Wednesday, April 26, 2023

I'm on Inactive Retired Status as a NH Attorney

For the past several years, I've been focusing on my former career in marketing and communications. That doesn't mean that I don't still love the law: in face, I spent a number of years doing MarComm work for the New Hampshire Bar Association.

My current Bar status is "Inactive Retired". This means that I can't actively practice as an attorney in the Granite State unless I pay the Bar a boatload of money and take several continuing education courses to get back up to speed on current developments in the law.

"Retired" of course, doesn't mean that I'm on Social Security and golfing in Florida every day. The term is being used very specifically as to whether I'm doing any work which might constitute the practive of law.

But I still get bragging rights to say that I'm a "retired attorney." And the many benefits of a legal education translates well to other professions.


If you need a New Hampshire attorney, please contact the New Hampshire Bar Association's Lawyer Referral Service

Monday, September 28, 2015

On Meritorious Claims and the PLRA

Last week, the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Easterbrook, Cannes, Sykes)denied relief to a federal inmate suing for $10 million in damages under the Federal Torts Claims Act under a theory that the government was somehow negligent in enabling the breakout. Jose Banks v. U.S., Docket No. 14-2516 (decided September 25, 2015).

In 2012, Mr. Banks and his cellmate chiseled a hole, rappelled 17 stories down on a rope fashioned from bed sheets and dental floss, and hailed a cab to make their escape from the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Chicago, IL. Both men were later caught. Mr. Banks complained that he suffered damage from the escape, "included the trauma of dangling on the makeshift rope, in fear of his life." He further argued that prison guards should have noticed that he was digging an escape hole and stopped him. He also alleged that he now has to endure tighter restrictions than fellow inmates at his current prison because of the prior escape.

The panel of appellate judges rejected the State's procedural argument that the suit was untimely. However, they found no merit to Mr. Banks' underlying claims and consequently affirmed the district court's decision that the matter was frivolous. The appellate court's order can be found here.


"Frivolous litigation" is the start or continuation of a lawsuit that has slim to no chance of being won for lack of merit. (However, the fact that a suit or claim is lost does not mean that it was "frivolous": in most cases, it merely means the plaintiff/petitioner/complainant failed to meet his legal burden to show that he is entitled to the requested relief.) Prisoners in particular are known to bring forth baseless lawsuits, both because of their limited knowledge of the law and because many will do or say just about anything to regain their freedom.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PRLA") was designed to decrease the incidence of litigation within the court system and limits the ability of prisoners to bring certain types of actions against the government while the inmate is still in prison. Courts disagree about whether the PLRA allows an inmate to sue for money damages for a constitutional violation that results in mental or emotional injury, but not physical injury. Under the PLRA, if a prisoner has had three prior lawsuits dismissed as “frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim for relief,” he may not have his filing fees waived and will have to pay them up front. The 7th Circuit found both the Banks suit and its appeal to be two strikes against Mr. Banks under this "three strikes and you're out" rule.

Friday, September 25, 2015

On Accountability

The ABA Journal recently shared the story of a Maine practitioner who appeared to give every excuse under the book except "The Dog Ate My Brief" for the inferior quality of his filings. The attorney blamed "destroyed computer files" for errors in a first brief against a self-represented litigant, including inaccurate and misleading citations to the record. He was given two weeks to file an amended brief. After doing so, the court felt that the amended brief still contained numerous errors and rejected it. The attorney sought reconsideration, blaming "the pressures of solo practice" for errors in the second brief and noted that the nub of the appeal presented itself “like a ray of sun light” that “perhaps blinded counsel temporarily to other shortcomings in his work product.” Not surprisingly, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court was not persuaded or amused.


While many people use the terms "responsibility" and "accountability" interchangeably, the words can sometimes mean different things. Responsibility has two main components: functional and moral. Generally, the functional aspect of responsibility comprises those functional duties and obligations associated with one's job, like taking a deposition or drafting a memo. The moral aspect of responsibility is comprised of duties and responsibilities like "don't lie to the court" and "don't steal your client's money."

Accountability, on the other hand, is the requirement to step up to the plate and be held, well, "accountable" to a relevant person for your judgments, intention, acts and omissions. Someone can, under many circumstances, be held accountable for an action if he/she is functionally and/or morally responsible for an action and some consequence resulted from that action. Of course, the law is filled with exceptions to this general premise, such as Good Samaritans laws or Whistleblowers Acts designed to encourage people to do the right thing without fearing the consequences of their actions. Over the past few months, the Internet has exploded over stories of people who the general public apparently felt failed to be "properly" accountable for their actions, including a lion-killing dentist and a Kentucky marriage license clerk. However, what the majority of online commenters failed to recognize is that the dentist and clerk have no duty to them and are therefore not accountable to them.


