Breaking Up With Counsel... Oh So Hard To Do! But Why?

Hello Chicago Law Sourcers!  Happy January 2015.  Can you believe it's already almost February?  Boy, how time flies when you are having fun.  Well, today, I'd like to talk about what happens when you have a bad attorney, and how that translates for someone like me at Levin Law, Ltd. who might inherit a hurt client.  Now, relationships with client and lawyer is not always easy. I, along with every other bar-carded counsel in the land will have to agree.  However, there is a reason that lawyers are always having to defend their reputation as vicious animals, and for this post, I'd like to talk about how we can deal with that.  So, for some news you can use, on how to deal with lawyers who have wronged you and how you can work with a new lawyer to improve your case, here are some tips from the trenches:

We have all heard some horror stories and the news and media has reported on some doozies of attorney-client mishaps.  However, for the average person, it can be hard to determine when to part ways.  Here is a short list that may be useful in determining when to break up with your counsel, in no particular order:

1.  When the Trust is Lost Because of Differing Opinions on the Case.  When you and your lawyer no longer see eye to eye about the end-game and the potential to get there, it is best that one of you breaks it off.  More often than not, it's the attorney who identifies this mile-stone and initiates the tough conversation about "where is this going in your mind" kind of similar to the 6-month mark in a new relationship.  We, as human beings, always want to be sure that our "people" are on the same page.  Lawyers are humans too!  We don't want to have trust issues, and we don't want to feel as if you can't be trusted, or that you do not trust us.  If you feel that the trust is lost because you and your lawyer do not agree, then parting ways amicably is often the best outcome.  Do not fear - this doesn't always mean a burning bridge.  While generally the client should direct outcome and the lawyer should be the navigator, if it is the case that the parties cannot agree, splitting up while still on good terms is the best, for both parties.
2. When the Trust is Lost Because of Untrustworthy Behavior or Lack of Communication.  Quite simply, your lawyer owes you as a client, some ethical obligations.  They are: honesty, loyalty, candor, communication and best efforts in a competent manner.  If you cannot get those things from your lawyer, it's time to break up.  While communication can be a subjective thing, the main concept is that you should not wonder for long how your case is going, or what is happening.  Not every client wants a weekly update or letter, and not every client cares unless something is happening.  Clients should communicate their expectations and desires for communication and good lawyering demands that the attorney explain their usual methods and then agree with the client on how they will work together.  I accept texts, emails and calls.  Not everyone is on that same page, and it's totally up to the parties.  However, even though I don't send monthly status letters, I do return all calls and I do email.  If ANY client of mine wants to know what is going on, it's my highest priority to tell them.  My goal is to tell you before you ask, so that you are always up to date.  Regardless, the takeaway here is that you must communicate, and any lawyer who does not communicate cannot earn the client's trust.  Second, for ANY untrustworthy behavior, including failure to show up, failure to account for client money or failure to do what is promised, the client must break up with counsel in writing, and move on.  Your case is your case - and it's important that you retain control. 
3. When the Attorney Continually Loses Motions and Advances Bad Arguments.  Most lawyers try to make good arguments. Most lawyers do their research.  However, when a filing is continuously attacked by the other side, a diligent client should start to wonder if it's their attorney who is not doing such a good job.  It's sort of standard protocol to attack the other side's filings. However, a good and reputable attorney will know that not everything can be attacked, and it's poor form and a waste of client money to attack that which is sound, legally speaking.  Therefore, at a certain point, when a file is on it's 3rd Amended "this or that" it may be time to examine whether or not your counsel is doing it right.  After all, it's your dime!  You get what you pay for... and if you are not getting filings that have traction in court, your lawyer ought to be able to explain why.  

These are just a few things to consider when dealing with a bad attorney, or one that leaves less than a good impression.  Next,  clients must remember that not only do they have the power to stop working with an attorney, they have the right to complain and escalate matters when there is poor behavior that borders on unethical.  Just yesterday a potential client called me, complaining about a fellow lawyer whom I know of to be abusive, unethical and generally bad-bad-bad, and so I encouraged that person to file a complaint with the disciplinary commission.  It's always good to remember that lawyers are subject to the highest of obligations, and one of those obligations is that it's wrong to try to extort money from people when you aren't doing your job!  I was so glad this person called me, but it leaves me wondering where these lawyers find these poor unsuspecting clients.

Anyway, for today's message, what I'd like to impart, is that lawyering, like any kind of professional thing, is a moldable, movable relationship that has parts, good and bad.  When you come across some of the bad parts, you have options.   You can always report bad conduct, ask another attorney for a consultation to review options and to meet with your counsel to reevaluate.  I always recommend good communication on both sides, but no matter what, you have the right to break up whenever you want!

So, for your news you can use, be sure to check out Levin Law's website at www.levinlawltd.com and find our articles on SSRN, and our reviews on Yelp and Avvo. 

Bed Bugs! Chicago Ordinance Rules To Help Prevent Critter Cramps!

Happy Holidays from Levin Law, Ltd!  We are busy at work preparing for 2015 and want to talk bugs.  Bugs?  Yes.  Bugs.  Specifically, bed bugs, and how they can affect even the cleanest, spic-and-span-cleanest-homes, from Detroit to L.A.  Here in Chicago, we hear sometimes about rental issues and the pesky critters, but what is often not clear is how to deal with them, who can do what, and what who should do!  (Yes, I said that.)

What we mean is:  Everyone is responsible to avoid and treat and get rid of bed bugs.  There is no clear language in any law that makes the landlord or the tenant, or the city, or your mother, responsible for bed bugs.  They come in from anywhere, everywhere and somewhere.  Therefore, anyone and everyone and specifically someone is responsible for getting them out-out-out.  That means me, you and THEM!  

