In your recent article about "incivility" among lawyers, I was amused to see the infamous phrase I coined a decade ago being trotted out by Mr. Carney. I penned the phrase in response to an allegedly more seasoned attorney’s delay tactics and numerous derisive taunts about my lack of trial skills, lack of experience with a particular Judge, and the merits of my client’s case. I chided this attorney for not answering the "damn phone" and I informed him, tongue in cheek, that "a retarded monkey with Alzheimer's" could win the case. Although too flippant in my expressions, I do not regret them. I only lament that your readers do not have the benefit of experiencing the condescending behavior that inspired them.
Fact is, I was as angry then and I am now with the Bar’s Graybeards that ignore the sources of incivility. While a velvet tongue is useful in maintaining civility, there are greater sins of incivility rampant among our judges and the Utah Bar’s senior leadership. These fossils of the imagined halcyon days when all lawyers and judges were civil invariably mislabel frank and direct speech that calls them on their bullish behavior as "uncivil." With self-righteous indignation and the veiled agenda of hobbling their competition, they target younger lawyers or the more flamboyant for punishment for being the alleged epitome of incivility.
While these senior attorneys and judges may never utter a "damn" nor a sarcastic phrase, many are guilty of more substantial incivility. They use their positions and knowledge, not as civilizing tools of persuasion and justice, but as weapons to bludgeon and demonstrate their superiority. They belittle, connive and patronize. They are rude and inpatient, often treating attorneys and parties before them with no concern for their humanity, their schedules or their time. They never enlighten, empathize or apologize. No, the Bar membership does not suffer from a lack of civility, it suffers from a lack of leadership. To the Frank Carneys of the Bar, I say clean up the leadership before you smugly tally the sins of the rank and file.
Loren M. Lambert
August 26, 2003
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Friday, August 1, 2003
Krakauer Coughs Up a Crock
Jon Krakauer recently intimated that the LDS church has culpability for the Lafferty murders. What a crock. He needs to hang out more on death row instead of venturing into thin air. If he did, I suspect he would discover that most murderers have some petty or grandiose excuse for their heinous actions–whether it be the Twinkie defense, the I’m-on-a-diet defense, the I-must-cleanse-humanity defense or the God–told–me-to–do-it defense. Yet, no one suggests the abolishment of Twinkies, diets, politics or religion. Rare is the murderer who admits killing because they’re just a sick bastard who enjoyed it.
Maybe I misunderstood Mr. Krakauer. Maybe what he really meant to say was that many seemingly innocuous entities that teach a particular dogma or set of rules and require obedience thereto harbor fanatics and psychopaths. If so these entities, when possible, should root them out. I agree. It’s farfetched, however, to state that the LDS Church, as an entity, had anything to do with the Lafferty murders. Murderers simply blanket themselves in whatever philosophical cloak that’s at hand to cover the nakedness of their depravity and to comfort their failing consciences. Had the Laffertys been members of the Mickey Mouse Club, we’d probably be reading, "Under the Banner of Mickey," instead of "Under the Banner of Heaven."
Perhaps those reading Mr. Krakauer’s book will misunderstand his message and, like Lenin, will advocate the extermination of religion and its adherents. If they do, they are no better than the Laffertys. Religion is as endemic to human thought as is music. Both course through our souls. Deprived of either we will wither or invent them anew. Fail to choose a religion and a religion will inexorably choose you. It could be the LDS church, the I-hate-religion-religion, the Amway religion, the fans-of–Jon–Krakauer religion, the drunkard’s religion, the AA religion, or even the I-work-and-write-like-a-slave religion. So choose wisely. While the tune of my soul may not be music to your ears, and while your or my religion may cause some to exclaim, "What the %$#?," let’s grant everyone their little piece of faith-based irrationality and then work hard to weed out the zealots and psychopaths.
Loren M. Lambert © August 1st, 2003
Maybe I misunderstood Mr. Krakauer. Maybe what he really meant to say was that many seemingly innocuous entities that teach a particular dogma or set of rules and require obedience thereto harbor fanatics and psychopaths. If so these entities, when possible, should root them out. I agree. It’s farfetched, however, to state that the LDS Church, as an entity, had anything to do with the Lafferty murders. Murderers simply blanket themselves in whatever philosophical cloak that’s at hand to cover the nakedness of their depravity and to comfort their failing consciences. Had the Laffertys been members of the Mickey Mouse Club, we’d probably be reading, "Under the Banner of Mickey," instead of "Under the Banner of Heaven."
