About Us

Victoria Pynchon

I mediate and arbitrate complex commercial disputes, the former with ADR Services, Inc. in Century City and the latter with...

Read More »

She Mediates

ADR Services, Inc.

She Negotiates

She Negotiates

The 33 cent wage and income gap is unacceptable and unnecessary. So is the cliché glass ceiling. Bottom line, our...

Read More »

Litigation in Plato's Allegory of the Cave

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 31, 2009

Think of the cave as being "your side" of "the case" -- the facts that fit within the "elements" of the cause of action that will entitle your client to a remedy.

Think of the outside world as representing the lived experience of both parties with all of the texture, ambiguity, dimensionality, particularity and depth of human experience and the particular experience of injustice.

How far outside of the cave are any of us willing to venture?

Hat tip to @BILL_ROMANOS for leading me to this fabulous claymation of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

 


Watch The Cave: An Adaptation of Plato's Allegory in Clay in Animation  |  View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

"Winning" the Negotiation with Insights from the Social Psychology of Conflict

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 31, 2009
Negotiating to Win

Pursuing a Divide and Conquer Negotiation Strategy? Don't Miss New California Case Law on Good Faith Settlement Findings

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 28, 2009

Challenges to good faith settlements that cut off the rights of non-settling defendants to seek indemnification and contribution from settling defendants are nearly always doomed to failure.  Trial courts are understandably eager to clear their dockets and there's no docket-clean-up pitcher like the first defendant to settle.  Deny the motion and bring a settled defendant and his trial-ready resources back in to the litigation when the first defendant-domino has just successfully toppled over?   Not likely, my friend. Not in the trial court at any rate.

These motions are so difficult to oppose that I've seen a target defendant threaten a marginal player (my client) with sanctions just for challenging the target's very low six-figure settlement in an eight-figure antitrust action.

It looks like low value settlements got just a little bit harder to defend yesterday when the Second District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's good faith settlement finding in  Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v. Superior Court (Conners).

Best quotation:  "The hospital contends that the physicians‟ $200,000 settlement -- representing 2 percent of plaintiffs‟ $10 million damages estimate -- was so far out of the “ballpark” it was not even in the parking lot."  With a first runner-up to "If section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement prices."

The Court of Appeal relied upon the following "facts" in finding that the trial court abused its considerable discretion in granting a good faith motion to defendant physicians in light of defendant hospital's opposition.

  • payment of $200,000 in settlement for a $10 million claim, which the appellate court found to be "wholly disproportionate."  As the Court opined "[e]ven a slight probability of liability on [the settling doctor's] part would warrant a contribution more significant than 2 percent."
  •  the "evidence" supporting the court's finding that the settling physician's probable fault was "not de minimis,"  which appears to have been based upon Plaintiff's attorney's fault analysis (not generally known for its unbiased nature) and the physicians' counsel's candid (?) suggestion that his clients' contribution to a global settlement might be in the range of $1.5 million;
  • the availability of $2 million in coverage, which "militated against a good faith determination" because the settlement constituted only 10% of available policy limits [carrier alert here!];
  • the non-settling Hospital's contention that the physicians and their attorneys engaged in "bad faith tactics" during two mediation sessions -- a factor the appellate court acknowledged it was barred by mediation confidentiality from considering -- but which it neatly avoided by concentrating on post-mediation negotiations; /*
  • the timing of the physicians' settlement offer, which suggested to the appellate court that their "reason for entering into the settlement with plaintiffs was to cut off the hospital's . . .  right to indemnity from the physicians" (I thought that was a legitimate reason to settle litigation but see the Court's citation to Mattco Forge, stating that when a defendant  “enters into a disproportionately low settlement with the plaintiff solely to obtain immunity from the cross-complaint, the inference that the settlement was not made in good faith is difficult to avoid.” Mattco, supra (emphasis added); and,
  • a consideration I've never seen defeat a good faith motion before - that a settlment "dictated by the tactical advantage of removing a deep-pocket defendant . . . is not made in 'good faith' consideration of the relevant liability of all parties. . . ." (leading to the question whether we're now required to consider the interests of clients other than our own in entering into a settlement agreement on a contested claim)

If this case isn't depublished (an unfortunate California practice) or taken up for review, it will bear re-reading and deeper thinking about the stategy and tactics of breaking away from the mob to cut a separate deal beneficial to one's own client without "consider[ing] . . the relevant liability of all parties . . . "

Comments welcome!!

 

________________

*/  This is a good place to note the importance of either indicating in the parties' post-mediation written negotiations that the mediation is continuing (hence the communications remain absolutely protected) or that the mediation has concluded (hence bringing those post-mediation settlement negotiations outside the scope of the strictly enforced mediation confidentiality restrictions).

Los Angeles Daily Journal Profiles Mediator Victoria Pynchon

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 27, 2009

 

 

Hands-on Approach
Mediator Victoria Pynchon relies heavily on human dynamics in helping parties acknowledge realities they may prefer to avoid.

 
 
By Mindy Farabee
Daily Journal Staff Writer

LOS ANGELES - This past fall, Los Angeles-based mediator Victoria Pynchon set aside her practice for three months to go to camp.

As a volunteer during the 2008 presidential election, the former attorney headed over to Nevada for 12 weeks of campaigning at Camp Obama, originally with the intention of monitoring polls during that state's two-week voting period.

As a monitor, she had been asked to observe silently and not stray from a specially designated corner of the room. But that's just not Pynchon's style. So, two days into the monitoring, she asked to be turned loose in the field, where she could engage directly with voters and hear their concerns.

That's much the same way Pynchon likes to approach conflict resolution.

"What the law does is strip someone's story of its texture," she said. As a mediator, "I'm vitally interested in people's subjective experience in the world."

Pynchon, 56, spent 17 years practicing law, focusing on intellectual property, consumer class actions and environmental insurance, first as an associate in the 1980s and '90s at Pepper Hamilton and Buchalter Nemer, then as a partner at Hancock Rothert until 2004.

That's when she turned professional mediator and said she found her calling.

