One of the hardest things about solo practice is hiring and keeping good employees. Like many aspects of real life practice, this is not taught in school. At some point you will need one or all of the following: associate, paralegal, secretary, law clerk. Part of the problem is your practice may not justify a full timer for any of those roles. What you really need is a part-timer who can fill ALL those jobs. It's never a perfect fit....you can only do your best, keep business growing at a healthy rate, and expand staff accordingly.
Here are some tips on hiring people (Note: if you are a human resources person in the corporate world, these tips are really elementary. Please realize that for us lawyers in solo practice, we ARE the human resources department, and the accounts payable, accounts receivable, mailroom, word-processing, proofreading, marketing department, janitorial crew......and practicing lawyers. Not only do we not have a human resources department, the main way we learn these things is through experience.) Sorry for ranting, here are the tips:
1. WRITE A JOB DESCRIPTION. I cannot emphasize this enough. Take your time, and write down everything you need someone else to do. Don't hold back. Look the list over carefully, and see if there are things that naturally group together. I like to go one step further and start seeing how the tasks fit on specific cases RIGHT NOW. For example, if I wrote down "draft bills of particulars", do I have one case or do I have 20 cases where this is needed? Would I let someone else do the BP on the Wilson case? No? The Wamsteker case? No? Hmmmm.
Oh, here's a related one: Write YOUR job description. By knowing what you want to do, what you expect you, the owner, should be doing with your time, you can help focus on what your "staff" should be doing.......the stuff that needs to be done that you should not be doing.
2. Write an ad for EXACTLY what you want. This is related to the job description, but here you have to condense it down to ad size. Every word is valuable, make them count.
3. If you place a classified ad, use a box # or freshly created anonymous e-mail. If you place an ad in the law journal, or the newspaper, or at a law school, you WILL get a large response.
4. When the resumes and letter come in, spend some time reviewing and thinking. I have a "3 stack system" for my first impressions. Stack 1 is for apparent possibilities. Stack 2 is for possibles. Stack 3 is no way. I sometimes make a 4th stack for funny, but then I put them with stack 3. Of course, you have to read between the lines, but don't forget to read what's there. People will tell you what they are looking for, and if it's clearly not you, don't waste your time.
5. I look at cover letters carefully. Frankly, the best resume cannot overcome a crappy cover letter. Remember, if you hire someone, the next cover letter they do will have your name on it.
6. Location counts. Sometimes it's disappointing that the best candidate would have a long commute. Experience teaches that this is a big problem. It will be tempting to rationalize this, or allow the candidate to rationalize it, but long commutes lead to big problems. I actually give extra points for proximity. The one opening I would give would be for a student or recent grad, where they might be moving from the stated address. It's worth asking.
Are we ready to interview some people?
More on this tomorrow
Monday, November 12, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Eulogize
It's a real "step up to the plate" situation. You may be asked, you may think you should, you may see that nobody else is going to and (heaven forbid) the clergy person is going to do it based on his ten minute family interview.
I have heard it said there are people who would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy, so bad is their "stage fright". I tend to challenge such self-judgmental and limiting statements, but assuming you could POSSIBLY do it, and are considering whether you should, you can do it, you should do it, you MUST do it. If you had a close relationship with the deceased, it will be one of the greatest gifts to them, but more than that, it's a gift to yourself.
Look at it this way.....when you do it, you will never forget that you did it. In fact, you will be proud, especially when you really nail it. I won't say I nailed it every time, but I've done seven eulogies, for my Mom, my father-in law, his father in-law, my aunt Anna, Felicia's Aunt Tybie, and twice for clients who had no family and I had arranged the funeral (and was asked "to say a few words"). They are not so hard to write.....once you get started. Most of your "audience" knows the person you are talking about, or knows something about them, or at the very least are there out of respect to someone, and they want to know more. I don't know about you, but when I go to a funeral for a person I did not know (out of respect and caring for a person I DO know), I want to hear a eulogy that tells it right.
Here are a few tips (these may really help you some day):
1. Spend some time thinking and writing. Grief will hit you during the process, but you will gain strength from the effort.
2. Read it out loud, or at least read it to yourself. You will know where the emotional parts are, and you will be ready. You can stop if you need to, and you will know it's fine to do that.
3. At my Mom's funeral I gave an extra copy to the Cantor who was officiating, and told him if I couldn't do it, he should read it. He said OK, but he knew it would not be necessary.
4. If you have people close to you, tell them you are writing it, and ask them for some thoughts.
5. When you read it, you don't have to say how hard it is...everyone knows. If you delay in starting due to emotion, this makes the eulogy better.
6. Print a few extras, make sure to save it on the computer.
I previously posted my Mom's eulogy http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Eulogy%20for%20Mom
Here is the one I read at my Aunt Anna's funeral.......
Eulogy for Anna Sender
A eulogy can only be words, and it is a challenge to find words sufficient for the task. But I have a great helper. And that is the knowledge that I have something in common with everyone here. We all experienced this phenomenal, unique, and unforgettable person. I always felt there was something extra and special about Anna, a certain spirit and magnetism. And is it possible that it grew over time? Yes, I believe it did.
Even though most people here know Anna’s family background, I want to talk a little about it because it illustrates something about growth and change. Anna is a product of a different time, you could even say a different part of history. Yet, have you ever encountered a more modern person? We all have encountered people who seemed to be rooted in another time, or stuck in a different era. But through her life, Anna drew from all of her experiences, triumphant and tragic, and kept moving forward, kept living life. Going back to the beginning, Anna’s parents came to this country from Russia around the turn of the century. Her father died when she was about 8 years old. Her mother lived in this country for many years, and spoke only Yiddish (This did not hinder Anna’s English conversational skills). Anna was the sixth of seven children. The oldest child was a daughter, Fannie, who died at the age of 17, while serving as a nurse in WW I. Next there were two sons, Philip and Arthur, and then three daughters, Rose, Betty, and then Anna, and then Manny. Anna was born around the end of World War I, and grew up during the 20's and the depression of the 30's. She did not have much formal education, but it is fair to say she made the most of the schooling she had.
She worked hard in various types of work, including many years in a hat factory.
Then her life took a change when she met and married Red. I’m not the most worldly person, but in my life I’ve never encountered a couple like this. They had a certain chemistry, maybe explosive chemistry, but a formula that worked. And whatever else one might say or think about it, it sure seemed right. It was many years before they had Michael, and growing up he was surely among the most wanted and cherished children ever. It remains difficult to talk about, but Michael was an extraordinary person, and Anna was extraordinarily proud of him, and proud of her little family.