Perhaps those reading Mr. Krakauer’s book will misunderstand his message and, like Lenin, will advocate the extermination of religion and its adherents. If they do, they are no better than the Laffertys. Religion is as endemic to human thought as is music. Both course through our souls. Deprived of either we will wither or invent them anew. Fail to choose a religion and a religion will inexorably choose you. It could be the LDS church, the I-hate-religion-religion, the Amway religion, the fans-of–Jon–Krakauer religion, the drunkard’s religion, the AA religion, or even the I-work-and-write-like-a-slave religion. So choose wisely. While the tune of my soul may not be music to your ears, and while your or my religion may cause some to exclaim, "What the %$#?," let’s grant everyone their little piece of faith-based irrationality and then work hard to weed out the zealots and psychopaths.
Loren M. Lambert © August 1st, 2003
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Kobe vs. the Rape Shield Doctrine
Only two people know what happened that led to charges being filed against Kobe Bryant--Kobe and his accuser--not the prosecutor, not the defense, not his wife, not her mother, not the media and not you, or I. As the media furor kicks into full gear to feed our voyeuristic pleasure, please keep this in mind before passing judgment. Better yet, don’t pass any judgment, just pray that the jury makes the right decision.
We live in a society where rape and its bedfellows go more undetected than deterred and where simultaneously the temptation to bear false witness grows in proportion to the size of the alleged perpetrator’s billfold or the needs of the alleged victim’s ego. Under such circumstances, prosecutors are under enormous pressure to charge and convict, sometimes at all costs. Likewise, defense counsel feel the strain of knowing that of all crimes, rape charges bear a greater probability of the innocent being convicted.
Why? Because Kobe will go one on one in a battle that years ago was tipped in favor of the accuser because of the overly zealous application of the Rape Shield Doctrine that bars evidence of the accuser’s sexual proclivities and incredulity. This Doctrine has legalized the presumption that, unlike brutish men, woman never maliciously lie about or use sex or the lack thereof to gain an advantage. This has the effect of nullifying the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. Kobe therefore faces the fight of his life. Hopefully, despite the Doctrine, either the jury will acquit in the face of inconclusive evidence or, under the best scenario, there will be convincing evidence leaving no doubt about Kobe’s guilt or innocence. But this rarely happens, especially with rape. Hence, under the Rape Shield Doctrine, in a close case if there is evidence that the accuser has used sex to falsely accuse or to blackmail, Kobe will not be allowed to present this evidence.
Because of this, I do not champion nor condemn Kobe or his accuser. I merely pray hoping the worst does not occur--that the Doctrine prevents a presentation of the truth and the jury thereby convicts an innocent man. If so, we will all lose and have complicity in his loss. However, quickly forgetting, we’ll turn off our televisions and turn in for bed while Kobe, never to forget, will turn in his yellow Laker’s uniform for an orange prison jumpsuit.
Loren M. Lambert
July 29, 2003
We live in a society where rape and its bedfellows go more undetected than deterred and where simultaneously the temptation to bear false witness grows in proportion to the size of the alleged perpetrator’s billfold or the needs of the alleged victim’s ego. Under such circumstances, prosecutors are under enormous pressure to charge and convict, sometimes at all costs. Likewise, defense counsel feel the strain of knowing that of all crimes, rape charges bear a greater probability of the innocent being convicted.
Why? Because Kobe will go one on one in a battle that years ago was tipped in favor of the accuser because of the overly zealous application of the Rape Shield Doctrine that bars evidence of the accuser’s sexual proclivities and incredulity. This Doctrine has legalized the presumption that, unlike brutish men, woman never maliciously lie about or use sex or the lack thereof to gain an advantage. This has the effect of nullifying the presumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. Kobe therefore faces the fight of his life. Hopefully, despite the Doctrine, either the jury will acquit in the face of inconclusive evidence or, under the best scenario, there will be convincing evidence leaving no doubt about Kobe’s guilt or innocence. But this rarely happens, especially with rape. Hence, under the Rape Shield Doctrine, in a close case if there is evidence that the accuser has used sex to falsely accuse or to blackmail, Kobe will not be allowed to present this evidence.
Because of this, I do not champion nor condemn Kobe or his accuser. I merely pray hoping the worst does not occur--that the Doctrine prevents a presentation of the truth and the jury thereby convicts an innocent man. If so, we will all lose and have complicity in his loss. However, quickly forgetting, we’ll turn off our televisions and turn in for bed while Kobe, never to forget, will turn in his yellow Laker’s uniform for an orange prison jumpsuit.
