Why Men Never Ask for Directions

It's a survival instinct, you see.

In a bizarre tale, the Kansas City Star reports that two women who had stopped to ask for directions were accosted by a random gunman, who was intent upon killing the two men whom the ladies in question had asked directions from. One of the direction-givers was killed, and the other critically wounded. Both women were also wounded, but are expected to live.

So, gentlemen, remember this tale the next time your significant other pesters you about for directions when lost: You're only staying lost because you love her, after all.

Ethically Challenged: The $69,000 Question

Allow me to do my annual good deed of political correctness and train a spotlight today upon the ethically challenged: Those poor, benighted attorneys who -- despite their best efforts -- are congenitally unable to comply with the Rules of Professional Responsibility. Let it be known that these poor souls suffer from a horrible affliction, and they deserve our sympathy as they struggle with their plight.

Or maybe they just deserve our derisive laughter for their stupidity and/or avarice. Either or, really.

For the inaugural edition of Ethically Challenged, please say hello to Lee Mark Smolen, a member of the Illinois bar since 1985 and the former director of the real estate practice group of Sidley Austin LLP's Chicago office. He is also, coincidentally enough, being dragged before the Illinois bar's disciplinary authorities. With so many years of practice experience and a proud Big Law pedigree, this means either there's been a terrible misunderstanding or that the alleged ethical abuses are a doozy.

Let's see what the ethics complaint alleges...

2. Between 2007 and 2012, Respondent submitted more than 800 requests that the firm reimburse him . . . for cab rides that he knew he had not taken. In support of the false requests, Respondent fabricated false taxi receipts, in amounts averaging approximately $80 each, and the firm paid Respondent approximately $69,000 based on the false submissions.

3. During the same period, Respondent also submitted, or caused to be submitted, fabricated cab receipts totaling at least $567 that were charged to other firm clients.

4. Also during the same period, Respondent submitted requests that he be reimbursed from . . . for purported entertainment expenses, including restaurant gift cards (totaling at least $13,000), tickets to sporting events (totaling at least $35,000) and meals at various locations, including his country club, on Mother's Day, Father's Day, Thanksgiving and other dates (totaling at least $2,000), that had not been incurred for legitimate firm purposes.

 The latter it is! You know you've made it in life when someone can even allege that you've racked up $69,000 in fraudulent cab fares and it be taken seriously. That's how you can tell you're a somebody: The ability to bill half-a-house to your firm, backed by your own homemade (and highly fraudulent) receipts, and think nobody will be the wiser!

In all seriousness, though, whenever these of allegations come down the pike, I always have to wonder: Assuming everything alleged is true, what on Earth possessed the high-ranking partner in question to do something so monumentally stupid? These are men (and occasionally women!) who, to the teeming masses of young attorneys, seem to have reached the zenith of the profession, making more in a year than my humble practice is likely to ever see and wielding influence with the greatest movers and shakers in the business world. Why risk everything to bilk your firm a lousy $100,000 or so, when that's basically pocket change to them in the first place? Can they actually think no one will notice? Is their hubris so great that they genuinely believe there will be no consequences?

Actually, I'm kind of hoping it's that last one. I'll never run out of things to write about at that point.

H/T: Legal Profession Blog 

Nice Work If You Can Get It...

Prior to his ouster from National Review, John Derbyshire made light of the desirability of getting a government job on The Corner, and then used the latest story of a governmental employee being paid entirely too much for the work done or services rendered as the punchline. Coincidentally -- or maybe not so -- most of these stories tended to originate from the suburbs ringing New York City in the Tri-State Area.

Well, that still seems to be the case, as the Star-Ledger reports that an unnamed attorney was being paid $18,800 per year -- plus health-insurance! -- by the Township of North Bergen, N.J. to do...absolutely nothing at all.

Now that's my kind of work! Also: Oh dear.

Maybe that's a sensationalist take on the unnamed attorney's story, aimed at driving up page-views. Let's see what the Township's version of events is: 

According to the report [of the Office of the Comptroller], North Bergen officials said they were unsure whether the attorney was assigned to the township’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Board or served as the tenant advocate, and later said they did not know what work he had performed.

After the attorney resigned, the report said, North Bergen officials told the comptroller he had received a salary for "unknown job duties without the consent of township officials" and that they had referred the matter to the Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office for review.

...then again, maybe it is that bad. Either the Township was paying the unnamed attorney to do nothing at all, which would be a sign of their corruption, or they were being fleeced by a con artist who was so bad at setting up the swindle that the Township wasn't even aware of precisely what they were paying for. (Or maybe the con artist was that good. Either way, it is a sign of the Township's incompetence.)

Probably would've been smarter to just to fess up to paying the unnamed attorney to do nothing, even if that wasn't the case. This is New Jersey, after all: The handing out of sinecures -- and corruption in general -- are to be expected from the local politicos. Incidentally, the entire report by the Star-Ledger is worth the read, as it highlights just how immensely dysfunctional New Jersey's local politics are. 

The Department of Cute and Fuzzy Watch: May the Delta-V Be With You

One of the worst habits I picked up as a CSE trench-fighter for YoungWilliams came from the senior attorney in the office where I started. A victim of the State of Kansas's rebranding the Department of Social and Rehabilitative Services as "the Department for Children and Families", he took to poking fun at it and referred to DCF as "the Department of Cute and Fuzzy".

It took me a while to figure out why I liked that, until it clicked: The Powers That Be at DCF tend to ask their field attorneys to advance logic and arguments that can, charitably, be characterized as such. Right up until the moment that an appellate court comes along and does this.

Which brings us to the inaugural edition of The Department for Cute and Fuzzy Watch, Hohmann v. Hohmann, a case handed down by the Kansas Supreme Court on May 20, 2013. (Upon further thought, "handed down" is probably the wrong term. The Supreme Court issued its decision to justify not hearing the case.) Before going any further, can we just marvel at that caption for a minute? It's like a thread name straight out of the bowels of the Atomic Rockets forums! ...I'm not the only person who immediately went to orbital mechanics, right? Right?

Hohmann actually focuses on a very narrow point of law: Whether, under existing precedent, Social Security Disability lump sum payments for the benefit of a child can be credited against child support arrearages which arose for the months the lump sum covers. (Disclosure: I became familiar with Hohmann's existence when I was given my marching orders in a case at the trial court-level involving the same issue.) Under existing precedent, a noncustodial parent is entitled to a credit against his monthly child support obligation if the child is receiving a monthly monetary benefit from the Social Security Administration for that parent's disability, up to the amount of the monthly child support obligation. See Andler v. Andler, 538 P.2d 649 (Kan. 1975). Any amount beyond the monthly support obligation is considered a gift and, therefore, cannot be used to pay back support. In re Williams, 900 P.2d 860 (Kan. App. 1995).

DCF, naturally enough, chose to argue that under Williams, the entirety of the lump sum should be applied to the single month of support in which the lump sum was received. And, therefore, any excess above and beyond that monthly support should be considered a gift. Why this argument is worth spotlighting is that SSD lump sums are composed of the sum of the monthly SSD payments that the SSD applicant would have received between the date of application and the present, but for the wheels of bureaucracy churning. I'll let you read the opinion of the Supreme Court, but suffice it to say they did not find that argument nearly as cute as the Powers That Be at DCF's headquarters did.

The Beginning of the End! ...Or Maybe Only the End of the Beginning

Dean Ryan is not the only attorney in town who shall have a blog! ...what's that, you say? Where's the content? It's coming!

...but it's just not here yet.