Here in the city of Chicago, the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance requires that landlords now provide Bedbug Pamphlets, notifying tenants of specific rules to follow, prevention tips and infestation suggestions to assist with bedbug issues.  Both landlords and tenants have rules to follow, and the landlord is charged with the obligation of extermination.  However, if the tenants don't follow all rules, then anything the landlord does may not work.  Big picture?  Everyone to work together, together. 

Some main ideas and rules I'm sharing today are as follows, courtesy of the City of Chicago!

Bed bugs are small, flat, wingless insects.  They feed on blood and can be a nuisance for individuals. They are named for their tendency to live on mattresses or other parts of a bed.  They can be found in homes, condominiums, apartments, hotels, schools, dormitories, shelters, offices and many other places.  In 2013, the City Council passed an ordinance to help address the problem of bed bugs.  That ordinance is available here. The requirements established by this ordinance follow:

Rental Housing

The ordinance established several requirements for both landlords and tenants.  Among these is a requirement that landlords must provide a brochure on bed bugs to tenants when signing a new or renewing an existing lease or other rental agreement (note this does not apply to owner-occupied buildings containing six units or less).  

Condominium and Cooperative Buildings

All governing associations need to have a written plan to address bed bugs.  A sample plan was created to assist associations in developing their plans.  

Other Requirements

• Requires every business licensed by the City of Chicago to provide pest control services when a bed bug problem occurs on their premises.
• Prohibits hotels or other establishments that provide sleeping accommodations from renting rooms with a bed bug problem.
• Prohibits the disposal of any bed bug infested item except when the item is totally enclosed in a plastic bag and labeled as being infested with bed bugs.
• Prohibits the recycling of any bed bug infested item.
• Requires sellers of secondhand bedding to provide notices to consumers that the bedding is made in whole or part from secondhand material or has been previously owned or used.
• Requires sellers of new and secondhand bedding to inspect it and if found to be soiled, malodorous or infested with pests, prohibits them from selling it and requires it to be properly disposed.

All in all folks.... be sure to keep it clean!  Wash your belongings on HIGH HEAT, and do not bring in trash and used furniture or mattresses from sources you do not know.  Anything can be infested. 

For more news on landlord/tenant laws and news you can use, check out our website at www.levinlawltd.com, or find us on Yelp at Levin Law, Ltd!

It's Not Fraud Just Because You Don't Like It!

Good afternoon Blogosphere!  Happy Fall from Levin Law Ltd. presenting you with News You Can Use, about all things real estate.  Here is one from my phone logs... just in today:

I get a call from a guy... we'll call him Steve.  Steve and his wife purchased a home more than 6 years ago through an estate sale.  Two women had inherited the home when their parents passed, and Steve and Co. were interested to purchase it.  He conducted an inspection, all looked fine, so they completed the sale.

Fast forward to 2014, and a City of Chicago building code inspector dropped by with his clipboard, and all of a sudden Steve finds himself facing a code violation for a "dormer" issue that he was previously unaware of.  What does he do?  He commences some kind of investigation involving the realtors, seller, his old lawyer and eventually calls me - new counsel - to try to see who he can sue for fraud, because he was never told the dormers were installed without a permit.

What?  Sounds simple, right?  Someone must have lied.  Someone must have conveniently forgotten to tell him during his escrow period that work was done and that the original owners never had a permit to do it.  Someone must pay.  Right?

Well... Maybe Not So Simple.

See, what I had to explain to Steve was that when he purchased a home, and he hired an inspector, a lawyer and a realtor - that NONE of their jobs includes asking the question of whether a permit was obtained for an addition in 1960-whatever.  IT simply isn't part of our jobs.  I explained that realtors introduce buyers and sellers.  End of story.  I explained that inspectors find current broken items.  End of Story.  I explained that for the meager money the real estate lawyer makes on the deal, their job is to examine the contract, examine the financial papers, and make sure title is good.  End of Story.  Steve was listening.

I went on to explain that regardless of a consumer's belief that a real estate lawyer should inform themselves and investigate every potential scenario in a real estate transaction - they aren't actually paid to do that - nor are they paid enough to agree to that.  He was like... "uh what?"  Yep.  What is right.

Specifically - a real estate lawyer does NOT investigate the construction history of a parcel of real estate from the  beginning of time to today, JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE BUYING IT.  What a real estate lawyer does, is to open a file and monitor deadlines, they review and negotiate the contract, they review and negotiate inspection items, and they oversee the financing documents to ensure that what you are agreeing to pay the bank is what the paperwork provides.  They are expected to ensure that the buyer receives good and merchantable title and that the seller sells the property.  What they ARE NOT DOING is to go back into the seller's history to be sure that every construction project ever done was done right, done with a permit, or done under the then-current building code.  The paperwork simply doesn't call for it.

Steve was pretty irked.  Like... who can I blame for my problems, irked.  After I suggested to Steve that sometimes building inspectors show up and find things - mostly because they are looking and where the prior owner's failure to obtain a permit in the 1960s is discovered, there are a few options, not the least of which is simply obtaining the old permit for the old work - or doing whatever the city requires.  What I had to explain is that, especially in an estate sale context, where people are simply looking to sell and buyers are simply looking to buy, what happened in the distant past is honestly never going to come up - which means that by virtue of a later discovery that something was amiss, that does not make the entire sale a "fraud case" just because the buyer wasn't told.

So what can anyone do to avoid these problems?  Well.... Not much, except to research themselves with the seller any work performed by the owner with whatever public records are available, hire an inspector and general contractor who can state whether everything is up to code (and I mean EVERYTHING) and to access city records.  These tasks are not the job of the attorney, realtor, inspector or mortgage broker.  Any homeowner or purchaser that wants a full history has some work to do.  It can be done... but all in all, the lesson here is that a fraud case is not made simply because a buyer finds out something that he thinks the older owners should have said.  Sometimes that works out - but more often than not - there is no fraud where the sellers didn't know it was a problem.

Big picture:  Do Your Homework in Real Estate.  