Loren M. Lambert
July 29, 2003
Saturday, January 18, 2003
Orrin Hatch, Would Be Priest of the Flag Worship Cult
Under the influence of a Peyote-spiked humidifier, mixed with an ample helping of Mormon mythology, a prepubescent Orrin Hatch envisioned the U.S. Constitution hanging by a thread. In his delirium, he noticed that the thread was a tattered Red, White and Blue. He saw the country wallowing in debt, drugs and depravity. He further envisioned, to his horror, the Old Glory, a door mat here, a bikini over there, and worst of all, the sodden swaddle of an infant. When he thought it couldn’t get any worse, he then spied hundreds of unkempt citizens burning flags. No, he wailed, not this! Then a voice rang out, "Orrin, save Old Glory and save the country." Waking in a sweat he then knew his destiny was to save the flag and be crowned the Constitution’s unquestioned savior.
Knowing this, you should forgive Orrin for his misguided flag fixation. In his mind, patriotism is not borne of having the most vibrant, free and just democracy in the world but by ensuring, under the threat of prison, that we all revere, worship and display Old Glory in exactly the same manner. To accomplish this he will have himself and others legislatively ordained the High Priests of the Flag Worship Cult. Then, to ensure that no insecure American is ever again offended by some tasteless display of flag abuse, these Priests will instruct us in proper flag worship rituals.
Things could have been different. You see, the prepubescent Orrin woke too soon from his vision and the poor thing never saw it all. With just a little more Peyote in his humidifier, the youthful Orrin would have seen that the alarming rate in flag-burning tendencies in our future citizenry was the result of fascist laws allowing unbridled searches and seizures, unlimited surveillance into our private lives, the elimination of our freedoms of speech and disempowering of "we the people."
Hence, for the love of Pete, we should urge Senator Hatch to get with his buddy Senator Bennett, rev up his old Peyote-spiked humidifier and finish the vision. If he does, he will realize that to ensure proper reverence toward the Old Red, White and Blue, instead of passing laws to force citizens into an outward display of ritual flag worship, he should work to ensure that because of our country’s greatness, a majority of our citizens will, from the bottom of their heartfelt patriotism, voluntarily give Old Glory and maybe even Senator Hatch their due respect.
Loren M. Lambert, January 18, 2003
Knowing this, you should forgive Orrin for his misguided flag fixation. In his mind, patriotism is not borne of having the most vibrant, free and just democracy in the world but by ensuring, under the threat of prison, that we all revere, worship and display Old Glory in exactly the same manner. To accomplish this he will have himself and others legislatively ordained the High Priests of the Flag Worship Cult. Then, to ensure that no insecure American is ever again offended by some tasteless display of flag abuse, these Priests will instruct us in proper flag worship rituals.
Things could have been different. You see, the prepubescent Orrin woke too soon from his vision and the poor thing never saw it all. With just a little more Peyote in his humidifier, the youthful Orrin would have seen that the alarming rate in flag-burning tendencies in our future citizenry was the result of fascist laws allowing unbridled searches and seizures, unlimited surveillance into our private lives, the elimination of our freedoms of speech and disempowering of "we the people."
Hence, for the love of Pete, we should urge Senator Hatch to get with his buddy Senator Bennett, rev up his old Peyote-spiked humidifier and finish the vision. If he does, he will realize that to ensure proper reverence toward the Old Red, White and Blue, instead of passing laws to force citizens into an outward display of ritual flag worship, he should work to ensure that because of our country’s greatness, a majority of our citizens will, from the bottom of their heartfelt patriotism, voluntarily give Old Glory and maybe even Senator Hatch their due respect.
Loren M. Lambert, January 18, 2003
Friday, January 17, 2003
Corporate Welfare and the Alleged Medical Malpractice Crisis
President Bush says we’re too litigious, and he’s right. Every time there is a disagreement that cannot be resolved, instead of shooting each other, litigation breaks out like zeros in an attorney’s bank account. Then, after all the evidence is presented, either a judge or a jury from the American public decides the outcome. Apparently, the President thinks that placing such trust in the public is as foolhardy as allowing a majority vote to elect the presidency; Both just lead to bad results. He also claims that because we are too litigious, doctors can’t pay for malpractice insurance (which costs are really passed on to us). To solve this problem, he suggests that instead of judges and juries deciding damages, he, congress and the insurance companies should arbitrarily cap them. He is wrong.
