"Conflicts Check" or "Being A Highly-Learned Treatise on the Law, Music, Suffering, Culture, Society, and Lap Dogs" is brought to you by Daniel J. Canon, Attorney-at-Law, who hopes you find it entertaining.
He also hopes that you do not find it to be legal advice, because it is not.
This fine internet publication was painstakingly handcrafted by the most pretentious creatures found in all of nature. Its content has been aged to perfection, then lovingly borne on the backs of trained first-year law students and delivered right to your internet service provider's doorstep in burlap sacks.
Please do not correct the author, as he is highly astute and never, ever wrong.
Please note that this blog is beta, and will be forever.
I’m afraid this whole wernal* thing is off to a slow start. Part of the reason is the trial I had in family court last week. Another part is the other (bigger) cases that are coming up for trial in the next few months, and another is just general day-to-day lawyering stuff. Thankfully, I’ve been busy. I’m pleased to report that part of the reason for my weblag is because of a wide variety of creative endeavors, some of which are finally coming to fruition this month. As I said in the first post, I don’t really know what the focus of this wernal** is going to end up being, so I suppose there’s no harm writing a little bit about what’s been happening. Maybe I’ll make this a monthly thing. That way, when the big blog bucks start rolling in, I can start featuring centerfolds.
First, my rock band, Parade of Horribles, is finally starting to produce some recorded material. Here’s our first rough mix:
If any of you music-savvy types have any feedback about the mix, I would like to hear it. I’m not too sure about the effects on my vocals at the beginning, or about the levels overall (can’t really hear the bass too well), but I haven’t gotten to listen to it on any decent speakers yet. As for you non-musical types, just let me know what you think. Hopefully we’ll have more in the next month or so.
Second, my wife Laura and I have been working like crazy for the Specific Gravity Ensemble. She has dragged me into this acting thing under false pretenses.*** She’s really good at it, and I’m really not, but it’s a lot of fun. This particular group is unique, because all the plays are under a minute and a half, and they almost all take place in moving elevators. The promo doesn’t do it justice.
To the extent that I can summarize my part, I’ll be playing a Republican, a super villain, and a British scientist in the 1940’s. I, along with the rest of a pretty good-sized cast, will be playing each part eight times a night. Two, sometimes three, actors are crammed into a 4′x6′ elevator along with five audience members who are unconcerned with their own safety. Promises to be a funny, sweaty, smelly, violently good time. We open this weekend.
And finally, the Shine-Ola site is up and running. Well, sort of. There’s a skeleton of a WordPress site there, but it is limited by my incompetence. The fact that it redirects, inexplicably, to laverneandmark.com will probably have to be fixed too. We do, however, have a video snippet from our performance at this year’s Lawlapalooza.
Sorry about this one being a cover tune, and an overplayed cover tune at that, but it’s the best quality recording we’ve got for the time being. Plus, Laura rocks it out. Also, you can see U of L Dean Jim Chen, a devoted Shine-Ola fan, thrashing about like an epileptic superhero in the front.
That’s about it for now. Back to the boring lawyer crap next post, I promise.
______________________________________
*I’m still struggling for a word to replace “blog.” I’ll try this one (web+journal=wernal) and see if it sticks.
**Upon reflection, I’ve decided that I hate this word. I will never use it again. I deeply apologize to all of you.
***Specifically, she has lured me into a couple of shows now by telling me “they need guys” because “no dudes are auditioning.” I fall for it every time. She’s the Lucy Van Pelt of the Louisville theatre community.
It is a rare occasion that I get to catch NPR’s moribund Day to Day. It’s not the best NPR has to offer, and it’s at an awkward time in the afternoon; a time when I am usually researching, arguing, drafting, deposing, napping, or some combination thereof. It’s just as well – the show is scheduled for execution in March. I’ll miss the ol’ gal when she’s gone, but not as much as News and Notes. However, I did manage to hear a short D2D piece last week entitled “Monster Companies Settle Name Differences.” It’s a harrowing tale of mini-golf, cable, and litigators.
I’ll summarize for those of you that don’t have 3 minutes and 53 seconds to listen. Monster Mini-Golf opens in California. Unfortunately, Monster Cable is already there. The latter had a business model that can basically be summed up as “sue anything else in America that calls itself ‘Monster.’” According to NPR, Monster sued hundreds of businesses last year for this peccadillo. Cable company is Goliath, Mini-Golf is…well, mini. The two sides try to settle it. Then, as Alex Cohen reports it:
“Both of you were on the phone, with your lawyers, and you guys weren’t getting anywhere. And then you kicked the attorneys off the line. How did that change the flow of the conversation?”
To which the mini-golf lady replies: “I think, all of a sudden he [Monster Cable's CEO] becomes human. It’s as simple as that.”