For more news you can use - check out www.levinlawltd.com or call Alisa Levin at 312.720.0082 in Chicago, Illinois.

DISCOVERY and Your Lawyer: Necessary Steps In Successful Litigation

Hello All in the Blogosphere!  Coming right to you from the wonder and beauty that is Chicago in the Summer, I would like to bring you some news you can use on the subject of tracking your attorney and staying on top of your case, as a client.  Direct from the trenches of a pretty "ugly" case I am involved in, it highlighted the need for me to share with you the ins and outs of stay on on top of your hired guns.

Well.. let me first start out by saying that it is important that those hiring attorneys have a general sense of what should be happening, so that at least by virtue of some key buzzwords and phrases, both lawyer and client can have a somewhat meaningful discussion.  Yes, you will probably be billed for it - just get over it.  Time = money.  So, with some help from a "friend" you can minimize the time spent on talking and pay more for doing that which ought to be done.  I am helping you to ... help yourself.

In the first place, once a case is filed, at least in the civil realm, the parties engage in a process known as DISCOVERY.  That is the time when each side learns of each other's witness, facts they intend to rely on, documents to be shown in court, and to ascertain the other sides' true theory of the case.  One of the most important things to be done though is not just the process itself - which can take months if not years, depending on the case - but to do it EARLY and COMPLETELY in the first instance.  What do I mean?

Let me explain.  I just took over a case that was filed in 2011 on behalf of Defendants.  Their lawyer, for whatever reason (not throwing stones) did not get any discovery done.  By the time I took over, opposing counsel suggested and got to the court to agree, that I had very little opportunity to do discovery.  Also, when they wanted to take a deposition of  my client, the other side refused to agree to submit their person because they said that prior counsel failed to do anything and it was too late.  Now, while I and any other lawyer in my shoes would in many cases be able to save the day - the important lesson is that we'd never have to have that discussion if discovery was done early.

So that is the RULE TO KNOW?  DISCOVER EARLY and COMPLETELY.  In the legal form, a client should understand that there is written discovery (like things called "interrogatories" and "requests for production") which really should be submitted in the early months of the case.  After that is done, then "oral fact discovery" is done, which is often known as "depositions."  These terms are important to talk to your attorney about.  Again, knowing what to expect, and understanding what your lawyer would need to get your case ready for trial, is very important - and truthfully saves you money over the long run.  A winning case can only win if it's well prepared.

Next tip?  As much as it hurts, try to give your lawyer ALL of the documents that pertain to your case early and completely.  What?   Yes.  Give your attorney COPIES of everything that is important to the case, and deliver that early.  It may sit on a desk or in a file for a while, but it's best to get that out of the way so your counsel doesn't have to fight you for it later.  Working with a disinterested or lazy client is hard, and worse, expensive.  Just do it.

Finally, provide information on EVERYONE who knows anything about the case who could be meaningful and help.  You and your lawyer will decide who does what, if anything.  Getting all of the important information is key to trial success.  What else can you do as a client to help your attorney?  Well, for starters, be sure you provide a full and complete chronology of events, provide all relevant information and identification of people that are informed about the situation, and be sure to provide all of the documents.  Once you are up to speed on those, schedule a time to chat with your counsel to be sure you have a discovery plan, and that plan is in place EARLY.  You, no matter what, must avoid having your cases' hands tied by a court - and the failure to act early and efficiently is one sure fire way to make that happen.

What is our bottom line folks?  PREPARE WELL, EARLY AND COMPLETELY!

Good luck to you all and certainly keep your eyes out for News You Can Use, from Levin Law, Ltd.

A Blurb From Chicago Agent Magazine!

Helloooooo!!!  What a beautiful day in Chicago!  At Levin Law, Ltd. we are especially proud to have partnered recently with Chicago Agent Magazine to work on their "Short List" series.  Here is the link!

Happy Summer in the City!


http://chicagoagentmagazine.com/short-list-alisa-levins-ways-agents-effectively-work-real-estate-counsel/

Alisa Levin
Levin Law, Ltd.

Pro Se? Translation: Pro Pay. Better Get Your Wallet Out!

Good afternoon Blogosphere!  I'm rekindling an old article from a different forum on Chicago Law Source, for some good old fashioned news you can use, 2014-style.

Have you ever thought that for a legal matter it would be simpler and cheaper to forego hiring an attorney and to represent yourself?  You have probably heard many horror stories of legal bills and cases gone "awry" what with us lawyers charging so much for our services.  Well, even in hard economic times, it really makes more sense than not to still hire an attorney, rather than venturing off on your own.  

Even if you think you know how to present your case, here are Five Reasons why you should not do it!

       

                  1)        You don't know the Code of Civil Procedure in your state and there are very technical rules in all courts that mandate how you file things, how you present your facts, and timelines for filing documents.

                   

                  2)        The judge is not permitted to help you and they cannot give you advice and it is expected that pro se parties conduct themselves as skillfully as attorneys.

                   

                  3)        You will not EVER be able to objectively review your case against the other side's case, because you are biased and you can't think clearly on your own issue.

                   

                  4)       You will take much longer to handle your own case because you will do at least some things wrong, so it's more efficient (and thus less stressful) to hire an attorney.

                   

                  5)        You haven't been trained to analyze facts vs. law so you won't know what to argue and when and you may get hung up on trying to present factual arguments when the issue is legal, etc.  

                   

When considering whether to hire an attorney, you must evaluate your case objectively, and an attorney's job is to tell you whether you have a case.  Nine times out of ten, what the client thinks is important is not as important as it was believed to be.  

