September 21, 2017

Archives for August 2017

The Joy of Working (It’s Worse Than I Thought)

“There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.
Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to
 answering the fundamental question of philosophy.”

-Albert Camus, An Absurd Reasoning (1955)

The last few posts had a lot in them about suicide. I really didn’t plan to write about suicide. I meant instead to talk about happiness and meaning in our work, particularly for lawyers and the legal profession — nice, safe topics. I mean, who can argue with enjoying our work?

Trouble is, as I did my research, suicide kept coming up, along with other topics I didn’t plan to write about. Some were predictable, like globalization, technology, and disruptive innovation. I’ve written about those before, although they came up in new ways that merit re-examination. But then a whole lot of uninvited, touchier subjects jumped onboard, such as income and wealth inequality, poverty and the welfare system, nationalism and immigration, and more.

Uh oh. If last year’s election taught me anything, it’s that public discourse has been largely displaced by what this Aeon Magazine article calls “moral grandstanding.” As a result, if you write something, it’s likely to be slapped with an assumption that you’re on mission to convert other people to a point of view, and thus the fight begins. I learned that the hard way when a Facebook “friend” pounced one of my shares, and before I knew it our other “friends” were cheering us on like students making a circle around us in the high school cafeteria after I accidentally stepped on his potato chips.

How about we don’t do that? At least not here.

I recently shared some of the economic research I’ve been doing in connection with these posts with a friend who’s a hedge fund manager. He immediately demanded that I define my terms. Whoa! I replied that I wasn’t pretending to be an economist, I’m just trying to figure out how the world of work is changing, and how that affects human beings. (If you’d like a book list of what I’ve been reading, you can check out my Goodreads page. Or email me.) Guess I won’t bring up economics again, I thought. And yet here I am, risking it in this column. Why?

Mainly, because my research keeps linking all those touchy subjects to the safe ones I started with, and because all of them — controversial or not — seem to be symptomatic of a worldwide clash of social and economic narratives. And that interests me, very much. Work as a life-giving human activity has been an enduring passion of mine since college, when I cut a headline out of a magazine that was based on the iconic “The Joy of Cooking” cover, except it substituted “Working” for “Cooking.” I pasted it on a bookshelf I lugged around for decades until it got lost in a recent move.

The headline was lost, but not the interest. I plan to keep writing about The Joy of Working because I care about the human beings getting squeezed by the cultural and commercial shifts that are currently revolutionizing the world of work. I care that the legal profession is at Ground Zero for many of these developments, with its endemic high levels of career dissatisfaction and related loss of personal wellbeing. And I care because my research shows that things are worse than I thought: feelings of a lack of meaning about our work aren’t just a complex and difficult social and economic phenomenon, they’re a plague that too often ends in self-inflicted death.

I also believe that, if anyone is positioned to steer public discourse toward constructive outcomes, it would be those directly engaged with how the law is learned and practiced, created and applied. We’ve already sailed some stormy seas together in this series, and we’re heading for more. I think we’re up for it.

One last that thing: I have no illusions about my own objectivity; I am as prone to cognitive bias as anyone. (We’ll take more about that, too.) Thus I invite you to remember that I intend this to be about conversation, not conversion. Plus, I’ll make the customary disclaimer that I write my own thoughts, not the CBA’s or CLE’s.

I will brave the discourse if you will.

Kevin Rhodes left a successful long-term law practice to scratch a creative itch and lived to tell about it… barely. Since then, he has been on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. He has also blogged extensively and written several books about his unique journey to wellness, including how he deals with primary progressive MS through an aggressive regime of exercise, diet, and mental conditioning.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 8/24/2017

On Thursday, August 24, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and 34 unpublished opinions.

Ruybalid v. Board of County Commissioners of Las Animas County

Becker v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/22/2017

On Tuesday, August 22, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

Reed v. Bryant

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/23/2017

On Wednesday, August 23, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

Team Systems International, LLC v. Haozous

Blackwell v. Bank of America

Forbes v. Garcia

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/21/2017

On Monday, August 21, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

United States v. Ford

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/18/2017

On Friday, August 18, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and one unpublished opinion.

Brooks v. Archuleta

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Class Did Not Cease to Exist When Settlement Entered

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. v. Miller on Thursday, August 10, 2017.

Class Action Settlement—Arbitration Provision—C.R.C.P. 23—Survival of the Class.

A certified class of Colorado oil and gas royalty owners (the Class) and EnCana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc. (EnCana) litigated, beginning in 2005, EnCana’s alleged underpayment of royalties on natural gas it produced. In 2008, EnCana and the Class entered into a settlement agreement that detailed payment of funds to settle past claims, established the methodology EnCana would use for future royalty payments, and included an arbitration clause. The district court’s final judgment approved and incorporated the settlement agreement, dismissed the 2005 case with prejudice, and reserved jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. In 2016, oil and gas royalty owners (Owners), purporting to act on behalf of the Class, filed a demand for arbitration alleging EnCana had underpaid royalties owed to Class members in violation of the settlement agreement. EnCana filed a new case in district court asserting that (1) the class ceased to exist when the 2005 case was dismissed with prejudice in 2008, and (2) the 2008 settlement agreement did not authorize arbitration on a class-wide basis. The district court found that the class had not ceased to exist and the claims should be resolved in class-wide arbitration, and entered summary judgment against EnCana.

