This Is What Happens When You Inbreed

Years ago, I spent lots of time mooning and crooning around Gerry Spence's ranch in DuBois, Wyoming. That's where the Trial Lawyers College convenes each summer. Ambitious lawyers from around the country rub elbows with the great and near great. And they blow smoke up one another's posteriors about how it's them against all the oppresses the little guy.

A lot of smack get's talked out there. Spence strides the big barn lecture room boasting that "no one can beat me." And relationships get formed among lawyers that sometimes last for years.

I was seduced. I hoped that I, too, was a special lawyer, gifted in ways that others were not. Then I returned to Connecticut, recovered from my Rocky Mountain high, and resumed the workaday role of lawyer. Some clients love me, some don't and come to hate me; I win, I lose and I struggle day by day with the flotsam and jetsam of the psyche that is the practice of law in a small firm.

Some people never recover from the Rocky Mountain high. Consider, for example, the strange case of Joseph H. Low, IV, a self-proclaimed tough guy aspiring to national prominence. I'm A Tough Guy Low bounced around for several years in the firms of other Trial Lawyers College alumna, notably Milton Grimes of Rodney King fame, and personal injury guru Rex Parris. His new web site is replete with glowing testimonials, all from current or former members of the Trial Lawyers College staff: You stroke my ego, and I'll stroke yours.

I haven't followed Low's career much in the past few years. His ambition is wearying; his need to boast infinite. I have never understood people who thought they needed to fly out of state to find cases. California is a populous state. Something's wrong if you need to travel to find work.

I stumbled across Low's name today in a piece about the right to counsel of choice. I'm Not Fungible; I'm A Genius The case sounded familiar. Hadn't Low been kicked off a case in Missouri? Yes, I recall now. He wasn't kicked off for being too smart, I heard. Rather, he was too abrasive, too unaccustomed to following the rules, too out of control. It turns out that Low's case, a case in which a judge banished him to the spectator's section, is headed to the Supreme Court. The client claims a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice.

Anger is a cheap and easy drug. Addictive, too. From what I heard, Low road into Missouri with a California-size chip on his shoulder and offended the court. He was not permitted to appear pro hac vice. The Court didn't try to tilt the playing field against the defendant; it simply side-lined a tough talking young  loud mouth who wanted shout the shout before he learned to crawl the crawl.

Perhaps we should have the right to counsel of our choice. But once chosen we have an obligation as lawyers to behave like lawyers. Joe Low's ego is out of control, and a Missouri court saw it. So, too, will the Supreme Court. Only the folks out at Gerry's ranch will regard him as a hero. And that says all you need to know about the Trial Lawyers College: Grown men and women trying to make reputations of their own by mimicking others.

Was Joey doing what he thought Gerry would do?

Comments

[mythago]

The pro hac vice issue is really what stands on in this whole mess. If the judge had merely booted him for passing notes and because Fahle was the attorney at the time, fine--but "your lawyer is a jerk so we won't admit him", without an explanation on the record? That seems bizarre.

[Maren Chaloupka]

You're my good friend, Norm, but so is Joey Low, and thus I have to disagree with you on this one.

I know Joey well enough to disagree with the hypothesis that his ego is out of control. In fact, my experience with him leads me to feel that Joey doesn't has much of an ego at all. There is a more complex etiology to his ambition, and probably not one I can figure out entirely. It would be simplest to say that Joey Low would not have his uncanny ability to understand what jurors fear, loathe, and find frustration in, unless he were able to push his own interests aside. This is a skill you possess too; it's one I wish I had as a trial lawyer.

Joey Low did get in trouble in Missouri. He is aggressive in the courtroom; but his is aggression with a point and, yes, with the necessary control. [As it turned out in the Low and Gonzalez-Lopez cases, the Eighth Circuit stood behind Joey instead of the trial judge.] In a trial that preceded the Gonzalez-Lopez trial by a few months, Joey represented another Missouri defendant who was charged with federal narcotics offenses. Going into trial, there was no plea offer on the table and Joey's client faced close to life under the then-operative guidelines. After voir dire, opening and Joey's cross-examination of the first witness (a DEA agent), the government offered Joey's client a deal to serve about seven years.