Additionally, when pro se parties represent themselves, because they so often do things incorrectly, the whole system gets clogged and the process slows, because the judge has to deal with a cog in the wheel.  Have you ever seen a traffic jam on a highway because of an accident?  You bet!  Well that happened because someone made a mistake, and the rest of us have to wait for it to be cleaned up so traffic can move.  A courtroom functions in the same way, and when you are there arguing how you know what you are doing and how you should get special treatment because you don't have or can't afford an attorney, that is just as much of a traffic jam as it would be if we were in the car.  Moreover, when I as an attorney have to wait in a courtroom for a pro se party to finish their speech, my clients (i.e. you who may be reading this) must pay for my time to sit there!  

Translation:  pro se parties cost everyone more!

As a result, before you think you should go to court on your own, it's highly advisable to at least get a few opinions from attorneys to evaluate your case.  If you can handle it on your own, someone will definitely tell you.  For more information, please email me or call me at 312-720-0082 or visit www.levinlawltd.com for information about our practice.

You Don't Like What I Have to Say? Why Not? I'm Not In The Customer Service Business

Hello to all my spring-loving Blogophytes!  Welcome to another edition of Chicago Law Source's News You Can Use.   In this edition, I aim to discuss what happens when people don't hear what they want to - and how we all can interpret, act and then react to that.  Just now, as in 10 minutes ago, I had someone sit down for an appointment with me.  Well.... actually, it was the 4th attempt at an appointment that the person finally showed up for.  I should have known...

Anyway, so this person, we'll call her "Nancy" to protect her identity, sits down and says she has a HUGE matter that she needs an attorney for.  In my mind, I am curious, but the RED FLAG did begin to fly.  Why?  Because like tales of a different kind, the more a prospective client says something is BIG, the less likely that it is big... or whatever.    So, the lady says it's big and she needs a lawyer to make some calls for her, but that there can't be any lawsuits because the time has expired.  Another RED FLAG then flies in my eyes, because anyone sitting in my chair who already knows that the time limit for action has passed has likely already been told by someone else, or internet, or whoever, and they are searching for some poor unethical soul to tell them that they will take it on, just to see if they are right.

Oh... the poor unethical souls out there.... they do accept such cases, I know.  But, alas, I am neither a poor or unethical soul, and I see red flags as RED AS THEY ARE, and my job is to ask questions, to get to the heart of this.  However, Nancy doesn't like my questions that she knows I probably already know the answer to, because all she wants is some unethical attorney to extort from her two victims (or as she calls them, lawyers on the other side already expecting her counsel to call), substantial sums of money.

This, I think, sounds fishy.  So, to dear "Nancy", I prompt, I ask, I respond and retort - "Why Nancy, why do you think you can get substantial sums of money just by a lawyer calling for you? What makes you think that if the time limit has passed to enforce an action that the other side is going to write you a check?"  When the response is "to avoid a case being filed" then I know I've got a real beauty on my hands.  Why?  Because when I or any other attorney spots a client whose expectations are unrealistic, impossible, unethical or just plain "outta this world" then it is our duty, obligation and moral requirement to set them straight.  

So how does this take shape?  I ask the simple question first:  "So, if it's just a matter of a simple phone call to ask for the $300,000 and they are waiting for the call, why haven't you called them and said everything you think I could say?"    When I was met with the only possible answer that could come from her of "Well,  because I am not a lawyer" then I knew that this RED FLAG had just flown its last flight.  So then I followed up with some questions about what would I back up a phone call or letter with, if I as, an attorney only have as my weaponry my ability to sue and inflict legal and financial pain, if in the face of a claim I knew was unwinnable due to the time-limitation issue, what then would I be backing up my call or letter with?  What could I gain if I called or wrote and we both knew I wouldn't sue?  Wasn't she concerned about paying me by the hour to get something that they aren't going to give voluntarily?  

Once "Nancy" explained with a straight face that they would absolutely, voluntarily, and just on my request hand over $300,000 or more, since she had already talked to them" I knew our time would be brief.  However, before I could cut the meeting short, "Nancy" sensed that I smelled a rat, and got up and said that I was not the lawyer for her.  Seeing as that was the truest and most honest thing "Nancy" had said the whole time, I had to agree.  BUT, that makes me wonder, do most clients think I'm in the business to tell them what they want to hear?

I suppose, yes. Well, folks, the right answer is NO.  No, I'm NOT in the business of telling people what they WANT to hear.  I am in the business of saying what needs to be said (Just ask my mother - she will tell you I've been doing this all my life).  I am not a "paid mouthpiece" or "spokesperson" who is fed my lines.  I only say things that can be verified, backed up, and acted upon.  I don't make calls to threaten anything I'm not capable or doing or that my client is willing to act upon.  I don't call lawyers and demand $300,000 just because my client thinks so, if at the time same I'm being told that a viable claim doesn't exist because the time-limit has passed.  Moreover, when the subject-matter was disclosed on this $300,000 demand, I advised that a particular kind of lawyer in this very specialized area should provide pertinent advice.  Although Miss Know-It-All-"Nancy" didn't want to hear it, she needed to put her phone and materials down and back slowly away.  

Instead, she left, quite disgruntled that I was not more agreeable.  Although I'm sure I won't be surprised if that turns into some interesting online review, I can say one thing, "Nancy" did me a huge favor just by being herself.  She saved me from a bad client experience, and I saved her, even for just today, from making a call that will not produce fruit.  No, I'm not in the customer service business and I cannot say that I'll take any client and say anything just to make a buck.

And... at the end of the day, I think that is a pretty darn good thing.  My morals in tact, I will live on spreading News You Can Use, on important legal topics.  Your Lesson for the Day:  Part of a Lawyer's Job is to Protect Clients and Prospective Clients, From Themselves.  

What Should You Do When Your Lawyer Tells You Something You Don't Like?

