Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Law Firm Clients Benefit From Technology

Until a few years ago, I didn't have a cell phone because my early experiences with cell phones were terrible. Spending hours every month dissecting my mobile phone bills and changing my rate plan was an exercise in anger management. I never knew whether my bill was going to be eighty dollars or three hundred dollars. I was disgusted, so I stopped using a mobile phone. My clients were disgusted. They offered to buy one for me. I declined; however, I finally relented when I thought I might lose clients. My new wireless rate plan was good. My clients were happy. Fast forward to today. Now, I not only have a cell phone, I also have a pocket PC that is connected to the office servers. I have a laptop with mobile high-speed internet connectivity. I have web-based server email, mobile and home VPN, Gmail, eFax, .pdf client files on the server, and the list goes on. All of this means that I can do legal work anywhere and at any time, and faster than ever before. Technology allows me to pack substantial amounts of work into each billed hour. Technology also allows me to work after hours and on weekends, which often does not get billed.

Score one for the clients!

Andrew Jones

(214) 979-0101

ajones@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Simplified Probate in Texas

With simplified techniques allowed by Texas law, taking care of probate issues of a loved one’s estate can be relatively quick, easy, and inexpensive. This is true whether or not the deceased died with a will.

Generally, probate is the process of gathering assets of someone who has died, paying their debts, and distributing the assets to the heirs. If the deceased left a residence or other land including any oil and gas interests, it will almost certainly be necessary to do some kind of probate procedure to clear title to these properties. It may also be necessary to obtain a court's authority to act for the deceased and distribute assets of the estate. Almost universally, it is simpler and less expensive to take care of probate issues sooner rather than later.

A significant benefit in Texas is that often abbreviated procedures may be used, limiting probate within the court to as little as 3-6 weeks, and avoiding excessive cost and paperwork. The method which is most prudent depends on whether or not a Will was used and the size and complexity of the estate, as well as other factors. The attorneys at Tipton Jones handle these simplified methods very often, and have worked hard to devise systems to minimize the cost and time required. Because of this, we generally handle these matter on a flat fee basis (in the $2,000 range in an ordinary case), and the procedure is most often complete in around six weeks, depending on the courts’ schedules.

The Tipton Jones attorneys who practice in this area can quickly advise you on whether any probate procedure at all might be necessary and, if so, the applicable shortcuts that may be helpful.

Paul Tipton

(214) 890-0991

ptipton@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, April 25, 2008

OF SUGAR CANE AND QUEENS: Sovereignty in the Sandwich Islands: Part Two

I’ve heard from several folks in response to my last entry wanting to know just what in the heck that Hawaiian sovereignty stuff is all about, and what on earth would make President Clinton sign something called The Apology Bill. Well, to paraphrase Keanu Reeves in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, “Something is afoot in the Sandwich Islands.” (The movie line is actually “Something is afoot at the Circle K.”) You only have to read cases like Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii, 177 P.3rd 884 (HI 2008) and Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000), and study the history and debate over “The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007,” also known as the Akaka Bill (after its sponsor, Hawaii Senator Daniel Akaka) currently pending in the United States Congress, to know that.

And not only is something afoot today, it has its origins in history. So some with me now as we step into Mr. Peabody’s Wayback Machine and set it for Hawaii. (Is the reference to the world famous Sherman and Mr. Peabody from The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show too obscure? Or am I just showing my age?)

Believe it or not, Hawaii was once a royal kingdom, governed by a monarchy. The islands were divided into separate kingdoms, and the notion of private land ownership was an alien concept. Instead of “owning” the land, the people were essentially trustees of the land, administering it on behalf of the gods. It really wasn’t until the advent of the haoles, the white interlopers I mentioned before, that land ownership crept into the culture.

As an aside, haole comes from the Hawaiian words ha, which means breath, and ‘ole, which means without, so the literal translation is “without breath” or “breathless.” One etymologist says it’s a reference to the fact that when the white people in Hawaii said their prayers, they didn’t breathe three times as the ancient Hawaiians customarily did. Another story, though, says that the Hawaiians found it hard to believe that people could be that pale and actually be alive, or draw breath. Whatever its origin, though, it’s rarely used fondly. According to Wikipedia (so take it for what it’s worth), a tradition began in Hawaii’s public schools in 1950s of calling the last day of school before the summer break “Kill Haole Day,” when native Hawaiian children would harass and sometimes assault white children. An article in the Honolulu Star Bulletin published on March 24, 1999, bore this headline: “’Kill Haole Day’ linked to hate-crime bill.”