Michael was 24 when he died in 1982 (he’d have been 44 now), and at that time Red had already started a horrible decline from Alzheimer’s. How many people would have been beaten, right then and there? Or shuffled through the rest of their life? Or complained about their pain? For the rest of HER life, Anna showed a resiliency that we all marveled at. And we all learned from her. You could not leave a conversation with Anna and not feel better. You had to be inspired, you had to think about your own problems (whatever they might be), and know that you could move forward. Anna did not teach you these things by preaching, or telling, but by living. And not just living, but living with energy, excitement and enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is contagious you know, and spreading it is a good thing.
Anna was a great talker, and a great story-teller, but she also had one of most important attributes of a conversationalist, she was a great listener. And she cared about what you said, and absorbed it. When you were having a conversation with her, it was the most important conversation on Earth. And it didn’t matter that five minutes later she was going to have the most important conversation on Earth with someone else. It did not diminish yours.
A number of years ago Anna moved to Florida. During that time she not only made many friends, was involved in many activities, but also took classes and college courses, and traveled extensively. All these things were done at full speed and with total involvement. When she got sick and declined so rapidly, it was like she lived 83 years at100 miles per hour and then ran out of gas. Many of us saw her just a few weeks ago, and she was dancing and laughing and talking as always. We can have that memory, and years of other memories to hold on to. I can only say to my father and to Joan, who were with Anna in her final days, that the power of Anna’s life (and the happy times you spent with her) will last beyond the painful times. Her spirit touched us all and enriched every one of us.
I have heard it said there are people who would rather be in the casket than delivering the eulogy, so bad is their "stage fright". I tend to challenge such self-judgmental and limiting statements, but assuming you could POSSIBLY do it, and are considering whether you should, you can do it, you should do it, you MUST do it. If you had a close relationship with the deceased, it will be one of the greatest gifts to them, but more than that, it's a gift to yourself.
Look at it this way.....when you do it, you will never forget that you did it. In fact, you will be proud, especially when you really nail it. I won't say I nailed it every time, but I've done seven eulogies, for my Mom, my father-in law, his father in-law, my aunt Anna, Felicia's Aunt Tybie, and twice for clients who had no family and I had arranged the funeral (and was asked "to say a few words"). They are not so hard to write.....once you get started. Most of your "audience" knows the person you are talking about, or knows something about them, or at the very least are there out of respect to someone, and they want to know more. I don't know about you, but when I go to a funeral for a person I did not know (out of respect and caring for a person I DO know), I want to hear a eulogy that tells it right.
Here are a few tips (these may really help you some day):
1. Spend some time thinking and writing. Grief will hit you during the process, but you will gain strength from the effort.
2. Read it out loud, or at least read it to yourself. You will know where the emotional parts are, and you will be ready. You can stop if you need to, and you will know it's fine to do that.
3. At my Mom's funeral I gave an extra copy to the Cantor who was officiating, and told him if I couldn't do it, he should read it. He said OK, but he knew it would not be necessary.
4. If you have people close to you, tell them you are writing it, and ask them for some thoughts.
5. When you read it, you don't have to say how hard it is...everyone knows. If you delay in starting due to emotion, this makes the eulogy better.
6. Print a few extras, make sure to save it on the computer.
I previously posted my Mom's eulogy http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Eulogy%20for%20Mom
Here is the one I read at my Aunt Anna's funeral.......
Eulogy for Anna Sender
A eulogy can only be words, and it is a challenge to find words sufficient for the task. But I have a great helper. And that is the knowledge that I have something in common with everyone here. We all experienced this phenomenal, unique, and unforgettable person. I always felt there was something extra and special about Anna, a certain spirit and magnetism. And is it possible that it grew over time? Yes, I believe it did.
Even though most people here know Anna’s family background, I want to talk a little about it because it illustrates something about growth and change. Anna is a product of a different time, you could even say a different part of history. Yet, have you ever encountered a more modern person? We all have encountered people who seemed to be rooted in another time, or stuck in a different era. But through her life, Anna drew from all of her experiences, triumphant and tragic, and kept moving forward, kept living life. Going back to the beginning, Anna’s parents came to this country from Russia around the turn of the century. Her father died when she was about 8 years old. Her mother lived in this country for many years, and spoke only Yiddish (This did not hinder Anna’s English conversational skills). Anna was the sixth of seven children. The oldest child was a daughter, Fannie, who died at the age of 17, while serving as a nurse in WW I. Next there were two sons, Philip and Arthur, and then three daughters, Rose, Betty, and then Anna, and then Manny. Anna was born around the end of World War I, and grew up during the 20's and the depression of the 30's. She did not have much formal education, but it is fair to say she made the most of the schooling she had.
She worked hard in various types of work, including many years in a hat factory.
Then her life took a change when she met and married Red. I’m not the most worldly person, but in my life I’ve never encountered a couple like this. They had a certain chemistry, maybe explosive chemistry, but a formula that worked. And whatever else one might say or think about it, it sure seemed right. It was many years before they had Michael, and growing up he was surely among the most wanted and cherished children ever. It remains difficult to talk about, but Michael was an extraordinary person, and Anna was extraordinarily proud of him, and proud of her little family.
Michael was 24 when he died in 1982 (he’d have been 44 now), and at that time Red had already started a horrible decline from Alzheimer’s. How many people would have been beaten, right then and there? Or shuffled through the rest of their life? Or complained about their pain? For the rest of HER life, Anna showed a resiliency that we all marveled at. And we all learned from her. You could not leave a conversation with Anna and not feel better. You had to be inspired, you had to think about your own problems (whatever they might be), and know that you could move forward. Anna did not teach you these things by preaching, or telling, but by living. And not just living, but living with energy, excitement and enthusiasm. Enthusiasm is contagious you know, and spreading it is a good thing.
Anna was a great talker, and a great story-teller, but she also had one of most important attributes of a conversationalist, she was a great listener. And she cared about what you said, and absorbed it. When you were having a conversation with her, it was the most important conversation on Earth. And it didn’t matter that five minutes later she was going to have the most important conversation on Earth with someone else. It did not diminish yours.
A number of years ago Anna moved to Florida. During that time she not only made many friends, was involved in many activities, but also took classes and college courses, and traveled extensively. All these things were done at full speed and with total involvement. When she got sick and declined so rapidly, it was like she lived 83 years at100 miles per hour and then ran out of gas. Many of us saw her just a few weeks ago, and she was dancing and laughing and talking as always. We can have that memory, and years of other memories to hold on to. I can only say to my father and to Joan, who were with Anna in her final days, that the power of Anna’s life (and the happy times you spent with her) will last beyond the painful times. Her spirit touched us all and enriched every one of us.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Impertinent Questions
Here are some questions which are interesting to answer, and even more interesting to ask. I've asked some of these for years, some people get into the spirit and discuss them, some people think the questions are stupid (what a shock). I'll throw in a few of my "answers". Hmmm, maybe I like these questions because I like giving my answers. You can decide.....
