You’ve heard this: the hurrier I go the behinder I get. I really need to use my time more efficiently. This is something technology was going to do for us. But, as I often lament, technology (computers, in particular) seems to rob me of more time than it saves me. Which is why I particularly enjoyed this cartoon.

Pulled into the parking garage by the office today figuring to park in one of my usual spots. Got there and found a VW parked smack on top of the line, taking out both my favorite spaces. So I parked down the line and planned to get on the YouParkLikeAnAsshole website when I got to the office, to print out one of their YouParkLikeAnAsshole tickets. But, when I got out of the car I noticed the meter maid marking tires. Thought I’d ask her if it was actually a ticketable offense to park like that. I caught up to her as she was approaching the VW. She asked if it was mine. I told her, “Hell no” and asked if she was going to give it a ticket. “Yep”, she answered. “Cool,” I said, “I hate when people park like that.” “Me, too,” she said. I skipped the YouParkLikeAnAsshole ticket. The real thing was much more satisfying. Later I realized I should’ve used my phone to get a picture for the YouParkLikeAnAsshole website; but, when I got back it was gone.

Every time I come back for a look at this blog it whacks me on the head with another dose of “flying time”. It’s incredible I haven’t written anything since July. What’s worse, is how long it’s been since I wrote anything to do with law or oil or gas. I should look at earlier articles to see if I’ve already expressed my exasperation with the litigation side of law practice. If not, I’ll have to devote an article to that pretty soon. For now, I’ll just say, “I’ve had it.” If my experience the past couple years is an accurate reflection, then litigation is certainly no longer about finding truth or justice. Any lawyer who thinks thorough research and preparation are key is a dinosaur, like me. What it’s about now is figuring out any billable activity that can be justified in order to reap the maximum fees from the client. To actually suggest consideration of settlement before the client has started seriously complaining about the large amount of fees and small amount of progress is contrary to the mission statement of any modern law firm. Or, maybe it’s just the ones I keep running into. There also seems to be no compunction about subornation of perjury. The only hesitation seems to be over whether or not the other side might have some concrete evidence sufficient to establish the perjury. If not, it’s off to the races! “Don’t ask, don’t tell” seems to be the new maxim for attorney-client relationships. It used to be, “I can’t properly represent you if you don’t tell me the truth.” Now, it’s “If you’re lying, don’t tell me you’re lying.” But what about the rules and statutes that impose on the lawyer an obligation to independently investigate the facts to be sure the claim is in good faith? Heh, just find me a judge, any judge, any where, who’d be willing to slam an attorney who obviously did nothing other than take his client’s “word” as gospel. Unless, sometimes, it turns into something that waste’s some of the judge’s time, to the extent he/she will call it a “fraud on the court”. A fraud on a party, however, is just part of the game. Well, I guess I unloaded a few remarks there, after all.

This is in keeping with earlier promise to post more articles. One of things that has contributed to my “burn-out” as an attorney is the escalation in the number of frivolous (or at least what I consider to be frivolous) lawsuits. They’re the ones filed by people (their lawyers, actually, who I think serve their own ends by talking their clients into filing these things) to gain advantage in a business situation. Rather than negotiate fairly, rather than accept what should otherwise shake out from arm’s length bargaining, they sue you (well, your client). Of course, there are those lawyers who accept this with glee. When I accuse another attorney of just using litigation as harassment to gain some advantage despite the lack of real merit, I often hear the retort, “What are you complaining about? You’ll make lots of fees off this.” Well, sorry, but I haven’t yet adopted the lawyering business model whose mission statement is something like, “Do whatever it takes to soak the most fees from the client.”

So, it was with some measure of glee and satisfaction that I read about the recent ruling in one of the lawsuits against Google. While this doesn’t pertain to oil and gas, it exemplifies the sort of litigation I’m seeing way too often in oil and gas litigation (frivolous), and the kind of judicial attitude (willingness to impose sanctions) I’m seeing way to little of. For lack of better links, I’m going to refer you to this article in Eric Goldman’s Technology and Marketing Law Blog. I’ve borrowed his links to pdf files of the opinion dismissing the suit and the opinion granting sanctions, which I admittedly have yet to read. I hope the actual opinions are as good as the reporting makes them out to be.

In my experience, getting a judge to impose sanctions is like pulling hen’s teeth. I always hear, “Well, counsel, their position was a bit of a stretch but I can’t say it was completely and totally without an arguable issue; ergo, can’t rule it was frivolous so your request for attorney fees is denied.”

I have a couple of favorite web hosting companies. One is the Fine Folks at TextDrive, another is the Happy Folks at DreamHost. Periodically, and perhaps with greater frequency as time marches on, I’m sorely tempted to hang up the shingle and take up “webmastering”. Then, I might have the time to spend the amount of time I’d like to spend reading the newsletters and blogs these hosters put out. Generally, they are both entertaining and educational in more ways than one. Alas, I barely find the time to skim their offerings.

The latest DreamHost newsletter was, however, very brief, so decided I had some time to click the link to the DreamHost Blog and check it out. The latest article was entitled “Phishing Phor Phishers“. It could be said it has nothing to do with oil and gas law, although some might say phishers and oil promoters are cut from the same cloth. Here, I’m obliged to interpose that I’ve assisted several oil clients with the documentation for private offering drilling and development programs, all of which were entirely above board and legit. Still, oil people don’t have a reputation that would be considered much of an improvement over that of lawyers or car salesmen (I was, through social training, about to write “salespersons” but, on reflection, I’ve never really heard anyone suggest that a female car seller was dishonest; the typical slimy car salesman is always pictured as a male).

The blog article and comments thereon did touch upon “law” topics, though, so it’s not really off-topic for a lawyer’s blog. One thing I found amazing was the number of comments to this article, in less than a day. What a readership! Ordinarily, I find it pretty much impossible to wade through dozens upon dozens of comments following a popular blog article. In this case, however, the number of useful, insightful, or entertaining comments held my attention to the end (though I’ll admit skimming a few as I gained momentum). So, for anyone who’d like an entertaining, useful and educational read on phishing, there it is!

I’ve mentioned The Scout Report in an earlier article. This time, I’ve covered the current issue over at the Chappells Blog.