Punzi's Corner Blog

... my meeting yesterday took all day. By the time it was over, there was no reason to return to the office. So I have to make up for it by spending the whole day in the office today.

... good thing there's some vacation downtime tomorrow. But I have a big day the day after that...

... I already have an office email address, courtesy of my partner.

... a live HappySlip chat in less than ten minutes! Better eat breakfast already so I can catch more than the last one...

With meetings canceled yesterday, I was able to go home early for some more quality time with my kids. As if we were not all together the whole weekend...

Also, this does not mean I did not get in a full day's work. Churned out a lot of stuff in the limited time I was in the office.

I think this day, however, calls for a whole-day meeting along with supposedly a whole day's work again at the office.

I just don't know if there will be enough hours in this day. I just hope that whole-day meeting is not as long as I anticipate it will be.

Promise of a New Day
by Paula Abdul

(P. Lord / S. St. Victor / V.J. Smith / P. Abdul)

Eagle's calling
and he's calling your name
Tides are turning bringing winds of change
Why do I feel this way
The promise of a new day
The promise
The promise of a new day

As thru time
the earth moves
under my feet
one step closer
to make love complete
what has the final say
the promise of a new day

And so time over time
what will change the world
no one knows
so the only promise
is a day to live, to give
and share with one another
see the wisdom
from mistakes in our past
hear the younger
generation ask
why do I feel this way
the promise of a new day

Chorus:

And so time over time
what will change the world
no one knows
so the only promise
is a day to live, to give
and share with one another


(repeat song)

We ended yesterday's lawyer's meeting with a brief lecture on government bidding, that I conducted using old materials I made four years ago.

We started this lecture series to equip our lawyers on our future projects.

As we have already discovered, our litigation cases merely serve as our bread and butter. The big bucks come from the special projects. Here's our opportunity to charge a lot due to the nature of the work. Sometimes, we can even charge hourly.

Our special projects portfolio ranges from a possible legal audit for a foreign company, a ton of government biddings and some major merger and acquisition projects, which is my partner's specialty.

So the next topic in our lecture series is just that. My partner will conduct a lecture on mergers and acquisitions. And I'm looking forward to that. I have never grown tired of learning new skills.

Anyway, we had our chamber sessions this morning, after we went to the mall for some errand.

And we're off today to attend a swimming party. Hopefully, I can still come back home in time for choir tonight.

This is one of the reasons why I'm not in iBlog 4. But there are other, more obvious reasons, as you may know. Going to a hostile place is just plain stupid (and suicide), I think.

Then, it's a rest day for the rest of the weekend, pardon the pun.

Have a great weekend everyone.

Dedicated to someone. You know who you are:

Though the revenues have yet to come, I'm particularly pleased with the influx of work and prospects this week.

My working hours this week says it all. On one particular day this week (I think it was yesterday), I already rendered a normal person's work for a day at around noon. So I actually worked for an equivalent of two workdays on that particular day.

Today was no different. Started to work early from the house, continued on to my consultancy and capped it off with a for work load in the law office.

And the prospects that are coming in... all I can say is these are very exciting times to practice law. And to top it all, not much government entanglements. Hence, we can safely say we will really work hard and get compensated fairly.

And though delayed, I can already visualize playing my new flute, my reward to myself for all the work I have been doing since our firm started...

I hope these continue...

Debated with myself to post this for the longest time. But I figured: "Hey! This is my blog, I can contradict myself as many times as I please!"

But this is the compromise:

Just the title, this link (from a layperson) and this link (from a former Supreme Court Chief Justice).

And I guess I'll put up that old entry out of draft mode.

Got this from SMS:

Top 10 things that sound dirty but in the law profession, aren't:

10. Have you looked through her briefs?

9. He is one hard judge!

8. Counselor, let's do it in chambers.

7. Her attorney withdrew at the last moment.

6. Is it a penal offense?

5. Better leave the handcuffs on.

4. For Php2,000 an hour, she better be good!

3. Can you get him to drop his suit?

2. The judge gave her the stiffest one he could.

1. Think you can get me off?

0. All rise!

I find myself working from home today. This was my life before. It's not my life now but during these times that I am here working I find myself more comfortable.

I had an epiphany during my meeting yesterday morning. This was supposed to be a moot court session but developments forced us to scrap that initial idea.

