Hearsay

Trying to defend an entire legal profession, when one of its blaggards goes astray, is like haggling with a fishwife or being trapped on a Mobius cloverleaf to Catatonia.

Hearsay was taken to task by a lay acquaintance for suggesting in March that a lawyer should be perturbed when the profession is unduly mocked, and that an unfounded attack on one lawyer is an attack on all.

Are lawyer jokes unfair and unwarranted, as Hearsay seems to have implied? “Unfair, perhaps,” writes the respondent, but: “Unwarranted, certainly not. Far too often, attorneys make it too easy to promote criticism of their own activities and of the profession in general.”

He goes on to cite anecdotal examples that most lawyers would admit are egregious beyond explication, but allows that he may be “painting the bar with a broad brush and condemning the vast majority of attorneys” because of “two current, very public incidents.”

Getting to the point, which is well taken and mirrors annual commentary by the bar's disciplinarians, the writer enumerates some of the “individual acts that create the jokes and the concerns.”

Among them are failure to return calls within a reasonable time, questionable billings, interminable delays and rescheduling of cases, while litigants and witnesses must return to court, ad infinitum.

The cited delays and reschedulings at times may not be attributable to the lawyers on either side of a matter, but there seems no excuse for annoyances that come under the general heading of lack of communication.

The annual ARDC report, which may be accessed at www.iardc.org and is summarized on page 7 of this issue, once again identifies neglect as the number-one reason why clients file complaints about their lawyers.

The ARDC report also reveals that among the 80,041 lawyers registered in Illinois last year, 6,082 complaints were filed against 4,163 individuals. That seems like a lot, but here is the good news:

1,460 complaints were dismissed summarily because no misconduct was alleged, 4,239 additional files were closed after investigations, and 102 were concluded after inquiry panel review.

That leaves just 281 apparently valid complaints – roughly one-third of one percent of registered attorneys – an aberration ratio that ought to stack up favorably in comparison with other professions.

More careful scrutiny of the basal complaints, however, tends to support the concerns expressed above by a nominal spokesperson for the body public.

Neglect was cited in 2,670 filed complaints. Failure to communicate with a client was the cause of 1,463 complaints. Fraudulent or deceptive activity that includes lying to a client was the basis for 960 complaints.

Even though most of these grievances did not rise to the level of sanctionable misconduct, they are symptoms of dissatisfaction with certain representatives of the legal profession.

The other side of the client-dissatisfaction doubloon is the comparative goodness of a profession that is uniquely and demonstrably self-policing. A shining example of tarnish removal is the Client Protection Program administered by the ARDC.

Combing through the explication and infinitesimal analyses in graphs and charts of the annual report, one learns on page 19 that the CPP has expensed $4,844,825 over 11 years to reimburse 1,181 clients of dishonest lawyers.

The funds are diverted from accrued registration fees. (The ISBA and CBA years ago gave up trying to support a similar program through voluntary contributions.)

A record high mark of $951,173 was paid out last year in retribution for misconduct by 46 disciplined lawyers, but that's not the worst of it. Additional claims totaling $2,878,082 – in just one 12-month period – could not be reimbursed “because of caps and proration.”

Imagine the disillusionment that such shameful venality wreaks on decent people who place trust, and often meager assets, in the hands of lawyers who betray them. Although few in number, these rogues engender ripples of suspicion that dispirit the nobility of the bar.

But hear this, as quoted in the ARDC report in the words of a client whose lawyer gambled away $20,000 from proceeds of her personal injury judgment.

“Please know that I am very grateful for the reimbursement check, and also for the consideration given by all those involved with the Client Protection Program in general. How wonderful to know that the majority of attorneys are trustworthy and that they personally support this program.”

Under the circumstances, such faint praise is at least worthy foil to a pack of lawyer jokes.