1. Do you share a birthday with anyone famous? I thought everyone had a ready answer for this one. I've known I shared mine with Richard Nixon for a long time. However, my recent informal poll revealed that most people do not have a ready answer for this one. Here's a link that will help. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/ I was so pleased when I asked my 14 year old Rebecca, and without hesitation she said "Barry Bonds."
2. Who is the first President you remember? Not who was President when you were born, it's what you remember. For me it's JFK. Rebecca said Bill Clinton. A lawyer in Court recently said "Nixon", a younger one said "Reagan". I asked an older lawyer who I know served in WW II, and he said "Hoover". The best answer I ever got was from my wife's Grandfather, who was born in Russia in 1900 and came here when he was 10. He thought about it for awhile and said "Vilson". A few years from now, people will answer "George W. Bush". Oy.
3. How many times, if ever, have you dialed 911? If you're ever stuck for a conversation starter, this might elicit a good story. Or, it might be a long boring story about a fender bender car accident. As best as I can recall, I've dialed it five times. Sometimes I knew other people must have called (like a car on the side of the highway with huge flames coming out of it....pretty scary to drive past), but I thought, "what if everyone assumed someone else had called?". Of course, when I called and started describing the situation, the operator said a lot of people were calling. Kind of nice to know.
4. How many times, if ever, have you caught a foul ball at a baseball game? Something about this is very exciting. I have a lifetime total of two. I know that the first one was hit by Len Gabrielson of the Giants, at Shea, probably in 1967. The second was also at Shea, Tom Seaver was pitching for the Reds, and Doug Flynn of the Mets hit it. But who can remember such things?
5. Have you ever been on a jury and deliberated to verdict? This is one I have never done, but I am always interested to talk to people who have. Incidentally, I have been asked many times by friends and family "I got a jury notice, what should I do?" I always say the same thing...."If you had a case and someone else got a jury notice, what would you want THEM to do?"
6. Have you ever shot a handgun? I have not, but I have to admit, I'd like to.
7. How many times, if ever, have you had a car stolen? Is there any stranger feeling than going to where your car was parked, seeing a different car there, and realizing your car has been stolen? For a time during the Dinkins administration, car theft was so rampant in Queens that I had a car stolen, then had a crappy little rental car for a few days, and the rental car was stolen!
Last question for today.....have you ever delivered a eulogy at a funeral? I like this question so much, tomorrow I will blog about it.
1. Do you share a birthday with anyone famous? I thought everyone had a ready answer for this one. I've known I shared mine with Richard Nixon for a long time. However, my recent informal poll revealed that most people do not have a ready answer for this one. Here's a link that will help. http://www.famousbirthdays.com/ I was so pleased when I asked my 14 year old Rebecca, and without hesitation she said "Barry Bonds."
2. Who is the first President you remember? Not who was President when you were born, it's what you remember. For me it's JFK. Rebecca said Bill Clinton. A lawyer in Court recently said "Nixon", a younger one said "Reagan". I asked an older lawyer who I know served in WW II, and he said "Hoover". The best answer I ever got was from my wife's Grandfather, who was born in Russia in 1900 and came here when he was 10. He thought about it for awhile and said "Vilson". A few years from now, people will answer "George W. Bush". Oy.
3. How many times, if ever, have you dialed 911? If you're ever stuck for a conversation starter, this might elicit a good story. Or, it might be a long boring story about a fender bender car accident. As best as I can recall, I've dialed it five times. Sometimes I knew other people must have called (like a car on the side of the highway with huge flames coming out of it....pretty scary to drive past), but I thought, "what if everyone assumed someone else had called?". Of course, when I called and started describing the situation, the operator said a lot of people were calling. Kind of nice to know.
4. How many times, if ever, have you caught a foul ball at a baseball game? Something about this is very exciting. I have a lifetime total of two. I know that the first one was hit by Len Gabrielson of the Giants, at Shea, probably in 1967. The second was also at Shea, Tom Seaver was pitching for the Reds, and Doug Flynn of the Mets hit it. But who can remember such things?
5. Have you ever been on a jury and deliberated to verdict? This is one I have never done, but I am always interested to talk to people who have. Incidentally, I have been asked many times by friends and family "I got a jury notice, what should I do?" I always say the same thing...."If you had a case and someone else got a jury notice, what would you want THEM to do?"
6. Have you ever shot a handgun? I have not, but I have to admit, I'd like to.
7. How many times, if ever, have you had a car stolen? Is there any stranger feeling than going to where your car was parked, seeing a different car there, and realizing your car has been stolen? For a time during the Dinkins administration, car theft was so rampant in Queens that I had a car stolen, then had a crappy little rental car for a few days, and the rental car was stolen!
Last question for today.....have you ever delivered a eulogy at a funeral? I like this question so much, tomorrow I will blog about it.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Per Diem Skills
As Napoleon Dynamite said, you need "skills". Like Napoleon, I don't have nunchuck skills or bowhunting skills or computer hacking skills. What I do have.....are "per diem skills".
These proved really helpful at high school parent teacher conferences. At the evening conferences we had eight teachers to see. It was a mob scene of nervous, high strung parents, trying to figure out how to get their 3 minutes of face time with their child's teachers. The teachers are spread throughout the building. They are guarded by volunteer students who keep a sign-in sheet and regulate the flow of meetings. The "rules", such as they are, are not posted anywhere. You want to get it done effectively and efficiently and get out of there.
When Felicia and I got to the school and saw the situation, I said "This is exactly like doing Queens per diem appearances. What we need to do is know the rules for each part, see where the Judges are located within the building, try to figure out the verbosity tendencies of each Judge (do they conference everything or take a lot of submissions?). Most important, what happens if you miss 'first call'?"
Her look said "You really are a sick person", but of course she actually said "So what should we do?". We had a list of eight teachers on five different floors. We agreed we wanted to see the teachers together and not split up for the actual meetings.
When I have multiple Queens per diem appearances, I make a game plan. Everyone who does per diem work does this. You try to prioritize, figure out where to go first, how much time you might need, and you also need flexibility for the unexpected.
My parent teacher game plan went like this....
"First of all, we will see the gym teacher last, because its isolated on the first floor while the others are on 3, 4, 5 & 6. Also, if we miss that one it's not so bad. I would check in on 5 & 6, she would check in on 3 & 4. We would then use cell phones to see where we were on each teachers list. I then thought about it and decided not to sign in until we checked with each other, because if we were the same distance away on all the lists, we'd end up missing some and going to the bottom of those lists, a very bad result because it was getting busier as the night went on. We also agreed that from what we had heard about the social studies teacher, he would talk a lot and his conferences would run long. We agreed to factor this into our thinking. Before we split up I said what I like to say to my per diem attorneys as we set out. I said....."Hey, let's be careful out there."
