Things to Look for When Hiring an Attorney

Things to Look for When Hiring an Attorney

Choosing an attorney to give you legal counsel in a court of law is one of the most important decisions that you will ever make in your life. There are many people who believe that all attorneys possess basically the same level of legal skill because they all graduated from law school. However, that is not correct. There are some attorneys who will give you a much better chance of winning in court than others. This can be a very difficult decision to make because there are an enormous amount of attorneys in every city. This is why you need to know what to look for. The following things should be the primary factors that determine which attorney you hire.

1. You should only hire an attorney who has at least eight years of full-time experience.

Experience is by far the most important factor that you need to search for when you are deciding on an attorney to represent you. This is because legal cases can be very complicated. Your attorney might need to do a lot of legal maneuvering in order to put you in a position to win your case. This is not something that you want to entrust to someone who has not been working as an attorney for very long. Always check the attorney’s website to verify his or her level of experience. Hiring an experienced family law attorney Denver CO will make your odds of winning your case much greater.

2. The negotiating skills of the attorney you high must be outstanding.

You should always try to reach a settlement instead of going to court. There are no guarantees that you will be able to get what you want if you allow your case to be decided by a judge or a jury. This is why you should always try to reach a settlement with the opposing party outside of the courtroom. This will ensure that you will walk away with something. Even the most experienced lawyer will not be able to promise you a specific outcome once you enter a courtroom. This is why you need to have an attorney who knows how to negotiate.

3. The lawyer should charge you rates that are easy for you to afford.

You will quickly discover that attorneys have vastly different rates. Compare their prices to see who is the lowest.

A (surprisingly) fair article from The New York Times It must've been a mistake!

I was shocked!

Small Businesses Cheer ‘New Sheriff in Town’ After Climate Pact Exit

By Landon Thomas Jr | June 2, 2017

As news that President Trump was pulling out of the Paris climate accord hit at a luncheon for small-business owners in Toledo, Ohio, on Thursday, an already happy crowd suddenly turned euphoric.

“It was like a major win at a football game,” said Rick Longenecker, a management consultant who had been among the 50 or so attendees who gathered to trade thoughts amid a rapidly improving local economy.

While multinational corporations such as Disney, Goldman Sachs and IBM have opposed the president’s decision to walk away from the international climate agreement, many small companies around the country were cheering him on, embracing the choice as a tough-minded business move that made good on Mr. Trump’s commitment to put America’s commercial interests first.

This full-throated support from the small-business community comes even as the Trump administration struggles to advance health care legislation and tax reform plans through Congress — and despite the swelling controversy over Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia.

Perhaps the writer, and the editors of the Times, might consider the possibility that the small-business community, and the great mass of ‘flyover country’ people who put Donald Trump in the White House, don’t care about “the swelling controversy over Mr. Trump’s ties to Russia,” and see that controversy “swelling” solely due to the credentialed media talking about it every second they can.

There’s much more at the original article, in which the writer notes the increasingly divergent views of small businessmen from those of the leadership of major corporations. The article noted several small businessmen, such as John Bagge, who runs a catering company in Kirkland WA with his wife and daughters, and Dave Griggs, owner of Dave Griggs Flooring America in Columbia MO, who employs a whopping 16 people. Small companies such as theirs make up 99% of businesses in America, and employ half of private sector workers in the United States. Those businessmen have their livelihoods nailed to their spines, and if Louis M. Soltis’ company in Toledo OH fails, he will (probably) go broke personally.

In the meantime, Mark Fields, the recently dismissed CEO of Ford, walks away with:

unvested stock awards valued at $29.4 million as of Wednesday’s close, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Those will vest through 2020, with the majority tied to performance goals. Fields also is entitled to about $17.5 million in retirement benefits, plus stock options worth $8.1 million and an estimated prorated incentive bonus of about $2.1 million.

Mr Fields even gets to use company aircraft until August 1st!

