Go to the next screen to add a third device.
Ah, but that's where Boingo's system breaks down. I never get to the next screen. I just get placed in infinite login loop hell.
Can Boingo add the third device on its end? Nope.
What can Boingo do? Well, its people are polite, which is good, but they can't help me, which is bad.
Um, Boingo? Can't you figure out a way to get me to the screen where I promise to pay you more money?
UPDATE NUMBER 1: I've sent this post to Boingo Customer Service.
UPDATE NUMBER 2: the sixth guy at Boingo said to try the Boingo app. Now I can get connected, but I still can't add a third device.
UPDATE (6/20/12): Boingo asked for my login and my email address. I provided those. Boingo responded by saying that my account didn't exist. I provided a screen shot of my account. Let's see what happens next.
UPDATE #2: I've gotten a comment on this post (see comments) offering to help me with my problem. I'll keep you posted.
UPDATE (6/20/12): Boingo asked for my login and my email address. I provided those. Boingo responded by saying that my account didn't exist. I provided a screen shot of my account. Let's see what happens next.
UPDATE #2: I've gotten a comment on this post (see comments) offering to help me with my problem. I'll keep you posted.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Which women do you know, Mr. Kilcullen?
"Made my blood boil." I'd heard that phrase, but I had yet to experience it fully. Thank goodness for Stephen Kilcullen, who was able to provide that experience by writing this column about why women shouldn't serve in the Army Rangers (here).
He trotted out these hoary old saws: "it's not about the individual, it's about the military" (as a reason why women shouldn't bother asking to serve in the Rangers as a way of increasing their experience and raising their odds of promotion); "women get to do almost everything else" (so they shouldn't be presumptuous enough to ask to do what their male colleagues do); "it's all about morale" (yep, that worked equally well when folks in the military said that it would wreck morale to have (a) minorities in the military, (b) gays in the military, and (c) women in the military); and "it's an all-volunteer force" (which means, I guess, that people who serve shouldn't feel bad if there's an unbreakable ceiling on their careers).
I don't know which women you know, Mr. Kilcullen. The ones I know who choose a military career are perfectly capable of planning and executing missions. They're not any more squeamish than their male counterparts are, and they understand that military careers include a lot of bloodshed, risk, and sacrifice.
My sister-in-law, for example, was just as capable as any of her colleagues were in the Air Force and would (in fact, did) happily volunteer for some pretty scary missions during her military career. My guess is that she's still working for the military, albeit now as a civilian, because the military recognizes her value. With a Van Niel, pretty much all of them can be equally dedicated and aggressive against enemies, both foreign and domestic.
So, Mr. Kilcullen, look around you. I'll bet that there are a lot of women out there who would do a better job as a Ranger than you would.
He trotted out these hoary old saws: "it's not about the individual, it's about the military" (as a reason why women shouldn't bother asking to serve in the Rangers as a way of increasing their experience and raising their odds of promotion); "women get to do almost everything else" (so they shouldn't be presumptuous enough to ask to do what their male colleagues do); "it's all about morale" (yep, that worked equally well when folks in the military said that it would wreck morale to have (a) minorities in the military, (b) gays in the military, and (c) women in the military); and "it's an all-volunteer force" (which means, I guess, that people who serve shouldn't feel bad if there's an unbreakable ceiling on their careers).
I don't know which women you know, Mr. Kilcullen. The ones I know who choose a military career are perfectly capable of planning and executing missions. They're not any more squeamish than their male counterparts are, and they understand that military careers include a lot of bloodshed, risk, and sacrifice.
My sister-in-law, for example, was just as capable as any of her colleagues were in the Air Force and would (in fact, did) happily volunteer for some pretty scary missions during her military career. My guess is that she's still working for the military, albeit now as a civilian, because the military recognizes her value. With a Van Niel, pretty much all of them can be equally dedicated and aggressive against enemies, both foreign and domestic.
So, Mr. Kilcullen, look around you. I'll bet that there are a lot of women out there who would do a better job as a Ranger than you would.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
It's actually not that much fun saying, "we told you so."
In 2009, Eric Van Horn and I suggested (here) that bankruptcy lawyers might want to pay some attention to the public perception that their fees might be unreasonable. (I admit that I'm a little fee-obsessed these days: see here,* here, here, here, and here.)
This morning, the New York Times weighed in on the issue of bankruptcy lawyers' fees (here). The go-to quote?
* The way that this first link is set up will count this very post as the first in the list. You'll want to skip that one, unless your brain likes infinite loops, to move to the others in the list.
This morning, the New York Times weighed in on the issue of bankruptcy lawyers' fees (here). The go-to quote?
