|
Grayly Squirrel posted:No one actively enforces the prohibition. It is the type of thing that only becomes an issue if you gently caress up. If you are not a licensed attorney but give legal advice anyway, one of two things can happen: There's also just a moral 'we cannot possibly give competent legal advise to someone on the basis of a several paragraph post on the internet and it would be seriously unethical to do so' factor, so I would hope that at least for the majority of lawyers in this thread the refusal to give advice is as much a matter of ethics than potential consequences. We can tell you if you have a serious problem or trivial problem and where you need to go to get real advice. That's what this thread is for. Also sometimes someone comes in with a theory question and it's nice when that happens because we can get a nice discussion out of it.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
zachol posted:What's the deal with the "I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice" or "I am a lawyer but not yours, this is not legal advice" stuff? Giving specific legal advice to a specific individual based on specific facts can create a client-attorney relationship, which then foists a whole set of new obligations and responsibilities onto the attorney. This includes giving legal advice based on more information than provided in a 500-words-or-less internet forum post. These obligations must be conformed with or otherwise the attorney can be sanctioned. There is no clearly defined rule as to when the client-attorney relationship is established, and therefore stating over and over again that there is no such relationship would conceivably assist the attorney in later proceedings to prove that there was no client-attorney relationship.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 13:47
|
|
|
Basically, none of us want to have a complaint filed by "cumlord goonmaster" on our bar record.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 15:41
|
|
|
zachol posted:What's the deal with the "I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice" or "I am a lawyer but not yours, this is not legal advice" stuff? If an attorney gives legal advice, the ethical duties of the profession attach. That means, say, the duties of diligence and competence (both of which would require more of me than the sort of top-of-my-head responses I'm inclined to give by the fact that I'm not being paid). Moreover, the applicable test is based on the perceptions of the "client." It's not enough that the attorney knows he isn't your lawyer and not giving you legal advice, it's whether YOU knew (or should have known) that. As already noted, if the advice is wrong, this can expose the attorney to a malpractice suit. If the advice is for a jurisdiction in which he doesn't practice, that's unauthorized practice of law (a crime), both of which can also carry professional sanctions. We're a notoriously risk-averse group, but it's not entirely an idle fear, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Hypothetical: Is there any way filing a discrimination claim with the EEOC or state equivalent could jeopardize unemployment compensation benefits?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Hypothetical: Hypothetically (since I'm not an EEOC or UC lawyer and am not representing you) there might be some res judicata/ collateral estoppel issues, but the nuts and bolts of that will depend on how your jurisdiction has interpreted the two concepts. Very basically, res judicata and collateral estoppel are ways of saying, "Hold it, we've already litigated this issue, there's already been a ruling, you don't get bringing it up again to try to get a different result. It might be possible to envision a case where a UC court rules that an employee was fired for incompetence and not because of racial animus, and that ruling being brought up in the EEOC case. However, As a practical matter, I think it would be unlikely that the EEOC hand and the UC hand would know or care what was going on with the other. As a legal matter, I think establishing collateral estoppel or res judicata between a UC case and an EEOC case would be an almost impossibly uphill battle.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Especially since both of those are technically administrative procedures and not court actions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
I am thinking the ex-employer would hypothetically get pissed at the discrim complaint and go monkey around with the UC which they previously did not dispute.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Hello, I work for a school district in Naples, Florida. I have had a boss who for the past 4 1/2 years has been abusive, refused to give me compensation, flex, or overtime pay as a hourly worker, (Also, when I was brought on board I was never informed of how any of this worked. It's also my first job) and said extreme racial remarks to other employees within the department. He's also done a lot more then just this, but I feel this is what has affected me the most. For the news storys and article, you can listen to it / read it here (I highly recommend this, especially the video): http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2012/feb/15/collier-schools-investigation-supervisor-demoted-a/ Recently, about 7 of us (including a manager) came forward and brought our concerns to the Human Resources department. An investigation was launched, and despite