In America’s small towns both lawyers and clients face two challenging realities:

• Lawyers who know and must be able to work with each other;
• The fact that almost everyone knows each other or are related in some way.

Often an attorney is familiar with all the parties in a dispute, has represented some of them in the past, or now. As lawyers owe their clients a duty of loyalty, conflicts of interest are a real issue.

“While conflicts of interest can sometimes appear out of the blue, in general it is pretty much of a common sense matter to determine whether the lawyer can continue the representation once the potential conflict becomes apparent,” Bakersfield attorney James Duncan told You and the Law. Duncan is the in-house Legal Ethics Ombudsman at his 40 person law firm.

“Friendships or social relationships which may impact the lawyer’s ability to zealously represent the client and providing complete loyalty to the client must be disclosed. An attorney should never agree to represent people who are involved in a dispute with his other clients.

“If that happens — and it comes to the attention of a judge — the attorney will almost always be disqualified from continued representation,” Duncan observes.

“Worse yet, the road to trouble with the State Bar is in accepting compensation with a known conflict and then refusing to refund fees once a judge has declared a conflict of interest and disqualified the attorney.”

“A lawyer who puts money ahead of good judgment and respect for our Rules of Professional Conduct is asking for trouble. The license to practice law can offer a gratifying career, the chance to do good things and earn a nice income. But when all a lawyer cares about is money, sound judgment often flies out the window,” Duncan concludes.

When a lawyer loves money too much

That is precisely what we observed take place right outside a Small Claims courtroom in a Central Valley courthouse, involving readers–three members of an Asian church with marginal English skills–who had been sued by their lawyer “David” for unpaid attorney fees.

It was a stunning example of conflict of interest.

The three were slapped with a restraining order filed by board members acting on behalf of the church. But there was one huge problem, brought to the attention of a Superior Court Judge who found that lawyer David had represented the church and even had some of their money in his trust account.

“You are disqualified from representing these three members of the congregation as you are still, technically, representing the church,” the judge told him.

Instead of refunding the thousands of dollars they had paid — which David was required to do under the rules of Professional Conduct — he billed them for even more money, and sued when they refused to pay.

As most experienced lawyers know, for many reasons, it is rarely a good idea to sue a client for fees. But the love of money has been the downfall of many.

Right to fee arbitration by local bar association 

In California, clients have a right to have an attorney fee dispute handled by a local bar association arbitrator. Before filing suit against a client for fees, a lawyer must provide notice of that right to arbitrate.

But that’s not what happened, as according to the three congregation members, none of them ever received that notice. We firmly believed what they stated.

Lawyers are not permitted to represent parties in Small Claims Court, but at the same courthouse that day for other matters, helping our readers when their case was called, we saw to it that the judge was informed this matter required Fee Arbitration. And with that, everyone was sent outside, to the hallway, to find a settlement or speak with a mediator.

I want $6,000 right now!

While lawyers are generally not afraid of other lawyers, clients sometime scare easy. Insisting on being paid $6,000 immediately, despite our recommendations that the small claims matter be dismissed, and that the three were owed a refund, in addition to warning David of potential trouble with the State Bar, he remained unwavering.

One of the church members had driven several hundred miles to be in court and did not want to return again. Rejecting the $6,000 demand, he offered David $1,500. “Cash only, right now,” demanded their former attorney, and it was paid, David returning to the courtroom and dismissed the three lawsuits.

It was an unhappy ending to a story which should never have been, had David been honest from the outset. As people are consistent, he will face other ethical challenges, and maybe, just maybe, a client who will stand up for what is right.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Client’s rights when lawyer has a conflict of interest appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

“Mr. Beaver, I have read a number of your articles about neighbors refusing to maintain their property–especially trees–in a safe condition, or failing to keep a common fence in good repair.

“Of course, most people do not want to be at war with their neighbors, but that’s what I am facing:

–To the south, they refuse to trim or remove a clearly dangerous Pine tree that is leaning towards our property, its limbs and branches are on our roof. When I mention this, they just say, “The tree looks fine to us.” It is as if they cannot see the danger.