By opposing these guidelines, the lawyers handling big bankruptcy cases show they are out of touch with economic realities. Worse, in resisting improvements in accountability, they undermine public confidence in the integrity of the bankruptcy process.Yep. The right approach--demonstrated with particular skill by Cravath's Rich Levin and the National Bankruptcy Conference--is to work with the Office of the U.S. Trustee to reach a workable compromise. Ultimately, it's the job of the bankruptcy court to determine whether an estate-paid professional's fees and expenses are reasonable. The Office of the U.S. Trustee is trying to help bankruptcy courts do their job by giving estate-paid professionals a heads-up as to what the U.S. Trustee Program will consider presumptively unreasonable. Those professionals who are willing to meet the government halfway by saying, "we are very uncomfortable giving you this information, and we don't think the information will help you, but we are comfortable giving you this other information instead, which will help you" are handling this issue the right way.
* The way that this first link is set up will count this very post as the first in the list. You'll want to skip that one, unless your brain likes infinite loops, to move to the others in the list.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Bill Henderson is right--again.
See his latest op-ed on the changes in law practice economics and business models here.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Some thoughts on reasonable attorney fees.
The juxtaposition of two articles this morning caught my eye. This morning's Wall Street Journal's article, The Law Firm Business Model Is Dying, reminded me of Big But Brittle, the must-read article by Bernie Burk & Dave McGowan. (Bernie & Dave's article is much better at discussing the nuances of the changes affecting BigLaw; the WSJ piece is just about lawyer deregulation.) The other is a New York Times Dealbook piece by Andrew Ross Sorkin: Madoff Case Is Paying Off for Trustee ($850 an Hour). Here's the quote in that article that caught my eye:
In terms of the Madoff case, I'm a firm believer that Irving Pickard is doing a good job and is worth his hourly rate. Not every legal theory will work when applied to a particular set of facts, but he's doing his best to get some significant recovery for Madoff's victims.
But Judge Rakoff is right, too: just because a law firm can bring several people to a hearing doesn't mean that it should. The problem of "staffing balance" is the tension between representing a fiduciary (and the concomitant desire to leave no stone unturned, in order to fulfill the fiduciary's duties) and the question of who ends up paying the bills for that representation. The more diffuse the responsibility is for paying those bills, the less opportunity there is for the client to say, "let's do this but no more than this."
The problem is particularly acute in large chapter 11 bankruptcies, but that's not the only situation in which the problem occurs. (See here and here for some of my thoughts on staffing balance.)
We train lawyers to be risk-averse. Risk-averse people are prone to making sure that all of their bases are covered. That means that lawyers will want to bring everyone to a hearing who might possibly have something to contribute, "just in case." But with new technologies around to let lawyers call in to hearings, or to be on cell-phone standby, there are ways to trim those bills. If the lawyers would be willing to move to those technologies but for court rules that interfere (such as prohibiting cell phones in courtrooms), then courts need to rethink their rules. And if the lawyers are behaving responsibly about who they bring to hearings, then I can see giving them the benefit of the doubt in close cases.
But the most important thing is for the lawyers to communicate their reasons for their staffing choices to the court. Waiting until a court starts making comments in public about the staffing choices creates the risk that a court will find those staffing choices unreasonable per se.
There are a couple of ways to communicate staffing choices to the court. One is explicit: "Your Honor, with me today is Attorney X (who will cover [single issue]), Attorney Y (who will cover [different issue]), and Attorney Z (who is responsible for helping me with today's overall hearing because [reason])." Another is by setting benchmarks in advance, with rebuttable presumptions about how many attorneys should be billing for a given task.
Communication is key. Without such communication, lawyers will be judged in hindsight about the reasonableness of their actions. Whether the client is paying close attention to the bills or is merely an amalgam of interests that--by definition--will not pay close attention to the bills, there are too many pressures on the practice of law to let law firms bill without explaining their staffing choices to someone (the client or the court).
In a particularly caustic exchange in court last year, Judge Rakoff, upon seeing a group of lawyers enter the courtroom on behalf of the trustee, said: “Can I ask a question, which is, since the trustee’s fees come out of the funds that otherwise would be available for other purposes, why are there four attorneys from the trustee here in court today?”The fact that these two pieces came out today is just a coincidence, but the backstory on both is that lawyers who assume that their way of doing business will continue indefinitely are in for a shock.
When the lead lawyer responded that he might need to consult with his colleagues during his argument, Judge Rakoff shot back sarcastically: “If it turns out you give your argument without needing to consult with them, of course, you and your firm won’t charge for their appearance today.”
The lawyer replied: “I, your Honor, am not going to make any promises.”
In terms of the Madoff case, I'm a firm believer that Irving Pickard is doing a good job and is worth his hourly rate. Not every legal theory will work when applied to a particular set of facts, but he's doing his best to get some significant recovery for Madoff's victims.