• Ask Questions
• Investigate
• Come Prepared With Facts
• Have Alternative Options 
• Be Prepared to Hire Someone Else
• Explain Fully Your Problem and Why You Think  Your Issue Deserves Legal Attention

Now, What You Should Do When Your Lawyer Gives You Advice:

• Listen
• Ask Questions
• Come Prepared With Facts
• Ask About What Alternative Options The Lawyer Thinks Are Worthwhile
• Be Prepared To Hire Someone Else
• Refrain From Getting Upset Because Something You Hear is Challenging
• Explain Fully Your Problem to Be Sure Your Issue is Worthy Of Legal Attention
• Listen
• Accept That The Lawyer Is Not Trying to Hurt You
• Accept That The Truth Hurts Sometimes

So, when all is said and done, if you have heard something you don't like or agree with in a legal consultation, don't fret.  There are thousands of lawyers in the world and many of them will take your money and tell you whatever you want to hear.  When you are ready to hear the truth, all you need to do is to seek out someone reputable, honest and with integrity, who looks you in the eye and shoots it straight.  All the best lawyers do.

For more information check out: www.levinlawltd.com and Happy Day!

Should We Meet? Probably, Yes, Definitely, Maybe

Hello and Happy Spring (for those of you who know what spring looks like and haven't forgotten as we have in Chiberia)!  I am coming to you with news you can use about ongoing attorney-client relationships, and in fact, any kind of professional relationship where people have to understand one another.  Hey... most people these days rely on their devices to keep them mobile and on the go, in any environment.  That's great!  However, sometimes in the world of "getting it done like the Big Boys" it makes sense that we old-school it and have meetings.  Nothing is truer than true than that in the world of lawyers having effective relationships with their clients.  

What?  Did I say "relationships with clients?"  Yes.  But hold on.  Nothing improper!  What I mean is, that since lawyers are people too (yes we are... really), that when we are hired by clients to do certain jobs, often times the job is done and it doesn't matter if lawyer and client ever actually meet.  In fact, when I started practicing law and did almost exclusively real estate transactions, often I would talk to the client for months via phone or email and wouldn't meet them until the closing at a title company.  Now that I am heading my own firm at Levin Law, Ltd., often it is the case that I am hired by out of state people or companies, and never have we met.  Now, maybe I have taken for granted that we could Skype, or FaceTime or whatever, but I know we can do it if we want to.  I would never deny a client an opportunity to meet me.  But, I must say that while I do not always require out of state clients or corporate clients to send someone over to my office, more often than not, when I represent individuals or Chicago-based clients, I nearly always have a meeting first before we begin.  Sometimes I might do everything remotely in the beginning.  However, if I smell any issue, confusion, irritation, delay or other problem - I am usually going to ask for a meet and greet.  It not only helps to air out any issues, it helps me know whether the client is serious about an ongoing business relationship.

So then... what should I make of a client who doesn't want to meet me, or who, after me saying that I believe it is necessary to continue our relationship for the betterment of our mutual understandings of one another, refuses to do so?  Strange, isn't it?  I thought so.    Here's the thing:  we never think it strange when we meet our dentists, architects, mail carriers or checkout people.  Those professionals are all "serving their customers" the same way that an attorney does.  Patients never think it strange that they have to make in-person appointments to see their doctor, despite the fact that often times the doctor may not need to physically touch them to conduct their consultation.  In the area of law, while it is true that the attorney and client likely don't need to "touch" one another, one of the main reasons for the meeting is for each side to get an "eye" on the other, for the purposes of establishing and building mutual trust, respect, information exchange, and for establishing good communicative styles.  

Doesn't sound so bad does it?  Nah... I didn't think so.  While in many cases there may be reluctance for one reason or another, or for the main worry that it will cost too much, what clients hardly ever understand is that the development of a trusting relationship founded in mutual business for one another, REQUIRES the investment of time, energy and trust and communication.  Sometimes, and I think we should all be agreeing here, communication is better live than it is via Tweet, Facebook, SnapChat or e-mail.  Sometimes we get more done by meeting than we do via texting or letter writing.  Sometimes still, it's necessary to be old-school while still being new-school-cool.  

Back to my problem.  When I had a client that didn't want to meet with me, I tried to corral helpers, in the form of other lawyers who were working with me on the issues for that client.  I figured simply, that if more than one person was asking for the same thing, it wouldn't be viewed as suspect, but rather a very simple thing that would be considered effective for the stated purpose.  Or so I thought.  Apparently it was not simple at all.  Anyway, since I can't tell you more, what I will say is that it created a huge situation and one that forced me to quit.  Wait.... QUIT?   Why?  Because.  I had to. 

When I as the lawyer determine that I need something, it doesn't matter what it is, my client needs to get that for me.  Whether it is payment as agreed, a witness that will make the case, or a document that is the "smoking gun" or a face-to-face meeting, when I or any other lawyer in fact, determines that we need the client to do something and there is a refusal, the options suddenly decrease dramatically.  Why?  Because the pillars or foundations of the relationship crumble rather quickly when there is a refusal on a basic, or a key thing.  I am hired because of my professional judgment.  So that means, when I exercise my judgement, it's sort of like I am exercising my "executive decision making capability" and I am the leader.  The leader leads and rules and the client has to do what they say.  That is how it must work if the lawyer is to lead the client to the promised land.

What do I mean?  Well.... as I mentioned, lawyers and clients need trust, communication, a problem to solve of sorts (or rather, the "reason" for their relationship) and the respect that is required for the relationship to work.  So.  When a client refuses to communicate in the way that the lawyer has decided is necessary for moving forward, or doesn't deliver something that is needed to do the job, even where multiple attorneys make that request, the import of the message is that something must be very important to those darn lawyers, and not that they are trying to waste time or money.  In fact, usually the exact opposite is true (i.e. that we feel we are wasting time so we want to get to the nitty-gritty of the thing).  While most people probably view lawyers are time-killers, in fact, we are usually the opposite.  We want to be efficient.  It's the client that often times prevents that from happening.  

