Religion In America

 

Reflections On Six Months As A City Attorney

Six months and a week ago, I started a new job as a senior assistant city attorney at the City ad County of Denver in the civil litigation section. We handle lawsuits brought against the City and County of Denver, and against City employees where the lawsuit arises from the employee's official duties.

The job

Most people who work in my section have backgrounds either in criminal case litigation, or in private sector insurance defense of personal injury cases. I was one of the fairly uncommon applicants who had significant prior experience in civil litigation with government entities. One of my main responsibilities at my first job in Colorado, in Grand Junction, was defending county governments all over Western Colorado from lawsuits, which is more or less exactly what I do now defending the City and County of Denver. In my subsequent private private of law, I had a low volume, but steady trickle of cases where I represented private parties in lawsuits against the government, in addition to having broad civil litigation experience making up about half of my practice in a variety of other areas in both state courts and federal courts. This has allowed me to hit the ground running, compared to many of my peers.

Fortunately, our office operates with a very high level of professionalism, and my co-workers are good to work for.

My current case load (which varies from lawyer to lawyer in my section based upon the lawyer's experience and aptitudes) is about 60% civil rights litigation (mostly, but not entirely, involving actions of the police and jail guards), about 20% plain vanilla personal injury litigation like motor vehicle accidents that is similar to what private insurance defense lawyers do but with a governmental liability twist, and about 20% litigating subpoenas and public record requests where there are disputes that go beyond what can be resolved by records custodians out of court.

Different sections of the City attorney's office handle employee discipline and employment related litigation, enforcement of ordinance violations, child protective proceedings in cases where there are allegations of abuse and neglect, and transactional/corporate counsel type work for matters like negotiating and monitoring compliance with contracts between the City and its vendors, drafting ordinances, lobbying the state and federal governments, and managing conflicts that arise between different city agencies and officials.

There are also some governmental agencies which many people think are part of the City and County of Denver, but which are not: the Denver Public Schools, the Denver District Attorney, Denver Health (the county's public hospital), the Denver Housing Authority, the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the Downtown Development Authority, the Denver District Court, the Denver Probate Court, the Denver Juvenile Court, and probably a few others that I've failed to mention. 

The Denver County Court is a unique hybrid court that combined the roles of the limited jurisdiction state government's county court found in other Colorado counties, and the role of a municipal court for the City and County of Denver where municipal ordinance violations are prosecuted.

The biggest change for me has been transitioning from being self-employed for two decades to being a salaried W-2 employee. 

Mostly, this is for the better and was an important reason to take this job. Instead of having to invoice clients and pester them to pay their bills, or to wait until contingent fee cases are converted into money at the end of a case, money just magically appears in by bank account without me even asking for every two weeks. I get paid vacations and sick days! I get my health insurance through an employer plan, a switch I made shortly before big cuts to Affordable Care Act subsidies for self-employed people seeking health insurance took effect. If I continue to work for the City for five years, I get a defined benefit pension. I have a public sector defined contribution plan to which I can contribute about 20% of my income. I can pay for my parking expenses with pre-tax dollars. I don't have to pay anything out of pocket to get IT support. My tax returns will get a lot less complicated starting in 2027 (I had some residual self-employment work and income wrapping up my private practice in early 2026). I don't have to deal with fixing broken copying machines, building maintenance, hiring employees, tax withholding for employees, office security, arranging telephone and internet service, balancing an attorney's trust account, and so on. I don't have to spend large chunks of time marketing and deciding which clients to sign up. My work is mostly (not 100%) confined to 9-5 on business days.

I also get to work in a place with good systems in place, with adequate administrative support, with competent fellow attorneys who can cover for you while you are sick or on vacation, and top quality legal research and office related software packages.

We still have to pay close attention to potential conflicts of interest in new cases (and conflicts of interest that can emerge during cases), so we can send conflicted cases to outside counsel. But, unlike my fairly brief stint in a multi-state law firm with about a thousand lawyers, I don't have to spend half an hour to forty-five minutes every day (like every single other lawyer in that entire law firm) screening new cases brought into the firm for conflicts of interest.

Best of all, except for particular phases of the small share of cases where there is a prospect of receiving an attorneys' fee award, I don't have to track every tenth of an hour of every single working day, since all of the work we do is for the same client and is very unlikely to be the subject of attorneys' fee litigation.

Insights into law and policy and legal practice

Most people, most of the time, are outsiders to government, sometimes spinning conspiratorial narratives about what they think happens behind the scenes in the criminal justice system, and in government more generally. In my subpoena and records request practice, and in civil rights cases, I'm on the opposite side of the fence, with more or less complete access to the full "behind the scenes" story.