Small businessmen have to worry about every penny being subtracted from the bottom line, and the now-canceled Paris climate agreement threatened to start subtracting more nickels and dimes and dollars from those bottom lines. If Mr Griggs’ flooring company has to pay more for fuel and electricity and all of the raw materials they use due to the climate agreement, and that additional cost causes him to lose money, Mr Griggs isn’t going to walk away from business failure with the $58 million Mr Fields will receive to soothe his hurt feelings. Chief executives Douglas McMillon (Walmart), Virginia M. Rometty (IBM), Elon Musk (Tesla)1 and Robert A. Iger (Disney), all members of the President’s economic advisory council — the latter two resigned following the President’s decision, as though they were wholly unaware that this was a promise he made on the campaign trail — opposed the decision, but, like Mr Fields, if they lose their jobs due to a decline in their companies’ bottom lines,2 they are still going to walk away with multiple millions of dollars.

There is an insularity among the credentialed media and major corporations, and CNN, CBS, and The New York Times are major corporations themselves, which self-reinforces liberal views.  The credentialed media were all surprised by the strength Mr Trump showed with the voters, and the urban elites probably shared Hillary Clinton’s amazement that she wasn’t fifty points ahead of Mr Trump, because they discuss things with the big CEOs, but their only interactions with small businessmen are buying their breakfast bagels.  They have demonstrated, time and again, that they just don’t get it; that’s why the Times’ decision to publish that article surprised me.

  1. Mr Musk’s business happens to specialize in things which would be compliant with the Paris agreements, and that accord was a competitive advantage for him; I dismiss his statement as being self-serving.
  2. Ford enjoyed record profits during Mr Fields’ tenure, but Ford stock dropped by almost 40%.

As always, the left blame everyone but themselves

I must really be a big deal, ’cause I just got an e-mail from Jen Psaki:

From Jen Psaki
Dana —

This administration just made it official: They’re withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement. I don’t have to tell you how devastating that is.

For the eight years I worked at the White House and the State Department under President Obama, we had a simple rule: When we made a promise as a nation — one that nearly every other government in the world stood behind, one that was popular with both businesses and citizens, and one that safeguarded a prosperous future for our children — we kept it.

This administration is taking the opposite path.

Any way you slice it, pulling out of Paris is the wrong move. It’s bad for jobs, as clean energy jobs are growing 12 times faster than the overall economy. It’s bad for our relationship with the rest of the world. It’s bad for our health and safety, our national security, our air, and our water.

It’s bad for our kids and our grandkids.

But here’s the other thing I can promise you: This fight isn’t over yet.

Thanks to Paris, united worldwide progress on climate change isn’t theoretical anymore. Nearly every other country in the world is formally on board, with plans to make serious cuts in carbon pollution in the coming decades. So are businesses like Apple. Even oil companies like Exxon understand the importance of the Paris agreement and that climate change must be addressed.

So here’s our chance to join them — to make this a short, ugly bump on an otherwise long road of global cooperation and progress. To let the world know that, even if this administration doesn’t yet recognize it, we as citizens won’t go silent on climate change.

This is our moment. Stand with OFA today and join this team:

Thank you,

Jen Psaki

Former White House Communications Director
Former Spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State

This is kind of laughable, really. In 1977, President Carter signed the two Panama Canal Treaties, which, we were told, could never be ratified. Mr Carter believed in them, and cajoled and sweet-talked and lobbied, but most of all, he fought, for Senate ratification of those treaties, and he won, getting both treaties approved 68-32. This happened because President Carter believed in the agreements and was willing to fight for them against a hostile environment.

But President Obama, whom Miss Psaki tells us truly believed in the Paris climate change agreements, didn’t have the courage to fight for his convictions. He, too, faced a hostile Congress, and he knew that there was at least a chance that he would be succeeded by a man who had already promised to cancel the Paris Agreement if he became President. And now, the Paris Agreement is in tatters, because the President who signed it didn’t have the courage to fight for it.

The left always want to blame President Trump, but if they had gotten their act together during the previous eight years, the Paris Agreement would be a ratified treaty, which Mr Trump could not have just cancelled.

Remember when Donald Trump was going to withdraw from the Paris agreement on his first day in office?

