How many lawyers do we have here?

[tth2]

a lot of the work I'm doing now is on mass tort litigation involving pharmaceutical companies...

 

MUST...RESIST...NEW...URGE...TO...PICK...FIGHT!

 

So I guess if I call you Bill Lerach, you won't be mortally offended in the way that FFB was?

[esquirecomics]

Also planning on applying to the FBI.

 

Before you get far into the application process for the FBI, or any federal agency, talk with me first so I can give you some advice on what to and what not to say on your applications, and particularly how to pass your polygraph exam if you get that far. I've been fighting against pre-employment polygraphs for years.

 

The Washington Post

 

April 16, 2002 Tuesday

Final Edition

 

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A19

 

LENGTH: 813 words

 

HEADLINE: Failure of the Polygraph

 

BYLINE: Mark S. Zaid

 

BODY:

 

 

In the wake of the FBI's embarrassment at having one of its own caught spying for the Russians, former FBI director William Webster was appointed to head a commission to find out what went wrong. The commission concluded that lax security allowed Special Agent Robert Hanssen to elude capture. In an anticipatory response, FBI Director Robert Mueller announced that the FBI will dramatically increase the use of lie detectors, beginning with more than 1,000 of its employees. Such a move would be a substantial mistake. Continuing expansion of polygraph use guarantees the demoralization of the work force and the destruction of the careers of many innocent and loyal federal employees.

 

The FBI implemented its present policy in March 1994, in the wake of the Aldrich Ames CIA spy case, and then expanded testing following Hanssen's arrest. The FBI claims that fewer than 10 exams have raised red flags among the 700 who were tested, but no details have been provided. Yet no scientific evidence exists demonstrating that polygraph screening tests, whether administered during the application process or as part of a routine security reinvestigation, have any validity. Studies undertaken for the Department of Defense's Polygraph Institute, which trains FBI polygraphers, reveal that screening tests fail time after time.

 

In fact, the polygraph determines whether a person is lying with accuracy only slightly greater than chance. Moreover, studies have repeatedly shown that the polygraph is more likely to find innocent people guilty than vice versa.

 

Even Attorney General John Ashcroft has admitted that polygraph tests have at least a 15 percent false positive rate. That means a significant percentage of truthful individuals will be falsely labeled and investigated as drug users, terrorists and spies, oftentimes without any opportunity to respond.

 

In 1997 the FBI laboratory's polygraph unit chief swore to a U.S. military court that "(a) the polygraph technique has not reached a level of acceptability within the relevant scientific community, (b) scientific research has not been able to establish the true validity of polygraph testing in criminal applications, © there is a lack of standardization within the polygraph community for training and for conducting polygraph examinations."

 

The next year, the government told the U.S. Supreme Court that polygraph evidence should be inadmissible because of its inaccuracy. Thus a serious inconsistency exists between this position and the government's extensive use of polygraphs to make vital security and preemployment determinations.

 

Today the outcry for increasing the use of polygraph examinations arises in the context of catching spies. The fact is that even had Hanssen taken a polygraph -- in his 25 years with the FBI he never did -- the likelihood is that he would have passed.

 

The polygraph does little to expose spies. The recent conviction of Ana Belen Montes, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who spied for Cuba, once again proves this point. Montes spied for nearly 20 years and passed several polygraph examinations.

 

Ames, the CIA official turned-spy, convinced his polygraph examiners at least twice that "deceptive" readings were easily explainable. As a result, Ames "passed" his tests. During the 1980s, approximately 30 Cubans who served as CIA spies passed extensive polygraph examinations.

 

Following the defection and debriefing of a Cuban intelligence officer, it was revealed that the CIA's "Cuban agents" were actually double agents for the Cuban government. Indeed, the federal government has never acknowledged that a true spy has been caught solely because of the polygraph.

 

With the known problems surrounding the reliability of the polygraph and its unsuccessful history of exposing spies, any serious review should persuade the government to eliminate rather than expand its use. The National Academy of Sciences may soon be that messenger. Since January 2001, it has been conducting a scientific review of the research on polygraph examinations that pertains to their validity and reliability, in particular for personnel security screening. Its final report is due to be submitted later this year.

 

If the FBI truly wants to expose spies, it may wish to consider another creation of William M. Marston, whom many consider the father of the modern polygraph. Under his pseudonym, "Charles Moulton," Marston created the popular comic book character Wonder Woman. It is no coincidence that her magic lasso requires those who are bound in it to tell the truth. To discover if other Hanssens exist among its ranks, the FBI might as well put its faith in the magic lasso as depend on the reliability of the polygraph. Both are based on science fiction.