New Hampshire, like other states, has Rules of Professional Responsibility which delineate an attorney's duties and responsibilities and hold an attorney accountable for any violations. While it may seem to non-attorneys that the Rules are just secular versions of the Ten Commandments, the Bar's Rules also address other issues such as how to handle conflicts of interest, advertising, and changing firms. While violation of the Rules isn't necessarily a mortal sin, it can still have serious consequences. New Hampshire's Professional Conduct Committee looks into allegations of attorney misconduct. If an attorney is found to have violated the Rules, consequences can be as serious as such as suspension or disbarment. (Depending on the nature of the offense, a lawyer could also be jailed or sent to prison.)


In law school, my classmates and I were trained about both professional responsibility/accountability and personal accountability. We were encouraged to develop and follow our own moral compasses, even when it was difficult. We were given hypothetical examples in which the requirements of law didn't exactly mesh with our personal believe systems. We were challenged to consider under which circumstances what we might be willing to go to jail or lose a career to do what we thought was the "right" thing. As we all came from different walks of life, it was interesting to hear the responses (and the justifications for particular courses of action). I was also very lucky that the first firm I worked at following law school was made up of lawyers and staff who held themselves to superior moral standards, so a high level of accountability was ingrained in me from the very start of my legal career. For that, I remain grateful.

While I may be surprised and disappointed that the Maine attorney's lack of accountability for his actions made lawyers -- solo practitioners in particular -- look bad, he has no duty or responsibility to me in particular for his actions, statements, or the quality of his pleadings. When I try to comport myself in a manner befitting a Daniel Webster Scholar or NHBar Leadership Academy graduate, I do so because it's important to me not to let my mentors down, not because some external force is making me do so.

Monday, September 21, 2015

If You Thought Wal-Mart Was a Scary Place Before....

Last week, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that certain Wal-Mart employees who were fired for violating the company's "non-resistance" policy had grounds for a wrongful termination suit so as to preclude summary judgment in favor of the big-box retailer. Both the ABA Journal and the Wall St. Journal reported that the Utah court found that the employees had a right to self-defense under the both the state constitution and Utah's “Stand Your Ground” law. While the court acknowledged the importance of Wal-Mart‘s interest in regulating its workforce, it concluded that there was "a clear and substantial public policy in Utah favoring the right of self-defense” under certain circumstances, namely, when the employee is facing serious, imminent bodily harm by violent customers. The ruling sends the case back to federal court.


Generally, in deciding the merits of a motion for summary judgment, a court decides only whether an entry of judgment is warranted based on the undisputed, material facts before the court at that time. A denial only allow a contested issue to be resolved at trial. While a Utah decision is not binding on New Hampshire courts, it's possible that Wal-Mart may change its non-resistance policy across all its stores, including those in the Granite State.


The concept of stand-your-ground drew renewed national attention a few years ago when Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, who claimed self-defense and said he was being beaten by Martin. Variants of stand-your-ground now exist in around half of U.S. states. In 2006, the New Hampshire legislature voted to approve a stand-your-ground law, but then-governor John Lynch vetoed the bill. In 2011, New Hampshire enacted its current stand-your-ground law: RSA 627:4. As before, it became a "loaded issue." HB 135, a 2013 bill to repeal the act, was vigorously opposed: certain Tea party Republicans even wanted to press criminal charges against 189 state legislators who voted in favor of repeal. The attempted repeal ultimately failed.

Given that the Wal-Mart non-resistance policy required employees to withdraw from situations where a suspected shoplifter or a customer pulls a weapon, it will be interesting to see which self-defense tactics are permissible in a megastore already settling guns (at least up here in the Granite State). Significantly, New Hampshire's stand-your-ground law also grants immunity to anyone who injures bystanders while they're using deadly force as permitted by the law.

Sunday, September 20, 2015

When a Lender May Not Be Able to Take Your Home

Depending on how your real estate loan documents are drafted and executed, a lender may not be able to foreclose on your home. However, the circumstances where this might occur are unlikely, typically occurring during an oversight or mixup in the closing process. In most cases, the lender can properly foreclose on your property, even if you never agreed to make loan payments.

To better understand how this could happen, you need to have a working understanding of the three main documents pertaining home financing and ownership. Your property deed (title) is the document which transfers legal ownership of your home from its previous owner to you and which determines your ownership of your home. If you are lucky enough to not requiring financing, the other two documents (note and mortgage) will not come into play. However, most homeowners requiring financing, either when they initially buy a home or when they improve/expand later on.

The note is your written promise to the lender to repay your home loan. However, without some mechanism through which the lender can enforce this promise, it would simply be too risky for lenders to provide borrowers with loans. This is where mortgages come in.