"Being an attorney is a challenge to make yourself a better person," Pynchon said. "But it also can be a channel for your character defects. It trains you to be crafty, to be adversarial, to be competitive. It's a big expensive board game."

Mediation, on the other hand, she said, plays to our better angels.

"I'm evangelical about this work," Pynchon said. Because as a species, "we're hardwired for reconciliation."

Pynchon has handled some 300 disputes thus far. In her quest to reach a settlement, she draws not only on her legal background but also relies heavily on her personal insights.

A San Diego native, Pynchon grew up in Southern California and attended UC San Diego, where she received a degree in literature in 1975, before heading off to law school at UC Davis.

The early days of studying fiction did much to shape her sense of what makes for a satisfying resolution, she said.

"It's all about story," Pynchon said. "There's no such thing as a pure money dispute. We work with narrative, and narrative needs to be coherent. It needs to be felt, it needs to be authentic, and it needs to be multidimensional.

"Only lawyers have legal problems. Business people have business problems with justice issues."

The art of mediation, as she sees it, centers heavily on finding ways of helping the parties to acknowledge realities they may prefer to avoid.

"One thing mediation does is help lawyers accept loss," she said. "People who say there's no emotion involved with business litigation are not business litigators. Or they don't believe anger is an emotion."

So far, Pynchon is having a busy 2009.

This summer, her book, "A is for Asshole: the ABCs of Conflict Resolution" comes out in Janis publications, while at the beginning of March, Pynchon moved her practice from Judicate West over to ADR Services. Finding a new home was largely about finding a venue in which she could better utilize her experience in complex commercial law, she said.

Pynchon laughingly describes her style as a certain "reckless fearlessness," but she said what she finds most effective is her ability to speak the language of business.

"I'd recently given a presentation on negotiation as a poker game and in the process learned 'Texas Hold 'Em,'" she said of one of the popular poker variations which relies heavily on strategic thinking.

Soon after, a lawyer showed up on her doorstep with a landlord unwilling to settle a construction dispute, despite his weak case. Pynchon began to talk poker, and suddenly, "looking at the case as a game helped him make a rational business decision," she said.

Though Pynchon's use of gambling analogies might help her distill facts for her clients, she's respected for refusing to play games herself, according to Richard Wirick, a partner at Fainsbert, Mase & Snyder, who heads up the insurance and reinsurance coverage practice group in litigation.

Wirich said Pynchon helped his firm settle what he described as s a "massively complex" real estate case in 2½ mandated sessions.

"She made it all go away like magic," Wirick said. "She doesn't suffer fools lightly, but she will listen exhaustively, and she's very good at taking the long view and showing people the weaknesses of their case."

That and a little creative thinking, said attorney Michael Cypers, who used Pynchon to settle an employment-related matter, is what makes her unique.

"She was very willing to consider out-of-the-box things," said Cypers, a litigation partner at Mayer Brown, who specializes in securities. Faced with a breakdown in negotiations stemming from trust issues, Pynchon took the unusual step of ending a long day by sending the plaintiff and defendant out for a friendly drink.

"She was looking for where the human dynamics were," Cypers said.

Bio: Victoria Pynchon Mediator Age: 56 Affiliation:

ADR Services Location: Century City

Areas of Specialty: Complex commercial litigation with emphasis on intellectual property, securities fraud, antitrust, unfair competition, catastrophic insurance coverage, nationwide class actions; executive termination disputes; and partnership and business disputes of all kinds.

Rates: $450/HOUR; $4,500 full day; $2,250 half day

Here are some of the lawyers who have used Pynchon's services: Richard Wirick Fainsbert, Mase & Snyder, Los Angeles; Nicholas Boylan, Office of Nicholas Boylan, San Diego; Scott Barker, Buddle Findlay, Wellington, New Zealand; Neal Cohen, Vista IP Law Group, Irvine; Tappan Zee, Zee Law Group, Los Angeles; Jeffrey Wruble, Buchalter Nemer, Los Angeles; Michael Cypers, Mayer Brown, Los Angeles; Lilys D. McCoy, McCoy, Turnage & Robertson, San Diego; Scott Leavitt, Daniels, Fine, Israel, Schonbuch, & Lebovits, Los Angeles; Andre J. Cronthall, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton, Los Angeles; John B. Wallace, Rosen & Associates, Los Angeles; Karl P. Schlect, Kimball, Tirey & St. John, Irvine.

Negotiating First Year Legal Practice: The Art of the Deposition at Solo Practice University

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 25, 2009

As many of my readers know, I'll be giving a live online full semester Art of the Deposition Course over at Solo Practice University.

I'll tell you more about it when I have a little more time.  Right now I want to make an offer to any young lawyer who is available to take the course twice a month on Saturdays at 10:00 a.m. PDT who can serve as my "teaching assistant."  I've been given one full-scholarship (for all of SPU's courses) to give away free and I'd like to give it to someone who can "attend" the Saturday morning Webinars twice a month and provide me with just a small amount of in-class assistance.

If you'd like to receive the SPU Scholarship and take the "live" interactive twice monthly Art of the Deposition Webinar, please contact me at vpynchon@settlenow.com.

Here's a description of the course from SPU's amazing website:

FIRST CLASS:  Saturday, April 11, 2009

CLASS TIMES:  Saturday 10:00 a.m. PDT

OFFICE HOURS:  Saturday 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. PDT

In this course you will learn how to conduct an effective direct examination for the purposes of information gathering and fact and theory testing. You will also learn how to cross-examine your witness and to use documents for the purpose of impeachment. You will learn to authenticate documents, establish the business records exception to the hearsay rule and effectively question witnesses about the documents. You will learn how to deal with obstreperous opposing counsel, to defend your client during a deposition, to make the right objections at the right time and to use your deposition transcripts in pre-trial motions and at trial.

 

Can Mediation Evolve into a Global Profession by Michael McIIwrath

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 25, 2009

Can Mediation Evolve into a Global Profession? by Michael McIllwarth *(.pdf)

This year, 2009, celebrates the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, whose theory about how change occurs over time in organisms has had an impact far beyond the biological sciences. Variations on Darwin’s theory of evolution through the process of natural selection are used to explain how changes occur in the formation of culture and societies, companies, technology, and so on.

