The Cane Corso recently received official recognition from the American Kennel Club.  Effective June 30, 2010, the breed became eligible to participate in AKC-sponsored competitions, generally considered the most prestigious in the industry.  Instantly, a dog breed that existed in relative obscurity in Italy for hundreds of years and that was nearly extinct until the 1980s, was endowed with bona fides that have the potential to take the breed’s profile, value, and desirability to another level.  Interestingly, the breed’s name roughly translates as “guard dog,” with “cane” meaning “dog” in Italian, and “corso” indicating “guide,” “guard,” or “protector.”

Appropriate enough transition into the point of this post:  Appreciate your mentors.  If you’re fortunate enough to work closely with an experienced attorney who is well-respected by both peers and clients, who endorses and employs high practice standards, who can staff you on the kinds of matters that you find interesting and challenging, and who still is willing to invest the time in guiding and protecting you through those inevitable early missteps, then take full advantage.  Even if you’re a sole practitioner who won’t be supervised directly by such an attorney, you can observe and learn from those who have built the kind of practice and reputation to which you aspire.  When it comes time for potential clients to check your bona fides, you want it to be obvious that you were guided by attorneys who helped you take your experience, reliability, and discretion to the next level.

As you work with mentors to lay the foundations for your own career, keep an eye on the Cane Corso.  In receiving recognition from the AKC, the breed took its first step toward a title run at the Westminster Kennel Club Annual Dog Show.  The 135th Show is in February 2011.

Given the uproar following the “offside” calls against Team USA at the 2010 World Cup, now is as good a time as any to warn young associates against an analogous infraction in law practice.

First, a wholly inadequate primer of the offside rule under FIFA Law 11: An offside offense occurs only when two conditions exist—1) the player is in an “offside position,” and 2) the player is “involved in play.”  Thus, an offside offense can occur, for example, when a player posts up near the opponent’s goal, waiting for the ball to come to him, and then tries to take what he might think will be an easy and perhaps game-winning shot.  (For those concerned with technical accuracy, check out FIFA’s animated tutorial)  But because of the speed at which the game progresses, conditions giving rise to an offense also can catch otherwise attentive players off guard.

Warning to young lawyers:  Do your part to make sure you don’t get hit with an offside offense by partners, clients, opposing counsel, or a judge.  As in soccer, an offense can occur before you know it if you lose sight of where you should be in advancing a matter, get used to waiting for others to tell you your next move, or believe that you can always take last-minute steps to make up for early inaction or carelessness.  Lest you think otherwise from Landon Donovan’s recent TV appearances , you’ll likely get little sympathy for drawing an offside offense, even if the call was made in error.

Three months ago, I had no idea how the details would play out when I returned to the full-time practice of law.  As my maternity leave drew to a close, it was inevitable that I’d soon be knee-deep in digests instead of diapers for most of the day.  For me, it wasn’t so much a question of “work-life balance” as it was about shifting my mindset back into “battle” mode.  Would my new-found “mommy instincts” prevail over the litigation skills that I’d been cultivating for the last several years?  Say, if I found myself engaged in largely one-way babble with a fussy deponent, would I be tempted to burp him to see if that gave him any relief?  Although there were such uncertainties, I had no doubt that I could conquer them.

You see, by the end of my maternity leave, I saw myself as something of a Wonder Woman.  I considered it an amazing feat that I’d kept a helpless, defenseless, totally dependent human being alive for more than 2,100 nonbillable hours.  And she was not merely “alive”; she was thriving.  I’d warded off life-threatening injuries.  I’d even become so organized and disciplined that I could anticipate when hunger would strike and have a bottle on standby before she could hardly belt out a cry.  Given all that I’d accomplished in such a short span of time, it was appropriate that the World would honor me in May with a day dedicated to celebrating my achievements as a Mother.

