Monthly Archives: August 2024

A couple of days ago was the anniversary of the I Have a Dream speech by Martin Luther King.

I usually write about my family taking me to Gettysburg in 1964. It’s a trip I recommend for everyone. As we left, my parents said I could get two items from the gift shop. At eleven going on twelve, I eyed the bullets found on the battlefield, or facsimiles more likely.

But I saw three parchment-type documents in the area where the books were for sale. One was the Gettysburg Address, the second was John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech, and the third was King’s I Have a Dream speech. I decided I wanted all three, but I was limited to two. My parents probably would have sprung for the third, but kids tended to do what their parents said back then.

I knew who JFK was. I remember the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, a time scarier for my parents than me. I understood little about nuclear bombs except I was safe at school if I bent forward with my head under my desk. I understand today, it was my vaporization position.

I knew who King was because we were on vacation, and King was leading a March, and roads were shut down for travel, so we, like everyone else, sat in our vehicle and waited for the parade to move past so the road would reopen. I’ve always told people it was Georgia, but I’m unsure today.

I chose the JFK address and MLK I Have a Dream speech. When home, I framed each to hang in my bedroom. I still have both in the original frames I bought.

I’m awed by the dreams expressed in the final minutes of the speech. There were five, most everyone recalling. The first was, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” It’s noble and right. Judging by the color of their skin is neither. Yet the racial divide appears greater today than in previous years.

Here’s what you may not have known. Close advisers of the King rejected the “Dream” part of the speech. However, a well-known gospel singer encouraged King to remember the dream. As he was concluding, he threw away his notes. The most important part of King’s speech, considered one of the most important speeches in history, was ad-libbed.

Something came up yesterday that reminded me of a court story. When cleaning out the garage, I found a stack of transcripts from trials and depositions. I was reading about a custody trial I did in 1996. It turns out I have a ton of stories—some funny, some not so funny. 

This morning, I recalled a traffic trial around 1985. It was an improper right turn by a truck driver. A young girl, newly licensed, was sitting next to the truck to its right. She either didn’t see or maybe did not understand the sign on the rear that the vehicle makes wide turns.

They both turned right, the truck from the center lane. The young girl’s vehicle somehow became affixed to the truck, and the trucker dragged her a hundred feet up the hill. The trucker didn’t see her because she was in his blind spot. Another driver flagged down the trucker.

An improper right turn is a minor misdemeanor carrying a penalty of a hundred-dollar fine, court costs, and two points in your driving record. Unless there’s a requirement to appear, people sign they’re guilty and mail in the fine and costs.

However, points can be problematic for a truck driver and the driver’s livelihood. Sometimes, deals can be cut to change the charge to a non-moving violation. No one was dealing, so the choice was to plead no contest and throw yourself at the court’s mercy. We decided to go to trial. Usually, the court would look at about 30 minutes, certainly less than an hour.

There are no juries for this, but my first request is for the court to view the area to fully understand the defense. The judge just looked at it and finally said, “Counselor, it happened right outside the building. I walk in every day past the area. I know exactly what it looks like. Denied.”

Not to be deterred, I told the judge that the placement of the phone pole was important. That’s why we need to go out and get a feel for it. Again, the judge looked down from the bench, not amused.

“Counselor, you do understand we can look out the window and see it?”

He was right, but I felt I would only be doing my job if I asked if we would go to the window and look. That brought a quick, “No. Is the state ready to proceed?”

So, the trial commenced. I relentlessly cross-examined the state’s witnesses. I was particularly hard on the car driver. Even though traffic cases don’t allow much room for the defense, my theory was it was her fault. What I didn’t know was her father was sitting in the courtroom. Later in the hall, he was angry at me. He was a farmer, and his daughter had been driving for years.

Because it was clear he wanted to cause me physical harm, dads are too protective of their daughters, although I was the same way with mine. Simple fix: throw him off his game and attack him for failing to teach his daughter how to drive right. It worked.

Back to the case. Three hours after we started, it was time to give my closing argument. Of course, I stressed what the points would mean to my client and his job. The fact is, a truck could not possibly make a proper right turn. But then I launched into how our city’s traffic laws violated the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause. I know, it’s not. But I got carried away in the moment and couldn’t stop myself.

