A lawyer who got axed from his firm for allegedly failing to make his billable hour requirements has filed suit against his former firm, claiming they essentially required him to commit billing fraud:

A California lawyer who says he was fired from his law firm because he couldn’t meet a quota requiring 3,000 billable hours a year has filed an employment bias suit over his ouster.

The former associate, Richard Unitan, claims the unrealistic requirement forced lawyers to lie about their hours, the Los Angeles Daily Journal reports. Unitan, a Riverside litigator, claims he was essentially fired for not committing billing fraud.

A 3,000 hour billable requirement would require working about eight hours a day, every day of the year. Most firms require no more than 2,100 billable hours a year.

They say that for every hour a lawyer works, they can only bill 30-45 minutes of that time. To bill 3,000 hours would therefore require spending 4,000-6,000 in the office every year, or 11-16 hours per day. (I’m not sure who “they” are, but they talk a lot.)

Some lawyers can probably take to that lifestyle with gusto. Other lawyers might enjoy exercise, the arts, food, or having a family. Some lawyers might aspire to be an interesting human being outside of the context of their periodic review with the managing partner of their firm. Some lawyers might aspire to spending some of the waking hours of their day not tracking their time in 6- or 15-minute increments.

But then, most lawyers don’t get to work at the big fancy law firms anyway.

Religious liberty (which includes both freedom of and from religion) won a big victory in Rhode Island this week, with a court ruling that a prayer banner at Cranston High School violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and ordering the banner’s removal. At the center of the case is 16 year-old Cranston student Jessica Ahlquist, who stood up for her (and everyone’s) constitutional rights and has endured an ongoing litany of abuse and threats in response.

It is worth noting that this case is so straightforward a law professor might balk at even using it as a hypothetical in a first-year constitutional law class. A public school, in 1963, put up a banner titled “Prayer” beginning with an invocation to a “Heavenly Father” and ending with an “Amen.” Does it get any more prayerful than that? Faced with an almost-guaranteed loss, the school board decided to roll the dice with the funding that should be used to educate children, using it instead to pay lawyers to argue that their prayer is not really a prayer. Not surprisingly, a judge who has actually read several decades’ worth of Establishment Clause jurisprudence ruled in favor of Ahlquist. Also not surprisingly (but disappointingly), the backlash has been prompt and furious. The above link to the abuse heaped on Ahlquist is not for the faint of heart, nor for anyone who wants to remain blissfully ignorant of how some people can be.

Ahlquist’s supporters, of whom there are refreshingly many, are conducting a college scholarship fundraiser for her to make her future brighter than her present. Contributions will go to a fund set up by the American Humanist Association (of which I am a proud member). I encourage my reader(s) to stand in support of this brave young person. The world needs more people like her.

Related link: Ruling (PDF), Ahlquist v. City of Cranston, et al

Photo: linked from here.

I have added Disqus commenting to the blog. You may now troll me across multiple platforms.

Kyocera wanted a pitchman for some electronic product they are selling. They approached Ben Stein, who was in a funny scene in a movie 26 years ago, had a Comedy Central game show that launched the career of Jimmy Kimmel, and who has otherwise been a colossal embarrassment to all that is intellectually honest. They offered him $300,000 to appear in some commercials or something. Somehow, it took Kyocera three months to figure out that Ben Stein holds positions that are rather counter to the scientific mainstream (but that make him a darling, I’m sure, on the Republican cocktail party circuit) on the non-question of man-made climate change. So they withdrew their offer to him.

I have a few concerns about Kyocera here, in that they are an electronics company that apparently does not know how to Google someone.

The bigger issue is this: faced with the withdrawal of a proposed contract still under negotiation, Ben Stein sued, claiming not only breach of contract but violation of his religious liberties.

The complaint, filed on January 11, 2012, alleges that a valid contract exists between Stein and Kyocera because there had been both “offer” and “acceptance.” He claims that, although the parties had not signed a final contract, their agreement is nonetheless legally binding, in part because he had already changed his plans to accomodate Kyocera.

This sounds more like promissory estoppel to me than breach of contract, but that wouldn’t get him the full $300,000 value of the contract in damages. Still, any first-year law student will tell you that “offer” and “acceptance,” in addition to “consideration,” are fundamental components of a binding contract. (Second-year law students might tell you that it is a little more complicated than just that, but go with me here.) I therefore cannot categorically or snarkily dismiss a breach of contract claim in this case.

I can, however, snarkily dismiss his claim for “wrongful discharge in violation of fundamental public policy,” in which he claims that Kyocera’s withdrawal of their offer discriminates against him for his religious beliefs. He is basically asking the government to tell a business what to do on a matter (in his mind) of religious conscience. Don’t Republicans generally oppose that?

At least Stein has the honesty to admit that his questioning of anthropogenic global warming is based on religious doctrine and not any sort of scientific knowledge. I wonder if that was a deliberate admission on his part.

He throws in a claim for “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” because adhering to basic scientific knowledge obviously hurts his fee-fees.