our testimony (Many of which us including statements of that we are afraid of him, and fearing retaliation if he is allowed to come back) he was not fired, and is currently under a 3 month "Rehabilitation" plan before he gets to go back to his old job. Fast forward a bit, and they bring me into a meeting before the records about this investigation go public to the media. I am brought in by two of the investigators, and told that I don't have to speak to the media, etc. But then, they told me that a private investigator was hired by someone outside of the district, and I was told that if I took steps to talk to the PI that "We will take steps against you" They have also done this to several employees, seemingly trying to bullying us into being quiet about this. They are now finally trying to compensate me for my time worked over 40 hours a week, but I have to remember for the past 2 years (and the past 2 years only) what days I worked over time. What about the interest on that money? What about the other 2 1/2 years I have worked there? And what about the direct threat to me and my job? I feel like what they are doing is not only unethical, but not legal. I just don't know where to turn, should I see a specialized attorney, and if so what type? I appreciate your help and advice. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I am thinking the ex-employer would hypothetically get pissed at the discrim complaint and go monkey around with the UC which they previously did not dispute. They could, but under those circumstances it would be relatively easy for an EEOC investigator to prove retaliation on the employer's part.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
divernb posted:Hello, You're going to want to find a decent employment lawyer. It sounds like you need more than advice, but an advocate to negotiate on your behalf.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 04:46
|
|
|
I was just going through this thread and was curious about an expansion from another question asked earlier. So, it's hypothetical time (if that's cool with y'all)! I die and had accrued a fair amount of expensive crap. I leave everything to Paul, but, because he did wonderful things for my charities, I leave Mark with my shares of Amazon (a whole half percent of the company!). Of course, Paul hasn't spoken to Mark since Mark wouldn't invest in Paul's pet project, causing it to be nixed at the quarterly meeting. Problem is, I did it with a number of bad loans that are now fully in collections, and, with the full repayment of the loans being demanded, the estate isn't solvent. But Paul is a financial wizard and has some great contacts, he negotiates a settlement that'll keep the estate out of bankruptcy, leaving him all of the estate. The price? Current value of my Amazon holdings, which are meant for Mark. The question(s): Is Paul the de facto executor or would someone else have that responsibility? And, if so, could he make that deal, liquidating the Amazon shares, which I bequeathed to Mark, to protect his own inheritance? Asking cause this sounds a touch underhanded (so the gut says "it's illegal"). Or does this scenario play out that the estate goes directly into bankruptcy because this is about an estate, not a living person? Also sounds underhanded. (Is she going to croak next month? No? then wait for her to die then swoop in for automatic bankruptcy so we can make a big cash grab.) I'll admit my understanding of the difference between insolvency and bankruptcy, is that bankruptcy is a legal status, given by a judge. A third party is given full control of your assets and liquidates everything to fulfil the debts to the best of their ability. The good news? No debt, yay! The bad? You only have a car and an empty house, boo!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:No one actively enforces the prohibition. It is the type of thing that only becomes an issue if you gently caress up. If you are not a licensed attorney but give legal advice anyway, one of two things can happen: To add to all of the above, there's always the risk that the person seeking advice gets it in their head that you actually are their lawyer. Fast forward a few months and you get sued when they blow a limitation period because they expected you to take care of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:51
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:. The executor can be appointed in your Will, otherwise someone can apply to court. If two or more people apply, priority is generally given in the order that you'd expect (spouse, kids, parents, etc.). The executor has a fiduciary obligation to the beneficiaries and cannot put his own interests first. In my jurisdiction debts are paid out of the residue of the estate first before specific gifts are touched (unless the Will says otherwise). The executor does have the power to settle claims - but he'd have to use assets out of the residue. End result, Mark could bring an action against Paul.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2012 09:59
|
|
|
