Thomas
Girardi
Phooey
on
resolutions,
but
this
is
the
time
of
year
when
many
of
us
take
stock
about
where
we
are,
where
we’ve
been,
and
where
we
may
want
to
be
in
January
2025.
Some
of
us
may
want
to
stand
pat,
but
others
may
be
thinking
or
have
been
thinking
about
moving
forward,
sideways,
or
even
backtracking.
It
all
depends
upon
what
is
important
to
you,
a
very
personal
decision.
What
may
be
perfect
for
one
person
may
be
horrendous
for
another.
We
know,
through
trial
and
error
(pun
intentional),
there
are
many
ways
to
have
a
career
in
the
law.
The
perspective
of
having
to
have
a
particular
job,
to
make
tons
of
money,
usually
changes
as
we
age,
and
what
was
worth
chasing
even
a
few
years
ago
may
no
longer
be
appealing
or
even
doable.
One
of
the
biggest
challenges
for
dinosaur
lawyers
is
when
and
how
to
let
go.
Yes,
clients
still
need
us,
or
at
least
we
think
they
do,
but
what
about
personal
and
family
needs?
When,
if
ever,
do
they
take
priority
or
even
parity
with
practice?
For
many
dinosaurs,
the
perplexing
question
is
now
what
to
do
and
how
to
do
it,
to
still
have
purpose
and
meaning
while
throttling
back.
It’s
not
an
easy
question
to
answer.
I
have
friends
who
are
close
to
80
(and
some
beyond
that),
who
are
still
incredibly
sharp,
and
able
to
work,
but
should
they?
How
do
they
reconnect
with
a
personal
and
family
life
left
behind
years
ago
when
chasing
equity
partnership
and
other
benefits?
Sometimes,
you
just
know
when
it’s
time.
Other
times,
it
can
take
a
shove,
gentle
or
otherwise.
Meanwhile,
some
stories
don’t
end.
My
first
Tom
Girardi
story
of
2024
(apologies
to
my
editor):
a
federal
judge
has
determined
that
Girardi
is
competent
to
stand
trial
for
his
various
alleged
misdeeds
involving
client
settlement
funds.
This
ruling
is
only
the
beginning
of
the
next
chapter.
It’s
only
January
4,
and
already
I
have
my
first
“I
am
not
making
this
up”
for
the
new
year.
One
law
firm
is
suing
another
for
alleged
copyright
infringement
because
Firm
A
allegedly
copied
language
from
Firm
B’s
brief.
What?
Is
nothing
sacred
anymore?
Nor
should
it
be
because,
as
Joe
Patrice
points
out,
it
can
verge
on
malpractice
not
to
copy
language.
As
Joe
says,
copying
is
what
we
do
in
a
common
law
system.
We
use
the
same
words
and
phrases
to
avoid
malpractice,
especially
in
jury
instructions
where
appellate
courts
have
already
ruled
on
appropriate
language
to
use.
Perhaps
there
might
be
an
issue
if
the
brief
was
never
public
record,
but
in
this
case,
it
was
and
is.
I
have
never
seen
the
©
on
a
brief,
at
least
not
so
far.
Have
you?
When
I
was
a
junior
lawyer,
I
looked
for
any
help
I
could
get
to
draft
briefs,
settlement
agreements,
and
all
the
other
forms
of
legal
documents
(this
was
way
before
AI).
So,
the
standard
answer
when
I
asked
for
help,
which
was
all
the
time,
was
to
“go
look
at
the
form
files.”
Dinosaur
lawyers
remember
form
files.
They
were
copies
of
various
and
sundry
documents/pleadings/agreements/etc.
drafted
by
others
and
collected
in
a
bunch
of
file
cabinets.
File
cabinets,
another
anachronism?
The
pleadings
and
the
like
weren’t
always
on
point,
in
fact,
they
rarely
were,
but
they
were
roadmaps
for
drafting
whatever
had
to
be
written,
especially
for
junior
lawyers
who
knew
where
the
restrooms
were,
but
not
much
more.
You
still
had
to
research
and
Shepardize.
No
one
ever
raised
a
copyright
issue;
we
were
all
too
busy
copying
from
each
other.
It
wasn’t
plagiarism,
it
was
using
the
best
mousetrap
available
for
a
specific
issue.
Was
it
laziness?
To
the
contrary,
if
you
want
to
talk
about
laziness,
then
we
can
talk
about
generative
AI,
but
let’s
save
that
for
another
time.
The
form
files
were
usually
bulging
with
past
work,
from
our
office
and
others,
even
pleadings
and
briefs
from
opposing
counsel.
The
test
was
what
would
work
best
in
a
given
situation,
and
if
someone
else
had
a
better
turn
of
phrase,
a
better
way
to
position
the
argument,
to
lead
the
reader
in
the
right
direction,
then
so
be
it!
If
we
all
had
to
reinvent
the
wheel
linguistically,
the
profession
would
have
sunk
under
the
weight
of
wordiness
—
and
we
are
wordy
enough.
There
may
be
ethical
issues
in
copying
a
brief
and
charging
the
client
for
it,
but
Joe
points
out,
if
copying
a
brief’s
wording
saves
the
client
money
and
gets
the
necessary
points
across,
what’s
wrong
with
that?
And
to
end
on
a
California
note,
heads
up
for
any
and
all
employers
who
have
employees
here
in
the
Golden
State,
who
will
find
that
this
year
is
not
a
happy
one.
Employees
suing
for
retaliation
must
show
a
nexus
between
their
protected
activity
and
employer
retaliation.
That’s
still
the
law,
but
now
in
California
if
the
employee
can
show
that
the
adverse
employment
action
occurred
within
90
days
of
the
protected
activity,
the
presumption
is
now
that
the
employer
is
the
bad
actor.
Remember
presumptions
from
evidence
class?
I
had
always
counseled
HR
that
the
more
attenuated
the
connection
between
the
protected
activity
and
the
adverse
employment
action,
the
better.
But
sometimes
it
was
too
tempting
not
to
go
“ready,
fire,
aim.”
And
they
did;
itchy
trigger
fingers
bought
lawsuits.
Now,
it’s
even
easier
to
sue
here
in
California.
SB
497
has
the
deets.
You’re
welcome.
You
can
thank
me
later,
and
Happy
New
Year!
Jill
Switzer
has
been
an
active
member
of
the
State
Bar
of
California
for
over
40
years.
She
remembers
practicing
law
in
a
kinder,
gentler
time.
She’s
had
a
diverse
legal
career,
including
stints
as
a
deputy
district
attorney,
a
solo
practice,
and
several
senior
in-house
gigs.
She
now
mediates
full-time,
which
gives
her
the
opportunity
to
see
dinosaurs,
millennials,
and
those
in-between
interact
—
it’s
not
always
civil.
You
can
reach
her
by
email
at
oldladylawyer@gmail.com.
Chris
Kathryn
Ellen
