August 18, 2019

Archives for July 2, 2013

Morphic Fields and Change (Part 6): Balancing Analog and Digital

rhodesEditor’s Note: This is the sixth and final part of a 6-part series. If you have not already read the previous entries, take a moment to do so. They’re worth it. (Here they are – Part 1Part 2Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.)

I recently heard a leading sports psychologist say, “Sports are analog, not digital.” He was making the point that both physical and mental performance skills must be practiced, practiced, practiced, but once the sporting event starts, athletes still need to adapt moment by moment to the unplanned and unexpected. That’s the way of humans, he was saying, and the way of sports.

In his book Programmed to Run, Thomas S. Miller, another sports psychologist and noted marathon trainer, describes our right brain as analog, and our left brain as digital.

[D]igital computers… follow exact sequences of steps, address one item at a time, and produce one solution for each problem. Similarly, the left brain deals primarily with verbal tasks, analysis, organization, planning, judgment, evaluation, and ego-speak (rational thought).

[Our right brains], on the other hand, produce an array of solutions to any one problem and are able to address several issues at one time. The right brain is best suited to run performance programs. Athletic, musical, and artistic skills, along with intuition, creativity, and imagination, are generally attributed to the right brain.

He goes on to describe how to tap both left- and right-brained functions in marathon training. We can use the same concept in the field of law, where there’s a common misperception that what we do is entirely left-brained. True – the law relies heavily on left-brain functions such as language, analysis, logic, and reason, but as long as it’s practiced by humans, our right brains are also still operating, serving up multiple outlooks and outcomes, and offering creative resolutions. How much we pay attention to both sides shapes the nature of our experience of the practice (whether we’re happy or not) and our effectiveness.

If we want to create whole, healthy, organic, and sustainable morphic fields for our clients and ourselves, we’ll embrace both sides of who we are. Trouble is, much of modern law practice management is still entrenched in late 19th and early 20th Century management theory, which was highly left-brained, mechanistic, and in sync with Teddy Roosevelt’s notions of “national efficiency.”  As a result, law practice is often skewed to the left-brain side.

The human psyche is not so easily carved up or its functions so easily isolated without impairing the effectiveness of the whole. Lawyers are not as digital as our obsession with practice management technology would lead us to believe. We’re not just hyper-connected billable hour machines. If we want whole, healthy professionals providing both logical and imaginative client solutions, we need both analog and digital. Coordinating both is the heart of sustainable performance.

Kevin Rhodes is on a mission to help people love their work and their lives, and create organizations full of other people who do, too. He leads workshops for a variety of audiences, including the CBA’s Job Search and Career Transitions Support Group. You can email Kevin at

Hon. Daniel Maus to Retire from Nineteenth Judicial District Bench

The Colorado State Judicial Branch announced on July 1, 2013, that Judge Daniel Maus of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court will retire, effective October 11, 2013. The Nineteenth Judicial District nominating commission will meet on August 26, 2013, to interview and select nominees for the vacancy.

Judge Maus was admitted to the Colorado bar in 1969. He was a trial attorney for his entire career prior to being appointed to the bench. He worked as a senior litigation attorney for U.S. West and as an Assistant United States Attorney. He was appointed to the Nineteenth Judicial District Court Bench in 2002, in the criminal division.

Eligible applicants for the vacancy must be qualified electors of the Nineteenth Judicial District and must have been admitted to practice law in Colorado for five years. Application forms are available from Justice Nathan Coats, ex officio chair of the nominating commission, or on the State Judicial website. Applications must be filed with the ex officio chair no later than 4 p.m. on Friday, July 26, 2013.

For more information on the vacancy, click here.

Tenth Circuit: Drug Conspiracy Convictions Affirmed

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Renteria on Thursday, June 27, 2013.

This opinion consolidates the appeals of three of four gang members who were convicted of several charges involving their conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, including money laundering and weapons possession.

The three defendants alleged the district court abused its discretion by admitting summary charts over objection. The charts were summaries of UPS, Money Gram, and Western Union documents. The actual records were admitted as business records. The defendants complained the summarizer added dates from testimony of two witnesses, making the charts a summary of testimony rather than records. Summarized exhibits relying on previous testimony are admissible under FRE 611(a) if the summaries aid the jury in ascertaining the truth and whether any prejudice would result. The Tenth Circuit determined the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

The defendants all made insufficiency of the evidence arguments. The court discussed in detail the requirements for a firearm to be possessed in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and found that argument failed, as did all the others. The court affirmed.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/28/13

On Friday, June 28, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and seven unpublished opinions.

United States v. Lopez

Aguilar-Alvarez v. Holder

Brown v. McKune

United States v. Hernandez

Baxter v. Jones

United States v. Stewart

United States v. Ennis

No case summaries are provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.