Solo Practice

This solo lawyer is one of a new breed focusing on animal law.  I saw new breed (pun intended) because while there have been lawyers who have defended animals they were always seen on the 'fringe' as animal rights was marginalized.  Now, however, animal rights are finally being recognized and creating an increasing valuable niche for lawyers who choose to defend the rights of animals. Our guest blogger is one of them.  I also encourage you to visit Amy's blog as she has created an impressive list of animal rights lawyers throughout the country.

Guest Blogger - Amy A. Breyer

I opened my office on March 1, 2002 and (fortunately!) have been in business since.  I have a niche in a small but growing area of practice: animal law.  In case you're not familiar, animal law is very much like environmental law: an umbrella designation that includes a wide array of topics.  For example, just like environmental law covers air, water, land, pesticides and so forth, animal law covers farm, research, wildlife, companion animals and more.  And just like environmental laws involve civil statutes, criminal penalties and massive regulations, animal laws range from pet trust provisions in estate planning laws to cruelty prosecutions to massive (albeit largely ignored or ineffectual) regulations covering use of animals for food or research.

When I decided to apply to law school in 1996, I had already worked in TV news for more than a decade.  My ?aha? moment came while I was reading a story on the wires about a defendant in Florida who was convicted on cruelty charges for beating his puppy to death for soiling a carpet.  I realized I didn?t just want to tell people about what happened, I wanted to nail this guy?s *!*# to the wall.  So goodbye journalism, hello law. At the time, not only was animal law still largely unheard of, even just admitting I was a vegetarian was often a pretty marginalizing experience.

Fortunately, the sudden rise in popularity of animal welfare and rights issues in the past few years has changed the social landscape dramatically, but I still run into plenty of folks who just don't ?get it?.  Individuals who don't have companion animals frequently don't understand - or are unwilling to accept - the fact that the bonds people form with non-humans can be just as strong and meaningful as those we form with other people.  Moreover, just as the law has come to acknowledge that race and gender are not meaningful criteria for denial of all rights, I believe the law will eventually recognize that neither is species. This doesn?t mean that all rights should be extended to all species; it is pointless to suggest that my cat should have the right to drive my car.  However, one day I believe that society should ? and will ? accord at least certain fundamental rights to at least some non-human species. And when I am able to genuinely persuade a judge to just even seriously think about any of these issues, it's a good day.

Case in point: several years back, I represented a woman on a veterinary malpractice claim.  The case was pending in a conservative county.  For the better part of a year, the judge - who was smart and clearly read all the briefs submitted in his courtroom - ruled against me on pretty much every issue, every time.  After about a year of motion practice where the insurance defense counsel brought every motion he could think of to try to dismiss or gut the damages out of the case, he brought a motion to transfer down to small claims, which had a jurisdictional limit of $5,000.  Figuring there was nothing left to lose, I told my client to come to the hearing.  I put her on the stand and began to question the client: a widowed, Holocaust survivor who lived completely alone because well, her dog was now dead.  When I got to the $64,000 question (ok, technically the "Plaintiff seeks in excess of $50,000" question...), I asked: What would you rather have? A million dollars or your dog? Opposing counsel literally jumped out of his chair to object (repeatedly).  The judge overruled.  I asked again, and (tearfully, of course), the client said she would rather have her dog back.  By the end of the hearing, the judge denied the motion to transfer her case down to small claims, ruling that he would not say as a matter of law that her claim was worth less than $5,000!

The Law Offices of
Amy A. Breyer, LLC
33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2020
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 977-1400
(312) 977-1401 (fax)
http://AnimalLawOnline.net

Blog: http://AnimalLawOnline.blogspot.com