The same thinking has been applied to methods of dispute resolution, which over time adapt to changes in their surrounding environments.  In fact, I recently had the privilege of interviewing cultural anthropologist Robert Carniero, curator of South American ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who explained his experiences living for periods with different tribes in the Amazon basin, and their approaches to dispute resolution.   As Dr. Carniero explains it, primitive and rather brutal forms of dispute resolution – such as beating each other with heavy wooden clubs – works just fine when the groups consist of no more than 50 or 100 people and those not content with the outcome can just move away. 

Things get more complicated, however, as societies grow in size and complexity, and so far all large societies have evolved within them formal justice systems.  In fact, it appears that societies cannot grow larger in size and complexity without first having evolved a system of resolving disputes that can keep the peace between the citizenry and ensure that markets efficiently function.

Which leads naturally to consider the future of private dispute resolution in a global, interconnected marketplace, and in particular the potential for mediation as an enabler for more efficient global commercial activities.  Today, mediation is an organism that thrives in particular niche ecosystems like the UK, Australia, and North America.  The question is whether it can thrive in other locations, and whether it can be used to resolve cross-border disputes.  Anyone who has experienced mediation will understand its potential to grow and flourish as a critical part of a globally inter-connected economy, but it would be folly to ignore the challenges in breaking out of a local niche practice. 

*  Michael McIlwrath is Senior Counsel-Litigation, GE Oil & Gas, Florence, Italy and Chairman of the Board of the International Mediation Institute, IMI.

Continue after the jump or download the .pdf.
 

Continue Reading

Above the Law Slays a Few Sacred Cows for Blawg Review #204

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 23, 2009

It rarely gets any better than this.  Here's Elie Mystal's intro to tempt you into the the whole catastrophe.

Here at Above the Law, we thrive on taking a vat of hydrochloric acid to the veneer of the legal profession and exposing the original craftsmanship underneath. Nothing is sacred.

When given the opportunity to serve for Blawg Review -- the "blog carnival for everyone interested in law" -- I was excited to take Above the Law's brand of rousing rabble out on the road. How many "Sacred Cows" are out there? How many can I hunt and grill? And as Denise Howell might ask me on her "Yo Comments Are Whack" podcast: "how many cow jokes can you take in one week before you end up on a liposuction table?" Eric Turkewitz already tussled with Oprah this week, so the easiest mark has already been bagged.

Of course, ATL is also a news organization. So while I had high hopes of continuing my friendly banter with Loyola Law School Dean Victor Gold, the news of the week inexorably pushes me in one direction. Luckily, it turns out that the thing everybody was blogging about this week is the biggest sacred cow of all, and it is ripe for poaching.

Put down those canned objections to interrogatories and read on here.

Negotiating the Recession with Social Networking

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 22, 2009
If you want to negotiate from a position of power, you need to know Robert Cialdini's Rules of Influence:
 
  • Reciprocation - People tend to return a favor. Thus, the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing. In his conferences, he often uses the example of Ethiopia providing thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid to Mexico just after the 1985 earthquake, despite Ethiopia suffering from a crippling famine and civil war at the time. Ethiopia had been reciprocating for the diplomatic support Mexico provided when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1937.
  • Commitment and Consistency - If people commit, orally or in writing, to an idea or goal, they are more likely to honor that commitment. Even if the original incentive or motivation is removed after they have already agreed, they will continue to honor the agreement. For example, in car sales, suddenly raising the price at the last moment works because the buyer has already decided to buy. See cognitive dissonance.
  • Social Proof - People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic. See conformity, and the Asch conformity experiments.
  • Authority - People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts. Cialdini cites incidents, such as the Milgram experiments in the early 1960s and the My Lai massacre.
  • Liking - People are easily persuaded by other people that they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed. See physical attractiveness stereotype.
  • Scarcity - Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a "limited time only" encourages sales
 
The internet is a great place to establish yourself as authoritative; a wonderful venue to do people favors; a great place to create a community in which you become well liked; and a fabulous forum to create social proof of your value.
 
We call the use of the internet for these purposes "social networking."
 
An actual but "virtual" friend of mine, Jackie Hutter of the IP Maximizer Blog, has used social networking to the greatest legal marketing advantage as anyone else I know. 
 
Here's Jackie's recent power point on the in's and out's of creating your online market through an online presence. Check it out.
 

Maximize Settlement Opportunities by Maximizing Insurance Coverage

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 22, 2009

Wondering how to settle construction litigation in the midst of an economic downturn that has emptied your contractor clients' pockets?

Check out How Can Insulation Contractors Maximize Insurance Coverage over at Scott Godes' excellent Corporate Insurance Blog.

If I had to live my commercial litigation career all over again, I would start by making sure I understood everything I possibly could about the potential for insurance coverage, particularly when reading the terms of coverage makes me believe there is none.

When "sudden" can mean "gradual" all bets on attorneys understanding the ordinary meaning of policy language are off, right Scott?  As Scott's post notes, his recent presentation, Insurance_Coverage_Issues_for_Asbestos_Non-Products, discusses the potential for multiple policy limits of insurance coverage to apply to asbestos claims.

Huh?

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 21, 2009

Assuming that suspicious stock sales by a member of a corporation's board of directors may constitute circumstantial evidence of scienter for purposes of establishing a fraud or fraud-related cause of action under California law--where director sold less than 35 percent of his total shares after having been provided with negative information about company’s economic prospects over a period of nine months prior to selling--such activity did not support conclusion that sales were suspicious.

