Category Archives: legal news opinions

b e r k e s l a w Well, You Asked It

Well, You Asked It

A whole lot of crazy takes place in courtrooms. As a lawyer I can tell you that no matter how good something may sound the night before, the best laid plans can go horribly awry in open court, and outrageous (and unintended) exchanges occur as a result.  Then, of course, there are those occasions when people act as their own counsel, an often regrettable decision. More crazy.  Whatever the case, below you will read real-life courtroom exchanges, repeated word for word, as recorded by court reporters who labored to remain straight-faced whilst typing some of the most ridiculous conversations ever committed to paper. Please enjoy: Truth is most definitely stranger (or at least funnier) than fiction.

Lawyer: “Doctor, did you say he was shot in the woods?”

Witness: “No, I said he was shot in the lumbar region.”

 

Lawyer: “What is your marital status?”

Witness: “Fair.”

 

Lawyer: “Are you married?”

Witness: “No, I’m divorced.”

Lawyer: “And what did your husband do before you divorced him?”

Witness: “A lot of things I didn’t know about.”

 

Lawyer: “And who is this person you are speaking of?”

Witness: “My ex-widow said it.

 

Lawyer: “How did you happen to go to Dr. Cherney?”

Witness: “Well, a gal down the road had had several of her children by Dr. Cherney and said he was really good.”

 

Lawyer: “Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?”

Witness: “All my autopsies have been performed on dead people.”

 

Lawyer: “Were you acquainted with the deceased?”

Witness: “Yes sir.”

Lawyer: “Before or after he died?”

 

Lawyer: “Mrs. Jones, is your appearance this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?”

Witness: “No. This is how I dress when I go to work.”

 

The Court: “Now, as we begin, I must ask you to banish all present information and prejudice from your minds, if you have any.”

 

Lawyer: “Did he pick the dog up by the ears?”

Witness: “No.”

Lawyer: “What was he doing with the dog’s ears?”

Witness: “Picking them up in the air.”

Lawyer: “Where was the dog at this time?”

Witness: “Attached to the ears.”

 

Lawyer: “When he went, had you gone and had she, if she wanted to and were able, for the time being excluding all the restraints on her not to go, gone also, would he have brought you, meaning you and she, with him to the station?”

Other Lawyer: “Objection. That question should be taken out and shot.”

 

Lawyer: “And lastly, Gary, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”

Witness: “Oral.”

Lawyer: “How old are you?”

Witness: “Oral.”

 

Lawyer: “What is your relationship with the plaintiff?”

Witness: “She is my daughter.”

Lawyer: “Was she your daughter on February 13, 1979?”

 

Lawyer: “Now, you have investigated other murders, have you not, where there was a victim?”

 

Lawyer: “Now, doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, in most cases he just passes quietly away and doesn’t know anything about it until the next morning?”

Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former "Over-Biller" – Berkeslaw

Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over-Biller”

 

 

Guilty as Charged: Confessions of a Former “Over Biller”

or

How to Stop Getting Ripped Off by Lazy Lawyers

Yeah, I said it. Guilty as charged.  When I began practicing law 32 years ago at the Los Angeles office of a tony, New York based law firm, the second thing I was taught by my mentors was how to bill clients.  The first was where the “Gent’s” was located.  Yup, billing is that important (to us), and “block billing” was what we were taught.  Calculated in quarter-hours.  And the client always lost.

So, before the days of the contingency fee (when the lawyer gets paid a percentage recovery only upon settlement or victory at trial), the exclusive means by which a lawyer billed a client was pursuant to an agreed-upon hourly rate.  “Agreed upon,” or imposed, depending on the sophistication of the client.

Straight-up hourly billing has not disappeared, but it is now reserved for charging mid-sized to big businesses, defense work, and cases not really amenable to contingency arrangements.  Family law, for example, or estate litigation.  And, as the economy for legal services has been degraded, and consumers become more aware and cost-adverse, all sorts of hybrid billing arrangements are being used.  The simplest example is where a lawyer is compensated on mixed contingency/hourly fee basis, but there are any number of permutations, like flat fees.  A good lawyer’s imagination knows no bounds when it comes to billing clients.