I almost always know more about what actually happened, sometimes legally relevant and sometimes not, than the other lawyers in the case and that the judge. It is a rare case where I don't know more or less exactly what happened in all legally relevant ways within a month or two of receiving it, and often within a couple of weeks.

I have nearly full access to all relevant records and a full ability to interview the government employees involved in a context where they are more quickly forthcoming about what I want to know, than in the formal discovery process.

The truth isn't nearly as nefarious as conspiracy theorists and a plurality of civil rights lawyers would have you believe.

This isn't to say that law enforcement officers or jail guards never make mistakes that hurt someone, sometimes in ways that give rise to legal liability, and sometimes in ways that don't.

A significant portion of my job is facilitating the payment of reasonable settlements to people who have been legitimately wronged by the government or government officials. Sometimes a city employee is clearly at fault in a motor vehicle accident. Sometimes a law enforcement officer does cross the line and is in the wrong. The City pays out millions of dollars a year in settlements and judgments as a result.

Most settlement payments err on the side of being generous, in order to avoid the risk that a jury won't correctly evaluate liability and damages in a case and will award an excessive amount. 

A significant minority of jury awards reach the wrong result on liability or damages (sometimes for the government and sometimes against it), often (as post-verdict juror interviews reveal) for reasons that shouldn't be legally relevant or reflect misunderstandings that neither side's lawyers even contemplated were possible. Most of the time, juries reach verdicts that are close to being right, but not all of the time by any means (even when the lawyers and judges are doing their jobs correctly).

My rule of thumb (based upon the available academic literature on the topic, and confirmed by my personal experience) is that in a best case scenario where the lawyers and judges in a case are doing their jobs right and the law dictates a clear answer, is that the likelihood that a jury will reach the wrong conclusion is about 10%. 

The odds that the jury will reach the wrong conclusion rockets up, of course, when one or the other side's lawyers engaged in misconduct, or the judge makes a significant mistake (not always appealable), or there is litigation misconduct by a party in the case such as destroying or fabricating evidence or lying under oath (often not known to the lawyers). The most common problems, however, are lawyer incompetence or a bad ruling from a trial judge or sincere but incorrect witness memories about what happened, and not outright litigation misconduct.

Some kinds of suspicions about what is happening behind the scenes are more often correct than others. For example, I know (from having access to what is in them in cases where I move to quash subpoenas) that the vast majority of internal affairs files sought by defense attorneys in criminal cases that are withheld from them, truly aren't material to the outcome of those cases, even at the margins on credibility issues. The kind of conduct that law enforcement agencies, and governments more generally, care about for purposes of internal employee discipline, are only vaguely similar to the kinds of conduct that give rise to legal liability, or would be relevant in a criminal case in which an officer was involved in some way and is a potential witness.

Timelines

Different kinds of cases have different timelines. Records request cases and subpoenas are typically litigated over a period a week to a few months. Ordinary personal injury cases in which a defendant just happens to be a governmental entity, tend to be fairly simple cases that are resolved in a year or two once a case if filed, and are often settled sooner than that. 

Civil rights cases, and personal injury cases which are really civil rights cases in disguise, take one of two typical courses. Many of them are resolved very early on in initial dispositive motion practice and are often dismissed within a few months to a year with complete dismissals on the merits (or for failure to prosecute by a pro se party, i.e. a Plaintiff bringing suit without a lawyer). The civil rights cases that aren't resolved that way can take much longer, in part because they are often prosecuted in federal court which is much slower than state court, in part because interlocutory appeals (i.e. appeals brought prior to a final trial and verdict) are common in civil rights cases, and in part because these cases are sometimes more complex and require lengthy pre-trial discovery and motion practice. I have one case that will probably go to trial soon about eight years after the underlying incident (that involved a handful of people over the course of less than two hours in one place)  took place.

If everyone knew what I know as a governmental defense attorney know within two or three months of a case being filed, these cases could be resolved in six months and would be resolved more accurately than they are in jury trials. But, of course, part of the reason that I can secure this information so quickly is because the people from whom I receive the information know that what they share with me won't be used against them in court. Still, this observation does suggest that there is plenty of room for improvement in the process.

Also, a lot of the delay in civil litigation is a function of simply not having enough judges to keep their case loads small enough to allow them to make prompt rulings, and an overall litigation system that has adapted to that reality.

The quality of plaintiff's litigation

Another thing that my job gives me is a broad overview of the quality of the legal work done by the people who sue the City.

