Lawyers
are
supposed
to
follow
the
law,
as
are
judges.
However,
some
judges
just
don’t
believe
that
they
need
to
also
follow
the
law,
so
they
don’t.
A
trial
court
judge
in
Michigan
thought
that
the
punishment
did
not
fit
the
conviction,
so
he
sentenced
the
female
defendant
to
a
longer
term
than
prescribed
by
law.
Of
course,
an
appeal
followed,
and
the
appellate
court
reversed
the
sentencing,
spanking
the
judge
for
not
adhering
to
the
law,
and
ordering
him
to
resentence.
He
did
so,
and
again,
sentenced
the
defendant
to
a
higher
term
than
allowed
by
law.
Once
again,
an
appeal
followed,
and
he
was
again
reversed,
again
spanked,
but
this
time,
the
court
said
“enough,”
and
gave
the
matter
to
another
judge
for
resentencing,
not
desirous
of
having
this
judicial
problem-child
handle
the
matter
yet
again.
Any
whiffs
of
judicial
misconduct
or
bias?
Of
course
there
are,
but
this
judge
is
very
popular
and
has
won
re-election
consistently.
However,
this
incident
was
not
his
first
rodeo.
He
has
had
a
penchant
for
taking
things
personally,
like
telling
a
court
officer
to
taser
a
defendant,
taking
off
his
robe,
leaving
the
bench,
charging
the
defendant,
and
then
helping
the
court
officer
wrestle
him
to
the
ground.
This
is
a
21st
century
version
of
the
old
saying
“put
up
your
dukes.”
Disagreement
with
the
law
does
not
allow
disregard
…
or
does
it?
Do
we
have
any
examples
in
recent
history
about
that?
And
although
my
ATL
editors
may
cringe,
given
that
this
attorney
was
its
Lawyer
of
the
Year
in
2018,
four
years
is
a
lifetime
these
days.
Michael
Avenatti,
once
the
poster
child
for
representing
Stormy
Daniels
and
railing
against
former
President
Donald
Trump,
has
now
been
convicted
not
once,
but
twice.
Already
sentenced
to
prison
for
his
conviction
in
an
extortion
case
involving
Nike,
he
was
recently
convicted
for
bilking
his
client.
But
wait,
there’s
more.
He
faces
a
retrial
in
an
unrelated
case
here
in
California
for
theft
of
funds
from
clients
other
than
Stormy
Daniels,
but
first
he
has
an
appeal
to
be
heard
in
March
in
the
9th
Circuit,
arguing
that
the
prosecution
failed
to
provide
all
the
necessary
documents
from
his
prior
law
firm
that
would,
he
claims,
provide
a
defense.
The
former
president
may
well
be
enjoying
the
schadenfreude.
How
about
this
one?
Either
dismiss
your
petition
for
a
restraining
order
or
have
your
nude
photos
made
a
part
of
the
public
record
in
moving
to
dismiss
the
petition.
Good
lawyering?
Hardly,
although
the
attorney
thought
it
was.
The
Indiana
Supreme
Court
disagreed
and
benchslapped
that
attorney,
calling
it
intentional
bullying
and
coercion
and
handed
the
attorney
a
90-day
suspension.
Do
you
think
that
is
sufficient
punishment?
Where
is
the
line
between
aggressive
but
permissible
settlement
tactics
and
conduct
that
crosses
over
ethical
boundaries?
(See
Avenatti/Nike
above.)
I’ve
often
wondered
how
the
term
“thought
leader”
came
to
be.
And
how
is
a
thought
leader
defined
and
who
defines
it?
Is
it
one
of
those
self-defined
terms?
The
Cambridge
Dictionary
defines
the
term
as
“a
subject
matter
expert
whose
opinions
and
ideas
influence
other
people.”
But
how
do
we
know
that?
Do
peeps
go
around
spouting
ideas
to
influence
others?
How
many
thought
leaders
do
you
know?
Is
a
thought
leader
in
the
mind
of
the
beholder
of
the
thought?
Mark
Herrmann
captured
this
issue
perfectly
in
an
ATL
piece
he
wrote
four
years
ago.
He
said
that
just
because
you
think
you
are
a
thought
leader
doesn’t
mean
you
are
one.
Just
because
you
tweet
doesn’t
make
you
a
thought
leader.
(And
given
the
lunacy
of
some
tweets,
he’s
even
more
on
point
today.)
You
must
be
innovative,
and
you
must
be
able
to
have
peeps
follow
you.
Given
the
still
hide-bound
nature
of
our
profession
and
our
heel-dragging
on
changes,
it’s
the
disrupters
in
the
profession
who
are
thought
leaders,
those
who
are
thinking
of
different,
more
efficient
ways
to
provide
legal
services
—
especially
to
those
who
need
those
services
and
can’t
afford
them.
Do
you
think
there
will
ever
come
a
time
when
lawyers
and
judges
won’t
be
tagged
with
the
“first
woman
lawyer
to
do
X,”
the
“first
minority
lawyer
to
do
Y,”
and
so
on?
I
understand
that
you
can’t
have
seconds,
thirds,
fourths
without
“firsts,”
but
it’s
frustrating
that
we
can’t
seem
to
get
beyond
numbers
and
disparaging
remarks.
And
yes,
I
am
a
“lesser
white
woman,”
who
is
stupefied
by
the
outrageous
comment
on
Twitter
(but
of
course)
by
an
incoming
Georgetown
Law
administrator
on
the
to-be-announced
Supreme
Court
nominee.
That
original
tweet
has
since
been
removed
and
there’s
an
apology
on
Twitter
(but
of
course),
but
the
damage
was
done.
Words
mean
what
they
say
they
mean,
and
just
because
there’s
a
subsequent
apology
doesn’t
change
what
was
originally
said.
Contrary
to
the
old
childhood
phrase
about
“stick
and
stones,”
words
hurt.
Just
because
you
are
supposed
to
be
smarter
than
the
average
bear
doesn’t
mean
that
you
are.
He’s
definitely
not
a
thought
leader.
In
the
“business
must
be
slow”
department,
a
law
firm
partner
has
recorded
sounds
of
his
farts.
I
am
all
for
silly
stupid
humor
(think
“Animal
House,”
“Mars
Attacks!,”
“Airplane”)
but I
am
not
making
this
up.
Talk
about
scraping
the
barrel’s
bottom.
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.