Alas! What conservatives said, all along, is that Donald Trump is no conservative. He promised, during his campaign, that he would withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement. He has been President for 132 days now, and just today he is going to ‘announc(e) (his) decision’ on the Paris Accords, something he told us, on the campaign trail, he had already decided.

What little of the news I could watch yesterday indicated that there was at least an attempt to find some middle ground position he could take, short of full withdrawal. If those reports were correct — and, who knows, they could have been simple speculation — then his campaign-time decision was not so final, was it?

I am hopeful that his ‘decision’ will be complete withdrawal, but the President has surprised us before.

At least I can find some amusement in the fact that President Obama has the agreement tailored so that it would not require submission to the Senate as a treaty, or the Congress as a whole, as an executive-legislative agreement, because he believed that the agreement would be rejected by Congress. Of course, had he done so, and the odious Hillary Clinton won the election, as the prevailing wisdom said she would, and the Democrats recaptured the Senate, as they believed they would, then the agreement might not be subject to the capricious decisions of the President alone.

I wonder how the left would react to a theater excluding men from a movie?

From The Washington Post:

‘It’s sexist’: Men flip out over women-only ‘Wonder Woman’ screenings

By Peter Holley | May 26 at 7:17 AM

A popular Texas movie theater that doesn’t shy from controversy decided to turn a screening of the new “Wonder Woman” movie into a jam-packed celebration with a single rule:

“No boys allowed.”

“Apologies, gentlemen, but we’re embracing our girl power and saying ‘No Guys Allowed’ for one special night at the Alamo Ritz. And when we say ‘People Who Identify As Women Only,’ we mean it,” Austin movie theater chain Alamo Drafthouse announced Wednesday about the June 6 showing.1 “Everyone working at this screening — venue staff, projectionist, and culinary team — will be female.”

“So lasso your geeky girlfriends together and grab your tickets to this celebration of one of the most enduring and inspiring characters ever created,” added the announcement, which has been shared on Facebook more than 1,500 times.

Further down:

“This has zip to do with equality,” the theater commented. “This is a celebration of a character that’s meant a great deal to many women since 1940.”

The theater is a private company, and as far as I am concerned, can do whatever it wishes, but if the goal is to present the image of strong women, wouldn’t they want men to see it as well? Since the movies are a very typical “date night” type of thing, wouldn’t “lasso(ing) your geeky girlfriends together and grab(bing) your tickets to this celebration of one of the most enduring and inspiring characters ever created” mean that the boyfriends of those geeky girlfriends are less likely to see the movie?2 Seems to me like it’s missing the point of the movie!

  1. How interesting: the movie release date is June 2, not June 6. The theater owners picked D-Day, the date in which men stormed the beaches at Normandy, to celebrate a female super-hero.
  2. I am very unlikely to attend the movie, but not for any political or protest reasons; I rarely go to the theater for anything, preferring to watch movies at home. The odds are that I’ll watch it at home, on my 42″ high def television, with closed captioning for my degraded hearing, when it hits the small screen.

CNN’s hit piece on Don McGahn

There are times I wonder if CNN has taken the editorial decision to go All Anti-Trump, All the Time, the way they did with the O J Simpson trial last century.

This morning’s hit piece was on White House counsel Don McGahn. The lovely and leggy Alisyn Camerota, so reliably conservative when she was an anchor on Fox News Channel, was interviewing Ellen Weintraub, a Democratic member of the Federal Election Commission, and the wife of Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD).

Ellen Weintraub. Photo from her FEC biography

The purpose of Mrs Weintraub’s appearance on CNN’s New Day this morning was to label Mr McGahn a “chaos agent” while her served on the Federal Election Commission. She claimed that, during his tenure there, he worked to prevent election investigations, and that he had a “libertarian” attitude. Mrs Weintraub stated that the job of the White House counsel is to be the “conscience” of the White House, and to hold people there to the highest ethical standard, rather than looking for “loopholes” to allow people to do whatever they want.

That’s incorrect: the job of the White House counsel is to advise the President and his staff what the law requires, not what a Democrat believes is ethical.