 

The writer, a Washington lawyer, is litigating a federal challenge to the constitutionality of polygraph examinations.

[Murph]

Interesting article.

 

And on that note with regards to the FBI. I think everyone should go there and fill out a "placement" survey. It's how they recommend jobs for you, apparently. I tried it and got "clandestine operative", aka.. the guy who gets killed in foreign countries.

 

Brian

[esquirecomics]

If the FBI truly wants to expose spies, it may wish to consider another creation of William M. Marston, whom many consider the father of the modern polygraph. Under his pseudonym, "Charles Moulton," Marston created the popular comic book character Wonder Woman. It is no coincidence that her magic lasso requires those who are bound in it to tell the truth. To discover if other Hanssens exist among its ranks, the FBI might as well put its faith in the magic lasso as depend on the reliability of the polygraph. Both are based on science fiction.

 

I figured this last paragraph would be of particular interest to everyone.

[october]

Nice article. While I plan on applying to the FBI, I do have some misgivings. Like you, I think polygraphs are unreliable at best. I also think their "drug standards" are unfortunate and borderline ludicrous. In any case, I won't be applying for at least 6 months. When that gets closer I might PM you to see what you have got to say.

[Foolkiller]

I had a friend of mine at the DA's office in Philly who went to the FBI. I was amazed he got in. Wasn't the brightest bulb on broadway, but he was one of the smoothest liars I ever knew. He was also compulsive. Regardless, I thought he was a real nice guy... so I was happy for him... but I'm little afraid he's a member of the FBI.

 

Anyway, tth, yeah, even though I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, you'd be surprised how philosophically I'm probably not as gung ho as most of my colleagues. I go to these conferences where all the other plaintiff's lawyers are talking about their multi million dollar verdicts and how they're crusading against the "evil" pharmaceutical companies and just roll my eyes.

[FFB]

I had a friend of mine at the DA's office in Philly who went to the FBI. I was amazed he got in. Wasn't the brightest bulb on broadway, but he was one of the smoothest liars I ever knew. He was also compulsive. Regardless, I thought he was a real nice guy... so I was happy for him... but I'm little afraid he's a member of the FBI.

 

Anyway, tth, yeah, even though I'm a plaintiff's lawyer, you'd be surprised how philosophically I'm probably not as gung ho as most of my colleagues. I go to these conferences where all the other plaintiff's lawyers are talking about their multi million dollar verdicts and how they're crusading against the "evil" pharmaceutical companies and just roll my eyes.

 

I started out on the plaintiff's side (personal injury and employment law though -- not securities or mass tort/products liability) before switching to the big firm life, and I know exactly what you're talking about. The way those guys pretend like they are saving the world is laughable. Few of them care about justice. It's all about getting money for the client, whether the client has a legitimate claim (or is telling the truth) or not.

[Foolkiller]

Yeah, I know that there are gross violations by these corporations, but plaintiff's law is like anything else, a business. Everyone is trying to hustle and strike it rich. The DA's office always had it's problems, but I genuinely believed most people were trying to do the right thing there. I think each side has their down side in personalities... big firm culture has a certain mentality, plaintiff's lawyers have a certain mentality, DAs, criminal defense attorneys etc.,

 

at the end of the day, I really think in house counsel have a great gig. Not that it's easy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think, from others I've heard from, that's one of the better jobs you can have as a lawyer.

[Jeffreykli]

at the end of the day, I really think in house counsel have a great gig. Not that it's easy by any stretch of the imagination, but I do think, from others I've heard from, that's one of the better jobs you can have as a lawyer.

 

The biggest change for me so far (only been in-house for 5 months or so) has been the philosophical switch from big firm life. In a big firm, associates are seen as profit centers, where the goal is the biggest number of billable (and collectible) hours. In house, the legal department is seen as a cost center, and is often the group telling sales or marketing "no." Also, the politics are quite different; in my big firm experience, there really weren't that many turf battles. In house, it's finance versus operations, versus IT, versus sales versus marketing, etc.

 

But, by and large, I find in-house the best situation for me. I was never a huge biller, because I'm pretty efficient and am quick to understand a situation. In private practice, where your output is measured by billable hours, efficiency is not the goal. However now, if I finish my work, I leave.