Nope, rarely used fondly.

Now where were we? Oh, yeah, no private ownership of land. At last not officially, but the haoles were already gobbling up real estate wherever and however they could. In 1839, King Kamehameha III issued a Declaration of Rights that said that property couldn’t be taken “except by express provision of law.” Sounds good, as far as it goes. But hard on the heels of that, the King also granted the first constitution to Hawaii, which changed the nation’s absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. The constitution set up a bicameral legislature and a supreme court.

It also did something that was the first real crack in the dam: it declared that, even though all land belonged to the King, it was not the King’s private property. Instead, the common people also had some claim to ownership, even though they still couldn’t acquire absolute ownership. In 1845, a Land Commission was established to investigate claims to private ownership of land that were being made by some folks, particularly haoles. The Land Commission recommended to King Kamehameha III a system of land distribution, under which the King would retain his private lands, but the remaining land would be divided equally into thirds among the Hawaiian government, the chiefs (the ali’i) and the tenants or common people.

Three years later, after much debate over this recommendation, came what’s known as The Great Mahele, or the Great Division. It began in January of 1848, but it wasn’t the equitable 1/3-1/3-1/3 originally recommended. Instead, the King ended up holding almost 2.5 million acres (roughly 60%) (it’s good to be king) and the chiefs got about 1.5 million acres. The King then divided his share into two parts, setting aside 1.5 million acres as government lands and keeping 1 million acres as “crown lands.” So the ultimate result was 1.5 million to the chiefs, 1.5 million to the government, 1 million for the king and, -- you do the math -- the good old common folks got screwed, ending up with about 28,600 acres.

And here’s where it gets interesting: an 1846 law had authorized the sale of government lands, and a second law in 1850 authorized any resident of Hawaii to own and convey land, citizen or not. By 1864, Westerners had bought over 320,000 acres of government lands. According to the Native Hawaiian Handbook (University of Hawaii Press 1991), edited by Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, by 1890, “Of a total population near 90,000, fewer than 5,000 actually owned land. Hawaiians, if they had any lands, owned small acreages. Consequently, for every four acres belonging to private owners, three were held by Westerners. The relatively small number of Westerners owned over a million acres.”

And something was afoot at the Circle K. Stay tuned for part three.

Mike Farris

(214) 979-0100

mfarris@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , ,

Friday, April 18, 2008

Lawyers do well; lawyers do good

As a fourth generation Texas trial lawyer, the hackles on the back of my neck always stand up when someone I meet at a cocktail party decides it’s a good idea to share his or her repertoire of lawyer jokes with me. Lawyers occupy a unique position in our system of law and government, and can affect positive changes more so than almost any other profession. My immediate retort is usually along the lines of - “so what do you do for a living that is so damn beneficial for the human race?” (hoping that the offender is a bond trader and not a teacher or social services worker) or “lawyers are like proctologists – everyone hates them until they really need one!”



I now have a better retort. More than 400 Texas lawyers, from all over the state and from diverse areas of specialization, have volunteered to serve as ad litems for the 416 children who were recently removed from the polygamist ranch in Eldorado, Texas. They are traveling to San Angelo at their own expense to carry out a much needed task that will benefit hundreds of children. They will not get a dime for their services. In fact, there are more volunteers than needed. Lawyers are paid well for their services, generally. I think that on the whole, they give back to society in an amount commensurate with the privilege of being licensed to practice law.



Now, where are those cocktail franks I saw being passed around?

Murray Camp

(214) 979-0100

mcamp@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , ,

Monday, April 14, 2008

BEYOND BRIEFS

Over the years, I’ve heard from a lot of lawyers who want to write. Goodness knows plenty have made the successful transition: John Grisham, Scott Turow, James Grippando, Steve Martini -- and the list goes on. So this is for all you lawyers out there who want to tap into that storytelling urge buried deep in your soul.

Let’s start with this inquiry for starters: Why do you want to write?

That seems like a pretty basic question, but it’s one you really need to answer before you get started. After all, you’ve poured three precious years of your life into law school -- too late to get it back now -- and embarked on a noble legal career. An esteemed member of society, you are “Lawyer,” successful in your chosen profession, respected by your peers, king of all you survey. So why would you want to chase after a writing career? One that is sure to frustrate you; one in which success is never guaranteed but, rather, chances are huge that you will fail in the ultimate goal of either being a published novelist or produced screenwriter.