Question regarding contracts in UK law (not sure if that's something that's likely to be a deciding factor or if this is a more general thing) but if a contract has numbered clauses and the person that put it together managed to totally misnumber them (so there are two clause XII's and no clause VI or IX) is this likely to have any effect on enforceability of said contract? My layman's thinking is it just makes them look dumb as the clauses appear to operate independently and don't reference one another but is there an issue with possibly inserting new clauses as the missing numbers, etc.?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Question regarding contracts in UK law (not sure if that's something that's likely to be a deciding factor or if this is a more general thing) but if a contract has numbered clauses and the person that put it together managed to totally misnumber them (so there are two clause XII's and no clause VI or IX) is this likely to have any effect on enforceability of said contract? My layman's opinion is that it is unlikely to matter. Inserting new clauses is not going to be an issue as the contract will be based on the original physical document signed - so unless you have a method of literally cutting and inserting extra sections of paper without leaving a trace, you cannot add anything. Plus, both parties will have a copy so any discrepancies will be obvious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 13:32
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Question regarding contracts in UK law (not sure if that's something that's likely to be a deciding factor or if this is a more general thing) but if a contract has numbered clauses and the person that put it together managed to totally misnumber them (so there are two clause XII's and no clause VI or IX) is this likely to have any effect on enforceability of said contract? Contra Proferentum is the rule that would likely apply here (if at all). Never agree to an ambiguously phrased or poorly drafted contract for the sake of speed or convenience - if creates an order of magnitude more trouble if you actually end up having a problem with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 14:21
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Question regarding contracts in UK law (not sure if that's something that's likely to be a deciding factor or if this is a more general thing) but if a contract has numbered clauses and the person that put it together managed to totally misnumber them (so there are two clause XII's and no clause VI or IX) is this likely to have any effect on enforceability of said contract? It's commonplace to have a heading in a contract specifying that the numbering and titles are for convenience only and in no way intended to be considered when interpreting the contract. Even without that clause, any judge in any court in which I practice would probably tell me to shut up if that were the crux of my argument. Obviously, if there is some ambiguity from it (like an important clause that refers back to Section XII and it would really matter which one it meant), an issue exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. Just looks bad, that said the person that drafted it put it in loving Comic Sans so it's probably not the worst aspect of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:Yeah, that all makes perfect sense. Just looks bad, that said the person that drafted it put it in loving Comic Sans so it's probably not the worst aspect of it. Contracts drafted in Comic Sans are unenforceable as against public policy, actually. See B. Wayne v. A. Scott, 539 D.C. 740 (1934). entris fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
Hi, goons! I'm in dire need of advice as soon as humanly possible. My boyfriend and I are currently in an apartment (and have been for almost 2 years) which is managed by a slumlord. Our least is up in August of this year, but we absolutely have to get out. I have a few questions regarding leases (we live in New York if that helps) and credit, because we're essentially going to be breaking our lease. I've found an amazing apartment that's open for move-in starting March 1st, so I need to know soon what I should do. It'd be best if I could message someone on AIM or skype with you, that way I can get information to and from you quickly if you think you can help. Thanks a lot!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
Why do you need to get out - because it is so lovely or for reasons totally unrelated to your apartment? What are the conditions of the apartment? You've lived there for two years - have conditions worsened recently or have they always been this bad? Has your landlord ever made any fixes? Have you given your landlord written notice of any existing problems that you need fixed? If so, how long ago did you give that notice?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
entris posted:Why do you need to get out - because it is so lovely or for reasons totally unrelated to your apartment? Because it is lovely, but I don't think it's lovely enough for me to get out penalty-free in the state of New York. The conditions are bad. There is a creature in our wall, the sink is broken (he's currently trying to fix it, or rig it, really) the windows in our bedroom are broken, causing us to freeze our asses off during the night, the blinds are broken, the sink in our bathroom literally pulls out of the wall, the water pressure is hosed up, there's currently something wrong with a gas line or something (being investigated), the refrigerator leaks, the heating vent in our bathroom is broken, window in bathroom is broken, there is mold growing behind the panels in our bathroom, the metal overflow plate in our bath tub is incorrectly installed and leaks water into the ceiling of the store below us, and the faucet in our kitchen sink leaks. The conditions