But the true evil of consumer abuse still lies in hourly fee billing.  What is “billing?”  It is the means by which a lawyer records his/her time spent working on a client’s case, in order to tabulate what will (usually) become a monthly bill, delivered to the client for payment.  The lawyer’s bill will normally also include line items for costs and fees, but let’s leave discussion of those headaches for another day.

There are two basic components of hourly billing; the arithmetic division of 60 minutes (one hour) of time, and the method by which that time is physically recorded.  In English, the lawyer will generally divide his/her time into quarter hours, or tenths of hours.  And will s/her parse out the amount of time spent on a per task basis, or in one contiguous “block,” a method called “block billing,” the practice of assigning a one-time charge to multiple tasks.  If you are getting the sense that legal billing is somewhat arbitrary and capricious, then you are following along pretty carefully.

Block Billing

So, what now of “block billing?”  You’ve been sued by your business partner, and you hire an attorney at the rate of $400 per hour.  As an aside, some people might think that $400 is an astronomical sum to pay for legal representation in a simple business dispute.  Really?  Top-shelf, big city lawyers (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago) bill out at as much as $850 an hour, and higher.  And no, I’m not kidding.  Indeed, depending on where you live and the complexity of your case, unless you are a plaintiff operating on a contingency arrangement, good legal counsel may literally be beyond your means.  Since the crash of 2008, people have understandably become much more risk adverse,  leaving them to settle claims on pennies to the dollar rather than face the prospect of titanic legal fees.

In any event, you find counsel, your first invoice arrives, and you notice that s/he has broken down the time billed into quarter hours.  Not a good start.  The next place to look, then, is how the lawyer’s time is actually recorded.  The prototypical attorney’s invoice will contain line items describing his/her activities dedicated to your case, performed during the preceding month.  The day will be listed, followed by the name (or initials) of the attorney who worked on whatever tasks are recorded, a description of the actual work, the amount of time spent, and the corresponding fee.  Here’s a simplistic example, again, calculated at an hourly rate of $400.00:

                 Description                               Time                 Amount        Attorney            Date

draft notes re how to annoy the ex,               2.25                   $900.00             ATM                8/20/17
emails from client, calls with associate

For the work listed above, counsel reports spending 2.25 hours of billable attorney time, for a total charge of $900.00.  Really?  The first entry is fine.  But “calls with associate?” How many “calls?”  Which “associate?”  Were they calls like, “where should we go for lunch,” or strategy discussions?  “Review emails from client.”  Okay, again, how many emails?  What were the subjects?  Did the client ask “can I come to the office at 4:00,” or was a substantive legal question posed?  According to your attorney, all of the work performed on 8/20 added up to 2.25 hours, but there is simply no way to determine the accuracy of this assessment.  As a result, you, the client, cannot determine whether you are being over or improperly charged: The evils of “block billing” are well demonstrated by this single $900.00 line item.

The good news is that the practice of “block billing,” albeit still common, is now highly disfavored by California courts, experts, arbitrators and legal commentators alike.  Clients too, are starting to “wise up” to this common, yet finally controversial, method of billing and overbilling the people who pay a premium for legal services rendered in Southern California.

In this regard, therefore, in an article written by M. Leigh, and D. Wolf in the November 1997 issue of U.S. Business Litigation, the authors opined that block billing is “almost universally disapproved.” At the very least, the practice of “block billing” indicates a certain degree of professional laziness; at worst, it is a time-honored practice which allows attorneys to conceal and/or exaggerate time spent working on a client’s matter.  For lawyers, “time” does literally “mean money.”  But especially in today’s constricting business and legal environment, more is required of senior attorneys in sophisticated practice.