Sometimes when I read the daily  case reports I can't help but go off topic. Bains v. Moores - filed March 20, 2009, Fourth District, Div. One Cite as 2009 SOS 1706 - filed March 20, 2009, Fourth District, Div. One Cite as 2009 SOS 1706

New SoCal Elder Care Mediation Training Program Announced

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 20, 2009

Essentials For Elder Adult Mediation

A training program for experienced mediators in cooperation with the Negotiation, Conflict Resolution and Peace Building Program California State University, Dominguez Hills

April 30-May 2, 2009

Training Features and Topic

• Lead trainers with extensive adult (elder) mediation and training experience
• Speakers with expertise from multi-disciplines serving older adults and families
• Skill building exercises and case studies for practical applications
• Building awareness and appreciation for unique and typical experiences of aging
• What makes Adult (Elder) Mediation different?
• Model standards and ethical framework for practicing Adult (Elder) Mediation
• The dynamics of family and intergenerational conflict
• Balancing autonomy and responsibility in Adult (Elder) Mediation
• Empowering choices and voices of parties in mediation
• Working with other professionals in the “aging services network”
• Convening and pre-mediation intake approaches to enhance participation
• Addressing myths & realities of aging
• Understanding the spectrum of capacity to participate in mediation
• Impacts of bias, ageism, stereotypes and perceptions on mediation
• Overview of elder abuse, red flags, safety issues and limits of mediation
• Recognizing elder law matters in civil rights, financial and other legal concerns
• Overview of the Probate Court process
• Awareness of the L.A. Superior Court ADR program requirements
• Practice with high emotion and multi-party dynamics


Prerequisites: Training program is for experienced mediators. Details outlined on application and pre-registration form

Cost:* $575. (Community Based Mediation program staff may qualify for a discounted rate) MCLE approval pending

Limited Enrollment: Space is limited. Acceptance is based on strength of prerequisites satisfied.

*Training materials include a copy of “The Eldercare Handbook: Difficult Choices, Compassionate Solutions” By Stella Mora Henry, R.N. (in Spanish or English)

 


Lead Trainer Biographical Information

Alice J. Rudnick is a principal analyst with the New York State Unified Court System’s Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution & Court Improvement Programs (ADRCIP), responsible for supervision and development of the Community Dispute Resolution Centers Program (CDRCP) and other initiatives for alternative dispute resolution to all residents in the 62 counties of New York State. In addition to other administrative responsibilities, she serves as coordinator of Intergenerational Programs, providing technical assistance with education, training, development and management for Restorative Justice, PINS Diversion, Parent/Child and Elder Adult Dialogue and Mediation program services. . . . . 

Nancy Neff Solnick, mediator, trainer, coach, and retired elder law attorney, is one of the principals of Philadelphia Mediation Group, a group that provides conflict resolution education and training, communication support, intervention and systems development in the areas of elder care, health care and addiction treatment. Mrs. Solnick is a member of the Elder Mediation Institute (EMI), formerly the National Elder Mediation Network (NEMN). She was one of the course planners of and a speaker at The First National Symposium on Ethical Standards for Elder Mediation held in April, 2007 in Philadelphia, PA. For many years she chaired the Elder Mediation Task Force of the Montgomery County Mediation Center in Norristown, PA, now in Eagleville, PA. Mrs. Solnick has been involved as course planner, presenter, and coach in numerous elder mediation trainings. She practiced Elder Law for almost twenty years and was in the first group of Elder Law Attorneys to take the certification examination. She became a Certified Elder Law Attorney (CELA) by the National Elder Law Foundation (NELF) under the auspices of the American Bar Association and was later recertified during her practice of Elder Law. . . . .

Jennifer Kresge is a mediator and a licensed therapist in private practice in St. Helena, California. She has been in clinical practice and providing mediation and clinical training for twenty four years. She mediates family, trustee and business disputes, divorce, custody and visitation, personal injury, as well as school and government conflicts. Her clinical and mediation practice also includes participation as a Special Master, consultation, expert witness, and custody evaluations. She is Past President of the California County Boards of Education, and is an elected trustee on the Napa County Office of Education, for which she is currently Vice-President. . . .

Contact Marcia Haber at (310) 377-7624 or ARMS4Mediation@gmail.com for an application and pre-registration packet.


Partial List of Advisory Experts and Guest Speakers

Emanuel Alvarez, USC EduCare Program, County of Los Angeles Department of Aging

Dr. Susan Bernatz, PhD., Capacity and Assessments, Bernatz Forensic Neuropsychology,

Judge Aviva Bobb, Presiding Judge, L.A. Superior Court, Probate Division

Julie L. Bronson, ADR Administrator Los Angeles Superior Court

Eric Carlson, Esq., Director, Long-Term Care Project National Senior Citizens Law Center

Mary Culbert, Director, Associate Clinical Professor, The Loyola Law School Center For Conflict Resolution

Bunni Dybnis, M.A., MFT, CMC, (Professional Care Management) Director of Professional Services, LivHome

Stella Mora Henry, R.N., Eldercare Specialist, Author, “The Eldercare Handbook: Difficult Choices, Compassionate Solutions”

Forrest Mosten, Esq. Family-Divorce Attorney and Mediator

Myer Sankary, Esq. President of the Southern California Mediation Association, Probate, Estates Attorney and Mediator

Edward Phelps, Esq., Estate Planning, Trustee, Mediator Phelps, Schwarz & Phelps

Ruth A. Phelps, Esq., Elder Law, Phelps, Schwarz & Phelps

Dr. Diana Schneider, M.D., Assistant Professor of Family and Internal Medicine, Keck School of Medicine at USC, Medical Director, LAC+USC Adult Protection Team

Monika White, PhD, MSW, Geriatric Care Management Consultant, Immediate Past President, National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers
 

More on Stringfellow, Environmental Liabilities and the Policies that Did or Did Not Cover Them

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 19, 2009

What's the best thing about my tenure litigating environmental liability insurance coverage cases?  Besides the great intellectual puzzle they proved to be?  Besides the lasting friendships formed with members of joint defense teams?  Besides the chance they gave me to appear before some of the best Judges in the State (Judge Carolyn Kuhl, for instance, in the Los Angeles Complex Court)? The way these cases irritated my justice-sensors and led me into a career as a mediator? 

No, none of those.  What then?

My husband, of course!  Steve Goldberg, author of the following article (excerpted with a link to the pricey L.A. Daily Journal) about the case that sent at least two generations of young people to university, graduate and professional school - Stringfellow.

I understand, by the way, that the California Supreme Court has just accepted for review the companion case - State of California v. Continental also referenced in the article below.