That’s right, chances are good that you’ll never be published or produced. Truth be told, chances are good you may never finish writing the great American novel or completing that screenplay. You might even have better chances of success if you were to enter the space program with aspirations of becoming a space shuttle astronaut.

So let me repeat the question: Why do you want to write?

There are probably as many motivations for you to write as there are lawyers writing, but I suspect most of them can be boiled down into several broad categories. For some of you, a writing career may offer an opportunity to leave the practice of law, to simply walk away from billable hours, depositions, contentious partners meetings, cranky judges, uncooperative clients, and opposing counsel from the pits of hell. Yeah, staying at home, controlling your own time -- and not keeping track of those hours -- while hunched over your computer, spinning yarns, holds great appeal.

For others, it may all be about ego. Go figure -- a lawyer with an ego. You want to see your name on the cover of books in the bookstore, your smiling face peering out from the photo on the book jacket, or your name splashed in huge letters across a silver screen. If that’s your motivation, my advice is to keep practicing law. Believe me when I say that law practice will better fuel the fires of your ego than will writing. If you don’t believe me, just wait until you have enough rejection letters from agents, publishers, and producers to paper the walls of your house. And your second house at the beach. And your kids’ dorm rooms.

Yeah, writing can be an experience in ego-shattering humility.

Some of you want to get rich. Three and four and five hundred dollars an hour, or forty-percent contingencies, just doesn’t seem to be getting you there. You see some author’s name in Forbes Magazine and say to yourself, “Yeah, I could live on thirty million dollars a year.” Or you read about the latest spec screenplay sale for three million dollars and figure that’s not a bad return on 110 pages. If you’re in this to get rich, I’ve got advice for you as well: Buy a lottery ticket; your chances of untold wealth by winning the lottery are better.

But some of you may feel you have a story to tell. It’s been rattling around in your head for years, monopolizing valuable brain cells, distracting you from your law practice, your family, your friends. You’ve got to get it out of your head and down on paper. If someone buys it, that’s just gravy; the reward for you will be in the writing. If that’s your motivation, then go for it.

Mike Farris

(214) 979-0100

mfarris@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, April 10, 2008

OF SUGAR CANE AND QUEENS: Sovereignty in the Sandwich Islands

“The time has come,” the Walrus said,
“To talk of many things:
Of shoes – and ships – and sealing wax –
Of cabbages and kings –
And why the sea is boiling hot –
and whether pigs have wings.”

The Walrus and the Carpenter
by Lewis Carroll


Hawaii!

The very word evokes visions of Paradise – white, sandy beaches; swaying palm trees; silver waterfalls, hula girls; mai tais; and luaus. Each year, millions flock to the islands to soak up rays, splash in the surf, play golf, and lounge around luxury resorts. But beneath the surface of this tourist Mecca, a simmering resentment threatens to boil over at any moment as a proud people, the native Hawaiians, find themselves servants in their own home, waiting hand and foot on these white interlopers – the dreaded haoles (pronounced “how-li”).

Believe it or not, there are really two Hawaii’s. One is the “tourist” ideal, consisting of the aforementioned (nice legal term, don’tcha think?) white beaches, resort hotels and golf courses, luaus, and hula dancers. The other is the “real” Hawaii – the native peoples living in near poverty because the tourism industry has created prices for food, shelter, and land that they can’t afford. They work in the taro fields, fish in the ocean, and clean up the messes tourists leave behind in hotels and restaurants. They have become second class citizens in their own land.

So what happened? Well, that takes us into a little history lesson.

On January 17, 1993, the Hawaiian people observed the one hundredth anniversary of the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. On that date, one hundred years earlier, the self-proclaimed Committee of Safety, a group of haole businessmen heavily interested in Hawaii’s major crop, sugar, declared that the “Hawaiian Monarchial [sic] system of Government is hereby abrogated” and replaced by a provisional government “for the protection of the public peace . . .” Yeah, right!

That same day, the Hawaiian monarch, Queen Lili’uokalani, temporarily surrendered her sovereignty, not to the provisional government, but “to the superior force of the United States of America, whose Minister Plenipotentiary, His Excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu and declared that he would support said Provisional Government.” Although she expressly intended her surrender to be temporary, “until such time as the Government of the United States shall . . . undo the action of its representatives and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands,” the monarchy has never been restored.