California courts agree. Thus, in Bell v. Vista Unified School District (2001), 82 Cal. App. 4th 672, 689, the court ruled that when evaluating “block billing” invoices, the “trial court should exercise its discretion in assigning a reasonable percentage to its entries, or simply cast them aside” if the attorney “cannot further define his billing entries . . ..”  In other words, in cases of attorney v. client litigation (or fee arbitration), the Judge or Arbitrator now has the authority to reduce a lawyer’s bill by “a reasonable percentage,” or in toto.  The playing field is being leveled.

Federal Courts are also falling in line.  The Ninth Circuit (which includes California) permits reduction of fees due to “block billing,” suggesting that the calculation be based in part on the percentage of the billing that was presented in block form.  See Welch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 480 F. 3d 942 (9th Cir. 2007).  Another Federal Court opined that the use of block billing “quite correctly raise[s] suspicions about whether all of the work claimed was actually accomplished or whether it was necessary.” See Robinson v. City of Edmund, 160 F.3d 1275 (10th Cir. 1998).

Accordingly, as the consumer of sophisticated legal services, you have every right to demand that your attorney give you the opportunity to analyze your invoices forensically.  Lawyers are not expected to use Shakespearean prose when describing their services, but some indication as to how these large fees were accumulated is now an elementary requirement for lawyers, according to the Court in Bell. Before signing a retainer agreement (which you should do for any case where it is anticipated that more that $1,000 will be spent), you must make certain that it spells out precisely how your attorney will account for his/her time.  The retainer agreement is your contract with your lawyer, and s/he will be loathe to violate it by resorting to sloppy billing practices, knowing that clients can always challenge improperly prepared invoices in a fee arbitration.

Billing by Quarters

Another billing evil, necessarily associated with the practice of “block billing,” is the question of the increments of time your lawyer will use to bill the tasks s/he performs on your behalf.  When I began practicing law at big firms, I was initially taught to bill in quarter-hours, starting at 15 minutes, then 30, 45 or one hour (and then multiples of each).  But, not every task a lawyer undertakes consumes 15 minutes of time or, when bunched with numerous tasks, is neatly reducible to precise calculations in quarter-hour increments.  Imagine the abuses!

For example, let’s say I did a wee bit of research, looking to determine the statute of limitations for fraud claims in Maine.  I got lucky, and literally located my quarry in 5 minutes.  What to do?  I was moving on to a totally different matter for a different client once I found that answer, and yet I still had these 5 minutes to log onto a time sheet, and 15 minutes was the lowest denominator available.  Do I just forget the 5, or pad it to include, let’s say, a phone call and another small research project, to push my total up to equal at least a quarter-hour?  You already know the firm’s (at least) implicit answer: Pad it laddie, that’s how we pay your salary.

Indeed, at one firm I worked at, we were taught (and not just “encouraged”) to keep a very heavy foot on the billing pedal.  We associates used to joke that the basic billing menu we were expected to employ went as follows: Record a quarter hour if you made a telephone call, a half-hour if someone answered, three-quarters of an hour if you talked about anything at all (be it with client or opposing counsel), and a full hour if something truly significant was discussed.  Do you think I am joking?  Looking back, I wish I was, and it wasn’t the least bit humorous.

And so what would these quarter-hour billing practices mean for the client of our $400 an hour lawyer?  Their bill that would reflect charges of $100, $200, $300 or $400 per hour, and sometimes many multiples of those figures.  Yet, more to the point, even if the attorney was doing excellent legal work, and accurately recording the billable time being spent, invoice inflation was still almost invariably the result.

Thus, imagine a  long day of trial prep, 10 hours of near non-stop drudgery.  It’s a big case, staffed with 3 lawyers, including a senior partner.  Given the crush of work, billing is almost always left for last.  Considering the pressure of billing quotas, are those numbers going to be rounded up, or down?  Is that 45 minute lunch going to be deducted, or thrown into the mix?  So, at ten hours, the totals are $4,000 for the junior, another $5,000 for his more senior colleague, and a full $7,500 for the partner.  Just one day of many in advance of a big trial, and the client is down $16,500 for the day. And, of course, that’s before calculating paralegal costs, and all other manner of overhead.  Hell, on nights we stayed late, we even billed the cost of dinner.  Utterly without shame.

