July 22, 2019

Archives for September 9, 2014

Is There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part II

Editor’s Note: This article appeared in the September 2014 issue of The Colorado Lawyer. This is the first part of a 5-part series on Legal Connection. 

SandgrundBy Ronald M. Sandgrund, Esq., InQ.

Introduction to Part II of the Dialogue

This two-part article discusses an issue nearly all lawyers must confront during their careers: developing and deploying an exit strategy. This can mean exiting one area of practice for another; transitioning from the law to a different endeavor; accommodating the demands of raising a family; and slowing down or retiring near the end of one’s career. The article explores the issue through the eyes of two groups of lawyers: the first group transitioned from the day-to-day practice of law to a different job; the second group sought to reduce their hours on the road to retirement. The story of every lawyer I spoke to is different, but the moral of those stories is the same: there are better exit strategies than death.

Is There a Better Exit Strategy Than Death?—Part II

As the Eagles sing in “Already Gone”: “So often in time it happens, we all live our life in chains, and we never even know we have the key,”[1] and in “Lyin’ Eyes,” that “[e]very form of refuge has its price.”[2] Even so, they implore in “Desperado” that while “[i]t may be raining . . . there’s a rainbow above you.”[3] In sum, there is a key to that door marked “Exit,” and behind that door may be something quite fabulous.

None of the lawyers I interviewed found a foolproof recipe for exiting the full-time practice of law. For each, it was dynamic process, learning as they went along. It seems that the keys to their succeeding were: (1) recognizing that a change was necessary to stay or become content; (2) visualizing their world after they had made such a change; (3) creating and implementing a plan to effect this change; and (4) communicating clearly to those around them their desire for change.

[1] From “Already Gone,” by the Eagles, words by Jack Tempchin and Robb Strandlund (1974). Having grown up in the 1970s and 1980s, I am most familiar with the Eagles’ lyrics, but every generation’s music seems to repeat their themes.

[2] From “Lyin’ Eyes,” by the Eagles, words by Don Henley and Glenn Frey (1975).

[3] From “Desperado,” by the Eagles, words by Don Henley and Glenn Frey (1973).

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 9/8/2014

On Monday, September 8, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued one published opinion.

In re People v. Hoskins

The summary for this case is forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

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

Colorado Supreme Court: Trial Court Erroneously Denied Party Its Counsel of Choice

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Hoskins on Monday, September 8, 2014.

Disqualification of Retained Counsel of Choice—Colo. RPC 1.9(a).

In this original CAR 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s order disqualifying petitioners’ retained counsel of choice under Colo. RPC 1.9(a). The trial court found that counsel previously represented another party in the same matter for which counsel now represents petitioners, and that the former client and petitioners have materially adverse interests. The Court held that, because the record before it was insufficient to support a finding that the interests of petitioners and the former client are materially adverse in this criminal proceeding, the trial court abused its discretion by disqualifying petitioners’ retained counsel of choice under Colo. RPC 1.9(a). Accordingly, the Court made the rule absolute, reversed the trial court’s order disqualifying petitioners’ counsel of choice, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 9/8/2014

On Monday, September 8, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

United States v. Barrera-Aguilar

Morgan v. Addison

United States v. Romero

Priestley v. Priestley

United States v. Springer

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