Ex-attorney rejects plea offer in theft from clien

[Swimmy]

Ex-attorney rejects plea offer in theft from client

“If you don’t take the 2-to-6 today, you won’t see it ever again, you understand?” Donalty said.

Judge Donalty always says this, but he always offers the plea deal even on the day of jury selection. I never understood why he makes such a threat. If it were me and the person wanted a trial, then on the day of trial, if the person wants to plead guilty, it's to the crime charged, not a plea bargain that was offered to avoid the expense of trial.

Also, it is me or does anyone else find it annoying the way they report these stories. "An ex-attorney turned down..." instead of saying right out, "Mary Helene Hamlin, an ex-attorney...". Of course I'm sure it's a mere ploy to entice us to read the full article. Maybe it's just me with my legal training where they drill the "fluff" out of you and dock you points unless you get straight to the point.

[frankcor]

swimmy said:

Maybe it's just me with my legal training where they drill the "fluff" out of you and dock you points unless you get straight to the point.

It surprises me to learn that attorneys are taught that way. Based on my experience, both as a member of a jury pool and as a viewer of trials on TV, I would have imagined the opposite. The wheels of justice grind agonizingly slow for my taste.

[Swimmy]

That's the old generation. The new generation is being taught to get straight to the point and to use plain english. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been re-written in "plain English" to make them easier to comprehend. My Research and Writing professor was the lead editor of the rule's latest edition. A lot of the younger and fresh out of school attorneys are starting to write in a more understandable manner. This change is not only supported to help foster a better position for your client, but also for the judges who have to review hundreds of lawyers' documents. One judge I know in Michigan is notorious for returning documents she has difficulty understanding. When I was visiting to drop off a paper she assigned our class, she gave me one set of papers drafted by an attorney and asked me to read it. When I gave up after the first sentence she said, "My sentiments exactly," and instructed me to return the documents as unaccepted by the court with a suggestion that it be written in plain English.

It's a slow move as many of the veteran attorneys refuse to accept this change and view the new trend as a threat to our profession (if a layperson can understand it they won't need a lawyer). This is mere fear of change, the profession won't be going away because of this trend.

[thelma]

swimmy - I wouldn't worry about the average person not needing a lawyer due to the simplification of the legal wording in the Court documents. They began to do this with the Insurance language in the policies and we all know how few people actually understand that their policies actually cover.

Lawyers will always be a necessary evil - LOL.

[Swimmy]

thelma said:

swimmy - I wouldn't worry about the average person not needing a lawyer due to the simplification of the legal wording in the Court documents....

I'm not worried, but the old dinosaurs still practicing are and insist on using an archaic legal writing style.

[clarencebunsen]

Just an innocent question.

Do you mean phrases such as "upon information and belief"?

[Swimmy]

Yes, phrases such as, "I, John Doe, do hereby certify heretofore that I am the purchaser of a house on lot 1 commonly known to be located at 1 st., somewhere, ny (hereinafter referred to as lot 1). Said house having been for sale at one-hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars..." or "should said parties breach aforementioned and undersigned contract, said contract shall be deemed null and void..." or "We the parties of the first part do acknowledge and certify that the parties of the second part are heretofore going to be purchasing said house in total sum of one hundred thousand ($100,000.00) dollars as the total consideration for said parties of the first part to convey, and do hereby intend to do so convey, said property described at the afore-referenced location as further described in said Deed."

There is a book "Plain English for Lawyers" by Richard C. Wydick that provides a nice explanation of how to write in plain English and why it is important to do so. Many attorneys who have converted to this improved style have noticed that their motions are better understood by judges and their cases proceed with more success than before. It's scary to think how the law was interpreted before.

[Swimmy]

Every attorney should read that book.

[frankcor]

I'd also recommend Elements of Style by Strunk & White. For such a tiny book, it is absolutely jammed packed with Dos and Don'ts of writing. The authors teach by examples; "its" vs "it's" or "which" vs "that." I read it once a year and pick up tips every time I do. (heh, you might find that hard to believe based on my on-line typing )

[Swimmy]

Many people view forums such as this an informal place to write and express ideas so grammar rules, spelling, and punctuation are much more lax. I rarely pick on someone for their grammar, etc. unless it is a pet peeve of mine, like "irregardless" or IMO.

[thelma]

swimmy - what is wrong with using IMO? I'm on a Message 'Board and they want you to use "IMO" when you are stating your opinion on a matter to avoid being sued for slander/liebel.

[Swimmy]

The thought process I've been taught is that everything you say is your opinion, unless you cite someone else's opinion. It's redundant. I would hope you're giving your own opinion and not someone else's you would be plagiarizing otherwise.

It's similar to when someone says, "honestly, ..." I hope you're being honest, do you mean to tell me that everything before you said honestly was a lie?

Just some quirks I have. Because these are forums and not considered formal channels of communication, I try not to let them out on to the forums, though I slip up sometimes.

So, IMO away, thelma. :-)