Monthly Archives: May 2016

THE TRUMP THREE-STEP

Posted on by
6

[NOTE: Here’s a link to my recent interview on Viewpoints – https://viewpointsradio.wordpress.com/2016/04/24/too-many-lawyers-not-enough-law-jobs/]

Donald Trump is laying mattresses for the release of his tax returns. His periodically besieged and perpetually angry campaign manager Corey Lewandowski told CBS News that the presumptive Republican nominee for President will provide his returns as soon as the Internal Revenue Service concludes an audit.

As another episode in the reality series that has become the presidential campaign, the interview is worth watching. It exemplifies the Trump approach: Confuse the issue, pivot from defense to offense, and identify a new villain or two. As the questions get tougher, allow the natural bully to escape just long enough to intimidate serious inquirers while invigorating core supporters who embrace anger.

Step #1: Confuse the Issue

The CBS News introduction to the Lewandowski interview starts with the enormous range in the estimates of Trump’s wealth. He now claims to be worth $10 billion. In 2014, he said it was $3.3 billion. Last year, Forbes put it at $125 million.

Lewandowski said that Trump’s income last year was $557 million: “By any standard, that’s success.” Then he repeated it for emphasis: “$557 million.”

At best, his assertion was disingenuous. As Fortune Magazine observed, $557 million were Trump’s gross revenues, not his net income. Surely, he would never tolerate someone running one of his businesses who didn’t understand the difference. Plenty of companies with revenues that were tremendous — hugely tremendous, Trump might say — have gone bankrupt. It’s the net that matters.

Lewandowski then talked about the value of the buildings that he says Trump owns. Among them: “a store on Fifth Avenue that’s worth more than Mitt Romney’s total net worth was…”

What is Trump’s actual ownership share of the properties identified with him? Does anyone really believe that he holds clear title to all of the structures that bear the Trump name? Sadly, the answer is yes — lots of people do. They don’t understand, for example, the difference between owning a hotel and licensing the right to let the real owners put the Trump brand on it — often in great big capital letters.

As for his actual properties, do they have mortgages? Fortune reports that while revenues from his businesses increased from 2015, he added debt — $300 million of new debt generating $47 million in interest expense. What is Trump’s real “net-net-net” number? Lewandowski and Trump aren’t saying.

Step #2: Pivot to Offense

How about Trump’s insistence in 2012 that Mitt Romney release his tax returns? Or Romney’s observation that Trump’s returns have something to hide?

“Mitt Romney is a failed presidential candidate,” Lewandowski replied. “And he hid from his wealth.” Then he did a riff on Romney’s eight-car garage in Malibu. (He got that wrong, too. Romney’s building plans involved a four-car garage with an elevator lift in La Jolla.)

If the issue is the continuing IRS audit, why not release tax returns for 2002 through 2008? Those audits are completed.

Lewandowski’s answer: “It’s like what Bernie Sanders said, there’s nothing to see from 2002 and 2003 and 2004. What you guys are interested in right now is what his tax rate is. His tax rate is as low as possible… So he can provide jobs for people in his corporation.”

Step #3: Identify New Villains

As the CBS interviewers pressed ahead, Lewandowski became increasingly angry.

“Every attorney he’s talked to, including people like Greta Van Susteren, has said, ‘As your legal counsel, if I were to be your counsel, I would never allow you to release those taxes until the routine IRS audit is done.'”

“Routine” kept popping out of Lewandowski’s mouth when he referred to the “audit.” It began to take on a “protest too much” aura. But his substantive point is silly. Trump is not just another wealthy private citizen for whom such advice might make sense. He’s running for President of the United States. Does he fear that the IRS is missing something that others will catch? If so, why should he care? If he’s worth more than $10 billion, he can afford whatever anyone finds, can’t he? Besides, if Lewandowski keeps his promise, Trump’s returns will be available “immediately” after the audit is over.

Then came the new villain:

“This is the fault of the IRS,” Lewandowski said with his first smile of the interview. “Have them go finish the audit.”

Behind the Distraction

What could the “something to hide” be? Charitable giving secrets? Maybe. In April, The Washington Post analyzed a list from the Trump campaign of his charitable contributions over the past five years and concluded, “Not a single one of those [4,844] donations was actually a personal gift of Trump’s own money.”