A mortgage is the document in which you essentially pledge your house as collateral in the event of loan default. A mortgage is what allows the lender to foreclose on your home if its loan is not repaid. Lenders typically require that all parties wanting to be on the deed also sign any corresponding mortgage, even if everyone on the deed has not signed the note. This is because they understand that someone is on the deed but has not signed the mortgage, then that person could make a legal case that the lender does not have a legal right to take his/her ownership interest in the property away from him/her. If your name is on the title but not the note, your signing the mortgage means that the bank may still have claim to the house if there is a problem with payments.

Why would a homeowner not on the note agree to sign a mortgage, when he/she could lose a home through no fault of his/her own? Without such signatures, the lender could refuse to lend the money. Also, if the loan is paid in a timely manner, there is no risk to the homeowner not on the note.

Could someone get around this requirement by simply adding someone else to the deed after closing? Most, if not all lenders, have already taken measures to make sure this does not happen by adding an alienation clause to their loan documents. This clause requires that a note be paid off in its entirety prior to any transfer of title. If you own a house with a mortgage and note on it and then add someone to your title, then you may have broken the terms of your agreement and given your lender the right to demand payment in full. If you are unable to pay the outstanding loan balance in full (including inability to obtain another loan), the lender may have the right to foreclose on your home. Note that the U.S. government has provided exemptions to these types of alienation/due-on-sale provisions under certain circumstances, such as some transfers to a relative resulting from the death of a borrower and some transfers where the spouse or children of the borrower become an owner of the property.)

If a lender is threatening to foreclose your home -- regardless of whether you signed the note and/or mortgage -- a local attorney experienced in real estate law can explain and help you understand your options.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

On the Disturbing Trend of "Mommy-Shaming"

The Huffington Post recently ran an opinion piece entitled "The Illusory Quest for Balance". The author, the managing partner of a large law firm, appears to shame the sizable percentage of women who "interrupt" their career for family. For example, she flippantly remarks, "My own experience as a trial lawyer, wife and mother, has led me to believe balance doesn't exist except on Olympic beams, kitchen scales, and in certain yoga poses." While validly arguing that being a great mom and a great attorney are not mutually exclusive, she also seems to belittle women who don't find it easy to be both. She snarks, "Women who leave the workforce to have families may achieve a rewarding family life, but the one thing they certainly will not achieve is balance. Those who define work-life balance as 50/50 on a daily basis are setting themselves up for disappointment." The only sage, non-defensive advice she offers is to "pursue meaningful work and "surround yourself with people who share your values."


"The Illusory Quest for Balance" would not have disturbed me so much if were an anomaly. Unfortunately, it is not. Over the past 18 months or so, I've read a number of similarly-themed articles. Each seems to be a backlash at how vocal women are becoming about having their needs met in the workplace. I see this vocality as a good thing (when it is reasonable). After all, it is one of the hoped-for results of the women's movement. Such strength should be encouraged, not disparaged.

How one chooses to spend one's career is a personal choice. Not everyone elects to go for broke to make partner or get the corner office, at what he or she believes to be the cost of his or her family. Law practice is an extremely demanding profession, regardless of how much support one gets from loved ones and hired help. Female lawyers should be supporting each other no matter what their work situation, not making each other feel inferior or "unbalanced" for taking a different career path.

Is New Orleans Really Running A "Debtor's Prison"?

Findlaw and the AP report on a lawsuit filed today concerning an alleged "debtor's prison" in the city of New Orleans. The news sources state that "hundreds of people have been locked up" in The Big Easy for failure to pay court fines, without first having a hearing on whether they are able to pay. The lawsuit alleges that the result is unconstitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that "a person cannot be imprisoned solely for the inability to pay a fine or restitution."

At first blush, the cited examples are shocking. For instance,

  • One man was allegedly returned to jail because of prior unpaid debts, where he stayed for weeks until his family could scrape together... a $100 payment.
  • Another man was alleged taken from his home during a night raid by armed police who pointed guns at him and his family. The (only) reason: he had accumulated more than $1,600 in court costs and fees.


I have not yet read the suit as filed, but its apparent emphasis on lack of hearings to determine ability to pay raises an important consideration: willfulness of action. While some attorneys banter about the phrase "debtor's prison" any time someone is jailed after failing to pay a fee, there are some circumstances where a criminal defendant or civil respondent fails to show at hearings as ordered by a judge. In those instances, the crime for which the person is jailed is not indigence. Instead, he or she is locked up for disobeying the judge's order to appear before the court.

UPDATE: According to NHPR, the ACLU recently issued a report stating that NH judges are also engaged in the practice of jailing for unpaid fines.