For example, LegalMatch’s article on Fayetteville, North Carolina appears to have generated the most interest so far in 2009.

Also extremely popular are articles about lawyers in Bell County, Texas, and Broward County, Florida.

As past blog posts have mentioned, many areas of law that prospective clients are interested in (wrongful termination, bankruptcy, etc.) might be indicative of the current state of the economy, so it is also possible that the geographic regions are also a reflection on the economy.

Common wisdom is that small towns and rural areas have been hardest-hit by the current recession. While a person is not likely to be able to litigate themselves out of poverty, sometimes, when someone has lost their job, or is facing foreclosure on their home, another party has acted wrongfully, and they are entitled to redress.

Another reason why smaller markets in general (not particularly in the South) are a rich source of pageviews might be the fact that there are simply fewer lawyers in those areas than in big cities. For example, if you do an internet search for “New York Lawyers” or “San Francisco Lawyers,” you’re going to get a huge number of results, simply because there are a huge number of lawyers in those cities.

On the other hand, in a small town, with the legal market dominated by small firms and solo practitioners, doing a search for lawyers in those areas tends to bring up a LegalMatch article.

This is good for both lawyers and prospective clients in those areas – prospective clients, when they do a search for lawyers in a small town, rather than finding hundreds of websites for firms that may or may not be taking new cases, they come across the LegalMatch page for that town, where they know that there will be lawyers who have affirmatively indicated that they are taking new cases.

Most Popular City and County Pages on LegalMatch is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

They make a variety of factual and legal arguments to support their conspiracy theories. The most common “factual” (a term I use loosely) argument they make is that Obama was not actually born in Hawaii, as is widely accepted. Instead, they claim, he was born in a foreign country (usually Kenya). Of course, they ignore that a Certification of Live Birth has been released, and confirmed to be accurate by the relevant officials in Hawaii.

Others concede that he was born in Hawaii, and rely on dubious legal arguments to support their claims. Some claim (usually without citing any supporting authority) that, in order to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, both parents must also be citizens of the United States. To be fair, the Supreme Court has never firmly ruled on what it means to be a “natural born citizen” under the meaning of the Constitution. So, the birthers have simply settled on their own definition, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions.

To support this point, they often rely on the writings of a Swiss political philosopher named Emerich de Vattel, author of the 1758 book “The Law of Nations.” This tome was apparently quite influential in the early development of international law, and it advocates the idea that, for a person to be a “true” citizen of a nation, both of his or her parents must also be citizens. There’s just one problem: no evidence suggests that this work particularly influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution when they were drafting that document. Even if it did, a Swiss book on political philosophy is not binding legal precedent in the United States.

None of this has stopped a dentist/lawyer named Orly Taitz from filing a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s eligibility to serve.

The result? The case was dismissed almost immediately. However, Ms. Taitz continued to file motions, and, after repeated warnings from the judge, was slapped with a $20,000 fine for misconduct, noting that she made no coherent legal arguments, and that her briefs and motions read more like political manifestos than court documents.

It should be noted that one of the best things about this country is the fact that you can say almost anything about anyone, especially elected officials, with relatively few legal ramifications. However, that does not mean that you are guaranteed a platform to air your views, or that you get to use the courts to air whatever crazy idea happens to pop into your head. If that were the case, I’d be in court right now, arguing the merits of hamburger earmuffs.

In the end, we should all remember that the courts are a place to settle genuine legal disputes, and the non-issue of Mr. Obama’s citizenship is not one of them. Ms. Taitz has every right to express her political views in any number of ways. She could buy space on a billboard, she could run spots on the radio, or she could simply make like this guy.

Frivolous Lawsuits Are a Bad Idea: Birther Edition is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Alright, I’ll stop now. If you haven’t already closed your browser in disgust (and I don’t blame you if you have), you may be wondering what this is about. According to the ABA Journal, the highest court in the UK has allowed an anonymous blogger to be notified of an injunction through a Twitter message.

The blogger in question was impersonating a well-known English lawyer, Donal Blaney, who also happens to be a frequent conservative commentator. In his blog, the anonymous blogger apparently held himself out to be Blaney, and wrote articles under his name, promulgating caricatured political positions.

Because the identity of the anonymous blogger could not be readily ascertained, and Twitter was the easiest way to contact him, the court granted Blaney’s request to serve the injunction via Twitter. The Twitter message sent to the blogger contains a link to a copy of the injunction, and orders him to immediately cease impersonating Blaney, and to reveal his identity.

This follows on the heels of a ruling by an Australian Court, a defendant was served with notice of a default judgment through Facebook.

Apparently, courts in Australia are well known for their tech savvy, already allowing service of process via email and text messages, so such a move is to be expected. The question, then, is when should we expect such forward-thinking actions from American courts? If I had to guess, I’d say we have a while to wait, considering that some of them haven’t yet mastered advanced staple technology.