While we, in the United States, celebrate the anniversary of the overthrow of English rule, for many native Hawaiians, the anniversary of the Hawaiian monarchy’s overthrow provides no basis to celebrate. Rather, they lament not only the loss of their form of government, but also the loss of a sacred way of life. Instead of reveling in their U.S. citizenship, they vilify the haoles who stripped them of their queen and their land. They demand reparations from the United States for their loss, and demand a return of their sovereignty for the Hawaiian people -- restoration of citizenship in a reconstituted Hawaiian nation, with rights of self-determination, to exercise independent control over their lands and lives. That includes a return to their native language, customs and religions. Harsh words are written and spoken, decrying the illegality of the overthrow and the unlawful intervention by the United States. These Hawaiians believe themselves to be living in a “stolen kingdom” and believe that now is the time to reclaim what was wrongfully taken.

Is this nothing more than chauvinistic saber-rattling from disgruntled natives, or is there something more to what they claim? The words of our own President, Grover Cleveland, about the question may be instructive. On December 18, 1893, he told a joint session of Congress:

"Hawaii is ours. As I look back upon the first steps in this miserable business, and as I contemplate the means used to complete the outrage, I am ashamed of the whole affair.

. . .

It appears that Hawaii was taken possession of by the United States forces without the consent or wish of the government of the islands, or of anybody else so far as shown, except the United States Minister.

Therefore the military occupation of Honolulu by the United States . . . was wholly without justification, either as an occupation by consent or as an occupation necessitated by dangers threatening American life and property.

. . .

By an act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown. A substantial wrong has thus been done which a due regard for our national character as well as the rights of the injured people requires we should endeavor to repair."

One hundred years later, President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 103 - 150 into effect. Known to native Hawaiians as The Apology Bill, it said:

"The Congress –
(1) on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893, acknowledges the historical significance of this event which resulted in the suppression of the inherent sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people;
(2) recognizes and commends efforts of reconciliation initiated by the State of Hawaii and the United Church of Christ with Native Hawaiians;
(3) apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893 with the participation of agents and citizens of the United States, and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination;
(4) expresses its commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people; and
(5) urges the President of the United States to also acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii and to support reconciliation efforts between the United States and the Native Hawaiian people."

So maybe the native Hawaiians have a point. Maybe it would do us well to hear them out. To put a spin on Carroll’s Walrus, “the time has come to talk of many things . . . of sugar cane and queens.”

Mike Farris

(214) 979-0100

mfarris@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , ,

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Super Bowl XLV

Hopefully, the Cowboys willplay in Super Bowl XLV in 2011 at the Dallas Cowboys' new stadium in Arlington, Texas. Every year, the Super Bowl creates millions of dollars of business, and many lawsuits that only the lawyers win. Litigation and trial cost exponentially more than good legal planning ("an ounce of prevention..."), so review www.TiptonJonesLaw.com and consult with the quality attorneys at Tipton Jones in preparation for and during good business with good people. If a lawsuit is filed, settle it quickly or prepare to pay substantial legal fees and don't expect to "win" because lawsuits are usually wars of attrition to find out who loses the least. Nevertheless, lawsuits are sometimes necessary when another party is unreasonable. Tipton Jones stands ready to help at all stages of business cycles, from due diligence to transactions, and to litigation and trial if necessary.

Go Cowboys!


Andrew Jones

(214) 979-0100

ajones@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

HOW TO GET REJECTED

The road to publication, just like the road to hell, is paved with good intentions. Most writers don’t intend to shoot themselves in the feet, but somehow that gun just seems to go off when they least expect it. While the crippling shot may occur during the actual writing of the manuscript, it often occurs during the query or the submission stage. Either way, it can undermine the best of intentions and derail the publication train before it ever leaves the platform.

On the other hand, some writers seem deliberately determined to shortchange themselves and their chances, particularly when querying agents. They don’t accidentally shoot themselves in the feet; instead, they appear to intentionally pull the trigger and fire as many shots in rapid succession as possible. So, if you’re one of those writers who fears success – who wants your query letter to exuberantly leap into the large “rejection” pile instead of finding its way into the much smaller “please submit” pile – this article will give you helpful hints for achieving rejection.

Tell your potential agent or editor you’ve written a fiction novel. Even though a novel is fiction by definition, calling it a fiction novel allows you to destroy, up front, any confidence they might have that you know what you’re doing. Better yet, call it a fictional novel – that means your novel doesn’t actually exist and they can send a fictional rejection.

Tell your potential agent or editor too much about yourself. Sure, they’d like to know what writing experience you have and how your background gives you credibility for your subject, but I’m not talking about that kind of information. I’m talking about information like this from an actual query: “I’m 34, having trouble finding work & am living with my parents.” George Costanza, is that you?

