Tag Archives: lawyer

Top 10 Annoying Things that Lawyers Do…and Why They Do Them

I have written a number of articles on what clients do that irritate lawyers, and the pitfalls associated with representing the general public.  To be fair, I decided to compose a list of things that clients tend to complain about their lawyers (some rightly so).  Many lawyers I know commit many of the below offenses in their personal as well as their professional lives. This list is obviously not exhaustive, and by no means applies to every lawyer.

Porter County Lawyer Lake County Lawyer

Top 10 Annoying Things that Lawyers Do (And Why They Do Them):

10. Brevity (or lack thereof).

A lawyer spends the better part of a decade learning and refining his craft.   He or she spends at least seven (7) years in formal undergraduate and legal education learning how to be an expert wordsmith. Unfortunately, often writing assignments reward those who produce more content, and this can sometimes become a habit, especially for younger lawyers.  In addition, the law is sometimes a complicated beast, and there are many factors to consider when writing or talking with clients.  Some lawyers are very good at relating very complex and complicated ideas to clients in a layman vernacular, while others have greater challenges doing so. This is a difficult skill that is sometimes hard to master, and it may take a lawyer a decade or more to acquire and refine this skill.

9. Bedside Manner.

Lawyers have the unfortunate reputation of being callous, uncaring, and unsympathetic.  Of course not all lawyers have this problem, but many, over time, lose the ability to understand (or remember) what it is like to walk in the client’s shoes. This is probably because the lawyer has dealt with the client’s particular legal situation many times, when likely it is the client’s first experience with the current situation, and maybe the legal system altogether.  Just like the struggle many doctors face with maintaining a good bedside manner, lawyers should too. After all, clients (and their problems) are the lifeblood of the lawyer’s practice–and therefore–his or her livelihood.

8. Worst Case Scenario.

When you walk out of a lawyer’s office, you might feel as though the sky is falling and the world is about to end.  Lawyers are known for being eternal pessimists, and may unnecessarily scare you in your first couple of meetings. There is a method to the lawyer’s madness, however.  The lawyer is concerned about two things: first, a lawyer’s worst nightmare is a client with wildly unrealistic expectations.  It is impossible for a lawyer to make a client happy if the client believes a miracle will happen. Second, the lawyer is attempting to manage client expectations because, often, reaching a compromise or settlement is in the client’s best interest.  If a client has unrealistic expectations, there is little to no chance of compromising or settling the client’s legal dilemma. When writing contracts, a lawyer must think of every possible thing that could potentially go wrong, and a contingency in case it does.

7. Overly Cautious.

Lawyers, as a whole, are an extremely cautious bunch. This is because in a lawyer’s world, gains and losses are often zero-sum; in other words, when one person gains, the other loses.  As well, the law is often unpredictable, and the lawyer cannot know with certainty what the outcome of your case might be, regardless of how straightforward and “easy” you think your case is going to be. To a lawyer there is no such thing as a “slam dunk”.  No case is easy, no case is quick, and no case is a sure thing.

6. Unavailable.

Lawyers, as a group, are generally tough to reach.  One of the greatest challenges practicing law is keeping up with client contact. Lawyers spend an overwhelming amount of time returning phone calls, letters, emails, and even text messages from clients. Even so, lawyers are rarely caught up in getting back to their clients. In order to earn a living, a lawyer has to take on a large number of clients, each of whom demand constant attention. Quite often the best and most competent attorney to handle your case is the busiest and most difficult to reach. If you are persistent (but not too persistent), he or she will get back with you whenever he or she gets an opportunity to do so.

5. Cutting Conversations Short.

Lawyers are highly trained at listening for certain words in a conversation, and as mentioned in #6, they are constantly struggling with a time crunch. Most lawyers have asked hundreds of thousands of questions of thousands of people in a variety of settings, and can often predict what a client is about to or intends to say.  Admittedly, this can be rude. Clients often want a sympathetic ear to hear and understand their problem, including a description of the emotional pain and suffering that this event has caused them. The lawyer, on the other hand, is primarily interested in the legally operative facts that are central to your claim or defense.  The lawyer has in his or her head predetermined questions that he or she needs answered before the lawyer can determine whether to take your case or what needs to be done.

4. Turnaround Time.

When you ask a lawyer to perform a given task, you might think that it is as simple as just going over here, or calling over there, or having a paralegal type something for him or her to sign. This is not usually the case. Most of a lawyer’s work product is tailor made for your legal issue, and takes time to produce.  Also (and many clients really don’t like hearing this) lawyers have other clients. It is only fair for the lawyer to tackle assignments on a first come, first served basis. Other times, the lawyer has to “triage” the various assignments by urgency.  For example, getting a client out of jail will usually take precedence over responding to a routine motion before the due date.

3. Tendency to Over-complicate Things.

This one is interrelated with #7. In being cautious, the lawyer’s objective is to be exhaustive; that is, to think of every possible scenario (even some that are unlikely) in order to be prepared and account for any possible detriment or setback. Something that may seem simple to a client (and may actually be) is not simple in the mind of the lawyer. In a lawyer’s mind, there is no simple answer to almost any question.  This is almost the equivalent to asking a mathematician what 2 + 2 equals.