When you would ask me before what business (lawyering) I am in, I would readily say we are in the justice business.

But more than that, I realize today that we are in the hope business.

We are engaged in bringing or dispensing hope to our clients. When they are in trouble, we are engaged to bring them hope that they will get out of trouble.

When they have problems, we are engaged to bring them hope that their problems will be solved.

When they are stressed, we are engaged to bring them hope to relieve them of their stress.

I particularly enjoy the look of our client's eyes when they glimmer with hope after meeting with us. And as I have observed through the years, this hope is enough for clients.

Anyway, the one highlight of this week, choir, we pretty well. The song selection did not call for Clarry 2 though, so I did not bring it to mass.

Tomorrow, I'll finish that annulment case we intend to file next week. It's just a matter of organizing the juicy parts.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

In law school, we had this subject called moot court.

It's basically a trial simulation course where students train at litigating an actual (and sometimes a fictitious) case before a teacher who usually acts the the judge.

For some lawyers, that simulated court is the nearest they will get to an actual one. Some lawyers are either cut out for litigation or not and those who are not usually end up at desk job lawyering (mostly in corporate law).

But if you have the chops, I say this is the only practice exclusively reserved for lawyers.

In the final analysis, anyone with a legal background or experience can do what a desk job lawyer does. Corporate law work ironically does not necessarily require a lawyer. There is no requirement in our current laws that a corporate secretary be a lawyer. Corporate housekeeping necessitates attention to detail but even a law degree there is optional. As a matter of fact, accountants do that.

But only lawyers can litigate cases. In this jurisdiction (except for the student practice rule, of course), only lawyers can stand up in court and represent, speak and argue for someone else. And only lawyers can become judges.

Why am I blogging about this, you ask?

We're going to have a sort of moot court session today to train a young associate how to conduct a direct examination under adverse conditions. My partner will play opposing counsel. I will play the judge.

Anyway, this is one of the reasons I proposed our firm have a moot court room. It's not for us. It's for our clients, so they can already have a feel of a court room, the feel of sitting in the witness stand, because I tell you, a witness going over testimony in a court room is radically different from that same witness going over testimony in an office setting the day before. Having a moot court room will show clients what to expect.

So I have work this Saturday. But there's choir this afternoon so things will pick up.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

There's a hiccup in my new flute's arrival.

That's the first text message I got today. Kind of dictated how this day went.

But I ended this workday with a social/meeting with a prospective client over at MOA, which is a stretch from where I'm used to operate. The saxophone player was very good.

Anyway, it was a fun event. But now, I'm tired.

Hope tomorrow's a better day.

As part of my flute-obsessed week, I'm presenting you a recording of Nina Perlove and Joan Sparks playing Excerpts from Frederich Kuhlau's Op. 39, No. 1 (movements 1 and 3).

They were talking about something called Foster Flute Extensions, which claim to increase projection and responsiveness, as well as making low register notes popping out with ease.

But they cost almost the same as a good quality beginner flute.

I may consider that a little later if I intend to get even more serious in my flute playing.

Anyway, here's the recording. Enjoy!

Another manifestation of my excitement...




Can't wait for mine...

Started this day early, at 7:30 a.m. to be exact, for a breakfast meeting.

Then a partner's meeting late in the afternoon.

Ended this workday a little while ago with the partners exchanging thoughts with, ironically, a relative of a partner who just passed the bar.

When we asked him his thoughts about his batch, he said, "I'm sure I'm one of the 5%."

Good answer.

Been so busy and "busy" lately I forgot to keep up with what Happyslip's been up to.

So here's her post on Bohol (where I've already been, for a week):




And here's her post on Cebu (where I've been, twice or thrice already, one time for just one day, in that morning, out in the late afternoon):




May you have a productive, full week ahead.

Memorandum No. 001-IV-2008

To: All concerned
From: The Punzi Network Administrator

Re: Updated Reference names to Workstations

Due to a series of retirements in workstations in the network, the following are the updated reference names:

1. Workstation Description: iMac G5 1.6 Ghz Desktop
Reference name: "Lindsay"

2. Workstation Description: MacBook white 2.0 Ghz Core Duo
Reference name: "Scarlett"

3. Workstation Description: Sony Vaio C2D Laptop
Reference name: "Vanessa"

"Mandy," "Britney" and "Amber" have all been retired and cannibalized for parts.

