Spittle spraying jackasses do not win cases

"Again you accuse me of not dealing in good faith.  This reflects not on me but rather on your poor judgment and your ethics."


This came to me from a lawyer with whom I'd had prior dealings.  It was not the first time that he had put himself in the shoes of his client and insulted me personally despite my super conscious efforts to refer only to his client's settlement offers.


He has ranted to me about how my case is frivolous, how he has rock solid evidence in defense, and how he'll seek attorney's fees for my poorly conceived and frivolous litigation.


This attorney has a penchant for throwing stones from the windows of his glass home.


In reality, my opposing counsel has a website indicating he has a license to practice in three states.  He is only able to practice in one.  He tells me my judgment is questionable, but he went to court in a recent case seeking attorney's fees of eighty eight thousand dollars for his client's dubious ERISA claim.  He had so much great evidence, he got fifteen hundred.   I'll keep this to myself for now.


It is a disservice to a client and to your professional reputation to become so wrapped up in your client's representation that you forget that legal representation of a client is a job.  A job that requires some passion, some doggedness and some toughness, no doubt.  But that passion must be tempered with an underlying sense of detachment and an always obvious measure of respect.


But for their fees, lawyers should not have an emotional or personal attachment to the outcome of a typical damages lawsuit.  It is a mistake to be hostile and disrespectful to your opposing counsel in any event.  This is particularly true if they are detached and capable in their own right.  Cooler heads always prevail in front of a judge.  Even if they are only relatively cooler than the head on the spittle spraying jackass at the other table.


Be the cooler head.


As a final note, be respectful in all communications.   Every email, every text and every voice mail can be used as an exhibit in a motion or memorandum to the Court.    It is doubly painful to be taken down by your own hostile words.  Don't let that happen to you.  

Contractor or employee? Still a burning question.

While I generally represent employees in wage and hour lawsuits, I sometimes represent employers. They want my expertise and my perspective as a plaintiff's attorney.  I am often reluctant to do so, because it forecloses them as potential defendants in the future.  Nonetheless, some small companies are my clients and I can help.

These little companies are start ups, or they were started by a single man or woman doing a job who then needed help.  They put someone to work and then pay them like they themselves had been paid.  That is to say with a flat rate, as a contractor.  These new employers often believe that if they pay someone like a contractor, and tell their employees that they are actually contractors, then voila, they are contractors. 

Oy vey.

In fact, the employer and employee can't make that decision between themselves.  An employee can't waive his status as an employee, nor can he release his employer from liability to pay overtime or SSN benefits, or Medicare, or payroll taxes etc.  If the employers are wrong, then they can find themselves facing hefty IRS claims with fines and penalties, and similar claims by state taxing

authorities asking about where all the withholdings are.  In addition, some of these new employers are in businesses that lead to on-the-job injuries.  If the employer was calling their roofing workers contractors, for instance, and not paying workers compensation insurance, and that worker falls and hurts himself, and then wants medical expenses and lost wages, then the employer will suddenly find that saving a few bucks on payroll taxes has ballooned into a major loss.

The question is control.  States often have statutory definitions of employees and contractors.  They usually employ a control test.  Basically stated, if the person paying for the work provides the work, the tools and resources, controls the worker's hours of work and can discharge the worker for any reason, then the worker is controlled and is an employee.  That classification triggers statutory responsibilities and extra costs. But the extra costs are a fraction of what they could be if the employees are misclassified. 

Often the employer and the "contractor" are okay with their relationship.  The employer has no costs other than paying a straight wage to the worker, and the worker pays no taxes or other withholdings up front.  They may even be getting paid cash.  Everybody is happy.  It's when the relationship sours, usually when someone gets fired or hurt, that the wages of sin are collected.  And it can be an unholy amount of wages.

It is much safer, and less costly and dangerous, not to mention ethically superior, to err on the side of employer/employee rather than contractor/sub contractor.  If it's close, make them employees.  If you have any questions about what's close, then email or phone me.  www.langendorflaw.com.