Instead, they were “free rounds of golf, given away by his courses for charity auctions and raffles,” “land conservation agreements to forego development rights on property Trump owns,” and gifts from the Donald J. Trump Foundation, “which didn’t receive a personal check from Trump from 2009 through 2014.”

But I don’t think the most sensitive items on Trump’s personal tax returns involve his charitable giving or lack thereof. I think it’s the tax breaks that benefit every commercial real estate developer: depreciation and carry-forward losses.

Winning “Bigly”

The tax code allows taxpayers to depreciate the cost of a commercial building over its assumed life of 39 years. Each year, one thirty-ninth of the cost gets deducted from income. When you deal in big buildings, even small ownership slices translate into big tax depreciation deductions. It doesn’t matter that most buildings last a lot longer than 39 years. Properly structured, depreciation and other deductions relating to the ownership of commercial property pass through to individual taxpayers. Throw in taxes and other deductions, and the amounts get even larger.

Likewise, if a taxpayer loses money on a business venture — and Trump has ample experience there as well — those losses also offset current income. If total deductions and losses in a year exceed income, they carry-forward to offset income in future years.

“He’s going to pay the smallest amount of taxes possible,” Lewandowski said in reframing the entire issue. “Every deduction possible. He fights for every single dollar. That’s the mindset you want to bring to the government.”

Don’t be surprised if Trump’s personal effective tax rate turns out to be surprisingly close to zero. It’s probably a lot lower than what most of his supporters pay. I guess that makes Trump a winner. It makes those supporters something else.

A FOOL FOR A CLIENT

Posted on by
2

Abraham Lincoln often gets credit for the line, but in 1814 clergyman Henry Kett’s collection of proverbs in The Flowers of Wit included, “I hesitate not to pronounce that every man who is his own lawyer has a fool for client.”

More than two centuries later, it’s still true. But don’t tell Stephen DiCarmine, former executive director of the now-defunct Dewey & LeBoeuf. He doesn’t believe it. Recently, he appeared before Acting Justice Robert Stolz and explained that he wants to fire his attorney and represent himself.

Last year, three weeks of deliberation following a three-month trial produced a defense verdict on some counts and a deadlocked jury on the remaining charges against DiCarmine, former firm chairman Steven Davis, and former chief financial officer Joel Sanders. Davis then entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and Justice Stolz dismissed additional counts. Retrial on the remaining charges against DiCarmine and Sanders is set for September.

Judicial Skepticism

“The consequences are very severe in this case,” Justice Stolz told DiCarmine. “You could go to state prison if convicted.”

DiCarmine thinks he knows better. A graduate of California Western School of Law in 1983, he told the judge that he had discussed the issue with several lawyer friends. Their reactions: “Bad idea.”

But DiCarmine heard what he wanted to hear. At least, that’s what he told the judge: “They said if anyone can do it, you can do it.”

The truth is that when incarceration is a potential outcome, no one can do it. And no one should try. Gideon v. Wainwright’s guarantee of a right to counsel in criminal cases exists for a reason. And it doesn’t matter if the defendant is a lawyer.

Justice Stolz warned DiCarmine that he might think he knows what the case is all about because he’s been through it once. “But I assure you,” he urged, “it will be a different jury. It will be a different presentation from the People.”

An Unfortunate Moment

DiCarmine’s current lawyer, Austin Campriello, did a masterful job at the first trial. For good reason, he’s among the most highly respected criminal defense lawyers in New York. Campriello told the court that although his client’s finances were a factor, the motivating reason for DiCarmine’s request related to defense strategy.

DiCarmine then offered an unfortunate comment that unfairly tarred other big firms.

“I’ve run a law firm,” DiCarmine said. “When the client is not paying the bill, the services that are being rendered are not necessarily the same as if he were being paid.”

Nonsense. He displayed a remarkable ignorance of what the lawyers in his firm were actually doing while he was “running” it. Directly, he insulted all former Dewey & LeBoeuf attorneys who worked on pro bono matters. Indirectly, he put a cloud over the noble efforts of big firm lawyers who provide millions of dollars in free legal services to clients every year. Implicit in his remarks are widespread violations of ethical rules to advocate on behalf of all clients with the same seal. Those rules apply to all lawyers.