"Jessica" has been sold.

Please be guided accordingly.

(Sgd.) The LAN Administration

My PDA was my constant companion during my not-too-distant solo practice days. I relied on a PDA since 2000 instead of diaries because some appointments slip by when I transition from one diary to another.

It also has not failed me then simply because I look at it through the course of the workweek. And it reminds me of upcoming appointments and hearings with a subtle chime.

My system was to scan the PDA once at the start of the week to apprise me of the workweek ahead. It's usually enough for me because I still have a decent memory for appointments. But sometimes I look at it to occasionally confirm appointments I vaguely remember as the week progresses.

But since my re-entry into law office life, I have been neglecting this practice and merely trusted the system in the law office achieved through weekly case conferences.

Of course, I still had some residual cases from my solo practice which may have slipped through the cracks. My planner used to be reliable, but the speaker's busted, hence no more subtle chimes.

Fortunately, I also synchronize one of my cellular phones to this planner.

So imagine the shock I got this morning when my phone blurted its obnoxious ringtone to announce I had a hearing I completely forgot about thirty minutes because the appointed time.

Had to drop everything and hurriedly dress up for the hearing when I already had my usual jeans, short-sleeved polo shirt and rubber shoes ensemble already and rush to the courthouse in thirty minutes.

Fortunately (again), it was an uneventful hearing.

Note to self:

1. If my system still works, I shouldn't change it. My old system of relying on my PDA has worked for years. There was no reason to change my system now because it even fits into the law office system. It doesn't go against the law office system.

2. My PDA is getting old (and it's already busted). The subtle chime was all I needed to remind me of upcoming events. My system was thrown off when this subtle chime went mute. I may need to buy a new planner.

3. I should continue to synchronize to (at least) one cellular phone as a back up. It saved me today, so it's obviously effective.

Have a great weekend, everyone!

Set to arrive this month...

The Yamaha YFL-471, solid sterling-silver headjoint and body, open-hole, French cups, offset-G, intermediate flute... (but I should have gotten a B-foot model... anyway...)

Costs about the same as a MacBook Air... but is supposed to sound sweeter than what I'm playing now... and it's not even a professional flute yet...

I can't wait...

Got this one from The Cat:

So true. But worse, I also find myself saying these things... Whoa!

Just came back from a crucial day.

Meeting with a high-ranking official went well.

Meeting at my consultancy also went well.

Meeting with a long-time client who I was in danger of losing also went well. I don't know what happened but not only did we patch things, up, I think we even got a fresh mandate.

Meeting with a partner at the end of day also went well. He reported we obtained for a client something it desperately needed.

Best of all, these developments will translate into billings.

And for that, we are most grateful, indeed.

Except for one more thing...

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Just human, I guess.

Acting on a tip of my partner (one of them to be exact, a U.P. Law Professor) and another source, I stumbled upon this blog entry of my former boss, and also a U.P. Law Professor, Atty. JJ Disini.

From this, it appears that this law professor with considerable legal stature weighed-in his two-cents on the issue of the search for the new UP Law Dean in his blog, naming and attacking some senior faculty members in the process. The law professors he attacked posted an open letter to him, which Atty. Disini, in turn, posted in his blog.

Then, this law professor with considerable legal stature apologized in a subsequent blog entry.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can research on it yourself. And of course, I don't want to link to his entries anymore, as I have completely lost what little respect I had for him a few days ago.

What I like in particular is this quote, from the said open letter to him:

YOU USED THE WORDS “ONE BIG, CRUEL FARCE.” THE BIGGEST, CRUELEST FARCE is that you raise the issue of absenteeism when – as many of your students would attest – you are perennially absent from your classes in Criminal Law and Criminal Law Review, and you miss even your own makeup classes. Your present and past students, some of them now members of the faculty, say that they considered your course as one of “self-study.” Awkward as it is, but can you can assure us that you have not skipped classes to attend to your private practice of law?

Turns out the guy does not even know his students personally or seen them in class or in court because he's always absent.

"Holier-than-thou" indeed.

For the first time since I joined my current law firm, I felt like I was in a Makati law office again.