More than three hours later, the judge ruled from the bench. Guilty. No fine, pay court costs, and no points. Looking back, we could have gotten the result by pleading no contest with a few words about the points. It would have taken ten minutes. But it was sure more fun. It wasn’t entirely over. The judge had a few words for me.

“Counselor, some of the issues you raised would be better addressed to the city council. I suggest you go there. We’re finished here.”

By the way, if one finds it interesting to see an attorney, not me, have a meltdown in court, the custody case had an interesting aspect.

“Can my spouse and I save on legal fees by having one lawyer represent both of us for our dissolution?”                                 

NOPE. A divorce lawyer can only represent one spouse. The other spouse is self-represented. Find another lawyer if a lawyer tells you that s/he represents you and your spouse. The person represented may save a lot in terms of settlement at the expense of the unrepresented spouse.

Here’s the deal. Ethically, I can only represent one party. This ethical obligation ensures that I advise my client in a way that secures everything the person is legally entitled to or doesn’t give up something not required by law. This ethical standard is in place to protect the rights of each party involved.

It happened a lot, and when both people came in together, I immediately told the couple this. I used a welcome sheet, and since I had no information, I told them my standard practice was to represent the person feeling it out. Or we could do it the opposite way; it’s their choice.

The person who was not my client was then told I couldn’t answer any questions because I would be giving legal advice. My concern was that they would think I was hiding something, but they had choices. They could leave and get an attorney. They could stay, and I would insist, but I couldn’t make it mandatory; they consult an attorney before signing anything. This insistence on seeking independent legal advice empowers each party to make informed decisions.

The papers signed made it clear which party I represented, but I understood it; the person, not my client, had been advised to seek counsel and received no legal advice from me.

I like to write about Woodstock because, though I am not quite 17, I had the idea to go with a friend from my parents. But, as it got closer, it seemed so far away(it was), and then the thought of no one showing up, some groups didn’t go feeling it was going to be nothing, we decided not to go.

So my friend and I were not part of the 400-500 thousand, which showed up in August of 1969 and listened to about 30 performers. Thinking about the size of the crowd, looking back, I’m glad I didn’t go.

I write something reasonably long and put it on social media: this time, a short version because, after all these years, I just found out something new. For years, I told people that my friend Mike and I had permission from our parents to do so. I wasn’t quite 17, and Mile would Mike was a few months younger than me.

A few weeks ago, Mike’s wife, Bonnie, told me she’d be surprised if his parents would have agreed. I knew his parents well because the two of us were together all the time. Mike’s parents were great people.

On the other hand, Bonnie would know them better than I ever did. We still could have pulled it off. Mike and I could have covered a few days gone during the summer through the usual teenage maneuvers. I can’t ask Mike. He’s gone now, way too young.

It has me wondering if Bonnie is right, and she may be, what the heck were my parents thinking?

I use stories like this to demonstrate a point. Another attorney and I battled it out in court for almost three hours one day. It was a case that had to be heard by the court. What I liked was that the other attorney was like me. We were throwbacks to a time when cases were tried in court, when necessary, not settled or continued. The Magistrate did a good job of ruling on objections. I believed I knew the outcome, but that’s up to the Magistrate, not me. At this point, it’s not important.

Sometimes, I hear people complain that attorneys have some buddy system. Are we friends outside of court? Yes, some are. Do we do what we can against each other in court? Yes, we do. I point this out only because clients see their attorney talking to the other attorney, and at times, the conversation appears friendly. I remember That part of it ends when we walk into the courtroom.

I use the analogy of boxing. For 12 rounds, two guys pound on each other and then embrace (attorneys don’t do the last part). It ends; we go our separate ways and can be friendly toward each other again until the next time we meet in court.

Folks, please believe there is no collusion regarding your case. Most of our business is by word of mouth, which requires us not to cut secret deals but to fight for the rights of the people we represent.

As a side note, I remember getting ready to leave for a hearing and telling my wife, the attorney on the other side. Regarding attorneys, he was the only one I considered a friend. When my wife asked about going to court against him, I made a comment that shocked her but assured her he would do the same. Looking back, it did have a nasty tone to it.

It sounded to her like we hated each other. I assured her that it would seem like this while in the courtroom, but when it was over, it would be forgotten, and we’d move on. After the hearing, we talked about the hearing on the phone. It was almost like a critique of each other—some joking with neither conceding our points. Only the judge could decide which was right, or more right.