At 8:21 AM, Mrs Weintraub admitted, explicitly, that she has no idea what advice Mr McGahn gives President Trump or his staff behind closed doors. Miss Camerota then asked, “If you are going to be a government agent or work in the government, why would you avoid enforcing the law?” What a shame she didn’t ask that question of President Obama and his staff concerning immigration!

It takes a Chinese student to teach the #snowflakes about freedom of speech

From The Washington Post:

A Chinese student praised the ‘fresh air of free speech’ at a U.S. college. Then came the backlash.

By Simon Denyer and Congcong Zhang | May 23 at 1:03 PM

BEIJING — When Yang Shuping spoke Sunday of her eternal gratitude to the University of Maryland for teaching her about “free speech” and showing her that her “voice mattered,” she may not have realized just how much it mattered.

A video of her eight-minute address at her commencement ceremony at the university went viral in China, attracting 50 million views and provoking hundreds of thousands of critical comments by Chinese netizens the following day. Even the People’s Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece, weighed in, reporting on a crescendo of criticism of Yang for “bolstering negative Chinese stereotypes.”

Accused by nationalist netizens of flattering the United States and belittling China, Yang was forced to make an apology Monday.

“People often ask me: Why did you come to the University of Maryland?” she said in her speech. “I always answer: Fresh air.”

“I grew up in a city in China where I had to wear a face mask every time I went outside, otherwise I might get sick. However, the moment I inhaled and exhaled outside the airport, I felt free,” she said, referring to her arrival in the United States.

“I would soon feel another kind of fresh air for which I will be forever grateful. The fresh air of free speech. Democracy and free speech should not be taken for granted. Democracy and freedom are the fresh air that is worth fighting for.”

There’s more at the original.

Miss Yang said that, prior to seeing a play on the 1992 riots in Los Angeles, following the arrest and beating of Rodney King, she believed what the Chinese government had always taught, that “only authorities could define the truth.”  That, of course, was the position of the left in the United States, from January 20, 2009 until January 20, 2017; now it seems that only the ‘resistance’ can define the truth, and that the Special Snowflakes™ must be protected from hearing anything said by anyone else.  More, the #snowflakes have the right to prevent other people from hearing what the snowflakes find objectionable or hurtful.

One ‘comment’ from inside the People’s Republic is telling:

Are speeches made there (in the United States) not examined for evaluation of their potential impact before being given to the public?

That’s what the snowflakes and people whining that some things are ‘hate speech’ seem to think should happen. It’s a shame that here in the US, the country with the strongest laws and greatest traditions supporting freedom of speech, should need a young Chinese woman to teach us about freedom of speech.

One more paragraph from the Post:

By Tuesday afternoon in China, the home address of Yang’s family had been shared widely in the commentary sections of local media websites, on Chinese social media posts and even in replies to her social media posts. China’s normally hyperactive censors apparently found no need to suppress that information.

For Miss Yang, and for other Chinese students studying in the United States, the message is brutally clear. The left did the same thing in the United States, publishing names and addresses of companies which contributed to the campaign to pass Proposition 8 in California.

The blog tagline on William Teach’s The Pirate’s Cove is “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Absotively, posilutely right.

The Fed says that “full employment . . . means every worker looking for a job can find one” Lies, damned lies, and statistics

From The Wall Street Journal:

‘Still a Question Mark’ Around Full Employment, Fed’s Brainard Says

Too soon to declare victory on labor market’s recovery from recession despite recent improvements, Fed Governor Brainard says

By David Harrison | Updated May 22, 2017 9:17 p.m. ET

Lael Brainard

Lael Brainard

It is too soon to declare victory on the labor market’s recovery from the recession despite recent improvements, Federal Reserve Governor Lael Brainard said Monday.

“For me I think there’s still a question mark around are we there yet,” she said.

Speaking at a conference organized by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Ms. Brainard said Fed researchers estimate the labor market is now strong enough to absorb new people looking for work. But that has not translated into accelerating inflation, suggesting there might be more room for improvement in employment, she said.