  

Sorting Out a Liability Mess

FOCUS COLUMN

By Stephen N. Goldberg

In State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company, 2009 DJDAR 3425 (March 9, 2009), the California Supreme Court reversed a trial court's grant of summary judgment for a handful of insurance carriers who refused to defend the state against and indemnify it for liabilities arising from an infamous toxic waste site - the Stringfellow Acid Pits. Neither this opinion, nor another in the same matter handed down by the 4th Appellate District in January, finally resolves the state's claims. Instead, both courts sent two groups of insurance carriers back to the trial court for further proceedings. In both, the insurers lost significant battles but will no doubt continue the fight on yet another day.

The Stringfellow Acid Pits began operations in 1956, six years before Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring" presaged the modern environmental movement. More than 30 million gallons of industrial waste were deposited there between its first day of operation and its closure by state authorities in 1972. Eight years later, the federal government enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act to clean up industrial pollution and require potentially responsible parties to reimburse the government for its efforts.

Stringfellow was the first major industrial site placed on the Environmental Protection Agency's National Priority "Superfund" List in 1982. The following year, the Department of Justice, on behalf of the EPA, joined with the state to file a federal court suit against many companies that had disposed of toxic waste at the site. Those companies cross-claimed against the state, asserting that it was liable for the entirety of the government's investigation and remediation expenses. Sixteen years later, in 1998, the federal court held the state responsible for all contamination at the site based on findings that it had been negligent in its selection and construction as well as in its failure to prevent, investigate, and remediate pollution there.

While the state, the EPA and waste generation and disposal companies were fighting it out in federal court, the state asked its insurers to defend and indemnify it against the waste companies' cross-claims. The insurers denied coverage for those claims and the state brought suit in state court in 1993.

Allstate should not be confused with the other recent decision involving the state's attempt to obtain insurance coverage for its liabilities at the same Superfund site in the same litigation, State of California v. Continental Insurance Co., 2009 DJDAR 755 (4th App Dist, Jan. 5 2009). Continental rejected the arguments of a different group of the state's insurers, holding that a policyholder is entitled to "stack" (i.e., add together) the limits of insurance policies in effect over multiple years that apply to a single loss spanning those years. Continental also sets forth the analytical framework for determining the number of occurrences that would determine how the carriers' coverage limits would be applied.

Allstate resolves different issues than litigated in Continental. The two decisions together are important not simply for the road map they lay out for lawyers making insurance claims and carriers adjusting them but also as an historic record of the development of two relatively recent and important areas of law - the law governing the protection of the environment from toxic substances and the obligations of insurers to provide coverage for environmental liabilities. Together, these two decisions resolve numerous and complex bodies of jurisprudence.

Continue reading here.

 

And while I'm on the topic, check out the Corporate Insurance Blog (coverage from the policy holders point of view) maintained by my husband's partner, Scott Godes. 

You can follow Scott on twitter here:  @insurancecvg.

Your Negotiation Partner is Not Your Adversary

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 19, 2009

Thanks to Diane Levin at the Mediation Channel for pointing me to a recent post by Ken Adams about the adversarial versus the "meeting of the minds" approach to contract drafting.  Thanks to both!

Contracts as a Relationship-Building Tool

That’s a long way from my let’s-have-a-meeting-of-the-minds approach. But I’m so buried in detail that I find it useful to be reminded periodically that contracts serve a broader function than mitigating your risk or handcuffing the other guy. I received just such a reminder in the form of this blog post by Douglas R. Griess of the Denver law firm Dymond Reagor Colville.

Some people regard the contract process as an adversarial one. I encountered a great example of that recently: someone I’ve been corresponding with used the word “opponent” in referring to a lawyer representing the other side in a deal. When the other side is the enemy, you’re free to indulge in “creative ambiguity” and other shenanigans.

Diane, who writes the best mediation blog in the country preceded my entry into the blogosphere by years.  She could have treated me like a competitor.  Instead, she taught me how to use html code (that's how long ago in blog years we "met"); hipped me to the folkways of the blogosphere; introduced me to her best professional contacts; and, all but baked me a hot apple pie.

If it works here on the internet - collaboration instead of competition - which is where the 21st century is heading mind you -- online -- it should work equally well in all of our professional and business dealings, particularly as we struggle with the one big failing economy that will rise when one of us rises and fall again when one of us falls.

Just sayin' . . . .

A trial lawyer, a mediator and a jury consultant walk into a bar . . . .

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 17, 2009

 . . . and they're all talking about the same thing!  How do you put the "clothes," the drama, the pathos, the dimensionalty and texture back into the sterile legal cause of action we litigators have been working on for months, years, even decades.

There are no professions whose success depends quite so much on the coherence and authenticity of story, narrative.  The gun that appears in the first act.  The man who must be lying dead on the stage as the curtain closes.  The way everything leads to one unexpected and yet repeatedly foreshadowed conclusion.

To this mutual quest for telling the persuasive truth of the parties' lived experience comes a new jury blog:  Things that make you go hmmmmm from the Jury Impact people here in Southern California.  Back in the day, I worked with CEO Chris St. Hilaire on a quarter billion dollar antitrust and unfair competition case.  I've worked with others such as the rightly famous Don Vinson of Litigation Sciences, the first person to introduce me to jury work as Madison Avenue advertising.  The Jury Impact people are that good.

Add their new blog to your news reader.

Talking of Madison Avenue, here's Mad Men's best ad pitch -  Nostalgia:  the pain from an old wound and the product that takes us to a place where we ache to go again.

Negotiating Legal Decisions

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 14, 2009

I'm bookmarking this article.  I'll translate its main points from the academese to plain English this week-end along with insights on how to help your opponent make the legal decision you want him to make -- settle the case in the range of reason. 

A Third View of the Black Box:  Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making by Professor Dan Simon of the USC School of Law.

And, somewhat off point but triggered by this image, an excerpt from Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet on the way in which wisdom eventually arrives:

try to love the questions themselves as if they were locked rooms or books written in a very foreign language. Don't search for the answers, which could not be given to you now, because you would not be able to live them. And the point is, to live everything. Live the questions now. Perhaps then, someday far in the future, you will gradually, without even noticing it, live your way into the answer.

