Thursday, October 22, 2009


The title seems to describe something that is a theme in a couple of matters I've been dealing with lately.

Here's the problem, I can't give any details since they are legal matters. We'll see how I do.

I consulted with someone on a problem. What the person wanted to do wasn't do-able (doable?). There was a possible alternative that I suggested the person explore and I referred the person to a lawyer that specialized in the alternative area of law. No dice. I also suggested that the person may be able to negotiate a reasonable resolution to the problem. No dice.

A period of time passes and I get a couple of voicemails asking that I call. I do and get a "the telco customer is not available...." with no option to leave a voicemail. Today I get a voicemail that says "is this client abandonment?" So I write a letter to the person and outline what I had suggested and the person had rejected, suggesting that the person talk to another lawyer. And I really shouldn't have made the suggestion, grief will ensue for any lawyer that gets the call.

I have another case where the other side and its lawyer ("its" is easier than "the person") will not get down to the issue that is at the heart of the dispute. " I understand what you are saying; but, there are facts that go both ways." Of course there are facts that are in dispute, if there weren't there wouldn't be any lawyers involved. Then they act like the facts only go their way, which isn't going to get us anywhere. Getting to the heart of the matter will cost them money; but, delay will cost them more to my mind.

Then there's a third case where the other side (we won't personify or corporatize, if that's a word, this one) is between a rock and a hard place. Consider my side either the rock or the hard place. The middleman would love for my client to cave to the demands of the third party. But the third party is being totally unreasonable and the middleman knows it. The trouble is the middleman's bread is buttered by the third party and won't press them to get reasonable.

In all three instances there seems to be a hope against hope that by avoiding reality, reality will go away. Avoidance can make me money; but, in the long run it costs people and "its" more than they would spend if they met problems head on. I've been guilty of avoidance, I hope these cases teach me that it's a bad idea.

Private note: Still want to be a lawyer?


The Curmudgeon said...

I answered reflexively, before realizing that this was a 'private' question, presumably to someone who is contemplating a legal career.

But my answer is still: No!

But... alas... too late.

Dave said...

Made me laugh, yes, it was indeed posed to someone younger than ourselves.

Shelby said...

I would have to say yes.

Dave said...

It's too late for you too Shelby.

eda said...




Dr Jenn said...

pbbblbbth. out to lunch on decisions.

Jeni said...

Boy, wish I could read what Eda's response is to your questions, Dave.
I'm wondering -since you mentioned between rocks and hard places and one solution costing more money than another (also that some solution might even cost you income -if I followed your drift correctly here -remember I am totally so NOT into comprehending legalese) but anyway, have you or any of the other legal people involved in these things said anything at all to any of the other people -i.e. clients -about expenses involved on either side of the fences on which you all are sitting? Money would always be a draw to get me to a compromise if at all possible so I'm just speaking there from my view.
And would I want to be a lawyer? Only if they also provided easy-to-understand courses in "legalese" -that language you guys do oh, so well! Maybe if I read your blog enough years, I'll learn a couple words though. Do ya think that might happen, that way, etc.
So guess my answer then would probably be "no" although I don't think I ever had designs on being a lawyer in the first place.

Dave said...

Jeni, I think Eda is a computer. I had seven or eight comments on posts going back some time. Or perhaps not, I should try pasting the comments into the Google translator thingy.

As to talking about costs, yes I do. I probably talk my clients out of more litigation than I engage in.

Dave said...

Eda is indeed a computer. I choose Japanese as what the characters looked like. Here's what "Eda" said:

Sentiment, G & Ticket, the T褲sensitization, mood, color dressed演服corner, hanging帶襪, the T褲goods, sentiment,跳蛋radio, gender, stick Acupressure, Acupressure electric poles, aircraft, glass, Xun vision, masturbation套,套masturbation, mood Supplies,內衣sentiment, sentiment stick Acupressure,套masturbation, dressed color演corner, stick Acupressure,跳蛋,跳蛋sentiment., lubricant, SM,內衣,內衣sensitization, Integrated masturbation, Mitsuru氣娃Siqin, AV,

Dr Jenn said...

OK so that means - Eda is a computer that masturbates? LOL what?

Dave said...

But, being a computer, it is integrated onanism. That seems to be a definitional problem. Two. One.

Wes said...

I would totally go see a band named Integrated Onanism.


Dave said...

They are probably available on DVD, Vivid seems to be the right production compnay.