Official CBA/Labour Talks Discussion Thread III

[Ponchos]

Call the most prominent firm in your city, talk to a partner and ask if they have ever refused business based on being too busy.

I talk to senior partners of downtown Toronto law firms all the time. I would be embarrassed to ask such a stupid question.

Give it a shot, get back to me.

Otherwise you're just speculating.

[ranger001]

Call the most prominent firm in your city, talk to a partner and ask if they have ever refused business based on being too busy.

I talk to senior partners of downtown Toronto law firms all the time. I would be embarrassed to ask such a stupid question.

Give it a shot, get back to me.

Otherwise you're just speculating.

And you're a lawyer i suppose and not speculating?

[Ponchos]

And you're a lawyer i suppose and not speculating?

I went to law school, but I'm not a practicing lawyer. I know many lawyers, some of them my good friends that I met in school.

I am not speculating.

[tecumseh18]

Call the most prominent firm in your city, talk to a partner and ask if they have ever refused business based on being too busy.

I talk to senior partners of downtown Toronto law firms all the time. I would be embarrassed to ask such a stupid question.

Give it a shot, get back to me.

Otherwise you're just speculating.

I have no interest in wasting my time trying to prove a negative. Perhaps you actually share some of your experience that supports your theory (your proposition being, if I understand it, that (i)lawyers don't make more money if they accept more work, and (ii) there isn't a division of labour in law firms that allows senior partners to delegate work to junior partners and so on down the chain).

Or answer this riddle: why do civil and criminal proceedings in this country take so many years to come to a conclusion?* (Answer below, but don't peek!)


* Because lawyers say yes to every new client, and delay discoveries and trials as long a possible to try to fit every one in.

[ranger001]

And you're a lawyer i suppose and not speculating?

I went to law school, but I'm not a practicing lawyer. I know many lawyers, some of them my good friends that I met in school.

I am not speculating.

So you've talked to the most prominent law firm and asked them?

[tecumseh18]

And you're a lawyer i suppose and not speculating?

I went to law school, but I'm not a practicing lawyer. I know many lawyers, some of them my good friends that I met in school.

I am not speculating.

Did you at least article and get called? I did, and worked in a downtown sweatshop (that was actually the nickname of the firm). I am not speculating.

[Kevin Willis]

The judge in the Minnesota case is Patrick Schiltz who once litigated for the nfl.

I am surprised the players don't have a problem with this

I know a lawyer who represented an accused child molester. The lawyer is one of the kindest people I know, I would let him babysit my niece and nephew.

Not sure what this means considering the guy he defended may be innocent...

[tecumseh18]

The judge in the Minnesota case is Patrick Schiltz who once litigated for the nfl.

I am surprised the players don't have a problem with this

I know a lawyer who represented an accused child molester. The lawyer is one of the kindest people I know, I would let him babysit my niece and nephew.

Labour lawyers tend to specialize in management side or union side. And there's a reason they make that choice.

If I were representing a union, I wouldn't want a former management side lawyer hearing my case.

[Twinkie defense]

The players currently feel that between the owners current offer and a free market, they can do better in a free market

If that's what you really believe you have totally misread the players actions.

[Ponchos]

(i)lawyers don't make more money if they accept more work

My proposition is that each lawyer and law firm has an absolute capacity for workload, there is not an infinite amount associates to pass the work down to, nor is that always ideal. My proposition is that lawyers do not accept an infinite amount of work.

and (ii) there isn't a division of labour in law firms that allows senior partners to delegate work to junior partners and so on down the chain).

I think my original post on this topic pointed out that he likely has associates working on the case at the same time.

If Boies said, "Sorry Billy Hunter I'm too busy to personally litigate this case, but my Associate can handle it no problem." I'm sure Billy would say "Thanks, but no thanks." and move on to the next prominent litigator on the list.

Or answer this riddle: why do civil and criminal proceedings in this country take so many years to come to a conclusion?* (Answer below, but don't peek!)

Actually your answer was incorrect. It takes years for legal cases to come to a conclusion because there are more cases than the infrastructure can handle, thus it takes time.

I would agree that there is a lawyer for every case that wants to be pursued, but that is not the question at hand. My position was simply that if Boies did not have the NBA dispute to litigate, he would find another case easily. Somewhere at the bottom of the totem pole of litigators a lawyer would go without work, but it sure as hell would not be Boies.

[Ponchos]

Not sure what this means considering the guy he defended may be innocent...

He wasn't.

[Ponchos]

And you're a lawyer i suppose and not speculating?

I went to law school, but I'm not a practicing lawyer. I know many lawyers, some of them my good friends that I met in school.

I am not speculating.

So you've talked to the most prominent law firm and asked them?

I have been told personally by a partner in a high profile legal firm that they have passed work on to friends at other firms due to workload in combination with the fact that no senior members of their own firm specialized in this particular type of litigation.

[Ponchos]

And you're a lawyer i suppose and not speculating?

I went to law school, but I'm not a practicing lawyer. I know many lawyers, some of them my good friends that I met in school.

I am not speculating.

Did you at least article and get called? I did, and worked in a downtown sweatshop (that was actually the nickname of the firm). I am not speculating.

Yes I articled, and I was called to the bar. About a half year after that I quit (the hours and the work sucked), and joined my fathers consulting firm.

[ranger001]

So you've talked to the most prominent law firm and asked them?

I have been told personally by a partner in a high profile legal firm that they have passed work on to friends at other firms due to workload in combination with the fact that no senior members of their own firm specialized in this particular type of litigation.

So really its because it was an area of law they were not specialized in.