The plan worked pretty well. Not perfect....we got caught with Spanish and Bio getting called at the same time. It caused us to go to the bottom of the list for the Bio teacher, but second call on Bio didn't take too long. We nailed Social Studies, arriving just as our name was called. (In the per diem world we call this "hitting your marks"). Fairly late in the evening, I realized we were allowed to use the elevator, so when we were three away on English, I took the elevator downstairs and checked in on gym. Next semester we will hit our marks better, but overall it the appearances were covered well.
In the per diem world we usually don't talk about the results of the appearances, unless we missed one. This was different of course, it was like covering one of my own cases. When I got home, of course Rebecca wanted to know how it went. So I said "Well, we had a good game plan, and got them all covered pretty well....we did have to go back and get Bio on the rebound...." She was rolling her eyes, so I told her the truth, she is doing very well and has some energetic and interesting teachers.
And I have some useful "skills".
These proved really helpful at high school parent teacher conferences. At the evening conferences we had eight teachers to see. It was a mob scene of nervous, high strung parents, trying to figure out how to get their 3 minutes of face time with their child's teachers. The teachers are spread throughout the building. They are guarded by volunteer students who keep a sign-in sheet and regulate the flow of meetings. The "rules", such as they are, are not posted anywhere. You want to get it done effectively and efficiently and get out of there.
When Felicia and I got to the school and saw the situation, I said "This is exactly like doing Queens per diem appearances. What we need to do is know the rules for each part, see where the Judges are located within the building, try to figure out the verbosity tendencies of each Judge (do they conference everything or take a lot of submissions?). Most important, what happens if you miss 'first call'?"
Her look said "You really are a sick person", but of course she actually said "So what should we do?". We had a list of eight teachers on five different floors. We agreed we wanted to see the teachers together and not split up for the actual meetings.
When I have multiple Queens per diem appearances, I make a game plan. Everyone who does per diem work does this. You try to prioritize, figure out where to go first, how much time you might need, and you also need flexibility for the unexpected.
My parent teacher game plan went like this....
"First of all, we will see the gym teacher last, because its isolated on the first floor while the others are on 3, 4, 5 & 6. Also, if we miss that one it's not so bad. I would check in on 5 & 6, she would check in on 3 & 4. We would then use cell phones to see where we were on each teachers list. I then thought about it and decided not to sign in until we checked with each other, because if we were the same distance away on all the lists, we'd end up missing some and going to the bottom of those lists, a very bad result because it was getting busier as the night went on. We also agreed that from what we had heard about the social studies teacher, he would talk a lot and his conferences would run long. We agreed to factor this into our thinking. Before we split up I said what I like to say to my per diem attorneys as we set out. I said....."Hey, let's be careful out there."
The plan worked pretty well. Not perfect....we got caught with Spanish and Bio getting called at the same time. It caused us to go to the bottom of the list for the Bio teacher, but second call on Bio didn't take too long. We nailed Social Studies, arriving just as our name was called. (In the per diem world we call this "hitting your marks"). Fairly late in the evening, I realized we were allowed to use the elevator, so when we were three away on English, I took the elevator downstairs and checked in on gym. Next semester we will hit our marks better, but overall it the appearances were covered well.
In the per diem world we usually don't talk about the results of the appearances, unless we missed one. This was different of course, it was like covering one of my own cases. When I got home, of course Rebecca wanted to know how it went. So I said "Well, we had a good game plan, and got them all covered pretty well....we did have to go back and get Bio on the rebound...." She was rolling her eyes, so I told her the truth, she is doing very well and has some energetic and interesting teachers.
And I have some useful "skills".
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Mets Post-Mortem
The sting of the Mets late season debacle has been softened by the immediate post-season. The Phillies got swept by the Rockies juggernaut, a fate the Amazin's would have endured had they won one more game and shlumped into the playoffs. Then things got even better.....the Yankees went out meekly against Cleveland. Now we are all enduring the big Joe Torre story, a big old "what....ever".
Enduring the the Mets demise was painful. It was a monumental and extended team slump. We still have a nucleus of young, talented and exciting players. So, doctor, what went wrong? What can we learn? What should we do next year?
I didn't think I would be able to talk about it so soon, but the Phillies and Yankees exit, and all the sickening Yankee talk, has me ready to say my piece. Here is my Met post-mortem, and some suggestions:
1. Baseball is not only about statistics, you have to watch the games too. The last six weeks Jose Reyes was worse than his poor statistics. He was physically and mentally exhausted. I thought he looked thin too. Once his swing went a little bad (as happens to all players during the season), he could not get it back. For this team to win, they need him playing well.
Next year: more days off, less stolen bases, strict attention to hitting fundamentals (ie: If he is hitting a lot of fly balls, this MUST be addressed.)
2. As horrendous as the middle relief was, they were only the symptom of the real problem....starters who go 5 innings and stress the pen. The entire pen was shot, and they are not such a bad bunch...OK, some were horrendous, but they won't be back. I think we found a good 7th or 8th inning guy in Jorge Sosa. I thought Schoenweiss was the only reliever who pitched well at the end, and he should get his knee fixed and try again. Wagner may not be the best closer, and he has some "Benitez" days, but he is OUR closer, and we can win with him. My big pen move will be.....get Heilman out of there and make him a starter!!!
3. Speaking of watching the games, when your team is in a deep malaise, and you have Shawn Green in right field and Lastings Milledge on the bench, what game was Willie watching? I think Willie gave Lastings a bum deal most of the season. Granted, he is immature and ticks off the other team sometimes, but this guy can flat out play, and will only get better. I'm sure Shawn Green won't be back, and I'd give the starting rightfield job to Lastings. I saw enough of Carlos Gomez to say he has some ability too, but I'm not convinced he's a major leaguer.
4. I wish we had Moises Alou a few years ago, in lieu of Cliff Floyd. Moises was outstanding this year, and I'd try another year with him, realizing he gets hurt and will call your fourth outfielder into service.
5. I'm fine with Paul LoDuca leaving. I know a lot of people like him, but I find that rah-rah macho stuff annoying. Watching the games, he was worn out and useless by season's end, primarily because his machismo tells him to tell Willie he has to play every day. It should not be that way. Twenty less games from Paulie, played by Castro or DeFelice, and we'd have won it.
6. Bye bye Tom Glavine.....I'd say it was fun, but it wasn't. He always needed the umps to give him those borderline pitches, and when they don't he is awful. When he got slightly off his game due to age, he was not able to get it done. Ron Darling made a great point in the last game...."When you are hitting your spots and making your pitches, and they are still hitting you, that's a problem".
7. I love El Duque, but we can't rely on him. Thank you and good bye.
8. Gotta keep Marlon Anderson though. Would you like to have a few of those early season Julio Franco at-bats back, and have Marlon up there instead?