–To the north, we share a wooden fence and large, wide driveway serves both properties. This neighbor refuses to participate in the repair or replacement of the fence or re-paving our common driveway.

“Both of these families are very well off. What makes people who can obviously afford to maintain their property act in such an uncaring way and what’s the best way to respond? Thanks, Ken.”

Blame Their Lack of Mental Accounting

We ran Ken’s question by a friend of this column, Dr. Art Markman, Professor of Psychology and Marketing at the University of Texas at Austin. “These are very common situations which cause a lot of unpleasantness. Often it comes down to a form of not seeing the problem, what we call mental accounting–being aware that we will have certain expenses and planning for them.

“For lawn care–or care of our teeth–we have mental accounts and plan for those expenses. In large part because trees are slow-moving targets, unless wind or a bolt of lightning brings one down, we just do not notice most things about our trees. We look at a tree and it seems fine to us, so why worry?

“Regular tree-trimming is something most people ignore as it is expensive, and because it has not been mentally budgeted, even a millionaire might think, ‘I can’t afford to do this now.’”

Do You Really Want to Have This Fight?

In speaking with Markman, two far more important aspects of this cheapskate neighbor scenario became apparent:

(1) An obsession to force the neighbor’s compliance, and;

(2) Destructive stress at home.

“By allowing yourself to be obsessed with someone’s refusal to act, you are allowing them to control you. Once you recognize that, it becomes easy to walk away, you need to ask yourself, ‘Why do I want to have this fight? Am I angry about this primarily on principal, which means feeling that if I go ahead and fix the problem myself, that person would have gotten away with something? What is this stress doing to our family life?”

No Cooperation? Don’t Let Cheapskate Neighbor Ruin Your Day

So, how do we deal with a neighbor who is blind to the danger his property is creating for others nearby? “This is as much about psychological well-being as it is the law,” Markman strongly maintains. “Don’t let other people’s actions determine how you are living your life,” he underscores, and offers these suggestions:

(1) If it is clear there will be no cooperation, do whatever work needs to be done that makes you safe after providing written notice of your plans. You obviously can’t trespass on their property, and so when you are having your own trees done–trimming back anything that would be dangerous to you–and if the fence needs to be rebuilt, do it, send your neighbor the bill for half with the expectation it will not be paid.

(2) This does not mean that you have to be nice to your neighbor. The good side of the fence should face you. If it needs to be painted or stained, have it done on your side.

“This is not forgiveness. It means that you are not allowing your neighbor’s action to define how you are acting. If you turn it into a fight, you give the neighbor the ability of controlling you! He’s making your life miserable. He’s making you go through all sorts of gyrations to change his behavior. He is making it all about him.”

Confrontation Less Satisfying Than You Think It Will Be

“There are people in this world who are petty jerks and often it is tempting to engage with them at their level. In general, when you confront someone it is not as satisfying as your think it will be. But if you trim those branches encroaching on your property, rebuild the fence and give your neighbor the ugly side, you get to enjoy that for the next 20 years!” Markman concluded with a broad smile.

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post Flawed Mental Accounting Leads to Problems with Neighbors appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

December 8, 2025  • By Dennis Beaver

“I got hurt on the job — in my first few minutes, actually — and can’t find a lawyer anywhere to take my case.” That was how my conversation began with 17-year-old “Beau,” who was calling from Charleston, S.C.

“Well, Beau, what kind of job do you have, and how were you injured?”

“Mr. Beaver, you will figure it out sooner or later, so I might as well be upfront. This was to be a weekend job as a porch pirate, working for a guy who runs a crew. A box I picked up exploded, spraying pink glitter everywhere — like what would happen in a gender reveal — and then a loud alarm sounded.

“In my hurry to get away, I tripped over a sprinkler head on the front lawn, fell and fractured my right wrist.

“I want to file a workers’ compensation claim and also sue the homeowner who rigged this booby-trapped package, but when I try to speak with an attorney, everyone laughs at me.”

I thought, “Yeah, I would, too!” But why would a porch pirate, also known as a thief, from the South be calling me?