In all seriousness, this does raise some interesting questions about how service of legal documents should be handled in the digital age. The courts of most U.S. states, and the federal government, call for service to be delivered personally, in a hard copy. This is certainly the preferable method, as it all but eliminates any uncertainty as to whether or not service was actually received. However, it’s not always possible, for a variety of reasons. In such cases, “substituted service” – leaving the documents with another member of the person’s household, or at their place of business, is acceptable, as is service by mail.

Really, though, given the fact that most people in the developed world use email, and many also use social networking sites, wouldn’t allowing service by electronic means make sense, at least if other methods of service fail? After all, you can now check your email on almost any device that has a screen, and most people check their email on a daily basis. It would be pretty hard for someone to claim with a straight face that they haven’t received service, if they could receive it via email.

Of course this raises issues, as well. Once it becomes accepted that you can receive notice of a lawsuit via email, it won’t be long before the scammers realize that they can separate fools from their money by emailing them fake summons, and telling them that this pesky lawsuit can go away for a reasonable fee.

So, there are a few kinks to work out of the system, but in cases such as this, when the defendant is clearly a real person, with ready means of contact, but cannot be identified for whatever reason, it seems that justice could be served much more efficiently if this method of service were allowed.

@defendant – plz to cease n desist kthxbai is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

It seems that our justice system is being run by a bunch of Catholic school nuns hell-bent on tidiness because court cases are being thrown out for completely arbitrary reasons.  How arbitrary you ask?  How about poorly-stapled-document arbitrary?

Yes, that’s right people, if you’re planning on filing a claim in the New York Supreme Court, you better make sure your papers are aligned properly and the sharp points on your staples are filed down because the nuns running that court are also made out of sugar.  According to Justice Charles J. Markey, “[T]he poor stapling of the papers was so negligent as to inflict, and did inflict repeatedly, physical injury to the court personnel handling them.”  That must’ve been one incredibly bad staple job…

I’d hate to be the attorney on that one, what an uncomfortable phone call you’d have to make to the client.

“My motion was denied?  But how, I thought my case had a sound legal basis??  What, a staple??”

Now to be fair, that staple from hell did draw blood, twice.  And at the very least the court gave a reason for denying the motion, as unjustified as it may be, which is much better than what some courts give those trying to shove their cases before an almighty judge.  The court also claims that the reason for the denial stemmed from the lawyer forgetting to include his signature as well as missing affidavits from the plaintiff.  Way to recover…

Seriously though, a staple?  Reading this story, one can’t help but think of the first rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: “all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts…should be construed and administered to secure the just…determination of every action and proceeding.”  Which any smart-ass first-year law student can tell you basically means that the court is supposed to look at all claims so as to do justice for all those involved.  Justice.  Denying a plaintiff’s motion because the staple they used to keep their documents from flying apart doesn’t sound very fair to me (and I hope it doesn’t to you either).  Whatever happened to, oh I don’t know, judging claims on their merits?  Call me crazy and old-fashioned, but I’m just one of the nutty guys who still believe that courts were created to judge everything fairly.  They should really start tearing down those blind justice statutes all over the place.

So what’s the moral of this story?  Evidently, it’s that when you hire a lawyer make sure you insist that they include their kindergarten teacher on their list of references.

Justice is Blind, But Apparently Not Immune to Jagged Staples is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Well, one lawyer has found a way around all of this.  I can’t for the life of me understand how no one figured out before.  Robert P. Mangieri, 68, discovered a way to outsmart all us dolts wasting our time with education and training.  He found that you can just practice law without a license.  It’s so easy and obvious, how did years of attorneys not figure it out sooner?  No need to waste all that money and time on law school or endure countless hours trying to understand how that freakin’ rule against perpetuities doctrine works, just lie and say you did all that crap.  Then all you have to do is open shop, maybe hang up some fake diplomas, and start raking in the money from hapless clients who are too poor to properly check out your credentials.  And the best part is that you don’t have to do any legal research since you’re already lying about your competency or that you’re even legally able to practice law.

I can’t tell guys – was I laying the sarcasm down a little too thick in that last paragraph, or not enough?

As I mentioned in a previous post lawyers in America already have a bad enough reputation without yahoos like Mangieri screwing it up even more for us.  If he had attended law school, he would have learned that lawyers are subject to an incredible number of rules on ethical lawyering, which cover everything from proper notice to guidelines on fees.  Though chances are as a fake lawyer, he probably already knew some of these and chose to ignore them.