How?  Well, when I ask for something and give a deadline, I just need it by the deadline.  Stop delaying, asking me, telling me and writing me.  Just deliver.  When I say I want a meeting, it's because I want to look you in the eye - and get to the heart of what you want and whether I can get it for you.  I need what I need, in order to get you what you need.  When I say something like "I'm just trying to do my job" the client must understand that they are the ones in the way.  IN the way?  Yes!  In the way.  The lawyer is efficiently trying to say that they must stop, listen and DO something.  So we are clear:  Stop.  Listen.  Do.

Nuff said?  Maybe.  Possibly, Probably.  Definitely. Hopefully.  So what is our main lesson for the day?  Come and see me when I ask.  I usually have my reasons, and they are hardly bogus if you want the job done right.

Signing off.... enjoy the Springtime... wherever you can be found!

Good afternoon and Happy March to the Blogosphere!  I found this gem on the 'net and thought I would immediately share with you.  I cannot take credit for this simple wisdom, but it is nonetheless true so please take to heart!

6 Documents Everyone Should Have

By Gerry W. Beyer

 Share

Research shows that 70 to 80% of elders do not have advance directives giving instructions about end-of-life care.  Here are six documents everyone should have in place:

1. Medical power of attorney.  This document allows you to appoint an agent to make medical decisions on your behalf if you become unable to do so.
2. Living will.  This document details which medical treatments you do and do not want undertaken if you become incapacitated. 
3. HIPAA form.  This document gives people access to your private medical records.
4. Financial power of attorney.  This document, which goes into effect immediately after it is signed, gives someone the right to access all or a portion of your finances.
5. Letter of instruction.  Give your loved ones information about how to conduct your funeral services, whom to contact after you die, and whether you want to be buried or cremated.
6. Last will and testament.  Name your executor, appoint a guardian for your children, and determine who will receive your real estate, personalty, savings, investments, and digital assets. 

See Kimberly Leonard, 6 Decisions to Make Before You Die, U.S. News, Feb. 26, 2013

Levin Law Ltd has a new look on the web!

Check out our revamped and updated look!  Levin Law Ltd. - Chicago's one stop shop for all things commercial litigation, real estate, landlord/tenant and appellate law.



www.levinlawltd.com

Oops, I did it again! Named as an Illinois Rising Star for 2014 for Business Litigation by Super Lawyers Magazine!

Hi everyone! I'm feeling great so I thought I would share some really nice news (for a Saturday).  The 2014 edition of Super Lawyers Magazine is out and I have been privileged enough to be named for the 5th year in a row, as an Illinois Rising Star standout in Business Litigation.  

Check out the link below!

Super Lawyers 2014 - Digital Edition



I believe very firmly in the old saying that you should just do good work without always knowing who notices, and as time goes on, people will notice.  Well, that must be true because I have no idea how this happened once, let alone many years in a row.  To those who see me, thank you.  I will continue to do my best in the practice of law.

Cheers!  Have a great day, and if there are any topics my followers would like the to write about, please do drop me a line!  

How to Hire Me? Let The Lawyer Counsel the Client on How to Hire....And Build Trust

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!  Welcome to 2014.  The year of getting it all done.  Here with some news you can use, I would like today's post to talk about client retention.  That is.. how you should hire an attorney.  I have two would-be's who are giving me pause, and I felt like this is an excellent opportunity to use these two as examples of how to get off to a bad start with a lawyer.

As per my usual, I like to give tips on how to have a good relationship with your lawyer.  Folks, this starts off at the moment you contact me.  If you have found my name or any attorney's name online or via a referral from a friend, or even on a billboard, when you call, there are a few rules to know, for maximum respect and an interest to help you.  First, it's a good idea to leave your phone messages brief and to the point.  A good example of this would be as follows:

     "Hi.  This is John Jones, and I'd like to speak with you or someone in your office about a   n     landlord/tenant matter.  I'm a landlord and looking to evict a non-paying tenant.  I can be reached at ...........  Please call me." 

That is right, to the point and succinct.  We love that.  When a prospective someone goes on and on and tells me how they got laid off, and have no money, or they get into the real meat and potatoes of the matter, then there's little to talk about at a consultation which the lawyer should be getting paid for, and there is the message sent that the client has just run their mouth too much. Just leave a short message. It helps.

Second, when hiring an attorney, a client should expect a retainer agreement.  It's taught in school that this is a serious and formalized process that begins the attorney-client relationship and builds trust.  If I give you a contract and tell you that all blank fields must be filled out, you must fill them out.  If I ask for a credit card number and your social, then that means in order to hire me, you must provide that information.  Yes, if you don't pay, that helps me to collect.  However, when you open a checking account or rent an apartment, you give all that information up, including your checking account number - every time you write a check!  Hiring lawyers is no different.  When the attorney asks for information, although it must be used for a lawful purpose, the lawyer has the right to ask.  While the prospective client has the right to decline, the retainer of the attorney may hinge on just the paperwork being filled out.  You need to be clear on what is expected of you.  Be sure you understand.

Third, along the same lines, but in a different lane, another kind of prospective client asks an attorney to review a case and consider accepting it but then never really gets that far in retaining the attorney.  If you contact someone and want advice and tell them you are going to hire them - after many emails going back and forth if the attorney has to keep asking you for a meeting or when they will be given the file, the prospective client needs to understand that the lawyer is very soon not going to be all that interested in the case, if the "hiring" portion of the discussion doesn't get underway on the faster end of the discussion.  A good thing to remember is that if you are getting rid of your current lawyer, sometimes you just have to have a discussion and get rid of the current person before someone new can take over.  Big picture here?  Just do it already.  Get the file to the new lawyer, and properly complete the retainer process.  What dilly-dallying gets you is a lost case in court.

Overall, it's very important for would-be clients to understand is that justice doesn't wait while you do.  Cases are won and lost on delay issues and claims all the time.  You must act fast to preserve legal rights, and its important that then you hire counsel, you understand.