That’s why hourly civil litigation lawyers love defense work.  As we like to say, “there is no contingency in defense.”  When a person, rich or poor, or a company, big or small, gets named as a defendant in a lawsuit, they have 2 choices; pay hourly, or face a default judgment.  And you don’t want to default.  But there is still a remedy for over-billing due to quarter-hour recordation; insist on having your bills calculated in tenths of hours.

Thus, one immediate problem with quarter-hour billing is that there are many tasks performed by a lawyer that do not require the minimum 15 minutes to complete.  The motivation to “pad” time is thus immediately apparent. Using tenths, however, allows the client to see just how their lawyer’s time is being spent, and whether it is a fair report of the work being done.  Assuming that same $400 per hour rate, here is a sample day’s entry on a lawyer’s invoice, calculated in quarter-hours:

          Description                                  Time                Amount            Attorney              Date                              

draft notes, telephone call to client,         1.25                    $500.00                 ATM                  8/20/17
research venue issues

Okay, so assume it took one and one-quarter hour to complete these 3 tasks.  But when reviewing the bill, how does the client know how much time the attorney spent on each individual task?  And, whether it’s quarters or tenths, the above-cited example is nonetheless also an example “block-billing.”  Thus, it is both the ability to see the relative time expended on various tasks, and the equitable incrementalization of time recordation, which permit the client to evaluate the legitimacy of their invoice.  If money is being misspent, it is easier to spot.  Better billing practices allows clients (not to mention their law firm) to determine whether a particular lawyer is billing inefficiently.  Or working inefficiently.  Otherwise it’s all guesswork.

So, was the telephone call in our example above 50 minutes long, with 10 minutes of drafting and 15 minutes of research thrown in?  No one can tell.  Therefore, by dividing the time recorded into tenth’s on an hour, you may not get a “perfect” account, but it is still going to be a damn sight more accurate than when using quarters.  Here is that same day’s work, divided now, however, into tenths of hours:

 

Description                                           Time                Amount            Attorney              Date                              

draft notes (.2), telephone call to            1.20                   $480.00               ATM                     8/20/17
client (.2), research venue issues (.8)

One-tenth of one hour, billed at $400/hour, is a $40.00 charge.  On the other hand, one-quarter hour, billed at $400/hour, equals a $100.00 charge.  The lawyer billing in tenths, conscientiously rounding one entry down, increases the accuracy and lowers the same invoice by $20.00. The benefits — to the client — of using smaller billing increments is obvious.

The Future of Attorney Billing

As a now-sophisticated consumer of legal services, you have the tools to combat sloppy hourly billing practices.  The first step is learning these simple rules of billing, and then insisting that your retainer agreement reflects the proper means by which your attorney’s services are going to be billed and recorded.  One final word to the wise?  At the risk of being accused of “ageism” (I’m no spring chicken, by the way), any unethical lawyer can “pad” a bill, but it is usually the more senior ones who quite innocently have never evolved with modern practice trends.  I know attorneys of my generation who still dictate their written work and hand tapes to their assistants for transcribing. I know attorneys who “don’t use email.” Wait, what?  No, really.  So, the skills of an experienced lawyer can be invaluable, but their administrative practices maybe prehistoric.  Get it in writing.  A good lawyer protects you.  A good client protects themselves.

There’s no charge for any of this, by the way.

– DB –

Please follow and like us:
RSS
Follow by Email
Facebook

Google+

https://berkeslaw.net/the-art-of-over-billing/
LinkedIn

Services – Berkeslaw

Services

Product / Service #1

Whatever your company is most known for should go right here, whether that’s bratwurst or baseball caps or vampire bat removal.

