|
joat mon posted:How so? Parents talk about what seems to do best for son, attorney observes that son is at time-served point for similarly situated defendants in that jurisdiction. If he's discussing client objectives (time served vs probation) with someone who's not his client, and not discussing those same options with his client, then he's taking away his client's ability to set the objectives for the representation. Instead, he's getting direction from a third party. Ethically, he should have told Bob that he could either go for time served or go for probation, and let Bob make the choice. If it's either the parents or the lawyer making that decision, it's a problem. Even if we're characterizing the discussion with the parents as information gathering, the lawyer should have given Bob all the relevant information and let Bob make the decision, rather than making the decision on Bob's behalf.
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
Arcturas posted:If he's discussing client objectives (time served vs probation) with someone who's not his client, and not discussing those same options with his client, then he's taking away his client's ability to set the objectives for the representation. Instead, he's getting direction from a third party. Ethically, he should have told Bob that he could either go for time served or go for probation, and let Bob make the choice. If it's either the parents or the lawyer making that decision, it's a problem. I completely agree. I thought you were talking about it being wrong even outside the context of advising a client on a plea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:39
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Totally violates the idea of informed consent if the attorney didn't mention the possibility to Bob when asking Bob to agree to the plea (Bob is the client, not the parents) Dogen I think you might have missed the fact that the client is 30. e: unless Bob literally has a mental disability that prevents him from giving instructions then the lawyer simply should not be discussing his advice with the Parents without explicit permission. Even then he should be advising Bob not to get him to discuss the options with his Parents because those discussions are not privileged. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I completely agree. I thought you were talking about it being wrong even outside the context of advising a client on a plea. Sure. If, entirely separate from his representation of Bob, he's talking to the parents about Bob's options, that's probably fine. He just has to watch out for confidentiality and other ordinary stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
 OK, Thomson and Thompson, somebody needs a new name or a new AV.  
joat mon fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Jun 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
I'll get the AV on the left if Arcturas gets the AV on the left as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:I'll get the AV on the left if Arcturas gets the AV on the left as well. Will do, but those images are bigger than 125x125. And I'm terrible at the internet, so can't resize them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Will do, but those images are bigger than 125x125. And I'm terrible at the internet, so can't resize them. Was partly joking it would be terrible if we got identical avatars. I'll get the one on the left, you can get the one on the right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Was partly joking it would be terrible if we got identical avatars. I'll get the one on the left, you can get the one on the right. Shucks. I think it'd be better if we had the same one, though I admit I do prefer the one on the right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Will do, but those images are bigger than 125x125. And I'm terrible at the internet, so can't resize them. HAHAHAHA. You're both awesome. I just thought it was remarkable you both had Arabic-derived usernames starting with the same letter, with the same number of letters, with the same AV   125'd
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
joat mon posted:HAHAHAHA. You're both awesome. And also of course they're both stars. Meaning, forums superstars. And also regular celestial stars. The Bob situation really is that straightforward--the attorney was unethical as gently caress. Taking money from a third party to represent someone else and then giving them the discretion to decide how the case is disposed of is ridiculous, even if it's arguably in his long term best interests. Just not communicating the time served offer to his client is a major loving breach of his professional obligations and is, hypothetically at least, grounds for post-conviction relief.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 13:14
|
|
|
What is liability of the landlord if we find mold (most likely black because it looks black, right?) in the bathroom behind the tile. We immediately offered them 2000 to leave. 800 dollar security, 800 rent, and an additional 400. They said they wanted to stay. One idea was simply to cover the wet wall with tile regardless that it got wet behind the tile ( 4 of the tiles came off ) because of the line of thought that black mold can't go through the tile and so its not a threat. But we feel like that would make us liable if they take us to court. We are going to try and take down all the tile and probably replace the tile and the bathtub. Should I just report the house to the health department and have it condemned if I want to really be safe and avoid a black mold lawsuit? Are we liable for health issues now that we have discovered some mold? What if we can't possibly fix it all? Theres another leak in the house where water comes up onto the floor ceramic tile from the outside, only happened once one time when it poured for two days straight the tenant said. I took some steps to fix the gutter from unloading the water in that spot with an ADS drainage pipe. Anyway my main question is , should we as landlords a)kick the tenant out by having the house condemned by reporting blackmold to the health department or b) tell them the dangers of black mold and ask them if they still want to stay? Are we still liable if they choose to stay in the house knowing theres black mold in it? Say we fix the bathroom and remove all mold to the best of our abilities in there but theres mold somewhere else we didn't know about. The landlord liable for these black mold health problems is most likely still liable if there was some reasonable suspicion that the house might have more mold?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Kneel Before Zog posted:What is liability of the landlord if we find mold (most likely black because it looks black, right?) in the bathroom behind the tile. We immediately offered them 2000 to leave. 800 dollar security, 800 rent, and an additional 400. They said they wanted to stay. Off the top of my head: 1) Where are you? Certain states and municipalities have mold-specific regulations 2) It's not necessarily "black mold" because it's black. You usually have to do tests to figure out if it's something actually dangerous. -EDIT- Regardless, it indicates a moisture problem that you'll want to address 3) If it is a potentially dangerous mold, just covering it up with tile will not help you. You may need to do some pretty serious and costly remediation, depending on the substrate the tile was attached to and whether it got into wood framing, etc. 4) What kind of terms do you have in your lease regarding if the premises or a portion of it becomes uninhabitable/destroyed? Incredulous Red fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jun 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 21:31