I'm starting to relive my associate days there where I only go home to change clothes before heading back to work.

This day was particularly hectic in the office since there were a lot of things going on all at once. And it was very fulfilling because the office functioned without my partner this day. His practice is the foundation of our new firm and it used to stall without him. Now, it has a life of its own.

This is the first time that I really felt I was in a law office.

And yes, I just got back home. Good thing my kids are still awake so I can still have some quality time with them before I sleep.

Of course there's a big difference between the situation during my Makati days and the situation now. I was an associate then, a drone. Now, I'm a partner.

Now if this ton of work can just translate into big bucks...

Dearest Bea,

Wow! Ten years! Time flies so fast. Has it been that long?

And you're growing up to be a fine young lady, fast approaching the milestone called adolescence.

Pretty soon, you'll be facing crucial situations all by yourself. And peer pressure can be very persuasive in making you do uncomfortable things.

I really hope that I have taught you, by word and deed, the right thing to do always. And I always pray that God guide you in making your own decisions and actions.

Just remember that we (your grandparents, your cousins, your aunt and uncle, Nico and I) are always there for you whenever you need us. And we love you very much.

Happy 1oth birthday, young lady! May you always do the right thing and be happy always.

Love,
Daddy

It seems like I've attracted enough attention, even of a highly-respected law professor from a highly-respected law school over a blog entry that I have already retracted but because we all love controversies, gets to be revived and relived whichever way possible.

And while I did link to his blog before on some topic, I don't anymore. I think I've done that way before all these came up because when I was supposed to do that today, I discovered his name does not appear in my blogroll anymore. But if you can show me where I link him, please inform me so I can act accordingly.

I think I commented on one of his entries but I think it was ignored. He would probably say it's a good thing he did. And I don't know the circumstances behind his decision to react now.

At the outset, anyone with enough tech-savvy can trace my real name. And I like my screen name, it comes from my surname. (There's a hint...)

Next, that retracted post was intended for the system and the decision to lower some objective standards in passing the bar exams. The unfortunate effect of casting "aspersions" (sorry, I had to look for the meaning of this word because I'm just a narcissistic non-famous lawyer) on the 2007 batch, probably because I was loud-mouthed enough to blog about my future hiring policy, was inadvertent and for that, I apologize.

And the unfortunate branding of this batch as inferior on my part is likewise inadvertent and likewise, I apologize for that.

The bar is just the beginning of their careers and what will dictate how well they will be as lawyers remain to be seen or proven through subsequent practice. I should have ended my entry that does not exist that way, that could have averted the lynch mob.

I also apologize for having an opinion on the matter. I will have no further opinions on anything and anyone in the future.

But what I cannot accept is this:

"Blogger/lawyer [that's me!] chooses to write off an entire batch without knowing the ENTIRE BATCH of bar passers; s/he chooses to dismiss them without the benefit of having seen some or most of them in class or in court; s/he chooses to stigmatize the batch for something they had absolutely no hand in--the lowering of the average."

Assuming that I did intend to write off the entire batch, the point is the bar examiners and the Supreme Court in general CANNOT AND MUST NOT KNOW THE ENTIRE BATCH taking the exams personally at all. That's precisely why the system takes pains to ensure anonymity of every examinee until decoding time.

That's also the point of having an objective standard cast in stone. The rules say 75% weighted average and no grade less that 50% in any exam (Section 14, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court) according to this blog-lecture. This was cast in stone then. Apparently, it's not now.

And that's the point why we have laws as rules in the first place. So there's no dispute or debate about anything.

Contrary to prevalent and popular belief nowadays, rules are NOT MEANT to be broken. They are meant to be followed.

Because all bar examinations are difficult, subjective and anonymous, that cancels out the argument that the 2007 Bar is a unique one that deserves special treatment. (Don't give me that "My bar is harder than your bar" argument.) But then again, the only thing special about the 2007 Bar is only 5% or 281 examinees met the original standard cast in stone. Any claim that the examiners were unusually strict that particular year has to have some basis, even to the point of testing that hypothesis scientifically, as I have picked up in another forum. I would personally believe that hypothesis if nobody met this objective standard. But 281 examinees did.

Is there a problem with this statistic?