The best way to hire counsel is by following simple rules:

1. Be direct in communications.
2. Fill out all retainer paperwork completely.
3. Deliver all file materials, documents, photos, emails and a full chronology of events 
4. Be diligent in timing and do not waste time by procrastinating.
5. Be informed about the existing status of your case and pending court dates.
6. Be a good communicator!

All in all, the best advice is the simplest:  tell the truth and be on time.  Happy 2014 to all my loyal readers and please keep me in mind for Chicago based real estate law.  

Levin Law, Ltd.

Purchasing a Foreclosure or Short-Sale Property? Be Sure It's Empty, Folks!

Good afternoon everyone - it's been a while since I visited last.  I have some news you can use about purchasing in the real estate community since foreclosure sales and short sales are so popular. What is clear is that people can get a wonderful deal on a distressed property.  What may not be so clear is some of the pitfalls that become of vacant or distressed properties when the owners move out for greener pastures.  This holiday post is for all of you who need news you can use, about buying safe, smart and closing the deal.  In no particular order......

1)  Tour the Property Multiple Times Before Closing!

I have a client who is purchasing a great short-sale property that was in foreclosure in Chicago.  The property is zoned as a multi-unit, but the seller took out the kitchen on the second floor.  That effectively (although not legally) changed it to a single-family house).  THEN, when he decided he wanted a short sale and stopped paying the mortgage and moved out of state, he told a friend that he could stay there ("to protect the property.").  This "friend" then in turn, invited a few other people to come and stay.  When the client responded to the MLS listing, there were two people we were told were living there.  When they went back again to take some measurements and do the inspection, then there were 5 beds and closets full of things.  They began to worry - how many people were really there?  Would they be gone at closing?  

Your tip:  Be SURE that your contract provides that you obtain full possession at closing, and that all personal property and people have vacated.  Do NOT CLOSE if the people are not out.  The seller is obligated to get all of the people out, even if the seller is a bank.  If the seller or bank (or whoever is conducting the sale) will not provide assurances of possession at closing, then you need to be prepared to engage a real estate litigation lawyer to possibly start eviction proceedings once you close.  Beware, and do an inspection the day before.  

** Many people think multiple inspections are just for new construction or rehabs.  NO!!  You have the right to assess the property condition right before closing.  Take advantage of it.

2)  Inspect All Systems, Appliances and Fixtures Before Closing!

Most people know that a property inspection is a good thing to do.  However, in a short-sale or foreclosure situation it is imperative that you do so.  When a buyer tours the property it's all too easy to get distracted by imagining furniture placement or the new granite that would look so wonderful in the kitchen.  However, you must be sure the appliances work, can be fixed, or that you understand the costs involved for replacement.  They all affect your bottom line.  Often the water is shut off, or the property has been winterized.  It's important to understand what needs to be done to make the place livable, BEFORE you are past the attorney review and inspection provisions of your contract.  Take advantage of those contingencies in real estate contracts - they are there for the buyer's protection!

3)  ALWAYS Ask for Repair or For the Seller to Provide Repair Credit 

Many times when dealing with banks or with high-volume real estate firms that handle foreclosures and short-sales, people and realtors alike assume that they will never be able to negotiate a repair credit so that they do not bother to inspect like they should, and they don't bother to ask for credits because they mistakenly believe the seller will never agree.  ALWAYS ask for a credit.  What you do not know, is that just because the seller may not agree to repair or provide any money, is that the bank handling the short-sale or foreclosure has a certain amount they need to be paid off, and in many cases the bank may allow such a credit (which reduces what they receive).  It NEVER hurts to ask.  DO it.  You will thank me when I'm right.

4)  Do Not Be Afraid To Solicit Repair Bids Before Closing

SO that you understand your finances and obligations for repairing the property, usually a listing agent will provide necessary access to a potential/prospective buyer who is under contract, if they need time to obtain bids for work.  Often that work is wrapped into the financing so the lender will require it.  Be sure you schedule time to get that done before closing - which usually will require property access. Either realtor can get you into the property, so do not forget to get that done before closing.  It will make the weeks post-closing much smoother if you already know who to hire, what it will cost and what they need to get started to fix up the property.

All in all, you will definitely need a trusted realtor, attorney and contractor to help you with the often murky waters of foreclosures and short-sales, since so many can be time-consuming and complicated.  However, once you make it past those hurdles, you can get great deals in hot and up-and-coming areas.  

Good luck and happy holidays from Levin Law, Ltd!

Would the Sheriff Look at Facebook? Why Yes. I Would Know.....

Hello to everyone in the blogosphere.  It's been a while since I connected by sending you some news you can use, so today I have decided to share my experience attending a focus-group meeting with the Cook County Sheriff's Eviction and IT Team.  It was a really interesting, productive, and worthwhile meeting (even if I accidentally showed up two hours early and had to sit around with Starbucks!).  So why was I there, you ask?

Well, for starters, it all came up when I was filing an eviction and I was representing a landlord who had an unruly tenant who was troublesome.  I had asked the landlord for information about the tenant's hours, comings and goings, and for a physical description since he had a common name.  Then when I was doing the eviction, I asked at the Cook County Sheriff's Office Information Desk - was there a particular form I could use to provide them with some additional information.  They said I should fill out a suggestion for the "Suggestion Box."  So I did.

Well... low and behold, a week or so later, I received calls from a Sergeant in Charge, as well as in-house counsel for the Sheriff.  I was impressed.  Not only that, they invited me to submit all of my ideas and they announced the focus group - which of course I wanted to attend.  So today, I went and was able to meet and greet a lot of decision makers in the Sheriff''s office and IT people who are implementing a lot of good ideas to streamline the Sheriff's Website, to make evictions and process serves more effective, and to be better about communication.  But more importantly, they wanted to know what we think.  Me?  Little old lawyer me?  Yes.  They asked and asked again.  And then some. And it was not just me either.  It was a lot of people.