But Judge Rakoff is right, too: just because a law firm can bring several people to a hearing doesn't mean that it should. The problem of "staffing balance" is the tension between representing a fiduciary (and the concomitant desire to leave no stone unturned, in order to fulfill the fiduciary's duties) and the question of who ends up paying the bills for that representation. The more diffuse the responsibility is for paying those bills, the less opportunity there is for the client to say, "let's do this but no more than this."
The problem is particularly acute in large chapter 11 bankruptcies, but that's not the only situation in which the problem occurs. (See here and here for some of my thoughts on staffing balance.)
We train lawyers to be risk-averse. Risk-averse people are prone to making sure that all of their bases are covered. That means that lawyers will want to bring everyone to a hearing who might possibly have something to contribute, "just in case." But with new technologies around to let lawyers call in to hearings, or to be on cell-phone standby, there are ways to trim those bills. If the lawyers would be willing to move to those technologies but for court rules that interfere (such as prohibiting cell phones in courtrooms), then courts need to rethink their rules. And if the lawyers are behaving responsibly about who they bring to hearings, then I can see giving them the benefit of the doubt in close cases.
But the most important thing is for the lawyers to communicate their reasons for their staffing choices to the court. Waiting until a court starts making comments in public about the staffing choices creates the risk that a court will find those staffing choices unreasonable per se.
There are a couple of ways to communicate staffing choices to the court. One is explicit: "Your Honor, with me today is Attorney X (who will cover [single issue]), Attorney Y (who will cover [different issue]), and Attorney Z (who is responsible for helping me with today's overall hearing because [reason])." Another is by setting benchmarks in advance, with rebuttable presumptions about how many attorneys should be billing for a given task.
Communication is key. Without such communication, lawyers will be judged in hindsight about the reasonableness of their actions. Whether the client is paying close attention to the bills or is merely an amalgam of interests that--by definition--will not pay close attention to the bills, there are too many pressures on the practice of law to let law firms bill without explaining their staffing choices to someone (the client or the court).
Monday, May 28, 2012
Remembering Ron Bliss.
On this Memorial Day, we all have particular people we remember. Jeff and I remember Ron Bliss, as well as other friends who served.
We still miss dinners with Ron and Charlene--great conversations, great wine, lots of laughter.
Charlene, our thoughts are with you today.
We still miss dinners with Ron and Charlene--great conversations, great wine, lots of laughter.
Charlene, our thoughts are with you today.
Friday, May 25, 2012
An important opinion piece for Memorial Day.
Tom Manion's piece in the Wall Street Journal (here) is exceptionally moving, and it's a must-read for Memorial Day.
We quite literally can never repay the debt that we owe our troops. But we owe it to them to recognize their bravery and sacrifice, not just on Memorial Day, but every day.
We quite literally can never repay the debt that we owe our troops. But we owe it to them to recognize their bravery and sacrifice, not just on Memorial Day, but every day.
A new chapter.
Yesterday afternoon, UNLV's President announced that John White, our law school's dean, would be UNLV's next provost. We will be doing a dean search this coming year, but in the meantime, I'll be our school's Interim Dean, with the transition happening mid-summer. Here's what I sent to our community:
Dear Boyd Community,It is an honor, and I think of Boyd as a very special (strong school and collegial environment) place.
I know that we all wish Dean White well in his new position as UNLV's next Executive Vice President and Provost. He has done many wonderful things for our school: preserving our financial stability during one of the worst recessions in history, adding talented faculty and staff members to our already strong ranks, and helping to guide us through a rethinking of our first-year curriculum.
I'm happy to be serving as Interim Dean as we search for our next permanent dean. We are at a pivotal point in legal education. Legal practice has changed dramatically, and we are not likely to see a return to the old approaches to practicing law. Our students will be looking to us to help them find a way to adapt to this "new normal." We need to continue to provide our students with the right mix of analytical and communication skills, a deep understanding of substantive law, and an ability to use law as one way--but not the only way--to solve complicated problems. We also need to think creatively about how to adapt our strengths in this changing environment.
This year will be busy for us. In addition to the dean search, we'll have the ABA site inspection and will embark on our next strategic plan. For us to be able to make informed decisions, we'll need to do a fair amount of research on legal education and the practice of law. The good news is that we have a strong and growing alumni base and a significant amount of goodwill in the legal community. I'm sure that we will be able to tap the knowledge of our friends near and far to help us in our decision-making.
It's an honor for me to serve our school in this capacity. We have a remarkable school, filled with talented, engaged, and collegial people. Here's to preserving the best of what we have and finding even more ways to be outstanding.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)