So it was with all the confidence of a Superhero that I returned to work.  I dared (in my mind) plaintiffs’ attorneys to stand up against my discovery requests.  I laughed at the notion that any assignment was too challenging.  I chuckled at the pile of unread e-mail and magazines that I had allowed to stack up in my pre-motherhood days as a Procrastinator.  The Alter-Ego was in town, and she…meant…business.  Because, like any self-respecting superhero, I had endured a life-changing event that motivated me to be better, faster, and stronger.  In my life as a full-time attorney, that translated into my being more efficient, productive, and organized so that I could get back to what really mattered—my daughter.

We all read stories about how challenging it is to balance work with raising a family.  Those challenges are real and should be recognized.  But in what ways has being a parent, new or experienced, enhanced your working life?

And speaking of Wonder Woman, the real deal got a makeover earlier this week.  Check out her new look here.  Anybody know where I can get that jacket?

The Davidson County Juvenile Court—still completely displaced from its building by massive flooding early this month—had some good luck shine its way this week.  The clean-up efforts revealed $32,000 in cash in a safe in the clerk’s office—soggy and smelly, perhaps, but present and accounted for!  Assuming the cash can be treated, this is some welcome news.  Check out the article.

By Eileen Burkhalter Smith 

I regularly tell my witnesses that “reading and signing” a deposition is waived by fact and expert witnesses alike.  I recently experienced, however, an opposing expert who wanted to read and sign.  We did not complete the expert’s deposition in one day (okay under Tennessee State Rules, though it might not have been under FRCP 30(d)(1)) and the “second-half” of the deposition was scheduled weeks away.

On the date of the second deposition, the expert handed me a single-spaced typed page of all the changes he wanted to make to the deposition.  Presumably, his own hand-made “Errata” sheet.  The problem?  Some of his changes were actual changes of testimony (e.g., change “yes” to “no”), and supplementation of responses which clearly required him to review documents after the testimony (e.g., change “I don’t know” to “January 17, 1996.”)

I believe my exact response on the record was “Are you kidding me?”  And I have revisited this debacle over and over in my mind.  There are a number of things that went wrong, of course.  Here are just a few of them:

By Eileen Burkhalter Smith 

For those of us who are litigators, a referral from the corporate guy downstairs is great, right?  I have really enjoyed stepping in for a client of one of my corporate colleagues when the client is in a litigation situation.  This referral situation raises some conflict issues, though, that might be overlooked here when they would not have been for a new client off the street.  Here is what I now have on the top of my list in this situation when handling the new matter:

1. Did the guy downstairs run a conflict check on this new litigation matter?  Often some preliminary negotiations or conflict resolution may have been performed, but was a formal conflict done consistent with firm procedures?  When in doubt—run the conflict check!
   
2. Does the engagement need to be defined in a letter?  How is this matter being treated—as part of the corporate matter or a new matter completely?  I think it never hurts to put in writing your understanding of the representation.
   
3. Are the parties here the same as in the corporate matter?  This is important with entity-clients whose individuals have a litigation matter—whether personal or related to the business performed by the corporate attorneys.  Rule 1.13 of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct, for example, addresses specifically Organizational Clients and “dealing with” the individuals associated therewith.
   
4. Does the dispute concern work that the firm did?  This may or may not completely prevent me from handling it.  For example, if my colleague may be a witness or documents we prepared are at issue, the Rules of Professional Conduct in Tennessee likely prevent me from handling it (See R. P.C. 3.7 and 1.10).  This may not always be the case, though.  If my corporate colleague anticipated a potential conflict and received a conflict waiver, or if his representation was narrowly defined, I might still be okay.
   
5. Is this something the firm wants to handle?  This should be part of every inquiry on a new matter, obviously.  But with this type of referral, I find that I sometimes forget to ask it.  Are other entities or parties involved in the new litigation matter that were not involved in the corporate matter?  Are there employees involved that have a precarious relationship with the corporate client/employer? 

By James Bowden

Avvo.com, in an apparent attempt to assist users in finding the right lawyer for any and every purpose, has published a list of 10 suggestions on how to date a lawyer. While it is clearly tongue-in-cheek, per Avvo’s suggestion number three I have chosen to take the list literally and will respond accordingly.  Obviously, I am completely serious and by no means intend the following to be interpreted as being sarcastic, sardonic, or (heaven forbid) “pithy.”