Morally satisfying, entertaining videos

We’ve all seen — on the news and other websites — videos of a porch pirate swiping a package and walking away with a look of great satisfaction on their face, and then BOOM! The package explodes, covering the thief in brightly colored powdered dye or glitter. Next, we hear the creep swearing loudly.

There are hundreds of these videos that are morally satisfying, especially to anyone who has been the victim of a porch pirate.

Unfortunately, many are AI-generated, but everyone I’ve spoken to enjoys watching the instant karma that’s delivered.

Now, going into business as a porch pirate requires only two things: a vehicle and being morally bankrupt. But what if you don’t have reliable transportation that enables a quick getaway and still have dreams of financial independence through theft?

You go to work for someone who has both.

As Beau explained, “I met a guy who hires people to steal packages. The process was very smooth, very professional.” This is how Beau described it:
The “employer” had one vehicle follow actual delivery drivers and report the addresses where parcels were delivered.

Wearing high-visibility safety vests, Beau and his cohorts were driven to those addresses, where they placed a business card for a tree trimming company on the porch near the recently delivered package, took a photo of it to make the process appear legit, then they would grab the package and leave. (The boss wanted a photo to keep all the Beaus from ripping him off.)

Not only did Beau share a photo of this event, he had an actual video — from walking up to the porch to when he fell.

“This was my first house,” he said. “I was nervous, and instead of selecting the photo option on my phone, I accidentally pushed the button for video.” (He also mistakenly picked up a package that had already been sitting on the porch, not the one that had just been delivered.)

He played it for me. I almost fell out of my chair, laughing.

Why was this South Carolina teen reaching out to a lawyer in California?

Beau explained that he did not tell his father what “the job” was, only that he fell and needed to speak with an attorney.

“My dad reads your Kiplinger column, and you interviewed a lawyer there some time ago, so we thought you might be able to put us in touch with someone.”

Even if I could, I would not.

Could a homeowner actually be held liable in this case?

Every law student in America can tell you about the 1971 Iowa Supreme Court case Katko v. Briney.

The Brineys owned an unoccupied farmhouse that had been repeatedly vandalized and burglarized. They set up a loaded shotgun trap in a bedroom, set to fire when the door was opened, aimed to hit an intruder in the legs. No warning signs were posted.

Katko broke into the house to steal antique bottles and jars and was severely injured when he triggered the trap.

After pleading guilty, he sued the Brineys for actual and punitive damages and was awarded $30,000. The Brineys had to sell much of their farm to satisfy the judgment.

I remember to this day the outrage of students in Professor Ogren’s torts class at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. How could any lawyer help to reward this thief? How could a state Supreme Court validate the judgment?

This case is still precedent for the proposition that courts do not approve of potentially deadly booby traps, placing human safety over the value of property.

The law generally permits the use of deadly force only when a person is present and faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Booby traps, by definition, operate when the owner is likely not present, removing the possibility of a human judgment call on the necessity of force.

Clearly, our genius Beau tripped over a sprinkler head — which was not part of the booby trap — and the glitter did not cause injury. Juries and judges would think, “The kid got what he deserved” — and that is why no lawyer playing with a full deck would take his case.

Has any homeowner been prosecuted or sued for an exploding “bait” package of glitter or dye? I could find no cases, anywhere, over the past several years.

That said, it isn’t recommended that you booby-trap your packages.

My advice to Beau

I thanked Beau for his call, telling him that he was far luckier than he realized.

“You were about to embark on a path that could lead to state prison. Think of the fractured wrist as the luckiest break of your life. Get an education, or a trade, steer clear of creeps who dangle quick-money schemes before your eyes. Also, tell your family the truth and about our conversation.”

He promised to do so. I think he will.

Dennis Beaver Practices law in Bakersfield and welcomes comments and questions from readers,
which may be faxed to (661) 323-7993,
or e-mailed to Lagombeaver1 – at – Gmail.com.

The post Meet the World’s Unluckiest — Not to Mention Entitled — Porch Pirate appeared first on Dennis Beaver.