In that cross-examination, Joey established that the government had concealed important evidence. He asked the judge to address the Brady violation, and the judge refused. Joey was probably insistent, and probably because he was angry about the concealment. If Joey let his emotion get away from him, however, so did the judge - - who has her own duty to keep her emotions in check.

It was that same judge who, a few months later, reacted emotionally when Joey returned to her court to represent another defendant in the same charged conspiracy. Her conduct is now richly detailed in the companion opinions of Fahle v. Low and U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez.

It is worth noting, however, that Joey could well have said, "screw this, I'm out of here" when the judge revoked his pro hac admission, stationed a marshal next to him, confiscated his laptop, and such. A lawyer driven by ego and/or money could have easily slunk home in ignominy to go make some more money off of someone else. Joey didn't leave his client, and he didn't leave his co-counsel, for the remaining two and a half weeks of that trial.

As far as I can see, Joey has plenty of work in California. He didn't need to stay on that case to keep his light bills paid - - he took it for the same reason, good or bad, that both you and I take cases that ultimately turn out to be death marches: because they present one sort of interesting opportunity or another.

I've seen Joey give more of his time than sometimes seems reasonable to help other lawyers. Joey will do this at his own expense, even when there is nothing discernible to gain (and money to lose) from doing so. He doesn't do it to hustle referrals, or to get paid, and sometimes he gives his time to help lawyers he doesn't even particularly like. As best I can see, he does this out of a feeling that all boats rise with the water - - that every jury persuaded to stand between the government and the individual is an step in the right direction.

In the interests of disclosure, I'm a Trial Lawyers College staffer too. But that doesn't mean blind allegiance to everyone affiliated with the organization. Even if I weren't associated with TLC, I would still stick up for Joey Low just as I would stick up for you; and I would envy and admire his abilities and courage just as I envy and admire your own.

[Norm Pattis]

M:
We disagree on this one. Joey plays the give to get game common to many TLC staffers. The syndrome works as follows: fly out to TLC events, stroke the students, volunteer to help them on their cases, get referrals to far-flung places, and then pretend everyone sought you.
To your credit, I've not seen you play the game.
N

[Mitch]

So, Norm what happened--ultimately.
The Supreme Court ruled that Lopez had a right to have Joe Low as his attorney(6th AMENDMENT), so a remand(in Missouri).
The first trial Lopez was convicted on a drug charges, when he had a grad of Spence's Trail college at the first trial.(see above on your INBREEDINGS)
So, was there a second trial(in Missouri) with Joe Low, and the results,( ????) does not seem to be anything on that in the WWW/ News etc.. Why not, was it th same result ??
Can you give us the whole story post 2006..?
Thanks.
Paul Hackett is a real hero, he did not go to the Spence Trial College, that I can ascertain, look him up, and his defense of Weemer in Ca. !
Too bad, he was not elected to Congress over MEAN Jean... The voters in Ohio missed a great man to send to Congress, Mr Hackett.

[Mitch]

Maren wrote a marketing piece for Joe on his WWW site in CA.
She seems to practice in Nebraska. But, knows Joe via the Spence TLC.
Now, I heard Joe on a CA radio program, he seems sincere, I wish him the best in defending Sgt Nelson.
However, Paul Hackett defended Ryan Weemer pro bono, did so in Ca, and expended a lot of costs etc having to do so in CA, from Ohio. Paul Hackett was a Marine too.
He in my book is a hero-- i. e Mr Paul Hackett.
Nobody probably heard of him, outside of a small part of Ohio.
Most likley, the Military will never get a conviction of Sgt Nelson, but Hackett laid the groundwork on that in getting a not guilty verdict in April of 2009(in a week long trial in CA).
I don't know why Norm is saying Joey Low's ego is out of control,
he was right, and the court Judge(lower court in Missouri) flat out was wrong.(6th Amendment issues)
i applaud Joe Low in standing up on that important issue.
So, Norm, where are you coming from, and can you respond to all the above.
yes, trial attorneys have egos.
Can we assume you are no different on that, Norm.