Articles Posted in Managing Your Practice

The Eastern Section of our Court of Appeals has ruled that Rule 5A(4)(c) of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure means what it says and that a party cannot fax file an affidavit opposing a motion for summary judgment .

Rule 5A (4)(c) says that “The following documents shall not be filed in the trial court by facsimile transmission: . . . (c) A will or codicil to a will; a bond; or any pleading or document requiring an official seal . . . .”     Affidavits require a seal.

A technicality?  Certainly.  The rule?  Certainly.  Are you ever going to take the chance of filing an affidavit by fax just to argue to the Tennessee Supreme Court that a trial judge should not follow the rule?  Nope.

Day on Torts:  A Handbook for Tennessee Tort Lawyers 2008 has been updated to include all cases through Sunday, January 13, 2008.

The updates work like this.  After you have found the leading case summarized in one of 233 sections of the book, go to the "Free Updates" page of the book website, scroll down to the relevant section, and you will any decision released since October 1, 2007 on that subject.

Don’t have the book?  Well, my bias is obvious, but I must say I have been very gratified by the comments I have received to date.  I have had multiple people tell me they use it every day.  I was in three different law offices the other day and saw the book open on lawyer’s desk.  Last week one purchaser placed a second order for the rest of the lawyers in his office.  Even judges have begun ordering it.

The subject of court approval of attorney’s fees in a case involving minors addressed in this post and this one have given rise to a discussion on the TAJ listserve about the wisdom of the decision.  The debate has been interesting.  One point made by several commentators is that  some judges do not understand the economics of law practice.  I first made that point on this blog here and said I would address it. 

Here we go.

I was having dinner with several judges one night last spring and the subject of depositions came up.  I mentioned that the cost of depositions was outrageous and that the cost of getting a transcript of a full-day deposition was almost $2000.  To a person, they were shocked.  I took the opportunity to talk about the cost of malpractice insurance, rent, etc. and once again they were shocked.  That conversation gave rise to the comment in my previous post is that we need to better educate judges what it costs to run a law office.

On December 14 I wrote about an opinion that addressed the issue of charging  fees to minors.  The opinion was written by Judge Walter Kurtz, a Nashville Circuit Court judge sitting by designation on the Tennessee Court of Appeals.

I have been hearing some negative comments about this opinion.   I respectfully disagree with them and submit that the opinion is not only an accurate statement of Tennessee law but is a correct result on the facts.

What upsets some lawyers is this language: "The most striking void in the record is the lack of any precise information as to the amount of time spent on the case by counsel for the plaintiff."  Judge Kurtz explained further in this footnote:  "Courts and commentators have observed that time records – time spent on the case – are “central” to the calculation of attorney’s fees."  [Citations omitted.]

Do you want to know the law of collecting attorney’s fees when you represent a minor in personal injury case?   Do you want to see how you can end up in the Court of Appeals when you seek an attorney’s fee in such a case?

Read the opinion in Wright v. Wright,  No. M2007-00378-COA-R3-CV  (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2007).

The nice folks at Justia (which did our firm website and my book website) also have a free service for searching for federal court filings.  The site allows you to search or browse for recent orders or opinions issued by just about any federal court in the country. You can search by the name of the party, the type of lawsuit, the federal district court, date, or entering keywords into the full-text search. If documents are available, you can view them, post them to a website, or download them as PDF files.

Do you document substantive conversations with other lawyers?  Once upon a time, it was unheard of to do so and some felt it was downright offensive.   A lawyer can and should be trusted to stick by an understanding that is reached with another lawyer, the theory went, and to confirm a conversation in writing was a sign of mistrust.

Of course, there has always been and will always be lawyers who cannot be trusted.  I know a few.  You know a few.  They are the scum of the profession,  who thank God for the bottom-dwelling lawyers who steal from their clients (so the liars and cheaters can feel superior to someone).

Today, however, I think a quick note or email confirming a substantive conversation is a good thing – one that avoids the chance of innocent misunderstandings in the future.  My view is that good lawyers no longer find such communications offensive and, indeed, I have found these lawyers are appreciative of the effort.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has asked for public comment on proposed changes to Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure, Appellate Procedure,  Evidence, Criminal Procedure and Juvenile Procedure.

The most significant proposed rule change is the change to Rule 8.01.  The proposed rule change says as follows:

8.01 Claims for Relief.–A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain: (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks, including a specific dollar amount if damages are sought. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded.

Contact Information