Product / Service #2

What’s another popular item you have for sale or trade? Talk about it here in glowing, memorable terms so site visitors have to have it.

Product / Service #3

Don’t think of this product or service as your third favorite, think of it as the bronze medalist in an Olympic medals sweep of great products/services.

Talk more about your products here.

Tell prospective customers more about your company and the services you offer here.  Replace this image with one more fitting to your business.

Talk more about your products here.

Tell prospective customers more about your company and the services you offer here.  Replace this image with one more fitting to your business.

Next Steps…

This is should be a prospective customer’s number one call to action, e.g., requesting a quote or perusing your product catalog.

Portfolio – Berkeslaw

Portfolio

Product / Service Categories

Project Name

Talk about this portfolio piece–who you did it for and why, plus what the results were (potential customers love to hear about real-world results). Discuss any unique facets of the project–was it accomplished under an impossible deadline?–and show how your business went above and beyond to make the impossible happen.

Product / Service Categories

Project Name

Talk about this portfolio piece–who you did it for and why, plus what the results were (potential customers love to hear about real-world results). Discuss any unique facets of the project–was it accomplished under an impossible deadline?–and show how your business went above and beyond to make the impossible happen.

b e r k e s l a w Grimace and Bear It

Grimace and Bear It

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

With the horror of the massacre in Sandy Hook Elementary School still searing raw in the collective consciousness, there may actually be developing some consensus to do something about the carnage routinely occurring in the streets, schools and homes of America.  Maybe.  Between the extremes — both self-evidently untenable — there must be available some action (or actions) that we can take to reduce the shocking flow of gun-related homicides.  Indelicately stated, if there was something that we could have done that might have saved the life of even one of those precious children in Newtown, would we not have deemed it sufficient cause to act?

The gun lobbyists and “right to bear arms” absolutists love to argue that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the citizenry’s right to defend themselves against their own government.  Take a deep breath: They are absolutely correct.  Better still, the Second Amendment was also enacted to secure the ancient right of a free person to arm and protect themselves, their families and property.  These are not “negotiating points.”

But here’s the kicker, folks: Even the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”), no friend to the “gun control” faction, has recognized that the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not “unlimited.”  Do I need to say that again?  Surely not.  Indeed,  from the pen of no less a personage than Justice Anton Scalia, writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), comes the following passage (worth repeating in its entirety despite its length) regarding the boundaries of the Second Amendment:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.  From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. [citations omitted]  For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. [citations omitted].  Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.  Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.  We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” [citations omitted].  It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service —M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.  But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of theSecond Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.  It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large.  Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.  But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Id., at pp. 54-56.
Little mentioned, but there it is: According to the SCOTUS, there is a limitation of great significance besides those relating to “felons and the mentally ill,” and in addition to (the currently eroding) prohibition against the “carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings. . ..”  The additional limitation?  The Second Amendment does not contemplate the right of the American people to drag around “dangerous and unusual weapons.”  Indeed, Scalia recognized that the right of citizens to rise up today and grab a musket in the fight against “Federal tyranny” would do little good in any confrontation involving the power of the State and its modern military muscle.  And to this inequity, remarkably enough, what of Scalia’s response?  Essentially, too damn bad.
Writes Scalia:
“But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right [to bear arms].”
Stop the presses, folks, the SCOTUS has spoken.  Thus, the “right to bear arms” may not be abridged, even though the exercise of that “right” may no longer be up to the historic task of overthrowing those heathen Feds.  And, unless I am missing something, isn’t that effectively the exact same thing that the “gun control” lobby is arguing?  Justice Scalia seems to have clearly recognized that the Second Amendment cannot be read as permitting an “arm’s race” between individual Americans and the Federal Government.  As Scalia points out, “no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks,” not to mention the White House’s access to subs, WMD and nuclear weapons.  So, unlikely as it may seem, the battle has been joined, and framed by a very conservative Supreme Court: We cannot ban all personal weapons but, by golly, we should try to ban a great many of those currently available.
That’s where the conversation begins, then, I think.  We cannot rid ourselves of all guns, so we must find a line and draw it firmly.  We can start by allowing those weapons powerful enough to take down Bambi, and then prohibit anything that would be of no real use against a tank. And no “slippery slope” arguments, please, they were already considered dumb before the end of first year law school.  You know the drill, “if they take away your 40 round drum ‘sweetsweeper,’ next thing you know they’ll be taking away your slingshots.”  If you hear someone make such a “slippery slope” argument, ignore them.  If you find yourself making one, stop, and call me for help.  They are the refuge of the intellectually impaired.  We CAN draw a line.  We MUST draw a line.  And if the life-blood of fewer babies spills onto the linoleum as a consequence, those were lines well worth drawing.  Let get our pencils out, and start, straight away.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *
*
*