“Jake,” a civil engineer, ordered a specialty laptop directly from the manufacturer’s sales department along with two pre-installed software programs that were essential for his work.

He was given one assurance after another of receiving the computer and activation codes by a specific date; but nothing was delivered until three months after the promised time. The activation codes were to be sent via e-mail.

“Despite calling ‘Rob,’ the sales rep, often waiting on hold for over an hour, and being told, ‘My supervisor said he will be sending that email immediately,’ I never received the activation codes.” Jake said, adding:

“For over a month I placed several more calls and Rob’s increasing frustration with his company’s screw-up was obvious. After wasting so much time all I had was a computer that could not be used for my business and I lost two jobs because I could not use the necessary software. I gave up expecting the seller to ever get me those codes.”

Finally, Jake phoned the software developers, sent them proof of purchase, and they provided the codes.

Happy Camper – When …

“I returned from an out of town job when my secretary tells me, ‘Boss, while you were gone, Rob called, apologized for the hassle, said that he has quit the company, but has made things right for you. The next day FedEx delivered a check from the computer company labeled refund. I deposited it along with our other checks, but in thinking about this now, I thought you were finally happy with the purchase.’”

Jake called the seller, left voice mails and sent emails offering to return the money and stating that he wanted to keep the laptop.

“But no one ever replied, and that worried me. I did not want anyone to accuse me of illegally obtaining a refund on the laptop that I still have in my possession and am using. Should I return the money? The computer?”

A Law School Professor Give His Opinion

I asked a friend of this column, Loyola (Los Angeles) Law School Contracts Professor Bryan Hull, “Given that my reader did not participate in obtaining the refund and has attempted to again pay for the laptop, if he does nothing, could this land him in civil or criminal trouble?”

Hull replied:

“If the refund was a payment by mistake, the seller would have a right to restitution of that amount. But was it a mistake? It would seem almost obligatory for the sales rep to obtain authority before issuing that check and allowing the customer to still keep the laptop.

“But the purchaser has offered to send them the money, so there seems no argument that he is criminally trying to retain the funds. My assumption is that the refund check was not sent in error, rather as a way to compensate Jake for all the time he wasted in trying to get what he had paid for. His best bet is to do nothing and just continue using the laptop.”

Was The Refund Really Sent in Error? How Could This Happen?

I spoke with U.S. based HR and logistics managers at two large computer hardware manufacturers, asking, “Have you heard of anything as odd as this case? How could it happen?”

Logistics managers — on condition of strict anonymity — were in complete agreement as to, “The monumental flaw of ‘Just in-time’ manufacturing, where components are delivered to factories as they are required, which minimizes the need to stockpile them. But we all knew this was a disaster waiting to happen,” explaining:

“This concept was pioneered by Toyota, was quickly adopted by all auto makers and many other industries — notably electronics and pharmaceuticals — and leaving them vulnerable to shortages.”

OK, so that explains the delay, but what about Rob sending Jake a complete refund?

Sabotage! “I’ll Show You!”

The HR people revealed a touching, charitable attitude toward Rob, all of them feeling that, while technically what he did amounted to sabotage, “The pandemic has upended everything connected to sales,” 35-year HR veteran “Stacey,” told me.

“We rarely saw this behavior before and it would come to light after an employee quit or was terminated and their supervisor had a creepy feeling about them. We would do an audit of their sales and returns, on occasion discovering a refund issued but no steps taken to recover the hardware.”

I wondered if their industry is addressing these issues with employees or would prefer to not publicize the problems.

“You don’t want to plant ideas about ways of getting even with a supervisor who has caused you to be embarrassed – or yelled at – by customers. But at the same time, if you do not address the problem, one rep can cost you thousands of dollars!”

Concluding our chat, Stacey said, “Since COVID, the world of manufacturing has been turned upside down, employees are suffering burnout at rates we never saw before, and this requires far more compassion by management than, sadly, many who occupy the “C” suites understand.”

Dennis Beaver practices law in Bakersfield and enjoys hearing from his readers. Contact Dennis Beaver.

The post The case of the free computer appeared first on Dennis Beaver.