have always been this bad except for the sink just now breaking, and the time our shower faucets literally fell out of the wall and flooded everything. Oh, and the refrigerator, which they already replaced once. He has made fixes to the shower when it broke, he replaced the stove and the refrigerator, and he is fixing the sink now. He has also fixed our doorknob (which continually falls off) a few times, as well as our bathroom door (which hardly shuts, and used to not shut at all). So far I have only given him written notices (we used to operate by phone calls, but I learned that was stupid as gently caress) about the heat problem and the broken sink. The written notice about the heat was given about a month ago, the sink yesterday. E: I'm looking through my e-mails and found another one from August 15, 2010 where I stated the heating vent in the bathroom didn't work, the blinds were broken, and that the kitchen sink is coming loose. Which is still is. ornery bean fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Feb 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Give him notice of the broken windows, the mold, the leaky shower plate. Then find a NY landlord-tenant attorney and pay the initial consultation fee (if there is one) to get advice on how to get out of your lease. Typically, if a tenant breaks a lease without a legally acceptable reason, the tenant remains on the hook for the remainder of the lease. If the tenant or landlord can find a sublease-tenant, then the landlord is happy and the tenant doesn't have to pay rent (but will still be on the hook in the event that the sublease-tenant doesn't pay rent). So try to find someone to sublease the apartment in the event that you decide to break. If a tenant can't find someone to sublease, s/he will contineu to pay rent on the lease for the remainder of the lase. If you break a lease and do not pay the rent, your credit will take a big hit if the landlord hires a collections attorney to sue you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
entris posted:Give him notice of the broken windows, the mold, the leaky shower plate. Does this matter? Does this void it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
I'm not a NY lawyer, I couldn't tell you. My hunch is no. You need to give notice of the problems I listed, to get the clock running on those issues. Presumably, NY law allows you to move out if the landlord doesn't fix certain issues within a certain amoutn of time. But you really need to do a consult with a NY landlord-tenant attorney. Landlord-tenant law varies from state-to-state, so a non-NY lawyer (such as myself) isn't going to know the answers to your questions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
entris posted:I'm not a NY lawyer, I couldn't tell you. My hunch is no. Okay. Well I just e-mailed him with every single problem in this place, also specifying which problems have been a problem since move-in. I left a message for a landlord-tenant attorney and am anticipating a call back during the week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2012 19:29
|
|
|
So, I came across a car in Austin, Texas and it was parked in a parking spot marked for handicapped use only. Some of my friends are telling me that he is legally allowed to park there because there wasn't a posted sign nearby and that for a parking spot to be designated for handicap use only, there has to be both a marking on the ground and a posted sign near by. I've been browsing through Austin's city ordinances but I can't seem to find the specific wording. Is this really the case? This is the source that my friends are getting their information from. "Accessible parking spaces shall be designated as reserved by a sign showing the symbol of accessibility...Such signs shall be located so they cannot be obscured by a vehicle parked in the space." As an appendix note, the guideline describes the placement of the sign: "Signs designating parking places for disabled people can be seen from a driver's seat if the signs are mounted high enough above the ground and located at the front of a parking space." http://www.access-board.gov/adaag/html/adaag.htm#4.6
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:So, I came across a car in Austin, Texas and it was parked in a parking spot marked for handicapped use only. Some of my friends are telling me that he is legally allowed to park there because there wasn't a posted sign nearby and that for a parking spot to be designated for handicap use only, there has to be both a marking on the ground and a posted sign near by. I've been browsing through Austin's city ordinances but I can't seem to find the specific wording. Is this really the case? I'd check the Texas vehicle code.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I'd check the Texas vehicle code. quote:4.6.4* Signage. Each accessible parking space shall be designated as reserved by a vertically mounted or suspended sign showing the symbol of accessibility (see 4.30.7). Spaces complying with 4.1.2(5)(b) shall have an additional sign "Van-Accessible" mounted below the symbol of accessibility. This basically means that since there wasn't a vertically mounted sign this person is legally allowed to park there, right? I had no idea!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:http://www.license.state.tx.us/ab/tas/abtas4a.htm#4.6 There's a good reason for it. From that photo, the markings appear either well worn or even painted over (badly).