*


Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) – Berkeslaw

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

This is where you should answer the most common questions prospective customers might have. It’s a good idea to cover things like your return policy, product warranty info, shipping and returns, etc. Check out the examples below.


What’s your return policy?

Return any of our products–no questions asked–within 30 days of purchase. We even pay return shipping.


Do you ship oversees and to P.O. boxes?

Yes, we’ll ship your package anywhere that can accept deliveries.


Do you have customer service?

Of course! Our friendly and knowledgeable customer services reps are available to answer your questions 24/7/365.

Disclaimer – Berkeslaw

Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Thank you for visiting my blog (the “Blog”); however you got here, I am honored that you took the time to stop by and review the materials presented, and the services offered. Please be advised that what you read and see here has been prepared, or is being presented, for general informational purposes only to those who visit the Blog in order to learn more about my law firm, Berkeslaw (the “Firm”), and the services we offer. Nothing contained, printed, stated and/or archived herein, including any and all of the articles, tweets and comments posted, is not, nor can it be construed as constituting, “legal advice” of any kind or nature, and is not to be acted on as such. The materials on my blog may not be current, and its contents are subject to change without notice. The opinions expressed herein are my own, and are just that: Opinions.

Terms of Use


By your use and visitation of this site, you hereby acknowledge and agree that the Blog, and the information contained and/or transmitted herein, and/or your receipt of same, does not create, nor is it intended to create, an “attorney-client relationship.” Under no circumstances should you rely upon your transmission of an e-mail using my Blog to create an attorney-client relationship, or have any such expectation. Visitors to the Blog should not act upon any information contained herein in this without first consulting legal counsel of their own directly. If you have questions about the law, or a particular legal issue or problem, please feel free to make an appointment to speak with me, but it is essential for your own protection that you understand that nothing you read or review in this Blog is being provided in the course, conduct or context of an attorney-client relationship. Different countries, States, counties, cities, districts, and the like, all may have different laws, rules and regulations, and those may and do change from time to time, so notice is hereby given that nothing contained on this Blog is intended to constitute legal advice, or should it be used or understood as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Links To Other Sites


This Blog may from time to time include links to other Internet sites whose content, views, opinions and other materials are beyond my control. My firm is not responsible for the content of any such sites, and a link to such sites does not necessarily mean or imply my endorsement of the information, material, products or services contained on or accessible therein. You hereby acknowledge and agree that should you decide to link to other Internet sites, your use of such sites, and your use of any information, material, products and services offered by such sites, necessarily occur at your own risk.