Negotiation as Poker Game

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 14, 2009
Negotiation as Poker Game

From Irish Lips to God's Ear

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 12, 2009

Thanks to Geoff Sharp for pointing out this study indicating that Irish commercial mediations are projected to double this year. 

Hey, I have said I'm Irish, right?

Mediation in business disputes to double

Attempts to resolve commercial disputes by mediation will double over the next year, as businesses seek a cheaper and faster alternative to litigation, according to a new survey.

The Irish Commercial Mediation Association (ICMA) issued a questionnaire to the managing partners of more than 3,500 law, accountancy and other professional firms to ascertain attitudes towards commercial mediation and compile statistics on mediations over the last three years. 

 

Want to Persaude Your Opponent? Tell Her a Story

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 12, 2009

Want to convince the other side that your case has merit?  Don't argue the law.  Tell a Story!

From The Secrets of Storytelling:  Why We Love a Good Yarn in Scientific American:

A 2007 study by marketing researcher Jennifer Edson Escalas of Vanderbilt University found that a test audience responded more positively to advertisements in narrative form as compared with straightforward ads that encouraged viewers to think about the arguments for a product. Similarly, Green co-authored a 2006 study that showed that labeling information as “fact” increased critical analysis, whereas labeling information as “fiction” had the opposite effect. Studies such as these suggest people accept ideas more readily when their minds are in story mode as opposed to when they are in an analytical mind-set.

I'll ask my friend Anne Reed at Deliberations whether she has statistics or studies on the coherency of narratives as the "proof" of their accuracy.

Anne?

By the way, Anne's teaching jury selection at Solo Practice University.  One hour with Anne is worth the price of admission for the entire year!

Greater Negotiation Flexibility Results in Greater Anger?

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 10, 2009

Thanks to Anne Reed at Deliberations for "tweeting" (@annereed) the article Flexible Approach To Acute Conflict Results In More Frustration and Anger, Study Shows.

The research subject of the article suggested that having a more flexible approach to resolving an acute conflict interaction results in more frustration and anger.

I'll need to see the study itself to be convinced.  The study described merely suggests that people offering a greater number of solutions to a party pre-instructed to stonewall will become angrier than those offering fewer solutions, i.e., that those who persist in trying, and failing, to resolve a conflict, get more and more angry and frustrated than those who give up more easily.

This does not suggest to me that "greater negotiation flexibility" necessarily results in a greater degree of anger in the negotiation dyad, but only in the person attempting to resolve a dispute that his partner has been instructed to resist.  Though an apt description of the adversarial process, this is not a fair depiction of persistent attempts to negotiate resolution where the negotiators are given a fighting chance of closing a deal.

As the article explained, study participants were told that a neighbor was playing music too loudly and instructed to ask that it be turned down.

During the interaction, the [participants] followed a script of uncooperative responses such that the task could not be resolved.

"We categorized the verbal responses of participants during the task into seven types of negotiation strategies, including problem-solving and aggressive/threatening. Individuals who used a smaller set of strategies were considered less 'flexible' than those who used a greater variety of strategies," Roubinov said.

The [researchers] . . .  also looked at the intensity of participants' facial expressions of anger or frustration, and measured participants' biological response to the task using cortisol, a stress hormone.

"Our results indicated that greater flexibility may not be the healthiest approach," Roubinov said. "Unlike less-flexible participants, those who tried a greater variety of responses showed more intense facial expressions of anger and frustration. Cortisol levels in more flexible participants also reflected an unhealthier biological response to stress than the less flexible participants."

Of course persistent participants become increasingly frustrated (and angry!) when their multiple suggestions to resolve a dispute are met with stonewalling from their negotiation partner.  This doesn't suggest, however, that "greater [negotiation] flexibility" is not healthy.  It suggests that stonewalling leads to anger, one of the reasons that mediators are employed to help all participants in a negotiation generate potential solutions.

I'll look forward to seeing the study when it's released but based upon this article, I'd say the conclusion drawn is misleading broad and unduly pessimistic.

Settle It Never? More on Stringfellow

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 09, 2009

These are the cases that made me name my mediation business "Settle It Now." 

The contamination of groundwater here in Southern California as the result of discharges from the  Stringfellow toxic waste site took many legal forms, including State of California v. Allstate Insurance Company. /1 Like Dickens' infamous Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, this  "scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that no man alive knows what it means.  Innumerable children have been born into [State of California], 

 innumerable young people . . . married into it; [and] innumerable old people . . . died out of it. Scores of persons have deliriously found themselves made parties in Jarndyce and Jarndyce, without knowing how or why; whole families have inherited legendary hatreds with the suit. The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real horse, and trotted away into the other world. Fair wards of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out; the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left upon the earth perhaps, since old Tom Jarndyce in despair blew his brains out at a coffee-house in Chancery Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary length before the Court, perennially hopeless.

The last time I worked on this case -- in 2004 -- it was, in the words of a colleague, "old enough to drive."  Another colleague had spent his entire legal career litigating the case and he'd been in practice since 1986. 

I was in my second year of college when the State of California discovered groundwater contamination near the Stringfellow waste site and closed it to new deposits.  I was in my twenty-fourth year of legal practice when I re-learned the site's factual history for the purpose of taking expert witness depositions concerning investigation and remediation costs that the State's insurance carriers might, or might not, be obliged to pay.  I was twenty years old when the contamination was discovered and fifty-two years old when I became (for the second time) a part of the State of California insurance coverage action.

Now, the California Supreme Court has sent the case back down to the trial court to try "material issues of fact" concerning the discharge of pollutants in 1969 before the site was closed and and in 1978, six years after the contamination was first discovered. 

These are the cases that made me want to find an alternative to litigation.  The cases that sent me back to Dickens' Bleak House.  The cases that made me believe there must be a more efficient way of handling disputes of this magnitude.

There simply must.

And this just in from the Washington Post -- ready?  Sitting down?  Here it comes . . . . 

Law firms spend as much as $40 billion a year on document review . . .