In comparison to the enormous profits made, medical malpractice premiums are no more expensive than other liability policies. The fact is that the insurance industry is orchestrating this alleged "medical malpractice crisis" to obtain legislative corporate welfare. It works like this: Medical malpractice cases are the most difficult case to win because: (1) contrary to some whiners’ beliefs, the medical profession is cut more slack by American juries than any other, and (2), the medical profession will not police its own. Knowing this, insurance carriers, even in the face obvious malpractice, instruct their attorneys and doctors to litigate instead of settle. Hence they pay millions to their attorneys, expert witnesses, and adjustors. Consequently, infinitely more money is spent defending malpractice claims than is ever spent paying them. Making matters worse, as is corporate America’s custom, insurance CEOs are paid millions for the bad management.
So now, instead of suffering the consequences of their decisions, they have found an easy dupe in the President. If they can get him to push through legislation that will artificially cap damages awarded to the victims of medical malpractice, they can deflect attention from their bad management practices and pocket the savings. There is a better way. Before taking money from people who usually will need catastrophically expensive medical care, let’s cap the salaries of insurance CEOs, the salaries of insurance industries’ attorneys, and charges for medical care.
Loren M. Lambert, January 17, 2003
In comparison to the enormous profits made, medical malpractice premiums are no more expensive than other liability policies. The fact is that the insurance industry is orchestrating this alleged "medical malpractice crisis" to obtain legislative corporate welfare. It works like this: Medical malpractice cases are the most difficult case to win because: (1) contrary to some whiners’ beliefs, the medical profession is cut more slack by American juries than any other, and (2), the medical profession will not police its own. Knowing this, insurance carriers, even in the face obvious malpractice, instruct their attorneys and doctors to litigate instead of settle. Hence they pay millions to their attorneys, expert witnesses, and adjustors. Consequently, infinitely more money is spent defending malpractice claims than is ever spent paying them. Making matters worse, as is corporate America’s custom, insurance CEOs are paid millions for the bad management.
So now, instead of suffering the consequences of their decisions, they have found an easy dupe in the President. If they can get him to push through legislation that will artificially cap damages awarded to the victims of medical malpractice, they can deflect attention from their bad management practices and pocket the savings. There is a better way. Before taking money from people who usually will need catastrophically expensive medical care, let’s cap the salaries of insurance CEOs, the salaries of insurance industries’ attorneys, and charges for medical care.
Loren M. Lambert, January 17, 2003
Monday, November 4, 2002
Body Art and Breasts
Does anyone besides me find it incongruous that the generation that made slicing and then stuffing a woman’s breasts with silicone as ubiquitous as male circumcision would dare condemn the current body piercing and tattooing rage as having attracted the full frontal wrath of God? Now that I mention it, where was that wrath when the Israelites introduced adult male circumcision?
Mind you, although in private I might admit to an occasional inkling that such things could be delightfully titillating in the right circumstances, I am generally not a fan of multiple body piercings and tattoos. That is my choice and preference. But why don’t our religious leaders find enhancing one’s breasts just as ungodly a practice as piercing or poking one’s skin? While the burgeoning breasts of their parishioners may have understandably escaped their notice, could it be that since breast "artists" have the sacrosanct title of doctor, wear a suit and live in a mansion that their laying on of hands is somehow less evocative than the tattoo artist's handiwork upon the same? Are sex-based Barbie values somehow more palatable than sex-based Tattoo Parlor values? And other than reconstruction after a mastectomy or some other disfiguring tragedy, don’t tell me that breast enlargements have nothing to do with sex or feeling and being seen as sexy. It certainly isn’t done to enhance their functionality for breast feeding or for some other utilitarian purpose like keeping the cows at bay come milking time; nor have I heard of them being marketed for use as auxiliary airbags or flotation devices.
Fact is, they have everything to do with sex. (Is this a surprise?) Moreover, unlike tattoos and piercings, most women who elect to have their otherwise perfect breasts enlarged do so because of our culture’s dictation of what is sexy. Let’s admit that before we claim that one particular body-mutilation art is somehow more evil or more damaging than another. As for me, and I hope other men, although nurture and nature may have inclined our eye toward the more visible of nature’s mammary organs, and although the occasional trinket or discreetly placed tattoo may momentarily intrigue--poise and knowing how to use what God has blessed you with will always trump as more sexy the body artist’s embellishments of breast and skin. Vivé la natural!