This case has the hypothetical potential to put global warming denialism on trial, given that Stein either has to demonstrate that Kyocera dishonestly discriminated against a legitimate difference of scientific opinion, or he has to come right out and say it’s a religious doctrine and therefore not subject to the court’s (or Kyocera’s) review. Either way, science is likely to have a good day.

(h/t PZ Myers for the story)

“Why are people hating me for having my own opinion?”

Spend any significant amount of time engaging in discussions (arguments) on the internet and you will hear this. This is different from a situation with two people reaching an impasse between two opposing viewpoints. This refers to a person who basically refuses to defend their position, preferring to demand respect for an opinion because dammit, it’s their opinion.

I have yet to encounter a situation where it is not a craven attempt by someone who cannot defend their position to cast the attention back on the person who is kicking their butt. “No, I can’t defend what I am saying but you’re being mean!!!1!!!” is mostly how it goes.

I signed up for a Disqus account last week, and my third comment left on a blog thread garnered this response. I think this must be a record, but I do not expect any sort of prize.

It bothers me as an attorney (albeit an infrequently-practicing one), a blogger, a writer, and one who just enjoys a good argument now and then. It bothers me because it’s dishonest. No one hates you for having your own opinion, so don’t be so damn dramatic.

It bothers me because it is lazy. The argument is not going your way, so you are going to punt back to the other side.

Most of all, it bothers me for reasons that go beyond dishonesty. Trying to end an argument by appealing to some equitable notion that “everyone is entitled to their opinion” does not even deserve to be called “wrong,” because (and I cannot say this adamantly enough) not all opinions are created equal, and opinions are not worthy of respect or consideration if the opinion holder cannot or will not make an effort to defend them rationally and objectively.

This is why there can be no “honest” differences of opinion over the scientific theory of evolution versus ideas like creationism or its bastard stepchild, intelligent design, because their proponents are either ignorant of, or choose to ignore, highly relevant facts.

Let me be clear: people are free, thanks to the First Amendment, to state nearly any opinion they want, however crazy or groundless it may be. They are not free from challenge or criticism. In fact, challenge and criticism are essential to anyone learning anything, ever. Should those critics be polite? Sure, but honesty and integrity are much more important.

In a certain lawsuit brought against me and a number of media companies, lawyers, and bloggers by a certain young lawyer who Shall Not Be Named, news of a new settlement has surfaced. Back in December, an apology of sorts appeared on the blog of one Martha Sperry, along with some none-too-subtle swipes at people who would dare to use their blogs to call things as they see them and fight against frivolous lawsuits (an earlier almost-retraction appeared in October 2011). Other legal bloggers have addressed this quite admirably–I would direct you to Crime and Federalism‘s take-down of her apology for some excellent commentary.

Sperry’s blog post, aside from demonstrating a remarkable unwillingness to stand up for herself, also includes commentary from a few of my co-defendants taking her to task. Her responses invariably return to “I have my opinion and you have yours, so can’t we all just have ice cream?” I’m paraphrasing. Here’s a bit of what she actually said:

At this point, the matter seems more about tearing things down rather than building things up. And I fail to see the point of that.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I honor that.

I don’t know Martha Sperry, and I am sure she has her reasons for curling up in a ball and whimpering in response to a frivolous, meritless, groundless, jurisdictionless lawsuit, whatever those reasons may be. Her most recent comments to her blog post suggest that she remains a defendant in the lawsuit by He Who Shall Not Be Named (which makes her post all the more puzzling). At the end of the day, I don’t care if she settles with the plaintiff, or if she sells off all the assets of her business, moves to the South Pole, and tries to live as a penguin. I only care to the extent that it makes fighting for my own First Amendment rights (and by extension, hers) more difficult.

I also only care to the extent that pretending that an acknowledgment that “different people have different points of view” counts as an argument. It is actually laziness of the highest order. I disagree with every fiber of my being that we should always focus on “building things up.” We should, however, always focus on truth. When our opinions do not help us come to a greater understanding of the truth, then they are worthless.

Every time a lawyer leaves the practice of law and somehow manages to make the news, I take notice. As  I am still slowly extricating myself from the brilliant boondoggle that has been my legal career, the paths that other lawyers take to the exit is always interesting to me. From the ABA Journal, a litigation partner at Sidley Austin in Chicago has decided to take his leave of the firm to write a novel and, you know, live his life. He also left a few parting zingers:

I have realized that I cannot simultaneously meet the demands of career and family. Without criticizing those who have chosen lucre over progeny, let me just say that I am leaving the practice of law.

My epiphany may have come a bit late as my youngest child—I believe his name is Erik—is 24. But as I always said after missing a filing deadline, better late than never.

I have made friendships at Sidley that I will treasure well into the first quarter of 2012. But a career based on the perception of untapped potential, rather than on actual production, has a limited shelf life. I frankly would have expected management to have caught on years ago. I trust that my longevity will serve as a beacon of hope for underperforming lawyers of all ages. No need to name names: you know who you are.