[Norrin_Radd]

I sold a book to sullypython a little while ago. Nice guy. Name's Steve Sullivan, though I have no idea what kind of law he practices.

 

I'm sure he has alot of nice books. He's beaten me out of a few on eBay. Lately, it was the perfect Special Marvel Edition #15 CGC 9.8.

 

 

Oh well, he was willing to pay "way more" than I was apparently.

[Foolkiller]

pedigreecomics.com has a nice CGC 9.8 of that book... but I wouldn't want to pay too highly for that book myself.

[tth2]

I go to these conferences where all the other plaintiff's lawyers are talking about their multi million dollar verdicts and how they're crusading against the "evil" pharmaceutical companies and just roll my eyes.

 

[tth2]

It's all about getting money for the client, whether the client has a legitimate claim (or is telling the truth) or not.

 

Translation: it's all about getting money for the plaintiff's lawyer.

 

Please, if there was any concern for the client at all, you would NEVER see plaintiff's lawyers agreeing to settlements where the plaintiffs get rebate coupons or some such non-monetary payment, while the lawyers of course get their 40% cut in cold hard cash. One of the tort reforms that should be passed, which no one ever talks about, is a requirement that lawyers being paid on contingency should be paid in the same currency that their clients are getting paid. And if the lawyers cared about their clients, then the winners of the really big class action suits would never take the full 40% cut.

[FFB]

It's all about getting money for the client, whether the client has a legitimate claim (or is telling the truth) or not.

 

Translation: it's all about getting money for the plaintiff's lawyer.

 

Please, if there was any concern for the client at all, you would NEVER see plaintiff's lawyers agreeing to settlements where the plaintiffs get rebate coupons or some such non-monetary payment, while the lawyers of course get their 40% cut in cold hard cash. One of the tort reforms that should be passed, which no one ever talks about, is a requirement that lawyers being paid on contingency should be paid in the same currency that their clients are getting paid. And if the lawyers cared about their clients, then the winners of the really big class action suits would never take the full 40% cut.

 

You're reading way too much into what I wrote, Tim. I certainly did not mean to give the impression that plaintiff's lawyers care about their clients. What I meant was that all they care about is getting money for the client so that they can get their fee out of it.

[tth2]

It's all about getting money for the client, whether the client has a legitimate claim (or is telling the truth) or not.

 

Translation: it's all about getting money for the plaintiff's lawyer.

 

Please, if there was any concern for the client at all, you would NEVER see plaintiff's lawyers agreeing to settlements where the plaintiffs get rebate coupons or some such non-monetary payment, while the lawyers of course get their 40% cut in cold hard cash. One of the tort reforms that should be passed, which no one ever talks about, is a requirement that lawyers being paid on contingency should be paid in the same currency that their clients are getting paid. And if the lawyers cared about their clients, then the winners of the really big class action suits would never take the full 40% cut.

 

You're reading way too much into what I wrote, Tim. I certainly did not mean to give the impression that plaintiff's lawyers care about their clients. What I meant was that all they care about is getting money for the client so that they can get their fee out of it.

 

You have learned much, Grasshopper! My work is done here.

[Foolkiller]

As you can guess, I'm not a huge fan of Plaintiff's lawyers (even though I am one) because I see them as just as greedy as the corporations that they are trying many times to fleece. Or the insurance companies or whatever.

 

Of course, there are many, many legitimate claims. The problem is that corporations many times (especially in products liability cases) do some fairly outrageous things. Sometimes I have to wonder what some of these managers and corp execs were thinking by writing down and communicating some of their "marketing strategies" that they come up with.

 

But... I will say (and this is not directed at FFB at all) that many big firm lawyers get in the practice of over billing, double billing etc., and that lawyers on both sides are really about one thing: money.

 

However, I find on the defense side, they at least admit that it's all about money. On the plaintiff's side, they're all pretending like they're saving the world. Maybe it's because I spent time dealing with people who had real problems and real safety concerns that I'm not as sympathetic to somebody who basically has no injuries but "might" have some twenty years from now (but it doesn't even look like it).

[FFB]

As you can guess, I'm not a huge fan of Plaintiff's lawyers (even though I am one) because I see them as just as greedy as the corporations that they are trying many times to fleece. Or the insurance companies or whatever.

 

Of course, there are many, many legitimate claims. The problem is that corporations many times (especially in products liability cases) do some fairly outrageous things. Sometimes I have to wonder what some of these managers and corp execs were thinking by writing down and communicating some of their "marketing strategies" that they come up with.