I personally have no problem with that statistic. If only 281 examinees make the grade, then so be it. I don't know about the other stakeholders.

And what does it mean if an examinee from the 2007 bar exams does not meet this objective standard?

It means, he/she did not meet this standard.

What does not meeting this standard mean in the 2006 Bar or the others before it?

It simply means he/she cannot become a lawyer.

What does not meeting this standard mean in the 2007 bar?

Errrr... not as simple anymore... Apparently, your opinion is just as valid as mine because of all these controversies. (But be warned: the popular opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.)

And apparently, judging by this objective standard earns me the description of being arrogant. Apparently, having pride in surpassing this standard in a year that objectively neither gave an inch nor taken any qualifies as sheer hubris (I also had to look this word up.) Then, a lynch mob from a highly respected university that may not have been benefited (or aggrieved) by this lowering of standards comes for me. (Don't worry, I have something up my sleeve just in case they actually do.) You may be creating your own ghosts or just trying to pick a fight, you know.

Objectivity is precisely the point in the bar exams. The people involved in the bar admission process are not supposed to know the examinees personally. And fortunately (or unfortunately, as this highly-renowned professor seems to put it), I am not a bar examiner and then knew who precisely whose test I was correcting. If I did, the way I have seen them in class or in court or they way I knew them personally will surely influence me in grading their test booklets.

And as far as I know, that's one of the reasons why law professors, even though coming from highly-respected schools and with considerable legal stature, cannot become bar examiners unless they have ceased being professors for some time before a given bar exam. The reaction of this highly-renowned law professor with considerable legal stature to this puny unknown lawyer's opinion betrays his objectivity. Good thing he was not the bar examiner when I took my bar. Good thing he will not be an examiner until he has detached himself from his students.

Subjectivity is a good thing if you're benefited by it. It rears its ugly head when you're prejudiced by it. Objectivity in the standards is therefore the only fair and just way to go about the admission process. As lawyers, we have an obligation more to the profession itself and to the admission process than to any particular batch of examinees/students that we have seen in court on in class, or have known personally. As lawyers, our duty is to preserve the integrity of the admission process, not to any particular batch of examinees.

It is my honest opinion that this objective standard should be respected at all costs. The other variables extraneous to this standard could have been quietly factored in when the examiners gave their grades. This should have also been done by prior, quiet instruction to the examiners by the Supreme Court and not as an afterthought when the passing rate has already been determined, because, as somebody has argued:

The examiners, during the checking of bar booklets, have the mindset that the dq [disqualification] mark is 50. [W]hen the examiner gives lower than 50, say 49, 48, etc, he gives it with a mindset that the examinee is not really qualified to be a lawyer.

Or the Supreme Court could have quietly adjusted the grades to factor in these variables before giving out the results and not simply lower these objective standards. In this way, the integrity of a particular bar exam remains intact.

But this is just the suggestion of this unknown lawyer. People with considerable legal stature may have other ideas on how to maintain the integrity of the bar exams.

If future policies will scrap this objective standard altogether, why have a bar examination at all? Why not leave the decision of acceptance to the bar to highly respected professors with considerable legal stature and/or to the highly respected law schools they teach in because they have seen these applicants in class or in court and know them personally to be potentially good lawyers?

Ultimately, I am sticking to my original premise: Any bar exams (and not the bar examinees, I like to clarify) should be free from tarnish or even the hint (or suspicion) of such tarnish.

Is the 2007 Bar tarnished?

All I know is It cannot be tarnished by a mere controversial, unpopular and withdrawn blog entry of some unknown lawyer. Or gets untarnished by a mere popular reply to such a controversial blog entry by a supposedly better lawyer/respected law professor with considerable legal stature.

It gets tarnished (or untarnished) all by itself.

I like to end with a question I picked up over the heated discussions of this issue:

Would the lowering of the percentage change the truth that that there were only 281 examinees who passed the 75 mark?

And I will not write anything further on this topic.

(And if you have feasted your eyes on my picture, as I have been supposedly exposed, yes, I admit my boobs are fake. Had them done two years ago. Just to be clear, that's a joke.)

Now back to regular boring programming.

I wanted to go to Greenhills today to hunt for a copy of Dynasty Warriors 6 but instead, we went to the grocery to get some things for Bea's small 10th birthday party tomorrow.