9. I thought John Maine and Oliver Perez showed a lot this season, and I like them with Pedro as a strong 1-2-3. I'd go Heilman 4, and let all the young pitchers (Pelfry, Humber and anyone else they can try) compete for #5. In hindsight, they should have tried the young guys all those times they went with borderline veterans. I hated when they did that.
10. We should watch Carlos Delgado carefully. If he wasn't hurt, he seems to be declining. There were also times he didn't run balls out. Willie should never tolerate this, and it would have made sense to sit Delgado when this happened. In fact, from the first day of camp, Willie should make this team policy....you don't run out a ground ball, or pop-up, or drive to the outfield that you assume is a home run but isn't, YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME.
It wasn't Willie's fault, and I'm glad they didn't scapegoat him.
Bottom line.....we have a strong nucleus. We can recover and be right in it next season.
Enduring the the Mets demise was painful. It was a monumental and extended team slump. We still have a nucleus of young, talented and exciting players. So, doctor, what went wrong? What can we learn? What should we do next year?
I didn't think I would be able to talk about it so soon, but the Phillies and Yankees exit, and all the sickening Yankee talk, has me ready to say my piece. Here is my Met post-mortem, and some suggestions:
1. Baseball is not only about statistics, you have to watch the games too. The last six weeks Jose Reyes was worse than his poor statistics. He was physically and mentally exhausted. I thought he looked thin too. Once his swing went a little bad (as happens to all players during the season), he could not get it back. For this team to win, they need him playing well.
Next year: more days off, less stolen bases, strict attention to hitting fundamentals (ie: If he is hitting a lot of fly balls, this MUST be addressed.)
2. As horrendous as the middle relief was, they were only the symptom of the real problem....starters who go 5 innings and stress the pen. The entire pen was shot, and they are not such a bad bunch...OK, some were horrendous, but they won't be back. I think we found a good 7th or 8th inning guy in Jorge Sosa. I thought Schoenweiss was the only reliever who pitched well at the end, and he should get his knee fixed and try again. Wagner may not be the best closer, and he has some "Benitez" days, but he is OUR closer, and we can win with him. My big pen move will be.....get Heilman out of there and make him a starter!!!
3. Speaking of watching the games, when your team is in a deep malaise, and you have Shawn Green in right field and Lastings Milledge on the bench, what game was Willie watching? I think Willie gave Lastings a bum deal most of the season. Granted, he is immature and ticks off the other team sometimes, but this guy can flat out play, and will only get better. I'm sure Shawn Green won't be back, and I'd give the starting rightfield job to Lastings. I saw enough of Carlos Gomez to say he has some ability too, but I'm not convinced he's a major leaguer.
4. I wish we had Moises Alou a few years ago, in lieu of Cliff Floyd. Moises was outstanding this year, and I'd try another year with him, realizing he gets hurt and will call your fourth outfielder into service.
5. I'm fine with Paul LoDuca leaving. I know a lot of people like him, but I find that rah-rah macho stuff annoying. Watching the games, he was worn out and useless by season's end, primarily because his machismo tells him to tell Willie he has to play every day. It should not be that way. Twenty less games from Paulie, played by Castro or DeFelice, and we'd have won it.
6. Bye bye Tom Glavine.....I'd say it was fun, but it wasn't. He always needed the umps to give him those borderline pitches, and when they don't he is awful. When he got slightly off his game due to age, he was not able to get it done. Ron Darling made a great point in the last game...."When you are hitting your spots and making your pitches, and they are still hitting you, that's a problem".
7. I love El Duque, but we can't rely on him. Thank you and good bye.
8. Gotta keep Marlon Anderson though. Would you like to have a few of those early season Julio Franco at-bats back, and have Marlon up there instead?
9. I thought John Maine and Oliver Perez showed a lot this season, and I like them with Pedro as a strong 1-2-3. I'd go Heilman 4, and let all the young pitchers (Pelfry, Humber and anyone else they can try) compete for #5. In hindsight, they should have tried the young guys all those times they went with borderline veterans. I hated when they did that.
10. We should watch Carlos Delgado carefully. If he wasn't hurt, he seems to be declining. There were also times he didn't run balls out. Willie should never tolerate this, and it would have made sense to sit Delgado when this happened. In fact, from the first day of camp, Willie should make this team policy....you don't run out a ground ball, or pop-up, or drive to the outfield that you assume is a home run but isn't, YOU ARE OUT OF THE GAME.
It wasn't Willie's fault, and I'm glad they didn't scapegoat him.
Bottom line.....we have a strong nucleus. We can recover and be right in it next season.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
New Family Tradition.....USHPIZIN
It's nice to have family traditions. I value the traditional traditions.....Thanksgiving, Passover, July 4th, and Opening Day. I especially like a few family traditions we have adopted:
Day after Thanksgiving leftover feast with friends.
New Years Eve at home with family, in "costumes".
Stony Brook Homecoming.
Watching the movie Groundhog Day on February 2nd, as previously blogged http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Groundhog%20Day
I made a new rule: If we do something three years in a row, it is now a "Family Tradition". Adding a new family tradition is momentous. It will continue. It is unimaginable to not do it. And so, every year, around Sukkot (for the uninitiated, or the interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot) we watch the Israeli movie Ushpizin, with family and friends.
If you have never seen this movie, here's the deal....
It's a 2004 Israeli movie, in Hebrew with English subtitles. It was written by a Hasidic actor (Shuli Rand), who also stars. The writer's actual wife was enlisted to play the movie wife (ostensibly because he could not have acted in this role with an "actress"). Michal Bat-Sheva Rand is the compelling force in this inspiring story.
Moshe and Malli live in a small apartment in a Hasidic section of Jerusalem. They are so poor they barely have food, let alone money for a Sukkah for the holiday. They are also childless. You see clearly that they have nothing, yet they have FAITH. Throughout this film, their faith is repeatedly tested, rewarded, pumished and retested. A series of circumstances allows them to obtain a Sukkah, and some money, and even some guests (Ushpizin). Ah, but such guests!! Some weekend furloughed prisoners who have skipped out, people from Moshe's past. What to do with a blessing of such guests? Rude, ungrateful, irreligious, disrespectful users. If you are sent such guests, is it a test?
Besides the characters and the story, I also enjoyed seeing people from a different culture (and trust me on this, Hasidic Jewish culture is a DIFFERENT culture than American, virtually non-practising, ethnic Jewish culture) having the same problems we all have. Financial issues, family crises, pressure on the holidays. This movie is a rare and fascinating look at a Hasidic couple as two people.
Does the movie eventually show the value in prayer and faith? Yes, and is there anything wrong with that? What does Moshe want more than anything else? To know the way. To know what is expected of him. To know that you can succeed, and fail, and be tested......and move forward.
You can probably rent this DVD at your local video store. It is surely a worthwhile Netflix pick. Or, if you want to wait till next Fall, you can watch it with us. It's a family tradition.
Day after Thanksgiving leftover feast with friends.