On appeal, EnCana contended that the district court erred in finding that the Class continued after the case was dismissed. The court of appeals determined that the Class survived the 2008 dismissal because (1) compliance with the settlement agreement became part of the dismissal order, so the district court retains jurisdiction to give effect to the agreement; and (2) the agreement continues for the lives of the leases or royalty agreements covered by the settlement agreement and expressly burdens and benefits successors and assigns of the parties.

EnCana also claimed that the district court failed to satisfy C.R.C.P. 23. The district court did not err in declining to engage in further Rule 23 analysis after the 2008 dismissal and judgment approving the settlement agreement.

The court next rejected EnCana’s contention that Class counsel failed to provide sufficient notice of the arbitration demand.

EnCana then argued it was error to determine that the settlement agreement contained a contractual basis to conclude that EnCana and the Class agreed to class arbitration. EnCana asserted that because the arbitration clause is silent on class arbitration, the district court should have presumed that the parties agreed to bilateral arbitration only. The settlement agreement explicitly names all members of a certified class as a party to the agreement, frames the disputes in class- or subclass-wide terms, and provides relief on a class- or subclass-wide basis. The arbitration clause’s context thus demonstrates an agreement to class rather than bilateral arbitration. Further, to conclude that the settlement agreement evidenced that the parties contemplated engaging in approximately 5,850 individual arbitrations to resolve future disputes rather than a single class arbitration would be absurd.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: “Legal Disability” Means Inability to Bring Lawsuit Due to Some Policy of Law

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in T.D. v. Wiseman on Thursday, August 10, 2017.

“Legal Disability” for Tolling Statute of Limitations—C.R.S. § 13-80-103.7(3.5)(a).

T.D.’s complaint alleged she had endured 10 years of sexual and physical abuse from defendant, her former stepfather. She alleged that she was 7 years old when the abuse began and that it continued until about 1990, when she was in high school. She alleged that the abuse caused her to become dependent on drugs and alcohol, and she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological disorders, self-mutilation, eating disorders, depression, and a cycle of abusive relationships.

In August 2005, T.D. disclosed defendant’s alleged abuse to the doctors who had been treating her. She attempted suicide in 2012. Thereafter she was able to maintain sobriety. T.D. filed a lawsuit in 2015 asserting assault, battery, sexual assault and battery, extreme and outrageous conduct, and false imprisonment. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that T.D.’s claims had accrued in 2005 when she disclosed the alleged abuse to her doctors. Consequently, her claims were time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations in C.R.S. § 13-80-103.7(1). T.D. argued that the record contained genuine issues of material fact concerning whether she had been a “person under disability” until 2012 because of her addictions and psychiatric disorder, so the statute would have been tolled until her disability was lifted. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact in the record about when her claims accrued or whether the statute of limitations barred those claims.

The court of appeals determined that the issue of when the claim accrued was not properly before it, and assumed it accrued at the latest in 2005. The court then considered whether there was a factual dispute about whether the applicable statute of limitations was tolled because T.D. was a “person under disability.” Under C.R.S. 13-80-103.75(3.5)(a), a “person under disability” is a person who is (1) a minor under 18 (2) “declared mentally incompetent”; (3) “under other legal disability and who does not have a legal guardian”; or (4) “in a special relationship with the perpetrator of the assault” and “psychologically or emotionally unable to acknowledge the assault or offense and the resulting harm.” T.D. was 43 when the trial court granted the summary judgment motion, so she was not a minor from 2005 to 2011, when the statute of limitations was running. The record did not contain disputed facts about whether she was mentally incompetent during the years during which the statute of limitations ran. The court concluded that “legal disability” denotes an inability to bring a lawsuit based on a “policy of the law.” No facts in the record indicated that T.D. lacked the power to timely bring her suit. Lastly, while a familial relationship can constitute a “special relationship,” T.D. did not demonstrate that she was “psychologically or emotionally unable to acknowledge the assault or offense and the resulting harm.”

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Petition for Mandamus Relief Should Have Been Transferred to Executive Director

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Gandy v. Raemisch on Thursday, August 10, 2017.

C.R.C.P. 106—Dismissal—Transfer of Canadian Prisoner to Canada to Serve Life Sentence—Mandamus Relief.

Gandy is a Canadian citizen serving a habitual criminal life sentence in the custody of the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC). Gandy applied numerous times to DOC to be transferred to serve the remainder of his sentence in the Canadian penal system. In 2016, the DOC prisons director (director) denied Gandy’s 2015 application in writing. The director stated that under DOC Administrative Regulation 550-05, Gandy would be eligible to reapply in two years. The director did not forward Gandy’s application to DOC’s executive director.