Content

Please be advised that all of the content found on this Blog is provided “as is.” No representations of any kind are made that the content will be timely, factually accurate, error-free, and/or free of viruses or other harmful electronic elements. Moreover, you should not expect, nor is any representation herein made, that any alleged errors or defects will be corrected. The video and its content, the blog posts, tweets and other materials that appear on this Blog, and the opinions stated therein, are all my own (unless otherwise specified), and they may, from time to time, be considered controversial, inappropriate or offensive to some of those who visit. As individual tastes and opinions vary and change, please be advised that all content on this Blog is intended only for the purposes of information and/or to stimulate discussion or interest, and under no circumstances is my intent to alarm, dismay or offend anyone. The Firm makes no representations, express or implied, with respect to the timeliness, accuracy or completeness of any of the contents of this Blog, and expressly disclaims any liability or warranties, express or implied, including, without limitation, any implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement. Your sole remedy for any dissatisfaction with any of the content of this Blog is to refrain from using it.

Privacy


The Firm has a deep and abiding respect for your privacy. If you contact us voluntarily regarding our services, we may collect the following categories of personal information: name, company name, title, email address, telephone and facsimile numbers, and mailing address.
 We do not sell, trade or rent personal information submitted by visitors to companies, mailing lists or organizations outside of this Firm.  However, please be advised that in no event are any “comments” that you submit, or information that you provide in response to the Blog, considered confidential attorney-client communications, protected by the attorney-client privilege. They are not thus privileged, and you should be aware of this fact when submitting anything to or on the Blog.

Contact Us – Berkeslaw

Contact Us

Contact Us

For any questions and/or concerns you may have, or to set up an appointment
to meet either by telephone or in person, please contact the Firm as follows:

David Berke (State Bar #123007)
B E R K E S L A W
7162 Beverly Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Telephone: (323) 879-9115
Cell Phone: (310) 251-0700

email: [email protected]
Twitter: @berkeslaw

Please note that the Firm does not employ a fax machine, believing it to be obsolete technology. Rather than pass along ink costs to you, the consumer, we ask that you “go green” and email documents instead.

If you really are serious about reaching me, then please make certain that you always favor email over voice-mail when leaving messages. I may just be out for a moment, walking Butters, but I will have my Blackberry with me. If I am out for coffee with a client, then I will have an iPad.  In other words, emails are checked obsessively, while voice-mail messages invariable disappear into a cosmic black hole. Even the voice-mail on my cell phone is deactivated, for goodness’ sakes. Finally, for all of you zealous attorneys out there — you know who you are — notice is hereby given that this blog may not be used for the purposes of providing ex parte notice, as the blog is not intended for the purposes of day-to-day litigation, and it is thus not necessarily reviewed regularly.

Please Let Us Know How We Can Help

Blog – Berkeslaw

Recent Posts

About Us – Berkeslaw

About Us

About the Firm

Hello, my name is David Berke, and I have been a Los Angeles lawyer for the past 27 years.  I began my legal education at Osgoode Hall in Toronto (Canada’s finest law school, in my home town), before completing my degree at UCLA in 1985. I first joined a marquee New York law firm, before making my way to a Westside law firm specializing in entertainment litigation. During my 5 years at the firm, I had the good fortune of learning my craft under the tutelage of two great lawyers, one, a brilliant law firm manager, and the other, one of the finest trial attorneys in the country, and someone I count among the best people I know. In 1989, however, I made the decision to open up my own law practice, a scary enough choice, but one made for a very specific reason.  Thus, the only true ambition I really ever had in life was to be the father of a family and, as I watched my colleagues miss innumerable milestones, vacations, and sometimes even the most modest family outings, I knew that big firm practice was incompatible with the type of parenting I wanted to experience and enjoy.

So, with in-house jobs becoming more scarce all the time, my only real option was to open my own practice.  Unlike others similarly situated, however, I opted not to design my practice around high volume fields traditional to solo practitioners such as plaintiff’s personal injury or worker’s compensation. Instead, I choose a rather unconventional approach, whereby I essentially conduct a big firm practice by myself, favoring the maintenance of a few cases (from small to large, depending on the circumstances)  which command – and receive –  a greater degree of my personal attention. As such, I have often taken on very large matters for very prominent clients, but invariably for the purpose of keeping my clients out of the spotlight rather than place them in it. In this fashion, therefore, you might say that I am one of the best known lawyers in Los Angeles that you’ve never heard of, because I would rather focus on my clients’ needs than make a “name” for myself, and/or a spectacle of those I serve.