Natural Consequences

Justice Stolz properly put DiCarmine in his place, saying that Campriello would work to the best of his professional capacity, regardless of DiCarmine’s financial situation. He also told DiCarmine to think long and hard about his pro se request before the next hearing on May 27.

DiCarmine seeks to jettison a great lawyer for someone who, apparently, has been in a courtroom only as a witness or a defendant — that is, himself. It reminds me of the joke that one of my mentors told about the importance of using experienced trial lawyers in important cases.

“A patient goes to a doctor with a serious medical condition for which there is an elaborate surgical cure,” the joke begins. “The doctor describes in great detail how the procedure will go — start to finish. The patient is impressed, but has one more question: ‘How many of these operations have you performed?’ the patient asks. ‘Oh, none,’ says the doctor, ‘But I’ve watch a lot of them.'”

Revise the scenario slightly so that the doctor has observed the procedure only once — and is going to perform it on himself. Now you have a sense of DiCarmine’s plan.

ABOUT THAT LAWYER SHORTAGE…

Posted on by
Reply

Facts are stubborn things — almost as stubborn as persistent academic predictions that boom times for attorneys are just around the corner.

Back in 2013, Professor Ted Seto at Loyola Law School-Los Angeles observed, “Unless something truly extraordinary has happened to non-cyclical demand, a degrees-awarded-per-capita analysis suggests that beginning in fall 2015 and intensifying into 2016 employers are likely to experience an undersupply of law grads, provided that the economic recovery continues.”

In November 2014 after the Bureau of Labor Statistics proposed a new and deeply flawed methodology for measuring attorney employment, Professor Seto weighed in again: “If the new BLS projections are accurate, we should see demand and supply in relative equilibrium in 2015 and a significant excess of demand over supply beginning in 2016.” His school’s full-time long-term bar passage employment rate for the class of 2015 was 62 percent — slightly better than the overall mean and median for all law schools, which are just under 60 percent.

Likewise in 2014, Professor Rene Reich-Graefe at Western New England University School of Law used what he described as “hard data” to argue, “[C]urrent and future law students are standing at the threshold of the most robust legal market that ever existed in this country.” The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics published his dubious analysis leading to that prediction. Within ten months of graduation, only 43 percent of 2015 graduates from Professor Reich-Graefe’s school found full-time long-term jobs requiring bar passage.

Fact-sayers v. Self-interested Soothsayers

To his credit, Professor Jerry Organ at the University of St. Thomas School of Law has been fearless in challenging the relentless optimism of his academic colleagues. And he does it with the most persuasive of lawyerly approaches: using facts and evidence.

Analyzing the ABA’s recently released law school employment reports for all fully-accredited law schools, Professor Organ notes that the number of graduates dropped in 2015. But for the second straight year, so did the number of full-time long-term jobs requiring bar passage.

Professor Organ offers a number of explanations for this result: declining bar passage rates; regional factors that reduced hiring in Texas and elsewhere; the impact of technology. But whatever the reasons, he suggests, “[T]his employment outcomes data provides a cautionary tale.”

Proceeding Without Caution

“The fact that the employment market for law school graduates appears to have stagnated and even declined to some extent over the last two years,” Professor Organ continues, “may mean that risk averse potential law school applicants who focus on post-graduate employment opportunities when assessing whether to invest in a legal education may remain skittish about applying, such that this year’s good news on the applicant front may be somewhat short-lived.”

The “good news on the applicant front” to which Professor Organ refers is his projection that applications for the fall 2016 entering class are on track to increase for the first time since 2010. But he offers a cautionary note there as well. Law schools at the upper end “will see more enrollment growth and profile stability in comparison with law schools further down the rankings continuum.”

Perilous Predictions

Some prognostications are safer than others. Here’s mine: Faculty and administration at weak law schools will continue using the overall decline in the number of all applicants to persist in their misleading sales pitches that now is a “Great Time to Go to Any Law School.” They will discourage inquiry into more relevant facts.

But here they are: At the 90th percentile of all 204 ABA-accredited law schools, the full-time long-term bar passage-required employment rate for 2015 graduates was just under 80 percent. At the 75th percentile, it was 67 percent. But at the 25th percentile, it was 49 percent. And at the 10th percentile, it was only 39 percent.

It will always be a great time to go to some law schools. It will never be a great time to go to others.