Tell your potential agent or editor that your book is a surefire bestseller. Or tell them how much money you’ll make for them. “Send for my screenplay, read as much as you like, then when you see how great it is and how much money we’ll win, put it on your schedule to market it. I would like at least $800,000. (It’s that good.)” Most agents move e-mails like these into a special mailbox along with other “special” e-mails. Then, at the end of the day, they’ll sit back with a steaming cup of Kona coffee and read about winning the UK lottery, opportunities to help Nigerians invest money in the U.S., and the promise of untold wealth from commissions off your future bestseller. They’ve already got the money spent.

Badmouth yourself or your own work. This is the converse to the previous tip. I saw one query that said, “I never made it out of high school and have been in the army since the age of 17 so my actual writing skills may not be up to par with what you would be used to.” Another said, “My writing style needs a lot of assistance, please do not reject the story based upon my ability to tell it on paper.” Yet another said, “I do not consider myself a good writer, my key board [sic] skills are poor, my spelling is awful and I have forgotten most of what I learned about punctuation.” Need I point out the irony of these correspondents seeking representation as writers?

Misspell as many words as possible. Pretend your computer doesn’t have Spellcheck. Consider this actual e-query: “I have just complete my frist drama script of a series of twenty. I want an anget who can work with me until it gets to the move production house.” Or consider this: “I, am writeing ahorror story. Ti is about a teenage girl that is hoving dream,s about people walking to her with there arm,s out crying asking her to help them.” I pitty the pour riters who kan’t spel or punkchuate any better then that.

Conversely, rely too heavily on Spellcheck. A writer who was writing about the world of magic wrote: “My family holds patents on some elusions reviled in this novel. They were performed during their world wild acts.” I’m just guessing, but I think the writer meant “illusions revealed.” I’m open as to whether “world wild acts” is correct or should have been “worldwide acts.”

Don’t follow submission guidelines. One query started, “Yes, I know it was recommended that I not exceed one page. However, I do not believe the ‘four or five sentences’ of the ‘preferably one paragraph’ is enough to communicate what I am asking you to consider.” Just look at the genius of this statement: This writer went so far as to let the agent know he was intentionally disregarding the submission guidelines. That way the agent wouldn’t think he was simply making an innocent mistake. Genius, I tell you – pure genius.

Respond unprofessionally to rejection. Don’t just accept rejection with grace and dignity. No, instead fire off a reply that says something like “Your loss” or “Your mistake” or better yet, “You strike me as pathetic.” (So what does that make the writer? After all, he’s the one who got rejected by the pathetic.) Or perhaps best, “I’m a 69 year old retired man, who used to chew people like you up and spit them out for practice.” Yikes! I’m not ashamed to admit I actually trembled when I got that one. I still tremble today when I re-read it.

Be overanxious. If you haven’t gotten a response to your e-query within 48 hours, send something like this: “Is it that no one reads e-mail or you just don’t answer any? I find your agency to be totally lacking in business ethics – typical of an attorney who couldn’t make it in private practice.” What a low blow – attacking an attorney when he’s down. That one made me weep. Even today, my self-esteem is so low I can’t look myself in the mirror. Excuse me – I’m getting a little misty here.

Be partially incoherent: “I Am A Freelance Journalist and Columnist writes to YOURS from remote India REGARDING FOR HELP FROM YOURS LITERARY AGENCY HELP – FOR A BREAK TO MY FUTURE AND RECOGNITION FOR MY WORKS.” I think I know what this writer is asking. It’s in the subtext, you know. Plus there’s that subliminal thing of slipping the word HELP in there twice HELP. And don’t we all want a break to our futures and recognition for our works?

If being partially incoherent won’t get you rejected, try being totally incoherent: “Writers address learning, personal &fundamental issues. Some plagued by elusive,idealized understanding. Fears, doubts &mystery . . . Not able to find &use worthy self-venture set-void in endeavor often-obligated &omenous-pulled in,unsettling intent of a writer. In a difficult outstandingly, taught world.” No clue what this one means. Then again, I am a mere mortal and perhaps not on the same intellectual level as the writer. I particularly liked the creative spacing and punctuation. Are mind-altering drugs at work here, perhaps? Groovy, man!

This is by no means an exhaustive listing of ways to ensure rejection. After all, success isn’t for everyone.


Mike Farris

(214) 979-0100

mfarris@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICARE AND MEDICAID?