Please do not imagine, however, that my practice is somehow limited to the representation of well known entertainment figures; far from it.  I have a wide range of legal experience involving contractual and business disputes of all kinds, as well as defamation, copyright, trademark (and other IP), employment matters, plaintiff’s class actions, and still others.  There are also occasions where I am called upon to bring my litigation experience to bear to assist in cases which lie outside my traditional areas of expertise, such as probate, family law, and elder law.

As circumstances require, I will take my cases either to trial or arbitration, historically with great success.  Nonetheless, the economies of the day, combined with my natural inclinations and my ethical compass, move me instinctively towards finding alternative means of resolving disputes, as opposed to churning my cases for legal fees. I want my clients to win, and so they do, but “winning” these days more often than not means arriving at a result that is satisfying, preserves dignity, and permits my clients to proceed with their lives with litigation far in their rear view mirrors as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As stated above, there is a legal maxim which holds, “for every wrong there is a remedy.” I want to be that remedy. Call or email me and let’s see what we can do to help.

About firm – Berkeslaw

About firm

About the Firm

Hello, my name is David Berke, and I have been a Los Angeles lawyer for the past 27 years.  I began my legal education at Osgoode Hall in Toronto (Canada’s finest law school, in my home town), before completing my degree at UCLA in 1985. I first joined a marquee New York law firm, before making my way to a Westside law firm specializing in entertainment litigation. During my 5 years at the firm, I had the good fortune of learning my craft under the tutelage of two great lawyers, one, a brilliant law firm manager, and the other, one of the finest trial attorneys in the country, and someone I count among the best people I know. In 1989, however, I made the decision to open up my own law practice, a scary enough choice, but one made for a very specific reason.  Thus, the only true ambition I really ever had in life was to be the father of a family and, as I watched my colleagues miss innumerable milestones, vacations, and sometimes even the most modest family outings, I knew that big firm practice was incompatible with the type of parenting I wanted to experience and enjoy.

So, with in-house jobs becoming more scarce all the time, my only real option was to open my own practice.  Unlike others similarly situated, however, I opted not to design my practice around high volume fields traditional to solo practitioners such as plaintiff’s personal injury or worker’s compensation. Instead, I choose a rather unconventional approach, whereby I essentially conduct a big firm practice by myself, favoring the maintenance of a few cases (from small to large, depending on the circumstances)  which command – and receive –  a greater degree of my personal attention. As such, I have often taken on very large matters for very prominent clients, but invariably for the purpose of keeping my clients out of the spotlight rather than place them in it. In this fashion, therefore, you might say that I am one of the best known lawyers in Los Angeles that you’ve never heard of, because I would rather focus on my clients’ needs than make a “name” for myself, and/or a spectacle of those I serve.

Please do not imagine, however, that my practice is somehow limited to the representation of well known entertainment figures; far from it.  I have a wide range of legal experience involving contractual and business disputes of all kinds, as well as defamation, copyright, trademark (and other IP), employment matters, plaintiff’s class actions, and still others.  There are also occasions where I am called upon to bring my litigation experience to bear to assist in cases which lie outside my traditional areas of expertise, such as probate, family law, and elder law.

As circumstances require, I will take my cases either to trial or arbitration, historically with great success.  Nonetheless, the economies of the day, combined with my natural inclinations and my ethical compass, move me instinctively towards finding alternative means of resolving disputes, as opposed to churning my cases for legal fees. I want my clients to win, and so they do, but “winning” these days more often than not means arriving at a result that is satisfying, preserves dignity, and permits my clients to proceed with their lives with litigation far in their rear view mirrors as quickly and efficiently as possible.

As stated above, there is a legal maxim which holds, “for every wrong there is a remedy.” I want to be that remedy. Call or email me and let’s see what we can do to help.