They plan to grab some party food and then head off to the neighborhood pool for some night swimming.

Anyway, only some close friends and relatives will come but I think it's better that way.

So it will be choir again tonight (what a relief).

I'll post some pics tomorrow.

Have a great long weekend, everyone!

Just ended a particularly long work day, from a hearing at 10:00 a.m. to a late meeting about an hour ago.

Well, it seems like there is quite a stir already over at Atty. Fred Pamaos' blog over the issues I have discussed about the 2007 Bar.

Let me redirect you to this post which already has a lot of comments, even nastier that the ones I was perceived to have made.

And through the wonders of simple tracking technology, I have made some "discoveries."

Keeping my cards to myself for now... I just found out that people are actually reading my blog. But I think I want to ask Atty. Fortun what really went down in his subject.

If anything, I hope this translates into more hits.

Started the day with an elderly lawyer trying to lecture me on the virtues of being on time. The got me started because I was not late. The judge was just too early.

So I gave him a piece of my mind and told him where to shove it.

Then reported to my consultancy. But I parked in that big mall in front of the office because I had to pay some bills there. The problem is the heat. It's becoming unbearable to walk out from an air-conditioned mall and go up the overpass to cross a major highway in that kind of heat. It saps the life out of you.

Then back to the office, where I heard one of our partners was planning to write to the Supreme Court to complain about this year's bar result. He's a law professor in one of the better law schools here, aside from being a medical lawyer and a doctor.

Anyway, we ended the day in the office with a new retainer client. At least it was on a high note.

But my day has not ended. I'm just watching American Idol before I deal with some paperwork. Perhaps I can get some sleep when I'm through.

Well I hope you had a good day. Sarcastically or not.

Well, it seems I stirred up a hornet's nest when I reflected on the 2007 Bar. I'm pretty happy it did because at least, we get the discussions and debates on the issue started.

Upon advise of my own counsel, however, I've decided to put it in draft mode... for now and let the issues resolve itself. I suspect it will in a few days because the media is somewhat aware of it already. Also, I have responsibilities towards the profession as a whole which I feel weighs more than the expression of my own opinion on the issue in blog form.

But make no mistake, my opinion still stands. But I'll just keep it to myself for now.

Insofar as my competence is concerned, let my 13 years of practice and my academic achievements since elementary school in an above-average university speak for themselves. At the very least, my passing the bar was not a fluke and I can say that with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Some people think I just took the bar two years ago. Well, thank you if you feel I'm still young.

And yes, given how I studied and prepared for the bar as a law student then, I would pass any bar exams, no matter how hard it is. (And do you know that I was sidelined from bar review for a month or more when I took the 1995 bar because I had chickenpox and I had a sprained writing hand during my last Sunday? If that's not adversity, I don't know what is.) I even gave tips in this blog on how to pass the bar, remember? And during our time, there were no multiple choice or true or false questions.

And somehow, I don't think some new lawyer will eat me for breakfast even five years from now because I always go to court prepared. But if someone wants to try, I enjoy a good fight. You're pretty much welcome to try.

Also, I've implemented comment moderation on my blog, indefinitely.

This is my blog and I control what's in it.

And I try to put quality in its contents. I particularly take pains to write in correct English (save for some typos and grammatical errors, which is inevitable and only goes to show I am human) and not in Taglish or worse, text-speak. Try writing like that in any bar exam.

And I particularly hate those anonymous comments. Get your own blog! Don't know how? Attend iBlog4! Mix and mingle with flesh-and-blood bloggers, not just trolls. Let's see if it's easy to say what you say if you have to put your name on it already. It's so easy to say things behind one's back than say things in front of the behind the back.

Don't worry about me. I've been called worse by even bigger cowards who write better.

All I have to say about my so-called arrogance is look who's talking. My comments come from a feeling of injustice to those people who would/should/could have passed given these relaxed standards, not from someone who has put one over the system.

Just prove me wrong. And I most certainly hope I am. Sincerely.

Take it as a challenge and don't whine about what I said because if even I did not say it, someone else would. There will always be nastier people using nastier words and doing downright nastier deeds to others in the future. The journey into practice has just begun. And mine has not yet crossed the halfway point.

See you in court. Or in the negotiating table.