[ranger001]

dgoldstein79 Dave Goldstein
@mccannsportslaw Is Boies' "months, even weeks" timeline realistic? Thought jurisdiction battle alone could take longer, let alone merits.
59 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

mccannsportslaw Michael McCann
@dgoldstein79 I don't think it's realistic. Boies thinks he's going to win on the merits, but I can't see how that happens in weeks/months.

If Players thought they were going to get a quick victory they better think again.

[Ponchos]

So you've talked to the most prominent law firm and asked them?

I have been told personally by a partner in a high profile legal firm that they have passed work on to friends at other firms due to workload in combination with the fact that no senior members of their own firm specialized in this particular type of litigation.

So really its because it was an area of law they were not specialized in.

No.

He specialized in the area of law, his partners did not. Therefore his course of action was to refer this potential client to a friend of his at a competing firm that did have the necessary expertise.

Comprende?

[Kevin Willis]

What I don't get - and probably never will - is why the players are taking this particular option in the first place. Lets compare them to the other major sports:

Baseball

Yes - baseball players can make a tremendous amount of money.
Yes - the exceptional players can have careers into their 40s.
Yes - they have great revenue streams

However it can take many years to crack the big league and the competition can be stiff with so many players on the various farm teams. And so many are career minor-leaguers that it's not even close to be a sure shot to stay in the majors. Also at one point salaries were getting to unsustainable levels.

Yet - they didn't take the same stance as NBA players

Hockey

No - the players don't make as much as basketball players
Yes - some players can have long careers spanning from their teens to their 40s
No - their revenue stream is not good

However, they had a broken system where revenue stream didn't justify the salaries of the players. They were locked out but their system was broken and most would agree the contracts were getting too high.

Yet - the players agreed to the owners concession for them after a long lock out

Football

No - they have a short career of only a few years
Yes - they make large sums of money, usually up front
Yes - they have a revenue stream that is second to none

However they de-certified but eventually made the concessions asked by the league. They knew they had it good and were willing to sacrifice in order to not impact their careers.

NBA players

Yes - they start young AND can play to they're in their late 30s
Yes - they make large sums of money
Yes - they have a growing revenue stream with increased popularity

However they push for a lockout. Why? They have it all really - why end a season in this way. I don't get it. The other leagues had issues that needed remedy but the players in the NBA arguably have more to conceed than players in other leagues. And they refuse to take a stand against the man. I don't get it...

[tecumseh18]

(i)lawyers don't make more money if they accept more work

My proposition is that each lawyer and law firm has an absolute capacity for workload, there is not an infinite amount associates to pass the work down to, nor is that always ideal. My proposition is that lawyers do not accept an infinite amount of work.

Then why do they schedule 2 am meetings in downtown law firms? Because they do. And if they need more help, there's a lot of unemployed lawyers you can reach with a Craigslist ad. I've placed ads myself for certain research projects, and have seen the responses come flooding in within 24 hours.

Your friends may be part of a new generation of lawyers that value quality of life over profit maximization. I've heard that this is happening. But I would be shocked if people like that made it high up the law firm hierarchy, where 1700 billable hours annually for associates (e.g. at McCarthy's) is considered a minimum target.

and (ii) there isn't a division of labour in law firms that allows senior partners to delegate work to junior partners and so on down the chain).

I think my original post on this topic pointed out that he likely has associates working on the case at the same time.

If Boies said, "Sorry Billy Hunter I'm too busy to personally litigate this case, but my Associate can handle it no problem." I'm sure Billy would say "Thanks, but no thanks." and move on to the next prominent litigator on the list.

Well, you never say THAT. The lead lawyer is the lead lawyer. He or she will show up court, with associates in tow. The question is, who does the behind the scenes solicitor work that he or she will argue from? And that can be some schmo hired off of Craigslist (or a higher class equivalent).

No-one is already pre-booked every single day, and even if they are, they can always send a junior to ask for an adjournment in one of the less important proceedings.

Or answer this riddle: why do civil and criminal proceedings in this country take so many years to come to a conclusion?* (Answer below, but don't peek!)

Actually your answer was incorrect. It takes years for legal cases to come to a conclusion because there more cases than the infrastructure can handle, thus it takes time.

Sure, the feds are reluctant to appoint (and pay for) more judges. But when you see lawyers after hearings going through their respective schedules trying in vain to find a mutually convenient time book the next hearing in the same calendar year, you can't help but wonder at the greed of the profession.

I would agree that there is a lawyer for every case that wants to be pursued, but that is not the question at hand. My position was simply that if Boies did not have the NBA dispute to litigate, he would find another case easily. Somewhere at the bottom of the totem pole of litigators a lawyer would go without work, but it sure as hell would not be Boies.

But would it be so high profile? Would his firm attract more clients as a result? And if another case is available, why not take both cases? And why wouldn't the firm want to bill out the lowly associate for an amount more that what they pay him or her?

Boies is brilliant in his own right, no doubt, but his main value as Chairman of his 200-lawyer firm is as a rainmaker. Rainmakers don't say no. He'll take the major client meetings, oversee the process, negotiate with the other side, ensure quality control and show up in court. But that's about 5-10% of the overall time it takes to litigate a file.

[Ponchos]

NBA players

Yes - they start young AND can play to they're in their late 30s
Yes - they make large sums of money
Yes - they have a growing revenue stream with increased popularity

However they push for a lockout. Why? They have it all really - why end a season in this way. I don't get it. The other leagues had issues that needed remedy but the players in the NBA arguably have more to conceed than players in other leagues. And they refuse to take a stand against the man. I don't get it...

The owners are pushing for a lockout. The players do not want the lockout.

This is not a strike.

[ranger001]

So really its because it was an area of law they were not specialized in.

No.

He specialized in the area of law, his partners did not. Therefore his course of action was to refer this potential client to a friend of his at a competing firm that did have the necessary expertise.

Comprende?

Yeah I got it, they didn't have the necessary expertise.