Loren M. Lambert
© November 4, 2002
Mind you, although in private I might admit to an occasional inkling that such things could be delightfully titillating in the right circumstances, I am generally not a fan of multiple body piercings and tattoos. That is my choice and preference. But why don’t our religious leaders find enhancing one’s breasts just as ungodly a practice as piercing or poking one’s skin? While the burgeoning breasts of their parishioners may have understandably escaped their notice, could it be that since breast "artists" have the sacrosanct title of doctor, wear a suit and live in a mansion that their laying on of hands is somehow less evocative than the tattoo artist's handiwork upon the same? Are sex-based Barbie values somehow more palatable than sex-based Tattoo Parlor values? And other than reconstruction after a mastectomy or some other disfiguring tragedy, don’t tell me that breast enlargements have nothing to do with sex or feeling and being seen as sexy. It certainly isn’t done to enhance their functionality for breast feeding or for some other utilitarian purpose like keeping the cows at bay come milking time; nor have I heard of them being marketed for use as auxiliary airbags or flotation devices.
Fact is, they have everything to do with sex. (Is this a surprise?) Moreover, unlike tattoos and piercings, most women who elect to have their otherwise perfect breasts enlarged do so because of our culture’s dictation of what is sexy. Let’s admit that before we claim that one particular body-mutilation art is somehow more evil or more damaging than another. As for me, and I hope other men, although nurture and nature may have inclined our eye toward the more visible of nature’s mammary organs, and although the occasional trinket or discreetly placed tattoo may momentarily intrigue--poise and knowing how to use what God has blessed you with will always trump as more sexy the body artist’s embellishments of breast and skin. Vivé la natural!
Loren M. Lambert
© November 4, 2002
Thursday, October 31, 2002
Utah and the Nations' Most Compelling Political Issue
If you care about all that we hold dear in this great nation of freedom and do not heed my words, I guarantee that the progress we have made as a nation in over two centuries will be squandered away in less than a decade. I’m talking about a scourge that is more dire than all the drugs, sex and unfettered-cartoon watching put together. Moreover, it’s spreading rapidly across the nation. If left unchecked and not completely reversed, this nation will soon be populated with a generation of pussy-footed, uninitiated men and vulgar, sweaty women. Have you guessed yet? That’s right, I was appalled to recently learn from my own baggy-pant-
wearing son, and confirmed this with several fellow parents with teens that kids don’t have to shower after gym. Hence, thousands of teens across the nation are leaving their gym classes sticky, sweaty and dripping with day-old pore-expressed pheromones. It should make you shudder in horror.
And why? Think for a moment. When you’re in an elevator, sitting in the sauna, taking the bus, or at a concert what do you care more about--that the person next to you knows how to breakdown a sentence or that he or she bathed. Moreover, how many memories do you have from your high school science, English and geography classes? Now, how many memories do you have from showering after your gym classes? See my point. While our children will quickly forget their ninth grade math class, they will never forget and always cherish the lick of that wet towel on their bare rear. Yes, there’s nothing quite like the fear, exhilaration, embarrassment, and growth they experience washing their morphing bodies in the company of their fellow classmates. Fact is, kids learn more about physiology, psychology, physics, etc. during the ten minutes of towel flipping, butt slapping, and youthful exuberance of showering after their gym classes than all the other time in school. But more important, they learn the proper use of water, soap and deodorant before entering the work force. Let’s not deprive them of this important adolescent ritual.
I therefore urge you, don’t vote for anyone that isn’t willing to make showering in our schools a legislative priority.
Loren M. Lambert
October 31, 2002
wearing son, and confirmed this with several fellow parents with teens that kids don’t have to shower after gym. Hence, thousands of teens across the nation are leaving their gym classes sticky, sweaty and dripping with day-old pore-expressed pheromones. It should make you shudder in horror.
And why? Think for a moment. When you’re in an elevator, sitting in the sauna, taking the bus, or at a concert what do you care more about--that the person next to you knows how to breakdown a sentence or that he or she bathed. Moreover, how many memories do you have from your high school science, English and geography classes? Now, how many memories do you have from showering after your gym classes? See my point. While our children will quickly forget their ninth grade math class, they will never forget and always cherish the lick of that wet towel on their bare rear. Yes, there’s nothing quite like the fear, exhilaration, embarrassment, and growth they experience washing their morphing bodies in the company of their fellow classmates. Fact is, kids learn more about physiology, psychology, physics, etc. during the ten minutes of towel flipping, butt slapping, and youthful exuberance of showering after their gym classes than all the other time in school. But more important, they learn the proper use of water, soap and deodorant before entering the work force. Let’s not deprive them of this important adolescent ritual.
I therefore urge you, don’t vote for anyone that isn’t willing to make showering in our schools a legislative priority.
Loren M. Lambert
October 31, 2002
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)