What did I say?  I offered suggestions such as improving Summons and Information Forms at the courthouse so t hat when someone is being served with any kind of legal service of process by the sheriff, the plaintiff should be able to describe them, provide photos, give information about the property (i.e. "use side gate" or the "code is 1234", etc.) so that their work is more effective and they don't get stuck.  Also, I suggested email case notice and real-time access in the courtrooms to the sheriff's data since court clerks and judges are often interested in those things (especially when the wiley lie about things like service).  I mentioned that private process servers get paid for success and that the sheriff's office should refund in certain circumstances since parties in Chicago are forced to use them when serving in Cook County in the first instance - it would be a way to give back for the forced use of their office.

All in all, it was a great meeting, but I took away something else.  I learned that government agencies are not always out to have their own way, and to corrupt the system.  Oftentimes they want to do good and they start by asking how they can be better.  That is excellent and gives me pause to tell Tom Dart, Sheriff of Cook County, that HE is doing a great job.  Thanks Sheriff Dart.  I'll be back at the next meeting with more ideas, and news you can use.  Until next time!

Forced to Accept Section 8? What? One Real Estate Lawyer's Finger to the Local Government

Hello Followers!  News just in to me.... I heard today that the Cook County (Illinois) Human Rights Ordinance is possibly going to be amended to force property owners to accept Section 8 Tenants, citing long-standing issues and the fight against "income discrimination."  I'm in SHOCK!!!  People who know me have heard me rant from time to time about Section 8 and the ridiculousness with which the program STILL exists.  In this possible ongoing installment, I'd like to comment on why property owners should not accept Section 8 vouchers, and they should be extremely wary of those people who have them.  In my lawyer's experience doing evictions and landlord/tenant work, voucher-holders, are simply not in touch with reality and thus, in too many instances, not good tenants to work with.

The Cook County Amendment basically creates a new classification of discrimination (i.e. "income") against which the ordinance prohibits conduct against individuals.  It creates a new protected class of persons, and thus widens the group of people who can make a claim of housing discrimination.  The existing prohibitions relating to fair housing and real estate are race, religion, sex, age, disability, among some others.  By adding a new group, those who are "income challenged" the Cook County Board has decided, that property owners may not choose specifically to refuse rent to someone on the basis of their income.

THAT IS RIDICULOUS!   First, I say this because that is the entire basis of the world order in this country.  Poor people can't afford mansions for a reason:  they are poor.  If a person cannot afford a swanky three bedroom condominium in the heart of the downtown area, then by golly, they should go and find something that they can work with.  If they can't find anything, then PERHAPS, they should re-evaluate their jobs, lives, cars, religion, friends, or whatever is holding them back from education, work and creating a realistic goal in regards to income.  It is, as a real estate attorney, manifestly unfair to a property owner to force them to consider the source of income only for the positive, and not be able to consider it as a negative.  If such rules are passed, then landlords may be forced to consider illegally obtained funds as well, say from prostitution, drug sales, and such crazy things as online gambling.  Why shouldn't the source of money count?  It counts to the IRS.  It counts in divorce court.  It counts when one applies for health insurance or medical care.  It counts when people ask for food stamps.  I am super excited for a reason that actually changes my mind about section 8 - I have YET to see it.

Second, what is often unknown about the Section 8 program is that a property owner is required to accept the vouchers through participation in a program and an actual contract with the housing authority.  As the result of that, the landlord has two contracts - the lease with the tenant which has its own set of provisions, and yet another contract - one with the housing authority, that prohibits how and when the landlord can evict, when the tenant can move.  Although some landlords don't mind this setup, it creates a forced business arrangement and shoves down the landlord's proverbial throat, a partnership that may not be welcome.  That to me, is unconstitutional.  

Third, has anyone ever really examined the amount of rent that the tenant pays in a housing voucher program? It's so low that a high schooler could afford it. So then, what that does is teach the recipient that they do NOT have to work hard, get an education, or work to reach a level where they can afford more.  It teaches, by implication and example, that the costs associated with a productive life do not have to be paid, because "there's a coupon for that."  It creates a situation where the voucher-holder/tenant starts to think that $1000 a month is crazy-expensive and improper, when the majority of us tax-paying, hard-working, educated-ourselves-to-make-a-better-life have to pay "market rent" or higher, to live where we want to live.   If a person begins to think that the correct price for housing is $100-400 a month, then they are never put in a position to work for more, thus keeping themselves in the vortex of poverty that they supposedly want to get out of.   Let's teach a man to fish here, people.  

Now, I could go on and on about how I feel about this.  But what is important here is the fact that in Cook County, Illinois where I practice, this could really create a fuss.  I'm 100% positive this will be challenged in court and to some degree, and I'm very excited for this prospect.  I think that our government, even at the local level, in this instance, is playing Big Brother, and poorly at that.  If people on the Cook County Board care so much about low-income residents, then perhaps they should be spending time educating people on what life really costs, and encouraging people in Chicago to stay in school, stop selling drugs and shooting each other, and to aim and reach higher than the CHA Section 8 Program.  The rest of us, working our tails off to pay our market rent and mortgage costs, whose taxes pay the Cook County Board's salary and whose tax dollars and consumer dollars have to subsidize these foolish and lazy entitlement seekers, will thank you for your time well spent. 

If you get the chance and are in Chicago and agree:  Let your Alderman know your thoughts.  As a real estate attorney, I would recommend that all property owners fight against this.  You can't be forced to do business with any entity that you do not want to do business with.  You may not be able to de-select people because of race, religion, age, or protected status.  However, income is NOT a valuable or fair protected class status in my opinion.   If you can't afford it, that is just too bad.  It happens to the rich and middle class, and the poor should not be put on a pedestal to get that which they have not earned, all the while forcing a landlord to rent to them when he or she would not otherwise qualify them based upon income.  

For rants, raves, facts and news you can use, always feel free to check us out, like our Facebook page, or just leave a note.