_______________

1/  An appellate opinion in the same case concerning the "stacking" of policy limits that came down in January of this year, entitled State of California v. Continental Insurance is here.  That case remanded the case against different insurance carriers for the following errrors: 

(1) ruling that the State could not recover more than the total policy limits in effect for any one policy period, and (2) admitting certain documents under the ancient documents exception to the hearsay rule (Evid. Code, § 1331).

So far no one has blown his brains out as in Dickens' tale, nevertheless the case still drags its dreary length before the Court, perennially hopeless.

Blawgs Without Borders at Blawg Review #202

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 09, 2009

The scope and depth of Blawg Review #202 across the pond at Head of Legal sets the aspirational Blawg Review bar high and just where it ought to be too!  No sense summarizing excellence but I will leave you with the resources Carl Gardner left at the close of his comprehensive global post.

Just before I leave: if you've enjoyed looking at the global blawgosphere, Charon's international resources may help you as much as they helped me. He's produced a Netvibes page covering the main UK blawgs and Pageflakes full of feeds from US blawgs, Canadian blawgs and blawgs from Australia, New Zealand, Scotland and Ireland.

I hope you liked Blawg Review #202; and I think you should expect something quite different next week from the notorious Geeklawyer. He tells me he's having technical difficulties at the moment - but fear not! All will be well in time for Blawg Review #203.

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.

Before You're Ready to Negotiate the Best Settlement Possible, You Need to Prepare the Best Case Possible

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 07, 2009

Learn, refine, perfect your deposition skills at Solo Practice University's The Art of the Deposition here!

   

Asking Open-Ended Questions with the President and his Secretary of State.

 For the remainder of this series, as well as short lectures and demonstrations that will make you one of the best examiners, cross-examiners, defenders and users of depositions at trial and in pre-trial motions, sign up for The Art of the Deposition at Solo Practice University today!

Victoria Pynchon Joins ADR Services, Inc.

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 06, 2009

Mediation is all about story, even when everyone thinks it's only about money. Here's the story of ADR Services, Inc., which I joined today, and its dynamic founder and CEO, Lucie Baron. From ADR Services' Website, one of those stories you must meet the hero of to believe.

About ADR Services, Inc.

Lucie Barron, our founder and President, has quite a compelling story to tell. A single mother with seven young children, her indoctrination to the legal system came during a fee dispute with her lawyer, who was seeking additional compensation. A formidable competitor even then, she went about the daunting task of reconstructing the file on her case, arguing that she had actually been overcharged. The panel agreed, dismissing the attorney's claim and awarding for her.

Lucie Barron, founder and President

ADR Services, Inc. had humble beginnings in 1994, sub-leasing a couple of rooms from a law firm and handling cases on a catch as catch can basis for a handful of retired judges who agreed to work through its panel. Until recently and a maturing of the marketplace, the company managed the impossible, virtually doubling in size every year. Today, the ADR Services, Inc. panel consists of more than 150 neutrals, both retired judges and attorneys throughout the state.   

A highly visible player in the ADR market, Ms. Barron is indefatigable, working countless hours while seemingly attending every industry event. In February 2007 the company headquarters moved to a beautiful new suite of offices in Century City that is 50% larger than before, and a new, Northern California office opened in April 2006 in San Francisco. After the addition of offices in Downtown Los Angeles, San Diego, and Las Vegas, ADR Services opened its newest office in Orange County in 2007. The company projects to administer more than 7,500 cases in 2008.

Originally from Australia, Lucie Barron was a psychologist by training with an MBA from McGill University, Canada and had a keen eye for business. Ms. Barron needed to find a way to support her children, and she realized that ADR was important for business and a legal trend. After spending months devouring any information she could find on the subject at UCLA business and law schools, she wrote to a list of retired judges and invited them to join her fledgling panel. Enticed by her vision and determination, eight judges initially agreed to join what has now become the fastest growing ADR provider in California.

Brit Bloggers at Blawg Review #'s 202 and 203: Nobody Does It Better

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 06, 2009

Negotiating Disclosure: How to Get Beyond "Yes" and "No" in Your Deposition Practice

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 06, 2009

Sweating out your first deposition?  Wish you were doing a better job on your tenth?  Fed up with well-coached witnesses?  Want to learn everything the witness knows without an agony of effort?

 

Take my course at Solo Practice University.

These guys are still practicing.  

Mediators! What Your Clients May REALLY Be Thinking

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 04, 2009

I'm attaching a Policyholders Guide to Mediation not because it's particularly useful in regard to the strategy and tactics necessary to be a successful mediation advocate, but to share with my fellow mediators just how low an opinion many litigators have of us.

Notice on page 2 (Mediation Downsides) the following:

  • mediator may inappropriately discourage/scare the policyholder to force a settlement
  • mediator may "tell insurance company things you ask them to keep secret" (!!!)
  • mediator may have a financial stake in keeping the insurance company happy

Thanks to policyholder counsel extraordinaire Stephen Goldberg of Dickstein Shapiro for passing this along to me.

 

Negotiating Blind? What You Don't Know You Don't Know Can Hurt You

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 03, 2009

Do you know?

  • the benefits of making the first offer?
  • how to frame an offer in a way it will be accepted?
  • how to deal with competitive negotiators?
  • how to break through impasse?
  • the ten cognitive biases that can cause you to leave money on the table?
  • how interest-based bargaining can increase negotiation options and result in a better deal?
  • when is the right time to make a bracketed offer?
  • what the pit-falls of mediator's proposals are?
  • what negotiation strategies are most effective when negotiating cross-culturally?
  • why you don't like to bargain?
  • how you can leverage your existing skills to enable you to successfully negotiate anything?
  • how to negotiate with difficult people?
  • why the other side is acting "irrationally" and what to do about it?

Answer all these questions and more by attending the Pepperdine University Professional Skills Program.  Click on the image of the Pepperdine brochure for details.

And now a word from our sponsor: Stringfellow: settling catastrophic insurance claims

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 03, 2009

Just in case you wonder what mediators did for a living before they began to help attorneys settle lawsuits, or just why someone might name her mediation business Settle It Now, I bring you the following must-attend coverage seminar on the Stringfellow Litigation - the Superfund site that sent thousands of attorneys children through college, grad  school and beyond.  As one of my colleagues once said, this case was not tried until it was old enough to drive.

