|
CaptainScraps posted:You got them all to sign waivers right? Yes sir.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Research, court time, and travel time to court = divide by 3. Phone calls with each client, letters to each client answering questions or whatever, any other client-specific work = bill to the appropriate client without splitting. That way, if one client is a chatty Charles and one client is a silent Simon, you bill Charles more without penalizing Simon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 15:52
|
|
|
17 days until the end of law school. Time to learn an entire semester's worth of family law and conflicts. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Penguins Like Pies posted:17 days until the end of law school. Time to learn an entire semester's worth of family law and conflicts.  Light at the end of the tunnel, oncoming train, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
One of the retired, dinosaur partners of my firm is in the hospital, and I am doing a rush job preparing him a new will. His current will, drafted in 2008, is handwritten - despite the fact that my firm's T&E department is really really good and staffed with all sorts of lovely capable people. Who does handwritten wills these days?!? I mean, at least download a crappy form off the internet.  Anyway, this guy's will is adorable. He leaves his dog to a friend, saying "NOTE TO [FRIEND]: One good turn deserves another" - I think the backstory is that this dog was given to him by that friend or something. He extensively details his collection of bird woodcarvings, explaining where they came from ("this one was a winner in the Woodworking Championship, and I bought it at auction!"). He leaves his residuary to a local sports assocation - I'm sure they'll be excited to receive a crate-load of wooden birds.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
entris posted:Anyway, this guy's will is adorable. He leaves his dog to a friend, saying "NOTE TO [FRIEND]: One good turn deserves another" - I think the backstory is that this dog was given to him by that friend or something. He extensively details his collection of bird woodcarvings, explaining where they came from ("this one was a winner in the Woodworking Championship, and I bought it at auction!"). He leaves his residuary to a local sports assocation - I'm sure they'll be excited to receive a crate-load of wooden birds. Sounds pretty Lifetime Movie of the Week, to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
entris posted:One of the retired, dinosaur partners of my firm is in the hospital, and I am doing a rush job preparing him a new will. His current will, drafted in 2008, is handwritten - despite the fact that my firm's T&E department is really really good and staffed with all sorts of lovely capable people. Who does handwritten wills these days?!? I mean, at least download a crappy form off the internet. At least in Louisiana, a(n) (h)olographic will is only valid if it is entirely written in the testator's handwriting. If it's printed out then all the other formalities have to be met (witnesses, etc) for the will to be valid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At least in Louisiana, a(n) (h)olographic will is only valid if it is entirely written in the testator's handwriting. If it's printed out then all the other formalities have to be met (witnesses, etc) for the will to be valid. Ahh, but...if the will that is on a pre-printed form nonetheless contains sufficient information in the testator's handwriting to discern the testamentary intent (like "my car to my wife, XYZ to my kids, etc."), the will is saved. I blame Bar/Bri for remembering that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At least in Louisiana, a(n) (h)olographic will is only valid if it is entirely written in the testator's handwriting. If it's printed out then all the other formalities have to be met (witnesses, etc) for the will to be valid. In civilized states a holographic will that doesn't meet formalities isn't valid at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At least in Louisiana, a(n) (h)olographic will is only valid if it is entirely written in the testator's handwriting. If it's printed out then all the other formalities have to be met (witnesses, etc) for the will to be valid. My favorite thing about wills in Louisiana is that you can create one by mystic act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:50
|
|
|
quepasa18 posted:My favorite thing about wills in Louisiana is that you can create one by mystic act. After googling, this is way less cool than I thought it would be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:After googling, this is way less cool than I thought it would be. Yeah, it's the name that's awesome, not the actual way it's created.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
is a holographic will like what comes out of the little robot's head in star wars or
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
These droids to Ben Kenobi for life, then to Luke and his heirs! It's our only hope!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Welp just got the call that I got a state COA clerkship I applied for and will start in a couple weeks. I will now downgrade my stance to "probably you shouldn't go to law school."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:In civilized states a holographic will that doesn't meet formalities isn't valid at all. The most formal will. bub spank fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Welp just got the call that I got a state COA clerkship I applied for and will start in a couple weeks. I will now downgrade my stance to "probably you shouldn't go to law school."
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 03:25
|
|
|
burf posted:The most formal will.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:28
|
|
|
burf posted:The most formal will. My plan was to check your link, google the U of S bumper will, and reply with "the least formal will". Now I am sad and impotent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
Can we do some seriousposting to trash the Federalist Society a little? Without them no way in hell you'd have circuit courts pulling petty, bush-league bullshit like this. To expand the trashing: two words, Stephen McDaniel. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 05:28
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Can we do some seriousposting to trash the Federalist Society a little? Without them no way in hell you'd have circuit courts pulling petty, bush-league bullshit like this. I really don't want to get into a political debate because my least favorite thing in the world is debating politics, but do you really think this is the circuit court being ridiculous?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I really don't want to get into a political debate because my least favorite thing in the world is debating politics, but do you really think this is the circuit court being ridiculous? Courts make rear end in a top hat orders all the time buuuut usually don't make gov't attorneys write memos about whether some bullshit soundbite would be constitutional or not. How many times have you heard an official say something similar re: abortion/DOMA/gay marriage or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
Who wants a career in space law? http://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/313416500
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I really don't want to get into a political debate because my least favorite thing in the world is debating politics, but do you really think this is the circuit court being ridiculous? Yes, and I would feel the same way if McCain were president and the court wanted to step outside of the appellate case to question some remark POTUS makes in his political capacity, and interpreting that remark in the least charitable way. And assigning the question as homework is just petty. This has no legal bearing on the case. None. No one seriously believes Obama doesn't accept judicial review, so it's just an opportunity for his political opponents to get their whine on, a strategy that I'm sure will become all the rage at Federalist Society gatherings and embolden future nonsense. Maybe he shouldn't have made the comments he did, but again, he is a politician, and judges should hold themselves to a different standard. e: But what am I talking about in this of all threads saying people at the top of the legal profession should ever take the high road. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 05:50
|
|
|
.