New Years Eve at home with family, in "costumes".
Stony Brook Homecoming.
Watching the movie Groundhog Day on February 2nd, as previously blogged http://nylaw2law.blogspot.com/search/label/Groundhog%20Day
I made a new rule: If we do something three years in a row, it is now a "Family Tradition". Adding a new family tradition is momentous. It will continue. It is unimaginable to not do it. And so, every year, around Sukkot (for the uninitiated, or the interested http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukkot) we watch the Israeli movie Ushpizin, with family and friends.
If you have never seen this movie, here's the deal....
It's a 2004 Israeli movie, in Hebrew with English subtitles. It was written by a Hasidic actor (Shuli Rand), who also stars. The writer's actual wife was enlisted to play the movie wife (ostensibly because he could not have acted in this role with an "actress"). Michal Bat-Sheva Rand is the compelling force in this inspiring story.
Moshe and Malli live in a small apartment in a Hasidic section of Jerusalem. They are so poor they barely have food, let alone money for a Sukkah for the holiday. They are also childless. You see clearly that they have nothing, yet they have FAITH. Throughout this film, their faith is repeatedly tested, rewarded, pumished and retested. A series of circumstances allows them to obtain a Sukkah, and some money, and even some guests (Ushpizin). Ah, but such guests!! Some weekend furloughed prisoners who have skipped out, people from Moshe's past. What to do with a blessing of such guests? Rude, ungrateful, irreligious, disrespectful users. If you are sent such guests, is it a test?
Besides the characters and the story, I also enjoyed seeing people from a different culture (and trust me on this, Hasidic Jewish culture is a DIFFERENT culture than American, virtually non-practising, ethnic Jewish culture) having the same problems we all have. Financial issues, family crises, pressure on the holidays. This movie is a rare and fascinating look at a Hasidic couple as two people.
Does the movie eventually show the value in prayer and faith? Yes, and is there anything wrong with that? What does Moshe want more than anything else? To know the way. To know what is expected of him. To know that you can succeed, and fail, and be tested......and move forward.
You can probably rent this DVD at your local video store. It is surely a worthwhile Netflix pick. Or, if you want to wait till next Fall, you can watch it with us. It's a family tradition.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Crosswords
I've been in a blogging slump. I could blame that on my associate leaving, and replacing her work with my own, causing me to be too tired to write. Instead, I will blame it on my new addiction......crossword puzzles.
I used to try the Sunday Times and give up. Sometimes I'd work on a weekday puzzle, IF I was stuck in court, and IF I found a paper. A few months ago I worked through a Sunday puzzle in earnest, breezed through a Monday, and found myself unable to stop. I had (have) to do one every day....sometimes more than one.
Here are a few things worth knowing about crossword puzzles:
1. The NY Times is very easy on Monday (trust me on this), and gets progressively harder each day of the week. The Sunday Times is at about a Thursday level. At the moment I am good through Wednesday and sometimes Thursday. I generally can't do much with the Friday or Saturday. However, I have noticed that doing them regularly leads to discernable improvement, which already makes it a better hobby than golf.
2. Since I can't touch the Friday Times puzzle, I do the Friday Wall Street Journal puzzle. They only have that one puzzle per week. It's a good one....quirky, challenging and fun. Like the Times, it usually has a "theme", and sometimes it's offbeat, and very satisfying once you "get it".
3. Puzzles are fun to do with other people. One weekend I was away with a group of friends, and five of us did the Sunday puzzle together. One person had the pen and would call out clues "6 letters for 'does just all right....ends in y", and someone would yell out "gets by" and the others would say "WOW, put that in". It's interesting to see people's strengths and weaknesses in play. I am useful for anything related to baseball, but useless on most contemporary culture.
4. One weekend, I went online to try to find one last answer (hey, there's no law against it!) and I discovered a great website, called "Rex Parker Does the New York Times Crossword Puzzle"
http://rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/ He does the puzzle every day and offers hilarious and insightful commentary. I try to check him out after I have gone as far as I can. Rex has really improved my game.
5. I want to also recommend a documentary about crossword puzzles, called "Wordplay".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492506/ It features NY Times puzzle editor Will Shortz, and many celebrities, including Bill Clinton. It is very well done, worth a netflix or video store visit. I was pleasantly surprised to find the DVD at my local video store.
Happy cruciverbalizing everyone!!
Tomorrow, a movie review.
I used to try the Sunday Times and give up. Sometimes I'd work on a weekday puzzle, IF I was stuck in court, and IF I found a paper. A few months ago I worked through a Sunday puzzle in earnest, breezed through a Monday, and found myself unable to stop. I had (have) to do one every day....sometimes more than one.
Here are a few things worth knowing about crossword puzzles:
1. The NY Times is very easy on Monday (trust me on this), and gets progressively harder each day of the week. The Sunday Times is at about a Thursday level. At the moment I am good through Wednesday and sometimes Thursday. I generally can't do much with the Friday or Saturday. However, I have noticed that doing them regularly leads to discernable improvement, which already makes it a better hobby than golf.
2. Since I can't touch the Friday Times puzzle, I do the Friday Wall Street Journal puzzle. They only have that one puzzle per week. It's a good one....quirky, challenging and fun. Like the Times, it usually has a "theme", and sometimes it's offbeat, and very satisfying once you "get it".
3. Puzzles are fun to do with other people. One weekend I was away with a group of friends, and five of us did the Sunday puzzle together. One person had the pen and would call out clues "6 letters for 'does just all right....ends in y", and someone would yell out "gets by" and the others would say "WOW, put that in". It's interesting to see people's strengths and weaknesses in play. I am useful for anything related to baseball, but useless on most contemporary culture.
4. One weekend, I went online to try to find one last answer (hey, there's no law against it!) and I discovered a great website, called "Rex Parker Does the New York Times Crossword Puzzle"
http://rexwordpuzzle.blogspot.com/ He does the puzzle every day and offers hilarious and insightful commentary. I try to check him out after I have gone as far as I can. Rex has really improved my game.
5. I want to also recommend a documentary about crossword puzzles, called "Wordplay".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0492506/ It features NY Times puzzle editor Will Shortz, and many celebrities, including Bill Clinton. It is very well done, worth a netflix or video store visit. I was pleasantly surprised to find the DVD at my local video store.
Happy cruciverbalizing everyone!!
