If the best and biggest law firms are laying off young associates, then it will only put more pressure on new law school graduates to find work. Why would a law firm hire a recent graduate when a fully trained, smart, hungry, unemployed associate is ready to go? We may be starting a dark time for our nation’s law schools.
Most of my practice is litigation, charging clients an hourly rate for work performed. This article encourages lawyers and their clients to think long and hard about the consequences of a lawsuit and whether the various outcomes support a business decision to sue.
While not suing means the loss of a business opportunity for the lawyer, the lawyer will have gained the trust of a client, increasing the chance of having a long-term relationship that is ultimately far more profitable than handling a single lawsuit with a siege mentality that results in an inefficient outcome.
The King case is very disturbing.
In Missouri v. McNeely, the Supreme Court recently ended forced blood draws in DUI matters unless the charge is a felony and there is a warrant. This new opinion, however, goes farther than a blood draw.
In McNeely, the evidence related to the charged crime. In King, the evidence was an attempt to find evidence in connection with other, unrelated cases where the law enforcement agency had no reason to believe that the connection existed. This should be the definition of an unreasonable search and seizure.
Even Justice Scalia would not go as far as the majority in King. A sensible decision would have been to set a standard similar to McNeely, requiring a warrant to identify at least a de minimis connection between the evidence sought and the investigation of the unsolved crime.