Do any of Mangieri’s former clients have a legal recourse against him?  You better believe they do.  Not only is the would-be lawyer being subjected to criminal punishments including grand larceny, impersonating an attorney, and conspiracy to defraud (all of which carry an incredibly light sentence of 4 years – way to deter people federal government!), but he’ll also be open-season to a plethora of tort claims.  The most obvious being fraud and maybe malpractice, but since he’s not officially a lawyer that latter one might not be so obvious.  Though as the saying goes, you can’t get blood from a turnip.  Despite Mangieri duping people into paying him money for services he wasn’t qualified to render, most of his clients weren’t very wealth themselves so Mangieri himself might not be worth so much.

But don’t let Mangieri’s tale fool you into thinking all lawyers are shysters.  Though you should always be sure of your lawyers credentials, according to the latest LegalMatch statistics attorney malpractice cases are among the lowest received.  So don’t be scared to hire a lawyer, just make sure they are actually lawyers first…

Why You Should Always Check Out Your Lawyers Credentials: A Moral Tale is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

The media doesn’t help this image either.  For every Atticus Fitch, there is a multitude of Lilah Morgans.  It’s no wonder then why so many distrust attorneys.  With a reputation like that, who would ever want to deal with one, let alone be forced to hire one to represent them?

Though as bad as a Lilah Morgan can be, what hurts the image of attorneys more are the Lionel Hutzes, the incompetent lawyer who takes your money and does absolutely nothing in return.  This image is in many ways much worst then the evil money-grubbing one.  Chances are most people would rather have an amoral competent attorney than an amoral idiotic attorney.  Couple this fear with the terrifying prospect of actually being involved in a legal dispute where the only way out is to retain a lawyer, and you’ve just described hell.

This fear can be described in two simple words: legal malpractice.  This horrible phrase inevitably lingers in the back of the mind of every person who has hired a lawyer.  Because poor representation not only means you’ll likely lose whatever legal issue you’re involved in, but it also means that you’ll probably have to deal with the expensive headache of cleaning up your lawyer’s mess afterward.  Not to mention the additional nightmare of bringing a new lawsuit against your old attorney.  To some people, this prospect is enough for them to want to represent themselves rather than to retain a lawyer.

But is legal malpractice really something you should be afraid of?  Yes, it is.  But is it really all that likely to occur?  Probably not.

Legal malpractice isn’t as common as the public may think.  Lawyers are subject to constant scrutiny, from the court, their respective state bars in the form of continuing education, and their clients.  Furthermore, the process of becoming a lawyer is no easy task in of itself.  To be admitted into law school takes top grades and a high LSAT score, not to mention the three years it takes just to finish law school.

In fact, the total number of legal malpractice cases handled by LegalMatch.com in California alone is on average 50 percent less then the number of medical malpractice cases handled in just the northern half of California.  This statistic is true almost uniformly across the board.  Personal injury, family law, even wrongful termination cases on average total more in number than legal malpractice cases.  In a sense, it’s much easier to find a good attorney, than it is to locate a good doctor, employer, or spouse!

Trusting America’s Lawyers is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

People don’t like lawyers

Lawyers who steal money from their clients, miss important deadlines, or just don’t care about the case, on the other hand, disparage the entire legal system. Attorney malpractice is the nasty big elephant in the room whenever there is a dispute between an attorney and her client, no matter how trivial the disagreement may be. In this litigious society of ours, no one is more cognizant of the risk of a lawsuit than lawyers themselves.

Last year, LegalMatch.com received thousands of potential clients seeking a malpractice claim against their former attorney. The majority of these claims were for your usual shenanigans:

• 12% said they failed to return the client’s money
• 20% of respondents claimed their attorneys failed to file their lawsuit on time.
• 29% said they failed to understand the law related to the case

Perhaps most interesting: 37% said their lawyers failed to get the result they had promised them.

Here is a big tip: If you walk into an attorney’s office and they say “If you hire me, I promise you that your case will turn out this way, guaranteed,” run away fast. You might have the easiest case in the world, but no one in this business should ever guarantee anything, ever. Even worse, proving a malpractice case for not getting the result promised would not be very easy.

All malpractice lawsuits are complicated and difficult to win. This translates into a very high bill for your lawyer’s services should you want to pursue a malpractice claim. The best thing you can do to avoid this nightmare is hire a good attorney from the get go. Not just an attorney with the credentials, but an attorney with a good reputation. However, legal matters are often highly personal. It is not easy to just call your friend and spill the beans in order to get a trusted referral. So what else can you do?

There are numerous easy steps you can take to ensure you are hiring a reputable lawyer. For instance, many states display an attorney’s disciplinary record online. In California, every attorney is listed on the State Bar website, and their disciplinary record is at the bottom of the page. You can also request the full discipline record for every attorney from the State Bar in writing. Although not every disciplinary charge is as serious as the next one, each one should be investigated and taken into consideration when you hire your attorney.