“We really aren’t seeing much progress on core inflation,” she said. “If anything the last few months we’ve seen some stalling out of core inflation.”

Core prices, which strip out volatile food and energy prices, fell in March from the prior months for the first time since 2010. Analysts blamed changes in cellphone plan pricing but the drop has raised worries that the economy might be slowing down.

Let’s see, first quarter gross domestic product growth was a paltry 0.7%, on an annualized basis,1 so yes, there could be concern that the economy is slowing.

Ms. Brainard didn’t discuss the prospect of another interest rate increase at the Fed’s June meeting. But her comments suggest she remains concerned about the health of the labor market.

Over the past few weeks, several Fed officials have said the labor market has returned to full employment, which means every worker looking for a job can find one. Ms. Brainard’s remarks indicate some skepticism that employment is back to full strength.

OK, who says that “full employment . . . means every worker looking for a job can find one”? We have a serious employment mismatch in this country, one in which employers are having difficulties finding employees with the appropriate skills and training for their open positions, and unemployed people cannot find jobs either within their area or education and skill levels.2 If there are any “Fed officials” who believe that “the labor market has returned to full employment,” using that definition of full employment, those “Fed officials” need to become former Fed officials, because they are too f(ornicating) stupid to work there.

If we were anywhere close to the point at which “every worker looking for a job can find one,” it wouldn’t have been President Trump submitting a detailed federal budget today; it would be [shudder!] President Hillary Clinton.3 Our government leaders, so isolated in Washington and other big cities, simply do not understand what is happening in our country. They look at statistics, and think that they are seeing reality.

  1. The Commerce Department is scheduled to release its second estimate, based on more complete data, on Friday, May 26.
  2. And, sadly, their ability to pass a drug test.
  3. U-3 unemployment rate for October, 2016 = 4.8%; April 2017 = 4.4%; U-6 for October 2016 = 9.5%; April 2017 = 8.6%. While U-6 has shown significant improvement, U-3 is not so very different between just before election day, and today.

Ford replaces CEO Mark Fields

From The Wall Street Journal:

Ford Replaces CEO Mark Fields With Jim Hackett Amid Pressure on Profit

Move comes amid a significant decline in share-price value during CEO’s three-year tenure

By John D. Stoll, Christina Rogers and Joann S. Lubin | Updated May 22, 2017 9:32 a.m. ET

Looking to combat Silicon Valley’s abrupt push into the car business, Ford Motor Co. F +1.81% Chief Executive Mark Fields hired industry outsider Jim Hackett to help tackle the issue in early 2016. Now Mr. Hackett is taking over the corner office.

Ford named Mr. Hackett, a former head of Steelcase Inc. who has been chairing Ford’s “Smart Mobility” innovation unit, as its new CEO Monday morning. The shuffle ends Mr. Fields’s three-year tenure at the helm of the Dearborn, Mich., auto maker and caps a 28-year career at the company during which he developed a reputation as a hard-charging leader.

We have written about Mr Fields’ and Ford’s initial response to President Trump’s policies, also noting Mary Barra and General Motors doing the same thing.

The Journal reported just yesterday that Ford’s Board of Directors was considering management changes, part of it driven by the decline in the stock price for Ford; Ford is down around 40% during Mr Fields’ tenure.

We have said it before: the sole purpose of a corporation is to earn profits for its shareholders, and in that regard, Mr Fields’ reign has not been a success. The problem I have is that share prices so frequently have little relation to reality: Tesla’s market value pushed past Ford’s in early April, even though Ford was still showing a steady profit and paying dividends, while Tesla was losing money and paid no dividends.

But, the irrationality of the market notwithstanding, Mr Fields’ responsibility was for the value of the company to its shareholders. In that responsibility, he failed.

New manufacturing in the United States

From The Wall Street Journal:

The Mill That Right-to-Work Built

An entrepreneur is bringing manufacturing jobs back to Kentucky—without protectionism.