About half the lawsuits brought against the City are brought by pro se parties, or by lawyers whose legal work falls below the standard of care that should be expected from a reasonable competent lawyer. 

Indeed, the best pro se parties (maybe the top 5-10% of them) are doing a better job of litigating their cases than the worst lawyers that we see (although no pro se parties do an excellent job). There are a few lawyers in the Plaintiff's bar who are so incompetent that I am amazed that they passed the bar exam, although even they have basic literacy and some understanding of the process. But there are plenty of pro se parties whose literacy and understanding of the process is below that of an average high school student, who would benefit from representation by even an only marginally competent lawyer.

One of the better arguments for a "civil Gideon" system in which indigent people would routinely be provided access to lawyers by the state, the way that indigent criminal defends are, is that it would make the delays and confusions caused by incompetent pro se litigants largely go away making the whole legal system work much more efficiently.

Cases brought by incompetent litigants overwhelming get dismissed early on, or settled for amounts far less than a competent lawyer could secure.

Incompetent litigants tend to be particularly weak at investigating a case and gathering facts to support it, and in understanding at a more than superficial level the relevant substantive and procedural legal requirements for proving a case of governmental liability. Now and then, they do the right thing despite themselves, however.

Of course, part of the failure rate among these litigants is an inability to accurately judge if they have a legally meritorious case. I have definitely seen cases that were winnable or could have secured a larger settlement, that don't because they are brought by incompetent litigants. But probably 80%-90% of the cases brought by incompetent litigants wouldn't have been brought at all by competent lawyers, who could have identified the weakness in those cases at the outset and not filed suit. 

When I was in private practice, I probably turned away two or three potential clients a week, often potential clients who had heart wrenching stories of misfortune. But those potential clients either didn't have cases for which the legal system had a remedy, or had cases where the likely outcome of  their cases with competent legal representation would provide them with less economic benefit than the cost of competent legal representation, and would have greatly disrupted their personal lives and eaten up huge amounts of their personal time.

And, by the way, incompetence by lawyers isn't restricted to sole practitioners with little experience. I've seen multiple cases of grossly incompetent litigation from medium to large plaintiff's law firms (some of which are household names due to their advertising or due to prominent cases that they have litigated) by lawyers with significant experience.

This isn't to say that all litigants against the City are incompetent. About half of lawsuits against the City are brought by lawyers whose work is at least up to the standard of a reasonable competent lawyer, and a minority but good share of litigants against the city are represented by lawyers whose work represents the best practices in this work, are highly competent, and have screened potential clients in such a manner that they have chosen to represent plaintiffs with meritorious cases.

At least one case that I have handled so far involved a plaintiff who was represented by two successive incompetent lawyers, only to have the case pass to a third, highly competent lawyer that salvaged the case with some smart litigation decisions and was able to secure a settlement much higher than what the previous incompetent lawyers came close to reaching.

Sadly, there is very little that a person thinking about bringing a lawsuit can do to determine if their lawyer is litigating competently or not. That's why we have a bar exam in an attempt to impose at least some minimum standards, but this gatekeeping isn't perfect.

Admission to the bar allows you as a lawyer to handle almost any kind of case (patent law is an exception, and some states set a higher standard to determine if a lawyer is allowed to represent defendants in death penalty cases), subject only to their own self-determination about their competence.

But while being admitted to the bar usually means that a lawyer meets basic standards of literacy and can find their way to the courthouse, with a vague understanding of how the process works, the vast majority of lawyers (I'm an extreme outlier in this regard), have a far more specialized legal practice and predominantly handle a fairly narrow kind of legal work.

Probably a majority of lawyers don't litigate any civil or criminal cases on a regular basis, and instead do transactional work, legal compliance work, or provide counsel to senior corporate officials in their day to day activities.

It is rare for a lawyer to represent both plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury work. It is rare for divorce lawyers or real estate lawyers to handle personal injury or civil rights cases. It is rare for commercial litigators to litigate personal injury cases. It is rare for probate lawyers to do personal injury or civil rights litigation. It happens. I'm an example of that. But it is rare.

Unlike physicians, whose regulators have imposed both a general threshold professional qualification to become an M.D., and an additional professional qualification to practice in a particular medical specialty, the legal profession has almost no secondary level of professional qualification to practice in a particular legal specialty, like personal injury litigation, or civil rights litigation.

Most specialist legal practitioners do develop special expertise in the area where they practice, from working as a junior lawyer in a firm that has that kind of practice, from taking continuing legal education classes in that field, from researching the law and procedure in their own cases, and from the school of hard knocks. But it isn't systemic or uniform among specialist legal practitioners who often have significant gaps in their knowledge of the best practices for handling cases in their specialty.