2. Collegial Attitude.

This is one that I have found clients to hate the most.  Clients are often aggrieved and emotionally distraught at the acts of the opposing party, while the lawyer seems to talk to the “enemy” like they are best friends. Some of this might be appearance, and some might be reality. Most lawyers will strive mightily for your cause to the detriment of the other party, and then, when the ties come off, eat and drink as friends.  Lawyers, especially those in a small community, must work with one another time and time again on a number of cases. The lawyer cannot afford to destroy relationships over particular cases, and, believe it or not, this usually benefits the clients the lawyer represents, contrary to their belief.

1. No Promises.

Lawyers often seem spineless when it comes to committing to a result in a given case. So often clients come in for a first meeting and ask me, “So can you guarantee that ________ will happen?” No. I will never make such a guarantee.  This is because first, most jurisdictions have some ethical rule that prohibits the lawyer from making such promises.  Second, the legal system can be unpredictable and it would be foolish to make such a promise. Third, related to #8, the lawyer cannot afford for the client to develop unrealistic expectations that no lawyer could ever deliver. The lawyer’s goal is not only to get the best possible result for the client, but to counsel the client as to what that result likely will be.  Occasionally, that is not the news the client was hoping to hear.

U.S. Supreme Court: Illegal Police Dog Search after Traffic Stop

illegal police dog searchIn a somewhat surprising decision, the United States Supreme Court has determined that police officers conducted an illegal police dog search of a car because the illegal police dog search occurred after the traffic stop has concluded.

In Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13–9972, decided yesterday, April 21, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided that conducting a search beyond the scope of the original traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and constituted an illegal police dog search.

In Rodriguez, Officer Struble, a K–9 officer, stopped Mr. Rodriguez for driving on a highway shoulder, a violation of Nebraska law. After the Officer attended to everything relating to the stop, including, checking the driver’s licenses of Rodriguez and his passenger and issuing a warning for the traffic offense, he asked Mr. Rodriguez for permission to walk his dog around the vehicle. When Rodriguez refused, Struble detained him until a second officer arrived. Struble then retrieved his dog, who alerted to the presence of drugs in the vehicle. The ensuing search revealed methamphetamine. Only Seven or eight minutes elapsed from the time Struble issued the written warning until the dog alerted.  Mr. Rodriguez was indicted in federal court with the possession of methamphetamine.

The United States Supreme Court reasoned that, absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable  searches and seizures, and constitutes an illegal police dog search.

Beware: Not All Police Dog Searches are Illegal Police Dog Searches

This Opinion, from the moment it was printed as a slip Opinion is binding upon future decisions of any court in the United States. However, this Opinion assumes a few things that readers may take for granted.  First, this Opinion is based on the fact that the officer did not articulate a reason that he suspected that the driver possessed methamphetamine in his vehicle, and conducted the illegal police dog search anyway.  This Opinion would not apply if the officer had some other reason to believe that Mr. Rodriguez had drugs in his vehicle.  Second, this Opinion is based on the fact that Mr. Rodriguez did not consent to the search.  If Mr. Rodriguez had consented to the otherwise illegal police dog search, he would have waived any Fourth Amendment right or privilege that he may otherwise have had. Third, this Opinion distinguishes between conducting an illegal police dog search after a traffic stop had been concluded, as opposed to conducting the illegal police dog search before it had concluded.

When Does a Traffic Stop Start and End for the Purpose of Determining Whether an Illegal Police Dog Search Has Occurred?

The tolerable duration of a traffic stop is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, and to attend to the related safety concerns.  Authority for the traffic stop ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not lengthen the roadside detention, but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission” of issuing a warning ticket.  Rodriguez, at 2, citing, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 and Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408.

Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.  Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission. Rodriguez, at 2, citing, Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–659.

In other words, unless an officer has an independent reason to believe that you have drugs inside of your vehicle–a reason that would impose suspicion in a reasonable person’s mind–the officer does not have the right to conduct a police dog search on your vehicle.  Any attempt to do so would constitute an illegal police dog search, and any evidence gathered from such illegal police dog search would not be able to be used against you in any court as a matter of law.

Why is this New Law on Illegal Police Dog Searches So Important?

In other recent decisions over the past several decades, police dog searches were not considered “searches” under the meaning set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. So long as police dog searches were “reasonable” and did not unreasonably restrain a person’s liberty, such searches were considered “legal”, and therefore any evidence recovered as a result of the police dog search could be admitted and used against the defendant at a trial.  This is no longer the case.  In this new decision, any detention beyond the scope of the traffic stop, which is strictly defined and limited, constitutes an illegal police dog search.

Have You Been the Victim of an Illegal Police Dog Search?  The Criminal Defense Attorneys of SFT Lawyers Can Help!

The criminal defense attorneys of SFT Lawyers can help!  Our experienced criminal defense attorneys are well seasoned in the area of illegal police dog search es and will work tirelessly to exclude evidence gathered illegally by the police.  If you have been charged with the possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine, possession of methamphetamine, or possession of heroin that was found as a result of an illegal police dog search, CALL TODAY for a FREE CONSULTATION.  (219) 841-5683.