Tomorrow, a movie review.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Mortgage "Crisis"
There are things now accepted in residential real estate which were unheard of in the past. Here are a few:
1. Transactions with 100% financing, with little or minimal downpayment. Not only that, the banks know about it!! I say this because, let's say, in the past, I had "heard about" transactions where the banks did not know what was going on. These transactions later became known as the "savings and loan crisis". OK, back in the 80's the banks shouldn't have let themselves be hoodwinked. Nowadays, the lenders are in on their own hoodwinking....or perhaps they have hoodwinked the investors in their "product". Here's the way 100% financing happens....at the closing the buyer gets a regular mortgage for 80% of the purchase price. He also gets an equity line for the equivalent of the balance of the purchase price, which he accesses in full at the closing, and there you have 100% financing. On top of this, the contract often provides for a "sellers concession", which is a price reduction for the equivalent of the buyer's closing costs. When I represented sellers who gave this "concession" of approx $16,000, they never complained. They were thrilled to be selling their crappy house for $500K, and couldn't wait for the closing to happen. I'm not sure, but I think I saw some sellers RUN to their cars after the closing, lest someone realize what had happened.
2. Along those lines, sometimes the prices just seemed ridiculous. I know the lenders still do appraisals, but a night at Yonkers Raceway seems like a more legit proposition than some of these appraisals. I have no problem with prices rising, and neighborhoods becoming "hot". However, in the sub-prime mortgage market, it should be obvious there is a limit on the upside, and a lot of room on the downside. When you lend at "100% of appraised value", you are living on the edge.
3. People buying with no spare cash to do ANYTHING with the house. Not only was there no downpayment, the buyer had no money to fix, or re-do, or re-model, or upgrade....all the things that buyers usually do. I have seen this quite a few times, and knew it did not bode well. OK, it boded well for the sellers running to the car, and the real estate brokers, and the mortgage brokers.
It did not bode well for the mortgages.
It seems like a lot of smart people have lost a lot of money on these mortgages.
May I use a few cliches from the archives to sum up how I see the investors losses?.......
"Looks like dog s***, smells like dog S***, sure glad I didn't step in it"
"You pays your money and you takes your chances"
"What goes up must come down"
"Eyes Wide Shut"
One last thing......the housing market is not going to collapse from this, nor is the economy going to be wrecked. Those houses are still worth some good money, just not as much as the banks put in. There will be opportunities aplenty from this mess. It's already happening.
1. Transactions with 100% financing, with little or minimal downpayment. Not only that, the banks know about it!! I say this because, let's say, in the past, I had "heard about" transactions where the banks did not know what was going on. These transactions later became known as the "savings and loan crisis". OK, back in the 80's the banks shouldn't have let themselves be hoodwinked. Nowadays, the lenders are in on their own hoodwinking....or perhaps they have hoodwinked the investors in their "product". Here's the way 100% financing happens....at the closing the buyer gets a regular mortgage for 80% of the purchase price. He also gets an equity line for the equivalent of the balance of the purchase price, which he accesses in full at the closing, and there you have 100% financing. On top of this, the contract often provides for a "sellers concession", which is a price reduction for the equivalent of the buyer's closing costs. When I represented sellers who gave this "concession" of approx $16,000, they never complained. They were thrilled to be selling their crappy house for $500K, and couldn't wait for the closing to happen. I'm not sure, but I think I saw some sellers RUN to their cars after the closing, lest someone realize what had happened.
2. Along those lines, sometimes the prices just seemed ridiculous. I know the lenders still do appraisals, but a night at Yonkers Raceway seems like a more legit proposition than some of these appraisals. I have no problem with prices rising, and neighborhoods becoming "hot". However, in the sub-prime mortgage market, it should be obvious there is a limit on the upside, and a lot of room on the downside. When you lend at "100% of appraised value", you are living on the edge.
3. People buying with no spare cash to do ANYTHING with the house. Not only was there no downpayment, the buyer had no money to fix, or re-do, or re-model, or upgrade....all the things that buyers usually do. I have seen this quite a few times, and knew it did not bode well. OK, it boded well for the sellers running to the car, and the real estate brokers, and the mortgage brokers.
It did not bode well for the mortgages.
It seems like a lot of smart people have lost a lot of money on these mortgages.
May I use a few cliches from the archives to sum up how I see the investors losses?.......
"Looks like dog s***, smells like dog S***, sure glad I didn't step in it"
"You pays your money and you takes your chances"
"What goes up must come down"
"Eyes Wide Shut"
One last thing......the housing market is not going to collapse from this, nor is the economy going to be wrecked. Those houses are still worth some good money, just not as much as the banks put in. There will be opportunities aplenty from this mess. It's already happening.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Mortgage Crisis From the Trenches
Is anybody surprised there is a mortgage "crisis"?
As I understand it, a high percentage of mortgages in the "sub-prime" market are in default. This would be bad enough, but the problem is compounded by these mortgages having been grouped together into some kind of investment instrument, which a lot of banks, brokerage houses and financial institutions have invested in. I guess they did this because the securities offered a "good return" at a "low risk". After all, they were secured by real estate. When a much higher than expected percentage of these loans went into default, the value of the investment instruments backed by these mortgages went down, and a lot of big players lost their money. THAT is the crisis we keep reading about. I realize the way I just explained it is an over-simplification, but when we talk about the government coming in and helping with this crisis, let's be honest about what really happened.
Here are a few facts from the trenches, from personal observation:
1. If someone puts virtually no money into a real estate purchase, and two banks financed the 100% of the purchase, and the purchaser either lived there without paying for a year, OR walked away from the property when the value went down, is that person a "victim"? Are the banks who put up the money, made their fees, and then sold the loan into the market...."victims"? Are the investors who bought these mortgages, foolishly relying on the real estate market to continue soaring...."victims"?
What I have seen are insane prices, with 100% financing obtained by mortgage brokers who would do ANYTHING to get the loans approved. If you took this transaction to 1000 intelligent financial people and said "give me odds on the ultimate success of this transaction", with success being defined as the borrower does not end up in default, 90% of objective observers would say the odds of success are 10% or less. Yet I saw many transactions like this sail through, as if this were normal business, and I know, there were THOUSANDS of transactions just like this. And yet, big players invested in this.
If you are not familiar with some of the fine points of a "sub-prime" transaction, fasten your seatbelts, you are not gonna believe this....
As I understand it, a high percentage of mortgages in the "sub-prime" market are in default. This would be bad enough, but the problem is compounded by these mortgages having been grouped together into some kind of investment instrument, which a lot of banks, brokerage houses and financial institutions have invested in. I guess they did this because the securities offered a "good return" at a "low risk". After all, they were secured by real estate. When a much higher than expected percentage of these loans went into default, the value of the investment instruments backed by these mortgages went down, and a lot of big players lost their money. THAT is the crisis we keep reading about. I realize the way I just explained it is an over-simplification, but when we talk about the government coming in and helping with this crisis, let's be honest about what really happened.
Here are a few facts from the trenches, from personal observation:
1. If someone puts virtually no money into a real estate purchase, and two banks financed the 100% of the purchase, and the purchaser either lived there without paying for a year, OR walked away from the property when the value went down, is that person a "victim"? Are the banks who put up the money, made their fees, and then sold the loan into the market...."victims"? Are the investors who bought these mortgages, foolishly relying on the real estate market to continue soaring...."victims"?
