Allocatur

Mini skirts, leggings and the judiciary

A colleague yesterday drew my attention to the female barrister striding past the Supreme Court, wigged and gowned, in her mini skirt, stilettos and leggings.  We can both recall the days when another of our colleagues was asked to leave the court because she was wearing brightly coloured spotted tights and we both wondered whether now days leggings would cause any issue.  

The question of attire came up again last night when watching the wonderful "Boston Legal" with Alan appearing before the US Supreme Court complete with electronic tie that flashed red when his speaking time was up.  Unfortunately, it malfunctioned and drew the ire of the Chief Justice.

Yet again the question comes up, this time in an article from the American Bar Association Journal, which reports that a conference of judges discussed female lawyer's attire in court, with one judge stating

Some women come to court wearing "skirts so short that there's no way they can sit down and blouses so short there's no way the judges wouldn't look"

I have other colleagues, both male and female, who refer to this attire as a "Master Blaster" outfit - very descriptive of the attire adopted by Melbourne lawyer Zara Garde-Wilson, (see here and here for examples).

One would hope that the decision making capacity of the judiciary would not be impacted in any way by the dress sense of those appearing before them, but the reality is that, even on a subconscious level, appearances count.  I'd prefer my lawyer dressed in the traditional dark suit, lending that air of credibility! 

Wilson’s Little Gift to the World

In perhaps what is Richard Susskind's legal world of the future, now a reality, the Wall Street Journal reports in Wilson’s Little Gift to the World about an on-line do-it-yourself Venture Financing Term Sheet being offered by a US law firm, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Having worked my way through the pages of on-line options, and admitting that I have no background in venture financing or the like, I come to the conclusion that it is probably a smart marketing tool to make any smart do-it-yourself-er realise that it probably would be wise (and easier than reading all the disclaimers, options and explanations that accompany each question) to just engage Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

But it is an interesting concept and certainly highlights the possibilities.  In the end, if you work through the 45 web pages of questions, you generate a thirteen page document.  Quite impressive!

There are many far simpler areas where such interactive document generation could be used.  Increasingly firms are using on-line questionaires to take initial instructions from clients, more frequently in areas such as family law, wills and estates, conveyancing, trademarks, incorporation and personal injury.  The Australian site Lawlive, has hundreds of documents available for purchase on-line and download, but again with a disclaimer about legality.

Bailout for Law Firms

A very funny post from the Wired GC

The Wired GC can now report the results of a 3 month long investigation into governmental support for major law firms. Discussions at the highest levels of the new administration have resulted in a working plan. It has been slow going due to the requirement that no lawyers work on it. While still subject to change, the broad outlines can now be revealed: 

1. Driven by a need to keep the legal industry from imploding. Since so many large firms are needed to document other bailouts, the government wants to bail them out first. 

2. All firms can’t become 100% bankruptcy or Madoff litigation houses. There will likely be some M&A deal flow later in 2010, and there’s talk of an IPO or two in early 2011. 

3. Alternative fee arrangements are still a wildcard. The government has been told in no uncertain terms that many firms would rather fold than go away from hourly billing. But a recent government offer to fund the pensions of equity partners is garnering strong interest from certain firms. 

4. Some “shotgun” marriages may be in the offing. A few link ups of national and international firms could be required by the government as a condition of bailout funding. Early in the process, it looked like some UK firms would be in the lead, lately it’s not as clear. Also, a lot of the best names have been taken, and the headlong rush to confusing acronyms seems to have played itself out. 

5. Equity partners will have to share the pain. The government is requiring some senior-level sacrifice. It’s not certain that any managing partners will have to step down. But at least one major firm has told its 7-series BMW drivers that they will have to roll back to a 5-series (for their second car). Any requirement to “Buy American” has been a non-starter. 

6. Some additional restructuring of firms will be required. Partners without clients are getting a tad nervous. Here are some telltale signs for the slow-on-the-uptake: (a) you are given a really hot assignment as “activities chair” for the next firm retreat; (b) people are coming into your office and taking measurements; (c) your emails to the managing partner are being returned as “undeliverable”; and (d) your code for the Xerox machine says “3 copies left.” 

7. A plan in search of a name. While this train seems to be leaving the station, there is no legal industry bailout moniker yet etched in stone. Two leading alternatives, according to our sources: (a) Lawyers Annuity Protection Directive (Operated Governmentally); and (b) Partner Assets Recovery Scheme (National Income Protection). 

The negotiations are very fluid, and concerns about possible public reaction to yet another government-funded bailout could still derail these plans. Still, one new government appointee told us on deep background: “We just can’t let the lawyers down. They’ve been there for us forever.”

Very appropriate given today's date.