A traveshamockery and a shakedown

1 June 2009 Ricardo J. Bascuas5 Comments »Tags: None

I had to suit up the other day and go down to traffic court in Cutler Ridge. I know, I know. I only do it for close family and very close friends. I could tell them no, of course. But I can’t resist. Traffic court in Miami is like a horrorshow combined with a circus. I have my own Traffic Bar Number. I bet you didn’t even know they gave those out. I think my fascination with this started when I got a ticket in some spit of a town called Milford. The procedure in Connecticut was that you first met with a prosecutor—there was one in each corner of the room—to strike a deal. Back then at least, Connecticut gave allegedly miscreant drivers the right to depose the cops—both the one that writes the ticket and the one that fires the ray gun. Can you imagine taking depositions for a speeding ticket? Such is New England. Anyway, because I used my free Westlaw (a/k/a the box-top) to learn that useful bit, my case was nolle prossed. Florida, as you might imagine, is a world away.

Picture 1.png

“I see your client has a very good driving record.” This was the hearing officer peering into his computer monitor down in Cutler Ridge. What do I call this guy? I always find myself thinking this. He’s not a judge. “Your honor” is out the question. Hearing officers exist so that county court judges don’t have to deal with all the routine traffic tickets. There are just two requirements: You have to be in the Florida Bar and you have to take a 40-hour course. You can do it full-time or part-time. I have no idea what it pays.

“How about no points, no school, withhold adjudication, and $130 fine?” he says. This is the part where I have to stop myself from yelling, “Are you insane? What about that do you think might sound good?” It isn’t easy. The state calls this traveshamockery of a proceeding a “pre-trial conference.” It’s nothing but a shakedown. No cop shows up. No prosecutor is there. It’s just you (or your attorney) and the hearing officer. And the H.O., who may very well preside over your eventual trial, is there to get you to give up your money without troubling the cop to even show up, much less produce some evidence.

“Just set it for trial.” I had to drive practically to the Keys to say what it already says on the paper I filed that was coyly titled “REQUEST FOR TRIAL.” Naked shakedown.

Here’s why this is such an outrage. Anyone with any disposable income whatsoever (other than my relatives) will hire a ticket mill to take care of their traffic contretemps. There must be tons of them because my Traffic Bar Number has five digits. But when I go to traffic court there are all these people there who don’t have representation and for whom $130 is a lot of money. And many of them have the kind of job where you get docked pay to go to traffic court. Naturally, they think they are there to explain what happened, but the H.O. tells them that for that they’ll have to take another morning off for trial so that the cop can be there. Or they can just pay $130 now.

Why doesn’t anyone realize how deviant this all is? How can anyone purporting to exercise the authority of a court require someone to hand over money on the basis of nothing more than an accusation? What are they teaching in that 40-hour course that overrides the centuries-old notion that the plaintiff has the burden of proof in a civil case? Law school doesn’t teach you how to answer these questions. I suspect law school actually causes the kind of thinking that makes H.O.s fail to ask them.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Epically bad lawyering

1 June 2009 Ricardo J. Bascuas11 Comments »Tags: None

Not too long ago, I find myself in this conversation about favorite movies. Let me say right off that I’m not at all expert in this. I pretty much think Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and Back to the Future are the height of cinema. All I want from movies is some diverting fun. The worst thing a movie can be is a self-important epic because that is the opposite of fun. The exception is the vainglorious epic so unfathomably bad that it circles back to being funny. (The only other person I know who gets this is fictional and his name is Ignatius J. Reilly.) Inevitably, some guy claims that Gladiator is the best movie ever, and I can’t not laugh because, if I set out to make something really painfully senselessly awful, I would fall short of this.

This plodding ordeal is feted as the ultimate revenge movie—and it is, just not in the way it wants to be. The hero of the movie is not a hero at all. He’s a truculent moron. His victory is Pyrrhic, so it doesn’t even count. The hero of the movie is a heroine.

The movie begins 37 minutes into itself when Commodus’ father, the emperor, tells him he’s not ever going to be emperor. Commodus considers this and commits patricide. There being no medical examiner around, Commodus says the old man died in his sleep and proclaims himself caesar. And then we have the pivotal scene, which you can watch at right for today. Commodus asks Maximus, the late emperor’s favorite general and pretend son, to kiss his hand, acknowledging his rule. Maximus refuses and storms out, all very tough-guyish. Lucilla, Commodus’ older sister, sees this and thinks, “I’m so glad I broke up with that idiot.” She slaps her brother hard (because she knows he killed their father) and then kisses his hand (because she’s not dumb). Two hours of high-definition carnage later, everyone is dead except for Lucilla and her son, the heir to throne of Rome.

Picture 1.pngThe first thing that happens after Maximus pridefully snubs the emperor is that soldiers slaughter and burn his son and his wife. (Her dying wish was no doubt that she’d dumped him, too.) Minutes later, he is captured by slave traders. Meanwhile, Lucilla sets about manipulating an ambitious senator and mollifying her maniacal brother (while fending off his incestuous advances) to keep her son safe. Later, when Maximus returns to Rome as part of the UFC tour, she gets him together with the senator so that the two of them can attempt a ludicrously improbable coup. “Who knows? Maybe they’ll pull it off,” she tells herself.

Don’t think for a second that Lucilla schemes for patriotism or the greater good. That’s just the bunk she feeds the credulous dolts that beset her. The minute her brother catches on to the plan and threatens her son, she hands everyone up and a bunch of minor characters are butchered. This is because Lucilla is single-heartedly devoted to her son. Maximus is just as devoted to preening himself. In the end, Lucilla fixes it so that her brother and Maximus kill each other, which you can’t help but appreciate.

What does this have to do with lawyering? Lawyering is what Lucilla did. Her client—her son—wins because Lucilla was smart rather than combative and patiently endured all manner of indignity and outrage for his sake. Everything Maximus did was about his own pride, his own ego. As a direct result, everyone he’s responsible for—his son, his wife, his fellow slaves, his army buddies—is executed. Clients might think they want a bellicose lawyer to rant and storm around but they’re better off with a clever, focused one. (There’s a whole life lesson here too, but it’s off-topic so I’ll give it to you in one line: The opposite of love is pride.)

  • Share/Save/Bookmark