What I have seen are insane prices, with 100% financing obtained by mortgage brokers who would do ANYTHING to get the loans approved. If you took this transaction to 1000 intelligent financial people and said "give me odds on the ultimate success of this transaction", with success being defined as the borrower does not end up in default, 90% of objective observers would say the odds of success are 10% or less. Yet I saw many transactions like this sail through, as if this were normal business, and I know, there were THOUSANDS of transactions just like this. And yet, big players invested in this.
If you are not familiar with some of the fine points of a "sub-prime" transaction, fasten your seatbelts, you are not gonna believe this....
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Tower of Babble
I've asked the questions at many depositions. I try to approach it with purpose, you are trying to obtain information, clarify the facts, find out what happened and what did not happen. It's a challenge, bordering on fun. However, taking a deposition through an interpreter is not fun.
I have asked questions through interpreters in Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Greek, Polish, Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, Fukanese, Taiwanese), Japanese, Portugese, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Arabic, Hebrew, Creole, Tagalog (a Filipino dialect), and ASL (American Sign Language). I never had German, either because German's all speak English or they don't have too many car accidents. I never took a deposition with a Yiddish interpreter, but I did see one used in court (Brooklyn, of course). Depositions with interpreters share common problems. Here are a few:
1. Some questions do not interpret well. In a car accident case, a lot of lawyers like to start with this question "Did there come a time when the vehicle you were driving came into contact with another vehicle". It's not a great question, it's compound and it can be confusing. Lawyers like it because it establishes certain things.....there WAS an accident, with CONTACT, this witness was there, and there was another vehicle involved. I asked five different Spanish interpreters to translate this question, so I could listen to it with my high school Spanish background. They interpreted the question five different ways. One thing about this question IS consistent. When you ask a Spanish speaking witness, through an interpreter, the question "Did there come a time when the vehicle you were driving came into contact with another vehicle", the answer is always the same....."QUE???"
So you have the interpreter ask the question again, and the witness says "The accident happened at 7 o'clock." or "You mean was I in an accident?" or "QUE??????"
2. Sometimes witnesses want an interpreter, but they speak English pretty well. If they understand your question they answer in English. If they don't understand the question, or, if they don't like the question, they wait for the interpreter. I don't let witnesses do this. It's all or nothing. Either no interpreter, or I want the interpreter to do a literal translation of every question and answer.
3. A related problem is when you ask a detailed question, the interpreter interprets it, the witness gives a long response in Urdu, and the interpreter translates it as "Yes". Sitting there, you know the interpreter and the witness have had a dialogue about the question, and the interpreter has taken it upon himself to "paraphrase" an answer. If this happens, I state on the record what has just occurred, then ask the reporter to read back my question and ask the interpreter to do a literal interpretation of the question and answer. If they don't do it, I advise opposing counsel that if this is not corrected I am busting the deposition. I have done that a few times, and I know other attorneys who have too.
4. Sometimes the interpreter is just not great at the particular language. They may have the credentials to do both Mandarin and Cantonese, but they are native to Mandarin and have learned Cantonese. What do you do when they just don't know the word? You see them struggling and they don't know how to say "windshield wiper" in Cantonese. So they try some combination of words like "car glass cleaner" and the witness says the Cantonese equivalent of "Que?", so the interpreter tries the Mandarin word for windshield wiper, and now the witness is mad at the interpreter and says nothing. Finally, the interpreter translates your question in Cantonese, but when he comes to "windshield wiper" he says "windshield wiper", and the witness says "Ohhhh, windshield wiper"....and answers the question.
5. I have been told there is no word in Spanish for "curb". Using that handicap, try asking questions about a trip and fall on a broken curb.
6. Sometimes, when questioning an English speaking witness, you want to call in an interpreter who speaks "Stupidese", but that is a topic for another day.
I have asked questions through interpreters in Spanish, French, Italian, Russian, Greek, Polish, Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, Fukanese, Taiwanese), Japanese, Portugese, Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Arabic, Hebrew, Creole, Tagalog (a Filipino dialect), and ASL (American Sign Language). I never had German, either because German's all speak English or they don't have too many car accidents. I never took a deposition with a Yiddish interpreter, but I did see one used in court (Brooklyn, of course). Depositions with interpreters share common problems. Here are a few:
1. Some questions do not interpret well. In a car accident case, a lot of lawyers like to start with this question "Did there come a time when the vehicle you were driving came into contact with another vehicle". It's not a great question, it's compound and it can be confusing. Lawyers like it because it establishes certain things.....there WAS an accident, with CONTACT, this witness was there, and there was another vehicle involved. I asked five different Spanish interpreters to translate this question, so I could listen to it with my high school Spanish background. They interpreted the question five different ways. One thing about this question IS consistent. When you ask a Spanish speaking witness, through an interpreter, the question "Did there come a time when the vehicle you were driving came into contact with another vehicle", the answer is always the same....."QUE???"
So you have the interpreter ask the question again, and the witness says "The accident happened at 7 o'clock." or "You mean was I in an accident?" or "QUE??????"
2. Sometimes witnesses want an interpreter, but they speak English pretty well. If they understand your question they answer in English. If they don't understand the question, or, if they don't like the question, they wait for the interpreter. I don't let witnesses do this. It's all or nothing. Either no interpreter, or I want the interpreter to do a literal translation of every question and answer.
3. A related problem is when you ask a detailed question, the interpreter interprets it, the witness gives a long response in Urdu, and the interpreter translates it as "Yes". Sitting there, you know the interpreter and the witness have had a dialogue about the question, and the interpreter has taken it upon himself to "paraphrase" an answer. If this happens, I state on the record what has just occurred, then ask the reporter to read back my question and ask the interpreter to do a literal interpretation of the question and answer. If they don't do it, I advise opposing counsel that if this is not corrected I am busting the deposition. I have done that a few times, and I know other attorneys who have too.
4. Sometimes the interpreter is just not great at the particular language. They may have the credentials to do both Mandarin and Cantonese, but they are native to Mandarin and have learned Cantonese. What do you do when they just don't know the word? You see them struggling and they don't know how to say "windshield wiper" in Cantonese. So they try some combination of words like "car glass cleaner" and the witness says the Cantonese equivalent of "Que?", so the interpreter tries the Mandarin word for windshield wiper, and now the witness is mad at the interpreter and says nothing. Finally, the interpreter translates your question in Cantonese, but when he comes to "windshield wiper" he says "windshield wiper", and the witness says "Ohhhh, windshield wiper"....and answers the question.
5. I have been told there is no word in Spanish for "curb". Using that handicap, try asking questions about a trip and fall on a broken curb.
6. Sometimes, when questioning an English speaking witness, you want to call in an interpreter who speaks "Stupidese", but that is a topic for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)