As the saying goes (roughly stated), no one looks back on their life and wishes they had spent more time at the office. I’d be willing to wager that at least some people wish they had spent less time at the office and gotten to pick at a few co-workers. To this gentleman scholar, I say bravo. You are my kind of grumpy.

(Photo credit: scotsxc on stock.xchng)

Press release from Austin Animal Services:

City of Austin

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Release Date: Jan. 06, 2012

Contact: Patricia Fraga     512-974-2969     patricia.fraga@austintexas.gov

City of Austin achieves No-Kill City status for 2011

Austin Animal Center reported today a 91 percent live animal outcome rate for 2011 making the City of Austin officially a No-Kill City.Since February 2011, the City shelter and its rescue partners have consistently saved the lives of at least 90 percent or more of the animals entering the shelter.  This allowed the City to average more than that live outcome benchmark for the entire year, making it the first major urban city in Texas to do so. (View the full 2011 Live Animal Outcome report, 78 KB PDF.)The City’s work to achieve this goal began in March 2010 with the implementation of the City Council approved No-Kill Plan which was developed to reduce animal intake and increase live animal outcomes.

“Despite the busy mating season, an extreme summer, a major disaster in Bastrop County which brought an influx of lost pets into the city, and a major move to a new Animal Center we were able to stay on course to save as many animals lives as possible,” Chief Animal Services Officer Abigail Smith said.  “This is a true testament to the entire community’s compassion for the lost, abandoned, sick and injured animals that end up in the shelter system.”

Throughout 2011, the center saw an increase in adoptions, foster homes, volunteers and spay /neuter surgeries which all contributed to making this community no-kill.

READ MORE…

(Photo credit: signalchao on stock.xchng)

The AgeAnalyzer will take a look at you blog and, using unknown and probably arbitrary parameters, guesstimate the age of the blogger. Try it, it’s fun!

Several people (indicating that more than one person reads my blog – yay!) have described my writing style as “curmudgeonly.” I doubt I am (or will ever be) up to a Scott Greenfield-level of curmudgeonliness, but I take it as a high compliment.

Imagine my (somewhat) surprise when AgeAnalyzer told me this:

I’m 37 years old as I sit writing this. Yet AgeAnalyzer identifies my writing with someone in an age bracket just below my parents. They think I have 12-28 years more relevant life experience and wisdom than I do.

How does that make me feel?

It’s hard to keep up with soft drinks these days. When they’re not reinforcing incoherent and possibly archaic gender roles, they’re busy dissolving mice. Or not dissolving mice, depending on whose story you believe. But I get ahead of myself.

Now then, I love Mountain Dew as much as the next guy. Assuming, of course, that “the next guy” permanently associates Mountain Dew with collegiate all-nighters and acute gastric distress (sometimes simultaneous). When there’s no crab juice available, it will do, I suppose.

For Ronald Ball of Wood River, Illinois, however, a swig of Mountain Dew turned deadly. If by “deadly” you just mean “really gross” and not actually deadly. I just liked the way that sounded. Anyway, Ball claims that he found a dead mouse in his Mountain Dew, after much vomiting. Unlike his forebears, Doug and Bob McKenzie, Ball did not use the incident as a means of obtaining a free case of Mountain Dew.

Okay, I’m all out of pop culture references related to Mountain Dew. Moving on to the legal stuff…

Ball filed a lawsuit in Madison County District Court against Pepsico, the store where he bought the drink, and the store’s manager. Read all about Ball’s lawsuit at the Madison County Record. Not only does he allege breach of warranty and various other consumer claims, but he also accuses Pepsico of spoliation of evidence. He apparently sent the mouse carcass, along with the remaining beverage, to Pepsico in a mason jar. He claims he never got it back. Lawyers everywhere are overwhelmed by their lack of surprise at this claim.

The case has been bouncing around since mid-2009, but it seems to be moving finally towards trial. The defense argument put forth by Pepsico is what gives this case the Lawsuit of the Millenium title (what I hope will be the first of many awarded by this blog!)

The company argues it has scientific evidence that the mouse was not in the can when the case was sealed in August 2008 and that a veterinary pathologist examined the mouse, finding that it could not have been in the can that long because its body would have disintegrated due to the acid in the soda.

Pepsi argues that for the mouse to have been in the Mountain Dew that long, the body would have transformed into a “‘jelly-like’ substance.”

So if Pepsi loses this case, Mountain Dew may lose its reputation as nerd fuel and instead become known as mouse juice, or some other less-stupid nickname.

If Pepsi wins the case, it is marketing a product that can turn organic material to jelly.

Yes, I realize that we’re talking about far longer periods of time than Mountain Dew would actually remain in the human digestive system in the form in which it goes to market, so there is little to no analogy between dissolving a mouse and causing me to have stomach aches. It’s still hardly good PR to be able to say that Mountain Dew is the official drink of land luging and mouse dissolving.

Happy New Year to everyone. Whether the world ends later this year or not, may this be a happy, peaceful, and fulfilling year for us all.

I always liked this comic strip. It summed up my thoughts on New Year’s as a child (this is probably the exact sentiment I had in 1981-82, at age 7).