One of the panelists, the brilliant Bill Baron, a former partner of mine at Hancock Rothert (now Duane Morris) understands catastrophic insurance coverage disputes better than anyone else I know (well, other than Mr. Thrifty of course!)

California's Landmark Insurance Ruling in the Stringfellow Litigation

Indemnification Strategies in Continuing Property Damage and Personal Injury Claims

A live 90-minute telephone conference with interactive Q&A

To register, click here. 

These guys invented environmental coverage and the Stringfellow decision affects all catastrophic insurance claims.  If you represent the Fortune 500 and have any CLE funds to spend this year, this is the seminar to spend them on.


WHEN

Wednesday, March 4, 2009
1:00pm-2:30pm EST, 10:00am-11:30am PST

FACULTY

Roger W. Simpson, Shareholder,  Cotkins & Collins, Los Angeles

His principal area of practice is insurance coverage for environmental liability and he represented the state of California in the State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (2009).  He also provides insurance coverage counseling concerning Environmental Impairment Liability Insurance.

Robert M. Horkovich, Shareholder, Anderson, Kill & Olick, New York

He has substantial experience in trying complex insurance coverage actions for corporate policyholders. The Chambers Guide calls him the 'go-to person' in the area of insurance recovery. He served as counsel in the State of California v. Continental Ins. Co. (2009) matter. He has also been engaged on several significant projects by the United Nations as its general insurance counsel.
William J. Baron, Partner Duane Morris, San Francisco

He concentrates on appellate work and complex civil litigation, including insurance coverage actions. He prepared an amicus brief in the companion Stringfellow case.

DESCRIPTION

In January 2009, the California Court of Appeal (4th Dist.) ruled a policyholder facing long-term property damage or personal injury claims may stack liability policy limits across policy periods to maximize recovery. The decision is hailed as a landmark that could influence other courts nationwide.

The court of appeal overturned the trial court's holding that the policyholder could not stack the limits of multiple policies over an entire period of damage. The court of appeal also expressly rejected a 1998 California Court of Appeal (6th Dist.) decision that limited coverage.

The decision is particularly significant for policyholders in manufacturing, pharmaceutical, construction and chemicals, that face claims for continuous injury with roots in years past.

Listen as [this] authoritative panel of insurance attorneys examines the California court of appeal decision and its implications for insurance practice. The panel will offer their perspectives on best practices for addressing indemnity issues in long-term injury claims litigation.

Unemployed Lawyers, Solo Practice University, the Last Time the Baby Boom Was Poor, and the Gig Economy

Posted by Victoria Pynchon on March 02, 2009


We need an open source solution to lawyer unemployment.  If I had time for a post this morning, I'd write a great creative plea for an open source solution to lawyer unemployment.  It's all right here in my head this morning.  But I don't have time so here are my random thoughts with a plea to send me ideas and links, either by way of the comments section or via email.

Here goes:

the gig economy.

Solo Practice University.

the last time the baby boom was poor, it was also:

  • entrepreneurial:  candles, belts, "head" shops, collectives, free schools, credit unions based on affiliation (i.e., the Women's Federal Credit Union at a time when we still couldn't get credit cards in our own names); crash pads; food co-ops; the Diggers; "alternative" social service agencies funded by grants and existing federal program assistance (i.e., Vista volunteers; federal revenue sharing funds); "free" press . . . . more from my baby boomer readers please
  • inventive - this category probably entirely overlaps with the first one
  • largely unemployed or under-employed while pursuing greater interests
  • expert at navigating federal benefits for medical services and dietary needs (food stamps)
  • unashamed to:
    • ask friends for help
    • use local, state and federal benefits for the poor, knowing that we would eventually pay these back in taxes over a lifetime
    • shop at Army-Navy stores
  • generous with our resources; "yes you can"
    • "crash at my pad"
    • borrow a little "bread"
    • have dinner at my place
    • join my collective ("network")
    • work at the co-op
    • send your kids to our free school
    • get a loan from our credit union
  • industrious
    • all this generosity meant that people who could do did
    • those who were good at getting grants got them
    • those with medical skills shared them
    • those with organizational skills organized
    • those with contacts shared them
  • socially conscious
    • we didn't envy those with more than us or look down on those with less than us
    • we tapped the rich (please can you contribute) and provided services to the poor
    • if we didn't like the way the government was doing something, we didn't just protest (a thousand documentaries on the sixties to the contrary) we got up in the morning and formed an alternative to the governmental or existing societal organizations that we believed were not serving the needs of ourselves and our communities 
    • we believed we were part of a tribe and we were loyal to it and to one another
  • very very young
    • we made a lot of mistakes (think:  Jane Fonda:  Hanoi)
    • we were ridiculously overly optimistic about our own ability to change the world
    • we were overly pessimistic about the good of the society we were born into
    • we were arrogant
    • we were brave
    • we were not risk averse
    • were were opininated
    • we were fractious

OK.  So now we're here.  What are WE going to DO about it???????

Thoughts

  1. no lawyer should be "unemployed" PERIOD
  2. the "gig" economy:  several streams of income
  3. F--k the "experts"
  4. the law isn't keeping up with the problems lawyers are experts at solving
  5. the adversarial system - 18th century dispute resolution technology - is not fast or flexible enough to efficiently and effectively solve 21st century conflicts ("conflict": a struggle over scarce resources and/or a struggle to impose control over the standards, values, rules, etc. of the society)
  6. when the times get weird, the weird turn pro
  7. find a way to help markets in need creative solutions to "legal" problems so they don't have to SUE THEIR MARKET (NEWSPAPERS) /1
  8. think like an entrepreneur not like an employee
    1. did I mention Solo Practice University?  it's not just for solo practitioners; it's for the new wave of lawyers whose task is to re-structure the system so that it works for all of us
    2. you did it when you were, oh, 16, 20, 25, 30 . . . do it now
  9. Network!!!

More later.  I have a gig.

_______________

1/  "Who reads newspapers, mom?"

     "Bloggers, honey."