I’m back.  It’s been awhile and I appreciate the emails asking when I would start blogging again.  Here we go. 

What better way to re-start blogging than an article about pesky metadata by Ed Bott at Ed Bott’s Windows Expertise.  And a link to Microsoft page on how to get rid of it. 

Ken Adams alerted me to an article about tracking changes by Tom Mighell and Dennis Kennedy on Law Practice Today.  The article has some interesting horror stories about redlining that should prompt eveyrone to make sure they understand the redlining process.  The article also includes a link to a Microsoft page about tracked changes and comments.  I use the track changes function frequently as I make changes in documents for my clients’ review.  We don’t want anyone else to see those changes, so I was most interested in the link to the page about getting rid of tracked changes and comments, once and for all. 

Bob Sutton (of “No Asshole Rule” fame) is writing an article about assholes on airplanes.  You know, the people who take both armrests, berate airline employees, talk loudly (especially on the cell phone), and jump in the aisle to knock people down to be first. Bob asked for other ideas and the responses are very interesting.  But some of the comments just complain about everything that they do not like about other passengers.  I have not finished reading Bob’s book, but I do not think his definition of “asshole” includes everyone who does something that you do not like.   Read the comments here and see what you think. 

Here is a 24-question self-exam by Bob Sutton to determine if you are a “certified asshole.”   Bob Sutton is the author of the book, The No Asshole Rule:  Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't, due out next month. 

The asshole and non-asshole answers are pretty obvious, but the test can make you think about the way you treat other people.

Maybe it would be more fun to take the test as someone else – how would your least favorite colleague answer the questions? 

Thanks to How to Change the World.

I usually think that my business model for providing legal research and writing services is fairly unusual and innovative because I rely heavily on the internet not only for research resources, but also to communicate with clients around the country.  But, based on a recent post at Concurring Opinions, I may not be as innovative as I thought.  Scott Moss posts about Law Research Services, a legal research company that started in 1960!  The company apparently had a rocky start because a comment to the post says that Westlaw lists 26 cases in which Law Research Services is a party.  I don’t know if Law Research Services is still around, but its idea was sure ahead of its time! 

Michelle Golden at Golden Practices shares a CPA’s guidelines for contact with his or her clients.  According to Golden, the (unnamed) CPA’s website includes rules like this: 



Pretty amusing, but I guess some professionals feel that way about client contact – even though most would not post those rules on their website. 

A comment to Golden’s post is even more interesting. The commenter says:  “This guy just sent a very powerful message about how much he values his own services and that he's competent enough, and in demand enough not to care about losing your business.  That kind of aura of success, and competence can attract people to your firm even more that ‘service with a smile.’”

I am just glad that I do not feel the need to impose any such rules on my clients.  I am fortunate enough to like all my clients and I am always flattered when they ask me to do work for them.  My clients do call me early and late (it is not quite 7:00 a.m. and I have already talked to two clients this morning), but I don’t feel victimized or undervalued by the odd calls.   My work often has very short deadlines, so a late night or early morning call about a project actually makes my life easier. 

So apart from any issues of good client services, I think that any professional who feels the need to treat her clients like children either has the wrong clients or is in the wrong business.  Life is too short for that. 

Here is the most fascinating article that I have ever read about Daylight Saving Time.  Read it and enjoy and then share your knowledge with your friends and strangers.  I am not kidding. I think this is a great article. 

And as a reminder -- DST ends this Sunday, for most of us. 

In his May 19 entry, Evan Schaeffer at www.illinoistrialpractice.com discusses the paperless offices.
I don't think such offices really exist and I agree with Evan that going paperless would seem to add a layer of complexity. Read Evan's blog entry and then look at the comments. This is certainly an issue that gets lawyers talking.

A few days ago I posted about an opinion by the California Court of Appeals that strongly criticized the brief filed by one of the parties. I guess I took the side of the court without much thought, maybe because I did not want to identify with the brief writer. One of the bloggers at Appellate Law and Practice, however, took a much more reasoned view of the opinion. I hope you will read the entire blog entry at but it concludes with this:

In reading this opinion, I can see how a father can easily conclude that the system is biased against him, maligned him as a sexual molester, despite the fact that his daughter denies it, and denies him the right to visit his daughter, etc. Maybe he is completely wrong. Maybe he deserves what he gets. But, I don’t see the reason to act insulted that someone, and perhaps their lawyer, feels quite angry, and has the nerve to ask permission to file a long brief, files a long brief (which contains rhetoric and constructions of the law, like all briefs), and loses. This happens every day.

It is never a good sign for the appellant when the opinion begins: “This is an appeal run amok. Not only does the appeal lack merit, the opening brief is a textbook example of what an appellate brief should not be.� Read the whole opinion here.