Cohen’s characterization is disturbing. Not only because it portrays the lawyers as a barricade to a peaceful resolution, but because there’s a mustard seed of truth to that portrayal. Probably more than a mustard seed. Probably a peach pit or something. While I do not like to think of lawyers as a buffer zone between the peace pipe and the parties, nothing can derail a negotiation like a zealous advocate.
Take for example a custody/divorce mediation. A fine opportunity for the litigants to work it out themselves. And many times, they can do it with nary any bloodshed. But inject too much zealous advocacy, and you run the risk of killing the patient:
Respondent: I’d be willing to pay $500 a month in child support.
Petitioner: That sounds good.
Petitioner’s Zealous Advocate: Hold on. Actually, Petitioner is entitled to $528.00 per month under the guidelines, and due to the disparity in their incomes, Respondent should pay $1000 in attorneys fees.
Respondent: OMG I’M NOT PAYING ANYTHING AND I WANT FULL CUSTODY AND SHE’S A CHEATING BITCH ETC.
On the whole, this kind of thing may be the exception to the rule. Obviously, an effective advocate provides an important wall of civility between these who might otherwise uncivilly pluck out each others’ eyes and teeth. But it’s equally obvious that there are instances in which advocates distort communication between parties more than they foster it, and that can have equally disastrous results. I worry about this. Not just in mediations, but in conflict resolution (in the broadest sense) on the whole. Israel’s not giving up any parenting time with Junior because Palestine is seeking an unreasonable sum in child support. Palestine is entitled to more parenting time because everyone says so, and because, by God, Israel isn’t paying enough child support. Of course, each side has the most zealous of advocates. But there can be little doubt that they are more problematic than prophylactic.
On this topic, the comments of Monster Cable’s CEO are telling: “Our intention was never to hurt any other businesses, just to protect the mark. And when I learned of the hardship the lawsuit had placed on them financially, I thought the right thing to do was to [voluntarily dismiss the suit and pay the golf co.'s legal fees].”
It is often the case between litigants that there is some mustard seed of affection. Parties used to be co-workers, friends, lovers, spouses, etc. Even simple commonalities of human existence can, and often do, bring people together. But I think it’s difficult – perhaps impossible – to be mindful of this while striving to be a zealous (or even worse, “aggressive”) advocate.
If anyone’s reading this, I’m interested to know how you lawyers out there identify and deal with cases that might be solved quickly if the parties had a face-to-face meeting and a couple of pints of ale. Is this even a lawyer’s business? If not, should it be? Any of you have your own harrowing tales to tell?
It seems to me that even if the case is a sure-fire winner from a legal perspective, it may still be better in many cases to discourage litigation and be a peacemaker. Unfortunately, I (and I suspect most attorneys) have not yet developed the ability to recognize these cases before they become monsters which, if not created, then at least are prodded by zealous advocacy.
So now I have one of these things. One of these…well, I don’t like the word. I’m looking for a new word. Gabe Bullard suggests “wagazine” (web magazine). I like it better than “blog,” so I’m stealing it for now. However, I don’t think I like the idea of being a “wagger” any more than a “blogger.” I take some comfort in knowing that this is not a problem I have to solve in my first post.
I’ll admit to being behind the curve a bit, but I did have a Live Journal before (although I’ve been told that LJ doesn’t count as a real wagazine). In my defense, I was busy trying to keep my head above water in law school, and then in law practice, while this whole blog thing was really catching on amongst layfolk and lawyers alike. So I missed the boat, but now I’m on it. Thanks for keeping my seat warm, internet.
The question is: what will this wagazine be about?
I think I read somewhere in the thousands upon thousands of social media/marketing tips that bombard me daily via Twitter and/or Google Reader that you should keep the focus of your wagazine very narrow.
Here, in no particular order, are some topics I’ve been kicking around:
- Religion and capital punishment;
- Legal issues that affect cancer patients and survivors;
- Poverty, its causes, and its culture;
- Lawyer culture and behavior;
- LGBT rights and legal issues;
- The problem of suffering in general, and what can be done to alleviate it (especially by lawyers);
- Animal welfare and rights;
- Anything having anything to do with the intersection of music, law, and/or religion; and
- Early Mesopotamian zoology (specifically, early developments in avian scatology).
Some of this stuff is already covered so well that I would have little to offer, at least on a regular basis, without being duplicative or engaging in some serious modern-jackassery. I have decided to drop the last item because I know nothing about it and really am not all that interested in it. I don’t even know if it makes sense. Sorry about that. Other than that, I am having trouble whittling down my list.
Anyway, since I can’t really decide on a narrow topic that would hold my attention for more than a couple of posts, I’m just going to set aside some time to write in here every week and see what happens. I hope you find it entertaining, and I welcome your feedback.