Your second resource is a little less obvious but extremely easy: the all powerful Google. Put the attorney’s name in quotes and search away, you may be surprised what you find. A caveat, however: take everything with a grain of salt. Not everyone understands why their case was lost, or why the judge gave them a harsh sentence. It is not always the lawyer’s fault, even though it may seem that way. Also remember that John Smith, Esq. may have the same name as John Smith, party animal. Use your better judgment to weed out the useless or irrelevant information.

Hiring your lawyer is the first big step in your case, and it may be the most important decision you will make on your own. Do it right and do it once.

Top Reasons Clients Sue for Lawyer Malpractice is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Why did Louisiana draft these new rules?  Officials say they will “protect the public from misleading ads and preserve the intergrity of the legal profession.”  But was there evidence consumers were being harmed, or were the rules “motivated solely by a general distaste for certain forms of lawyer advertising and by hostility toward lawyers who assist injured consumers“?

In a previous case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York found similar advertising rules banning nicknames, mottos, client testimonials, and internet pop-up ads unconstitutional.  Specifically, the court found that the state failed to show the lawyer advertising rules were necessary to assist consumers, and the rules were not narrowly tailored to effectuate the state’s asserted purpose.  Furthermore, the FTC has expressed opposition to these types of restrictions on speech.  Yet, the overall trend among state bars is to impose greater restrictions on lawyer advertisements. . . .

As one astute blogger pointed out, “One wonders if federal regulation of legal marketing will ever overtake the state-by-state model currently saddling the profession. So many firms have so many offices across so many state lines that the old regulatory model hardly makes sense anymore.”

If we do end up with uniform regulations, I hope they don’t unfairly restrict blogs, which provide consumers with uniquely valuable information about lawyers.  Without access to blogs, consumers can still rely on referrals or choose lawyers based on their credentials; however, blogs give consumers a glimpse into prospective lawyers’ thoughts and legal reasoning.  This type of information should not be censored.

To Blog Or Not To Blog, What Is The Problem? is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

Many Floridians, including lawyers for the First Amendment Foundation in Tallahassee and the Florida Association of Public Defenders, oppose the proposed rule.  Some are concerned that citizens’ access to public information will be severely limited.  And public defenders have complained that they don’t have the budget to buy transcripts, which could unduly prejudice defendants whose cases depend on proving improper courtroom conduct.  Others worry about giving judges full discretion over who has access to public proceedings.  Some lawyers have nicknamed the rule the “Judicial Protection Act, based on the belief that the commission (which is largely comprised of judges) proposed the rule in order to protect their public behavior from being broadcasted to outsiders, including media such as YouTube. 

Proponents of the rule claim that it is intended to protect citizens’ private information, which can be disclosed during courtroom proceedings; for example, bank account and Social Security numbers can be divulged at child support hearings, and microphones can inadvertently pick up confidential conversations between attorneys and clients. 

It makes sense to me that confidential information about parties should be edited before recordings or transcripts are released to the public.  However, private citizens and attorneys with limited resources must be able to access these materials at a reasonable price.  Additionally, because unfortunately not all judges are upstanding arbitrators of justice, impartial third parties should be the ones editing the materials, not the judges themselves.  Otherwise, the risk of bias is too great, and the purpose of the courts – to provide justice for all – will be lost.

Florida’s Proposed Judicial Protection Act: the Dangers of Secret Chambers is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog

What happened?  Some say that pop culture and the media’s portrayal of lawyers (think Carlito’s Way, The Devil’s Advocate, and The Firm) has dampened public opinion, and certainly there are bad apples who fuel negative stereotypes; moreover, some dismiss the State Bar’s disciplinary practices as woefully inadequate.  Others point out the sad reality that most people associate lawyers with some of the worst times in their lives – divorces, personal injuries, and probating a loved one’s will, for example.  

Another reason for lawyers’ bum rep stems from the fact that criminal cases – despite being a slight minority of lawsuits overall – are made much more public than civil ones.  Furthermore, people tend to distrust lawyers because their profession sometimes calls on them to defend the “worst of the worst.”  Finally, even when people have a good experience with a lawyer, many see that experience as unusual and cling to the more global negative perception of lawyers.

One way to address negative perceptions as well as legitimate concerns surrounding the legal profession is to start early – by training students in Christian law schools or offering additional ethics classes at traditional law schools.  At the other end of the timeline, solutions include privatizing professional liability boards and forcing wayward lawyers to pay for the costs of their own prosecution. 

While religious-based education may not be for everyone and reformed disciplinary measures may come too late, I’m hopeful that as truthful information about lawyers becomes more accessible to the general public, and prospective clients are given the proper background information to choose a lawyer wisely, we can dispel some persistent myths.  In the meantime, I hope studios start producing more movies like The Rainmaker or Erin Brockovich . . .

Singing the Praises of Lawyers is a post from: LegalMatch Law Blog