This can be a particular problem in civil rights litigation where the law is more complicated than in many other areas of law, and where firm sizes tend to be small, so that many practitioners have never worked as junior lawyers under seasoned senior civil rights lawyers to learn the ropes. A fair number of lawyers with this kind of practice went to law school because of, and are driven by, a strong commitment to social justice, but couldn't find an employer in a field relevant to their objectives out of law school. So, they never received the kind of mentorship that they needed to become competent in their field as a result and are prone to making big picture conceptual mistakes and to bad legal judgment that hasn't been honed by more seasoned practitioners.

Some Quick, Ill Developed, Political Ideas

In defense of the deep state

The "deep state" is valuable and good, not a conspiratorial anti-democratic force. It is the bureaucratic manifestation of the rule of law.

We say we live in a "democracy" but that's an oversimplification. Obeying the law is not a matter up for popular vote. When we say we are a democracy what we really mean is that changes in the law must be made democratically. Not even the President is allowed to deviate from the law, which the President is sworn to faithfully execute. The President, wearing a different hat, can participate in the legislative process. But the bureaucratic organization that is the state can and normatively should push back against a President who tries to deviate from the way that the law mandates that the organization should behave.

Fiscal federalism

Trump 2.0 has illustrated the perils of relying too heavily on the federal budgetary process to spend funds for public purposes. So have many past government shutdowns.

Of course, dysfunction in the federal budgetary process leaves undisturbed public functions funded and operated at the state and local level with state and local funding. Most law enforcement comes from state and local law enforcement, most court cases (criminal and civil) are handled in the state courts, most K-12 and higher education funding is state and local, most roads and bridges are maintained at the state and local level, state and local law and funding keeps the water running, the sewers flowing, clears away trash from homes and businesses, and regulates the construction industry and real estate development for the most part.

We've seen what happens when this falls apart now. Because Medicaid and VA Health Care are federally funded and don't even had dedicated federal tax funding, they can be undermined quickly when the federal budgetary process goes astray and also equalize services between poor states and rich states. A simple federal tax law change can undermine ACA individual health insurance marketplace subsidies. K-12 education relies heavily on federal funding for special education (i.e. educating the disabled) and for schools in low income areas (which also equalizes situations between poor states and rich states). Higher education relies upon federal funding for grants for low income students, higher educational institutions for military officers and the deaf, student loan financing, and research grants. Disaster relief is heavily federally funded and leaves havoc unchecked when that is suspended. Disease control and weather prediction and monitoring are also heavily federally funded and are screwed up when this changes.

While we couldn't fund the military or the national debt at the state and local level, we could have a system where more health care and education spending is state and local. This would reduce federal influence on how those industries run and remove those industries from the whims of the federal budget process to a great extent, but would also lead to weaker subsidies of poor states and disproportionately worse services in poor states and would subject those services to greater state and local political influence.

After 9-11 we federalized airport security creating the TSA. Today, we see the political price of that as a federal budgetary process fight unrelated to the TSA itself disrupts airport service. Early in Trump 2.0 we saw what happened to FAA air traffic control as a result of exposure to the Trump 2.0 administration and the federal budgetary process.

So far, Social Security is only suffering deficiencies in administrative processing of disability claims for the most part, because it has its own dedicated funding source that insulates it from the federal budgetary process as an entitlement.

But national parks and major transportation ad energy infrastructure programs have seen a twirl.

Could we build a more robust system without facing too many costs?

A Glimmer Of Hope

 The status quo is a one vote Republican majority, but Trump screwed it up for the GOP.

A Song For Our Times (Mad World)

 

Indirect And Non-Obvious Effects Of The Iran War

The U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran (the NYT recaps the first week here) will have some indirect and non-obvious impacts, some of which mirror those from the Ukraine War.

* Iran is the sole significant outside military supplier for Russia in the Ukraine War (supplying drones) apart from North Korea which has supplied artillery rounds and some old school military equipment (and even about 10,000 troops) all of which have been subpar in quality and not very useful. The attacks on Iran are likely to divert existing supplies of drones to domestic military use from exports to Russia for use in counterstrikes, and are likely to somewhat degrade Iran's military production capabilities.

* Iran's counterattacks and continued war-like footing have driven up global oil prices dramatically, have had direct supply effects on most of Asia, and have damaged the oil production infrastructure in many Middle Eastern oil producing nations (including Saudi Arabia) which will reduce the capacity of these countries to produce oil in the short to medium term.