 

But... I will say (and this is not directed at FFB at all) that many big firm lawyers get in the practice of over billing, double billing etc., and that lawyers on both sides are really about one thing: money.

 

However, I find on the defense side, they at least admit that it's all about money. On the plaintiff's side, they're all pretending like they're saving the world. Maybe it's because I spent time dealing with people who had real problems and real safety concerns that I'm not as sympathetic to somebody who basically has no injuries but "might" have some twenty years from now (but it doesn't even look like it).

 

I can only speak from my own experience, but overbilling/padding does not happen at big firms in litigation as much as you might think. First of all, every client I have is extremely sophisticated and in almost every case, used to be a big firm partner. There are tight budgets given out for every case and the client usually knows how long it takes to draft a letter, review a box of documents, oppose a summary judgment motion, etc., especially when he's paying $385 an hour for me to do it.

 

In many cases, even when an associate or partner legitimately spends a significant amount of time on a given task, the partner will cut the hours down in the bill so that the client will not get upset. In my six years of working on a billable hour basis, I can recall only two clients who complained about their bills: one of them complained every month no matter how much or how little work was being done, and the other one (whose total bill over the course of a year and a half from initiating my investigation, drafting pleadings, conducting written discovery and three depositions, defending against a motions to dismiss, hiring an auditing expert and bringing him up to speed on the issues, opposing a motion for summary judgment, participating in three unsuccessful mediations, and negotiating an eventual settlement, came to less than $100K ) just didn't want to come to grips with how much it costs when you want to sue the directors of a company you invested in when they sell it out from under you, pocket the dough, and leave you twisting in the wind -- even though my initial pre-trial case budget was twice what it wound up costing him.

 

I certainly can't speak for every firm and I am sure that overbilling/padding does happen, but in my experience, clients know when they're being screwed and they usually do something about it -- i.e., hire another firm. On corporate transactional matters such as IPOs, though, well, there is plenty of sitting around at the printer going on that is being billed out at premium rates.

[mrwoogieman]

A friend of mine was an associate at an insurance defense firm and he used to double and sometimes triple bill, and the partners approved of the practice (or rather, I should say their silence condoned his actions). What he would do is go to court for some conferences, maybe two or three in one morning, and he would bill each client the full time he was at Court instead of dividing his total time by the number of clients and billing them their fair portion. So on certain days he would have 9 hours billing in by 12:30 p.m. The subject was never raised at his reviews or during any discussion of his time, and his bonus was tied to amount of billables so certainly the law firm was looking at the amount of hours at least on a monthly and annual basis.

 

This guy also described the billing process as arduous to say the least because several of the insurance company clients would send the law firm's bills out to third-party auditors who would review the bills with a microscope seeking to cut any hours they could. The auditors would only be paid based upon how much they could cut from the legal bills. Plus the lawyers had to track their time in tenths of an hour (six minute intervals), rather than the standard (and easier) quarter-hour billing method.

 

In order to get around this, the partner handling those clients would have monthly billing meetings and hand out a glossary of terms for the associates to use on their timesheets, and he would admonish them, you can't say 'review file', but you can say 'preparation for court conference', can't say 'spoke with partner regarding x' because only partners billed for conferences with associates, so the associate's time would be adjusted to 'draft memo to file re: whatever the subject of the conversation with the partner was'.

 

All way too complicated and big-brotherish for my tastes.

[FFB]

A friend of mine was an associate at an insurance defense firm and he used to double and sometimes triple bill, and the partners approved of the practice (or rather, I should say their silence condoned his actions).

 

I can't really speak to what goes on at insurance defense firms, as they are a different kind of animal entirely. Personally, I have never understood how those firms can stay in business in a market like the SF Bay Area when the insurance companies that pay them refuse to pay more than $140 per hour for partners and $125 for associates. I guess your post clarifies how the math works there.

[tth2]

On corporate transactional matters such as IPOs, though, well, there is plenty of sitting around at the printer going on that is being billed out at premium rates.

 

If you're sitting around at the printer at the behest of the client, I think you're entitled to bill the time. Believe me, I had better things to do at 3 am then sit around and wait for new proofs, or watch some stupid eager beaver junior investment banker whipping out a protractor to make sure the angle of the disclaimer on the cover matched the investment bank's house style (all the young 'un lawyers out there won't know what the hell I'm talking about, as this particular type of madness was eliminated when the SEC instituted their "plain english" rules).