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
I live in Nebraska. I've been dealing with the same sketchy rental company for the last five years because I can't think of a good way to leave without getting hit with a bunch of ridiculous fees. My reasons for wanting to leave are mainly annoyances with the one point that the hallway on my floor is practically a cloud of marijuana smoke. The management is allergic to honesty and competence. The apartment leases always have a clause about either me or management/property owner having to notify the other with no less than 60 days left until of the end of the lease whether it's going to be renewed. Since I've never encountered an entity that will hold a place for 60 days, is this the trick I think it is to accrue fees or make people stay because it's easier? Is there a simple way around this? If management waits until the last month of my lease to let me know whether they want me to renew or if they actively wanted me out, does that mean I don't have to give them 60 days? 30 days seems like the standard. I would expect to give 30 days notice if I were not going to renew the lease. 60 days seems stupid. The other thing is that rental rates are different based on whether your lease is month to month, 6 months, or a year. If my lease expired and neither party made any mention of it (if I don't sign another lease), would either party still have to give 60 days notice if I were going to leave (provided it weren't an eviction for non-payment or something similar) and could they force me to pay higher rent? e: I forgot to mention that with month to month, people still sign a lease. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:http://www.license.state.tx.us/ab/tas/abtas4a.htm#4.6 It's certainly a valid defense to a parking ticket. But then, why risk it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
I recently won an internet contest that the creator of the contest made money off of but now the contest creator refuses to pay me the prize for no reason other than he doesn't want to. I have his name, address, screenshots of the contest rules and offer and my submission etc. I sent him a kindly worded email but I don't know if it will be sufficient. What legal recourse do I have? I would chalk it up to life but he owes me hundreds of dollars and I'm willing to sue over it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Lief posted:I recently won an internet contest that the creator of the contest made money off of but now the contest creator refuses to pay me the prize for no reason other than he doesn't want to. I have his name, address, screenshots of the contest rules and offer and my submission etc. I sent him a kindly worded email but I don't know if it will be sufficient. What legal recourse do I have? I would chalk it up to life but he owes me hundreds of dollars and I'm willing to sue over it. Any chance you're in the same state as him?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:Any chance you're in the same state as him? No; he's in Kansas. Is there a discernible difference? horribleslob fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Feb 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
Lief posted:No; he's in Kansas. Is there a discernible difference? How these actions often play out is you file a small claims action, jump through the hoops to make sure he's properly served, he ignores it, you get default judgment, and then realize it's a pain in the rear end to enforce a judgment in another state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 08:15
|
|
|
Lief posted:I recently won an internet contest that the creator of the contest made money off of but now the contest creator refuses to pay me the prize for no reason other than he doesn't want to. I have his name, address, screenshots of the contest rules and offer and my submission etc. I sent him a kindly worded email but I don't know if it will be sufficient. What legal recourse do I have? I would chalk it up to life but he owes me hundreds of dollars and I'm willing to sue over it. It's been awhile since the forums spawned a lawsuit...
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 08:21
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:It's certainly a valid defense to a parking ticket. But then, why risk it? Actually, I take back what I said. As I was going through the rest of the pictures (It's not every day you come across one of these so I took tons of them), look what I found. Look towards the left part of the image.  Looks like he would have gotten a ticket after all!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 09:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Bioshuffle posted:Actually, I take back what I said. As I was going through the rest of the pictures (It's not every day you come across one of these so I took tons of them), look what I found. Look towards the left part of the image. He's fine. Code requires a sign for EACH space, not just one sign somewhere in the vicinity. Looks like they restriped the parking lot and moved the handicapped space (probably because the old space didn't comply with the shortest-possible-distance part of code, which they probably tried to get away with because I bet it netted them an extra space in the lot) and didn't fully remove the old marker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2012 09:23
|
|