* This oil price shock, like many more before it, makes electric vehicles and public transportation more attractive to policy-makers and consumers alike, all over the world, potentially resulting in long-term systemic reduction in demand for oil.

* This mirrors the indirect effect of the Ukraine War in causing Europe to rush to find long term alternatives to oil and natural gas, resulting in wider adoption of EV vehicles, renewable energy sources for their power grids, and energy conservation measures. Again, this results in long-term systemic reductions in demand for oil and natural gas in one of the largest economically developed regions in the world.

* The Ukraine War also strengthened NATO, strengthened European cooperation, and caused re-militarization of European countries, especially those most at risk of attacks from Russia.

* Trump's inexplicable decision to temporarily ease sanctions on Russian oil sales to India, helps Russia in the Ukraine War despite the fact that Russia has used its intelligence resources to help target the U.S. and its allies for Iranian counterstrikes.

* Generally, an international war strengthens the regime attacks vis-a-vis external dissent (something that partially explains Russia's persistence in the Ukraine because the ongoing war there makes Putin more able to crush dissent against him at home). The protests of the Iranian people against its regime may suffer because of this effect. While the U.S. assassinated the Ayatollah, Iran's supreme leader, and many of the likely successors, the successor chosen for this reason is probably more likely to be a hardliner than the person who might have been chosen if the Ayatollah (who was 86 years old and close to 87 when he was killed by a U.S. strike) had died of natural causes as was likely in the near future.

* It seems unlikely that Iran will experience regime change, either in favor of a more democratic regime (Iran's democracy was actually more robust than a lot of regimes in the Middle East), or a monarchist restoration of the Shah. Pre-attack, this had been conceivable because of huge protests against the too conservative Shiite religious regime's social policies, despite the fact that Iran is actually quite religiously and ethnically diverse. Air strikes and missiles are rarely sufficient to secure regime change.

* The war probably delays steps that could be positive for the residents of Gaza.

* The war probably depletes military equipment supplies of Iran, and to a lesser extent, the U.S. and Israel, weakening the affected countries' capacity to fight further wars.

* In much the same way, the Ukraine War has dramatically depleted Russia's military resources (despite half the national budget in Russia being spent on the military and interest on loans to support it).

* The strikes in Iran are very likely to weaken the Republican Party's MAGA coalition, since MAGA campaigned on ending foreign wars of choice and then has repeatedly sought out those wars in Trump's second term, striking Venezuela, embargoing Cuba, striking Iran, and renewing a "drug war" in Mexico, Ecuador, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, which doesn't seem very calculated to actually do anything about drug abuse and drug related crime in the U.S. (as well as threatening Canada and Greenland). This coalition has already been beaten up in special elections and survey results and has a very thin majority (especially in the U.S. House).

* The inflation caused by rising oil prices, weakens support for Trump and the Republicans and strengthens Democrats chances in the 2026 midterm elections, which are just seven months away.

* The Iran War hasn't been particularly effective at diverting attention from the Epstein files which graphically reveal a coalition of child trafficking, corrupt, and Russian influenced officials in senior levels of politics, business, and academia, with Trump at the center of all of it as a highly culpable serial child rapist.

* The Venezuela invasion, by the way, seems inconclusive and certainly doesn't seem to be having much of an oil supply impact.

Trump's Many Wars

Trump has declared wars on small boats in international waters in the Caribbean and the Pacific, claiming that they are drug boats, without proof, claiming a right to kill the people on them, contrary to international law.

Trump invaded Venezuela and seized its leader.

Trump has involved U.S. military forces in striking a Mexican cartel chief, leading to a bloodbath there.

Trump has unilaterally made strikes on Iran.

Trump has now deployed the U.S. military in Ecuador.

Trump is trying to impose an oil embargo on Cuba.

Trump deployed the National Guard to peaceful American cities.

Trump has deployed ICE as his private secret police to lawlessly terrorize American cities with scant regard to what they are actually legally authorized to do.

Trump has deployed U.S. forces to interdict Russia's shadow fleet of oil tankers trying to evade sanctions arising out of the Ukraine War. The Ukraine war itself is ongoing and Trump and blown hot and cold on it, prolonging the war by giving Putin hope.

Trump has threatened, but not yet struck, Greenland, Canada, and Panama.

And, while only metaphorical, Trump has declared trade wars on the entire world.

In most of these cases, Trump hasn't had even a whisper of Congressional authorization or legal authorization to act. The uses of force (and the tariffs) have violated domestic and international law.