Gandy filed a complaint in district court seeking mandamus relief under C.R.C.P. 106, requesting the court to direct DOC to “process and submit” his application for transfer to the U.S. Department of Justice and asking for nominal punitive damages for alleged violations of his constitutional rights. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

On appeal, Gandy contended he was entitled to mandamus relief, arguing that he was entitled to final review of and decision on his transfer application by the executive director.  DOC’s transfer application process imposed a duty on the director to process Gandy’s application and then send it to the executive director for his final review and decision. Because this duty is clear, mandamus relief was appropriate.

Gandy also argued that the two-year reapplication waiting period was improperly imposed. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed, finding that DOC regulations do not require or provide for the imposition of a two-year waiting period before permitting an offender to reapply.

Gandy further argued that the district court erred when it dismissed his constitutional claims for failure to state a claim because the regulation conflicts with federal treaties and thus violates the Supremacy Clause. However, the court found no conflict between DOC regulations and international treaties.

Gandy next argued that defendants discriminated against him by refusing to process his transfer request due to his national origin. The court agreed with the district court that Gandy did not plead any facts supporting this allegation.

The judgment dismissing Gandy’s constitutional claims was affirmed. The judgment dismissing the complaint seeking mandamus relief was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions to enter an order directing the director to forward the transfer application and recommendations to the executive director for final review and decision.

Summary available courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/17/2017

On Thursday, August 17, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

Aery v. Board of County Commissioners of Tulsa County

Worthen v. United States

McElhaney v. Bear

United States v. Burtons

Kirby, Jr. v. Roberts

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, some published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.

But Isn’t Legal Work Essential?

“The most common complaint expressed within the legal profession
is a lack of meaning or sense of fulfillment from work.”

The above quote is from an article published by the Lawyers Assistance Program of British Columbia. But how can anyone think their work in the law lacks meaning? I mean, the law is essential to the functioning of society, isn’t it? Yes, but apparently essential doesn’t count for much in the pursuit of meaning.

Andrew Russel, Dean and Professor in the College of Arts & Sciences at SUNY Polytechnic Institute in Utica, New York, says this in his Aeon Magazine article, “Hail the Maintainers: Capitalism excels at innovation but is failing at maintenance, and for most lives it is maintenance that matters more” (April 7, 2016):

Innovation is a dominant ideology of our era . . . As the pursuit of innovation has inspired technologists and capitalists, it has also provoked critics who suspect that the peddlers of innovation radically overvalue innovation. What happens after innovation, they argue, is more important. Maintenance and repair, the building of infrastructures, the mundane labour that goes into sustaining functioning and efficient infrastructures, simply has more impact on people’s daily lives than the vast majority of technological innovations.

Maybe so, but the maintainers themselves aren’t buying their own importance. This Huffington Post article from May 11, 2017, reported a study by Britain’s Office of National Statistics that found that workers in “maintainer” jobs — manual labor, construction, building trades, processing plants, factories, agriculture — had the highest rates of suicide in the U.K. A 2016 Center for Disease Control and Prevention study reported similar results in the U.S., with rates highest among lumberjacks, farmworkers, fishermen, carpenters, miners, electricians, construction trades, factory and production workers, and others who build, install, maintain, and repair things.

Other noteworthy findings of both studies were that suicide rates were three times higher among men than women; the highest female suicide rate was among police, firefighters and corrections officers; the second highest female suicide rate was in the legal profession; and among the professions, lawyer suicides were in third place after doctors and dentists.

The CDC study speculated that the principle causes behind these statistics include job-related isolation and demands, stressful work environments, and work-home imbalance, all of which are endemic in the legal profession. The British Columbia LAP piece quoted above states flatly that:

From a health perspective it is unhealthy to do meaningless, unchallenging, uncreative work, especially for those that are intelligent and well trained.

The article reports that a sense of meaningless is expressed differently by older vs. younger lawyers:

[A sense of meaningless about their work] is stated more directly by older practitioners as boredom, lack of job satisfaction, just getting through each day, turning out work without time to contemplate, turning out product for clients like a machine, and lack of connection to clients, which is often expressed as lack of client loyalty. Legal professionalism has been eroded by the need for volume, speed and uniformity of work product.

The younger practitioners . . . ask, “What good am I doing?” They express a lack of control over work or life. They worry about the demands of clients, and that there is little opportunity for them to utilize creative thinking. They also ask if they can have a life and practice law. . . . [T]hey do not get a sense of fulfillment from practicing law. They do not get a sense of meaning from it and it seems to be valueless.

We’ve been looking at books, articles, surveys, and academic research from business, academia, the professional world, and even the United Nations. All agree that meaningless malaise in the workplace is worldwide and afflicts both men and women across a full range of occupations from the “maintainers” to professionals. Money doesn’t help, neither does living in a “happy,” first world country. Striving after wealth and income growth only makes things worse. Meanwhile, rates of self-destruction are alarmingly on the rise, especially in this century.

More next time.

 

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to bring professional excellence and personal wellbeing to the people who learn, teach, and practice the law. His past blog posts for the CBA have been collected in two volumes — click the book covers for more information.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Announcement Sheet, 8/17/2017

On Thursday, June 17, 2017, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and 35 unpublished opinions.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.