August 25, 2019

Archives for September 2, 2014

Is There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part I: The Interviews: Jaimee Reed—Getting Out, Starting Over

Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the August 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the final part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. Click here for the introduction, click here for an interview with Kyle Velte, click here for an interview with Roxanne Jensen, and click here for an interview with Kevin Rhodes.

Sandgrund-ReedBy Ronald M. Sandgrund, Esq., InQ.

InQ.: Jaimee, how old were you when you first felt that practicing law was what you wanted do as a career? How old were you when you first had serious thoughts about exiting the full-time practice of law? What prompted this change in your thinking?

Jaimee: I was a 22-year-old college junior when I started thinking about a legal career, and I was 27 when I started thinking of leaving full-time practice. I first had serious thoughts about exiting full-time when I was 33. I had a baby that year and my perspective changed, so I started thinking about different ways to use my law degree.

InQ.: Did you eventually leave the practice of law completely?

Jaimee: Yes, and it was a smooth transition. My clients were very supportive, as were my co-workers. It was a positive experience all around. I stayed at home for a couple of years before I decided to pursue a career as an insurance broker, which required passing a licensing exam. My husband had been in the insurance industry for many years, so I was already familiar with and interested in the field, and it was a natural transition for me.

InQ.: At any point in the process of implementing your plan, did you think about reversing course?

Jaimee: No. I enjoyed my new career and I liked the quality of life. For me, leaving the practice of law was about quality of life and being able to spend a lot of time with my family.

InQ.: Some say that the biggest obstacle to retreating from the full-time practice of the law is the inability to imagine what life would be like not practicing law full-time. Others say it is a fear of not being able to fill the time. Others say it is a fear of not having enough money later in life. What do you think of each of these suggested impediments and how, if at all, did they affect your thinking?

Jaimee: I did wonder whether I would miss the practice of law because, for many years, that’s what I did and that’s who I was—it defined me. But, after I stopped practicing, staying at home with my child really changed my perspective on life and what really matters—being engaged with and raising my kids was very important to me. I now have time for my family, networking events (which I love!), helping in my community, and volunteering, all while still working. I think some people who have known me a long time were shocked because I was a natural “lawyer”—even as a child. I promised them I would keep my license active in case they needed any free legal advice!

InQ.: How did your significant other react during the course of your exploring options other than the full-time practice of law?

Jaimee: He was extremely supportive and wanted me to find something I truly enjoyed. His only advice was to find something I would enjoy doing day in and day out. Period.

InQ.: How happy were you when practicing law full-time? How happy are you now?

Jaimee: Before I had children, I wasn’t unhappy practicing law. When I was practicing criminal law, I had a great time. All of us then were young and childless. When I transitioned to the civil side and started a family, things changed. I wouldn’t say I was unhappy necessarily, but I wasn’t fulfilled. I am very happy now.

InQ.: How much did financial considerations influence your decision to retreat from the full-time practice of law?

Jaimee: It was a concern, but it came down to the fact that I had to make a decision and prioritize my life. In making my decision, I think I gave financial considerations just the right amount of weight.

InQ.: Do you ever feel you wasted time and money on a law school education?

Jaimee: Not really—law school and my experience practicing law gave me valuable skills—such as negotiating and reasoning—that were helpful, as well as “people skills.” Also, my knowledge as a former litigator that other insurance brokers do not have helps me navigate the field. I value the education I received and the transferable skills I’ve honed over the years.

InQ.: If you knew back in college what you know now about yourself and the practice of law, would you still have gone to law school?

Jaimee: Well, I met my husband while in law school, so I would definitely do it all over again!


Even though each of these dialogues and those appearing in Part II are merely vignettes among the many stories lawyers have to tell about exploring exit strategies in their own lives, some commonalities emerge. First, to paraphrase something former CBA President Mark Fogg said, “Marry well,” which I think is simply a shorthand way of saying, if you have a significant other in your life, he or she needs to share your life’s vision and support your efforts to achieve fulfillment. Second, “Don’t live large,” meaning moderate your accumulation of material things and unnecessary debt, so that you have greater freedom to change your trajectory, reprioritize your life, and find greater happiness.

Tenth Circuit: Prosecutor’s Closing Remarks Did Not Clearly Use Co-Conspirators’ Guilty Pleas to Support Defendant’s Guilt

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in United States v. Woods on Friday, August 22, 2014.

James Woods and several co-conspirators were indicted for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine. The co-conspirators agreed to testify against Woods at the indictment in connection with their guilty pleas. Woods’ defense at trial was that he was not distributing meth. At trial, prosecutors introduced several phone calls between Woods and the co-conspirators allegedly talking about meth, although meth was never mentioned explicitly or in code. Defense argued they could have been talking about some other drug or something else. The co-conspirators also testified against Woods regarding the meth distribution scheme. Defense repeatedly pointed to their agreements to testify in exchange for reduced sentences. During closing argument, the prosecution argued that the co-conspirator witnesses would not have testified that they were involved in a meth distribution scheme had they not actually been distributing meth. Defense did not simultaneously object. Woods was indicted, and appealed.

On appeal, Woods argued that the prosecutor’s closing remarks impermissibly encouraged the jury to look at the co-conspirators’ guilty pleas and the fact of prosecution as substantive evidence of Woods’ guilt. Because he did not raise the issues in the district court, the Tenth Circuit conducted a plain error review and found none. The prosecutor’s remarks could be interpreted multiple ways, including to bolster the argument that the co-conspirators were truthful since their credibility had been attacked by defense counsel. Because there was no “clear and obvious” error, the Tenth Circuit upheld the indictment.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 8/29/2014

On Friday, August 29, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinions and five unpublished opinions.

Neiberger v. McCollum

United States v. Stewart

King v. Miller

In re Miller: Miller v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

Crownhart v. Muller

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