Generally, Medicare is a federal program which bases eligibility solely on age and/or disability. In terms of nursing home care, Medicare is limited to covering care in skilled nursing facilities, after a patient has been in the hospital for at least three days. Coverage is restricted to a finite period of time, up to 100 days, but in practice usually only about 10-20 days for rehabilitation.

Coverage through Medicaid, a joint federal and state program administered by the states, is quite a bit broader. Eligibility is based on age, disability, and/or income and financial resources. Medicaid will potentially cover long-term “custodial” nursing home care for eligible individuals. If Medicaid is invoked based on financial eligibility, a “look-back period” of 3-5 years will be used to see if any assets have been transferred for less than market value in an attempt to become eligible. If so, a penalty in the form of a period of denied eligibility may be enforced. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, passed by Senate in December of 2005, has tightened the regulations on this.

If you would like more information or would like to speak to an experienced lawyer, please contact Tipton Jones.


Paul W. Tipton

(214) 890-09941

ptipton@tiptonjoneslaw.com


Labels: , , ,

Monday, January 14, 2008

The "Ethics" of Contract Attorneys

More and more “solution-oriented” law firms use contract attorneys these days, which raises its own set of problems. How are these attorneys supposed to be treated for billing purposes? May a firm that uses contract lawyers pay those attorneys a set hourly fee, then mark up the fee in their own billing statements to clients?

Or, as the Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar phrased the question: “May a law firm hire a lawyer who is not an associate, partner, or shareholder of the law firm to provide legal services for a client of the firm and then bill the client a higher fee for the work done by that lawyer than the amount to be paid to the lawyer by the firm?”

In true lawyerly fashion, the answer is that it depends. According to Ethics Opinion No. 577, it depends on whether the lawyer is “in” the firm or not. In determining whether a lawyer is “in” the firm, factors that may be considered include: receipt of firm communications; inclusion in firm events, work location, length and history of association with the firm; whether the firm and the lawyer identify or hold the lawyer out as being in the firm to clients and to the public; and the lawyer’s access to firm resources, including computer data and applications, client files, and confidential information. Examples include lawyers often referred to as of counsel, senior attorneys, and part-time lawyers. For lawyers “in” the firm, a firm may establish an hourly rate that is more than the firm pays those lawyers.

For lawyers not “in” the firm, the firm must bill the outside lawyer’s fees as an expense, without markup, or somehow make a clear presentation of the bill to the client showing no markup based on the attorney’s time. If the firm bills a client a different amount than what it pays the lawyer, that is considered an impermissible division of fees under Disciplinary Rule 1.04(f) unless these criteria are met: the fees are proportional to the services performed or there is joint responsibility for the representation, there is written client consent to the fee division, and the total fee is not unconscionable under Rule 1.04(a). Additionally, the firm may not incorporate the “non-firm” lawyer’s name, work, and time into its own bill unless it does so in a way that identifies the non-firm lawyer as a lawyer who is not in the firm.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water......

Mike Farris

(214) 979-0100

mfarris@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: ,

Monday, January 7, 2008

Asbestos Disclosure in Commercial Leases

Landlords and tenants very often overlook asbestos disclosures in leasing commercial real estate. Owners and managers of commercial buildings constructed before 1981 must notify their tenants of the presence and location of known asbestos containing materials and presumed asbestos containing materials that the tenant’s contractors or employees may encounter. Tenants must in turn notify their employees and contractors of such materials. Asbestos in buildings constructed after 1981 must also be disclosed as well. Failure to make asbestos disclosures can subject a landlord or tenant to fines and other penalties by OSHA and/or the EPA. The federal rules are set out in 59 Fed. Reg. 40964, 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.1001, 1926.1101, and 60 Fed. Reg. 33974. OSHA has published plain English discussions of its rule for general industry and the construction industry. For more information and to contact experienced legal professionals please visit our website.

Paul W. Tipton

(214) 890-0991

ptipton@tiptonjonesllp.com

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Welcome

Welcome to the revised Tipton Jones website and to our blog. We hope you’ll check out our website and learn a bit about us and our practice. We also hope you’ll stop by our blog from time to time to see what’s on our collective mind. Various of our attorneys will post here, on topics ranging from changes in the law and recent cases to comments on current events and how the law can affect your life. We might even venture an opinion or two about the Cowboys. It’s our goal to enlighten, help, educate, and maybe – just maybe – to entertain. So please feel free to come back. Thank you.
Mike Farris

(214) 979-0100

mfarris@tiptonjoneslaw.com

Labels: , , , ,