Not James Buchanan fucked around with this message at 02:52 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 06:09
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with being an activist . . . for the Constitution. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 11:06
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I really don't want to get into a political debate because my least favorite thing in the world is debating politics, but do you really think this is the circuit court being ridiculous? Yes. The courts aren't allowed to order things with no actual legal need to make a political point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Can we do some seriousposting to trash the Federalist Society a little? Without them no way in hell you'd have circuit courts pulling petty, bush-league bullshit like this. Yes, all of this is clearly the fault of the Federalist Society. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 14:49
|
|
|
I've thought about it in the light of day and I have two simultaneous reactions so I guess I've softened my stance. 1.) Obama's comment that inspired this was an absolute jaw-dropper. 2.) This was a really petty thing for the 5th Circuit to do, and the "homework" aspect rings true to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 14:58
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I've thought about it in the light of day and I have two simultaneous reactions so I guess I've softened my stance. Really, a jaw-dropper? Remember when FDR tried to pack the Court? Remember all the stuff pro-lifer's say about the court? The Supreme Court is a political body just like the other 2 branches and Pres. Obama is 1) setting up a narrative for re-election should the law fail 2) applying political pressure to help his law.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Welp just got the call that I got a state COA clerkship I applied for and will start in a couple weeks. I will now downgrade my stance to "probably you shouldn't go to law school." I did that for the first three years out of law school. Best job I ever had.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
SV, apparently one of your classmates became a sheep farmer after law school: http://www.law.umich.edu/careers/classstats/Pages/employerstats.aspx Michigan Career Services posted:Nonlegal employment*
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:SV, apparently one of your classmates became a sheep farmer after law school:
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I've thought about it in the light of day and I have two simultaneous reactions so I guess I've softened my stance. Obama's comment is true though not for the precise reason he said: to overrule the Health Care Act you have to throw out decades of precedent, most uncontroversial, for crassly political reasons. But the thing is, someone holding a political office is expected to do and say political things: the Federal courts are not. Obama saying what he did can be criticized as inaccurate: what the 5th Circuit did was a petty abuse of their power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Obama's comment is true though not for the precise reason he said: to overrule the Health Care Act you have to throw out decades of precedent, most uncontroversial, for crassly political reasons. gvibes fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Well, half true. He made the precedent point accurately (though I think you can question whether it's appropriate), but then went off the reservation with the "unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" language. It's clearly neither unprecedented nor extraordinary. In addition, he has been happy to praise the court for overturning laws with broad bipartisan support if that decision fits with his ideological views. It's almost like he's running for political office!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:SV, apparently one of your classmates became a sheep farmer after law school: it is wednesday and I have worked ~50 hours this week only to emerge like Andy Duquesne from the poo poo-tunnel, drenched in excrement, clutching only ten sad billable hours to my chest. despite being on pace for 2400 total hours this year, I am like 150 behind on billables and I spend every day wandering around in a helpless fugue wondering when I am going to be fired and/or demoted from associate to spunkreceptacle. partners call me up at 4:30 in the afternoon. "hey SV, do you need work?" yes, I say, my lip quivering. please. please give me work. i will do your work. let me cancel my evening plans, such as they are (porn, bourbon, tears) and stay here till 2 AM working for you. it is all i want. "oh, by the way, it's non-billable" they chuckle, and I pray to god for the strength to end myself I wish I was a sheep farmer Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:The Supreme Court is a political body just like the other 2 branches and Pres. Obama is 1) setting up a narrative for re-election should the law fail 2) applying political pressure to help his law. Correct. http://laboratorium.net/archive/2012/04/03/impeach_earl_roberts Grimmelmann posted:There are three constraints on how far a Court can go in pushing a new vision of what Constitutional law ought to look like. It needs a working majority of Justices, a supply of novel and credible-enough legal arguments to overturn or distinguish past precedents, and sufficient popular support to protect it against whatever backlash its rulings inspire. The current Court has the first, thanks to Justice Kennedy. It has the second, thanks to scholars like Randy Barnett. And it has the third, thanks to the Republican party and its base. The Court has no army. All it has is its perceived legitimacy, legitimacy which is necessarily (it could not be otherwise) politically contested. evilweasel made the point above that this is nothing compared to FDR packing the courts. But even besides such outliers as that - the Court always is limited, not by precedent, but by the perceived legitimacy of what it does with precedent. This is not to defend Obama as much as it is to say, well yes, of course he would make a political point in an effort to effect the Court's ruling. All law is politics. It's not just that it would be unwise for Obama (or Cantor, or whoever) to not attempt to shape the acceptable political parameters of a SCOTUS ruling; it's that the idea that there could exist a course of action which does not accept the construction of those parameters is a conceptually incoherent proposition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
.
Not James Buchanan fucked around with this message at 02:53 on May 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:35 |
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:It's almost like he's running for political office! EDIT: actually gently caress it you're a cool guy roger and there's no point in fighting about this Feces Starship fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Apr 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2012 20:57
|
|