By Allysia Finley | May 19, 2017 7:01 p.m. ET

In April the CEO of Braidy Industries, Craig Bouchard, announced his company would build a $1.3 billion aluminum mill in Ashland, Ky., creating 550 jobs. Within the past few weeks, he has received 2,600 applications—many with heart-wrenching personal anecdotes.

Ashland, a small Appalachian town on the Ohio River, was once an industrial powerhouse. Fifty years ago, nearby coal mines churned out cheap energy and raw materials for steel production. But in recent decades the region has suffered a series of blows. In 1998 Ashland Oil relocated to the Cincinnati suburbs. Two years ago, AK Steel laid off 600 workers. Last year CSX Railroad cut 100 jobs due to reduced traffic from the coal mines. Unemployment in Greenup County stands at 8.9%.

This story caught my eye, because my wife, of 38 years and two days, is from Ashland. Her late father retired from what is now CSX Railroad. And while the article is correct that the unemployment rate for Greenup County was 8.9% in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Ashland is not in Greenup County, but Boyd County, adjacent to Greenup’s southern border. The ‘official’ unemployment rate for Boyd County stands at 8.3% It is possible that the new plant will be built north of Ashland, in Greenup County, but the article did not specify that.

Last month President Trump —who won the county with 71% of the vote—ordered an investigation into whether aluminum imports were jeopardizing national security. It’s a step toward the tariffs that protectionists hope will revive America’s Rust Belt. But the best hope for towns like Ashland is innovation and investment by men like Mr. Bouchard.

He’s the kind of businessman who might appear on a union hit list. The CEO cut his chops in derivatives trading before buying the scraps of a bankrupt Chicago steel company in 2003 with his brother James. Within five years, the Bouchard brothers had built their company, Esmark, into the nation’s fourth-largest steel conglomerate.

They sold it for $1.2 billion to the Russian steelmaker Severstal in 2008, shortly before the stock market and steel industry crashed. Thousands of workers subsequently lost their jobs. Mr. Bouchard blames the United Steelworkers. He had first tried to sell a partnership stake in Esmark to the Indian company Essar Steel. But the United Steelworkers sought to force a sale to Severstal, which the union perceived as more labor-friendly. Had the Essar deal been consummated, Mr. Bouchard says, “every one of those people would have their jobs today” because all of the company’s debt would have been paid off.

The episode soured him on organized labor, and it’s one reason he was determined to build his new aluminum plant in a right-to-work state, where workers can’t be compelled to join a union. Before choosing Ashland, he drew up a list of 24 potential sites. The logistics favored Ashland, and Kentucky offered $10 million in tax incentives as well as low-cost electricity. But Mr. Bouchard says he was prepared to build elsewhere had Kentucky’s Republican governor, Matt Bevin, not signed right-to-work legislation in January.

Pay at the plant, which is expected to be up and running in 2020, will start at $50,000 a year and average $70,000—about twice the median household income in Ashland. Workers will also have access to health insurance, fitness facilities and a day-care center.

There’s more at the original, but one thing has to be remembered: while Kentucky is now a right-to-work state, the workers at Mr Bouchard’s plant will still have the right to unionize; it’s simply that if a union election is held, and the workers choose union representation, individual workers cannot be compelled to join the union or pay dues.

The logistics around Ashland are very favorable, with both a large railroad depot and well-used river traffic on the Ohio and Big Sandy Rivers.

Mr Bouchard stated that the only sensible way to get into these types of industries in the United States is to start from scratch; buying out existing companies also means buying into legacy pension plans, and the CEO is unwilling to do that. The pension decisions of decades in the past are still weighing down American manufacturers today. Those decisions cannot all be blamed on unions; management too frequently took decisions concerning pension plans and funding which worked fine for the individual managers in the fifties and sixties, but are unsustainable today. Defined benefit plans are being replaced by 401(k) plans, and the like, plans which do not depend upon the company’s future contributions to those plans. The defined benefit plan, if not properly funded as the company moves along, is, in effect, paying retired personnel a wage for no longer working.

This is the kind of thing that the United States will need for American manufacturing to see a revival. There is no reason we cannot manufacture the things we currently import, but we cannot do it by holding on to the policies of the past.