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Off the top of my head: To be safe what steps should I take as a landlord now that blackmold has been discovered? Must I report it to the health department? Will they identify it for free so I dont have to spend money on having someone check the house for mold? 1) Florida. 2) Would a photo be enough to identify its toxicity level? 3) I guess because the air trapped behind the walls can escape somewhere else? 4) I'm not sure I'll look into this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Kneel Before Zog posted:To be safe what steps should I take as a landlord now that blackmold has been discovered? Must I report it to the health department? Will they identify it for free so I dont have to spend money on having someone check the house for mold? I'm not an attorney, I'm not your attorney, and a Florida attorney that does landlord/tenant/PI stuff would be able to help you more. Your town or county may also have specific mold or water damage remediation laws in its housing code. Have you looked at this website? http://www.doh.state.fl.us/environment/community/indoor-air/mold.htm I really doubt you're going to need to get your house condemned, unless you're talking levels of rot on par with post-Katrina 9th ward stuff, but you should definitely do a decent inspection and see how much damage there actually is before you start thinking about kicking your tenants out. Just as a practical measure you're probably going to have to rip out anything that has mold growing on it- if this is the only bathroom in the rented premises, you may run into some housing code or lease problems if you have to deny them use or access to the bathroom. Regardless of whether you're worried about getting sued, you should probably start making all communications to your tenants about the mold issue in writing, and keeping signed dated copies. You should also start keeping notes and photos of any repairs or remediation that you perform.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Adar posted:Hi thread! I'm a lawyer asking a legal question that has stumped 3 attorneys and counting! Nothing can go wrong with this amirite? Adar posted:Followup: I slightly reworded the first half of this post and sent the updated version in as a complaint to the state insurance board. They replied within a week, Atlantis contacted me two days after that and I just got the second of two followup emails from them that they've re-renegotiated the settlement/the claim is paid. Followup to the followup: Two years and one move out of the US later, my old pediatrician sent a $1700 bill to my forwarding address (six months after my family left, mind you) because Atlantis had been stiffing him, too. Problem: I'm not in the US and am not interested in coming back in the immediate future, although short trips are another story. I would, however, really love to murder someone's profit margin; I hear Atlantis merged and renamed themselves since then so they may actually have money. Given this has got to be the biggest slam dunk breach of contract case ever at this point, what's the likely effort:punitive damages ratio here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
I am in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I would like to know if I have legal grounds to kick my long-term significant other out of our apartment after breaking the relationship off, and what my legal options are if my SO refuses to leave. I have been living in this apartment with my significant other for two years. We hadn't lived together prior to this. We are not married, common-law married or engaged, and we have no children. My SO is not on the rental agreement and my SO has not paid any rent for the duration of our stay. I haven't paid rent, either- my parents have been paying it so I can go to school. The only expense my SO has paid has been $120 a month for the internet/cable bill, and it was paid to my mother, not to the cable company. We have also made two 'major' purchases together: a $600 TV and a $400 couch. The TV was split down the middle between the two of us, and I paid for all of the couch except for the combined $100 delivery and warranty costs. Is there any legal framework governing how purchases that small are supposed to be split up between unmarried couples? There are no criminal issues (domestic abuse, ect.) at work here that might effect the eviction thing. eJoanna fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
It appears that she's a lodger and the common law answer is that you have to give her a reasonable amount of time necessary to pack her suitcases. I have no idea if there's local legislation which changes that answer. e: as for the items, you both have equitable shares in their value to the proportion of how much you paid for them. This means that if you were completely insane then you would get a valuation now and one of you would offer to buy out the other's proportion ownership, the easier option is just to reimburse the other for what he/she paid in the first place. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jun 24, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
eJoanna posted:I am in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. I would like to know if I have legal grounds to kick my long-term significant other out of our apartment after breaking the relationship off, and what my legal options are if my SO refuses to leave. I dunno what kinda eskimo tribal laws will apply to you up there. But where I'm at in the US, and based on the situation you describe, you could call the police and put their rear end out within 15 minutes of reading this post. They have no lease, verbal or otherwise, and you can put them out at the drop of a hat, no question. The police would stand around and let them pack to stay the night someplace else. Regarding the stuff, it's a toss up. At best you owe them half the TV purchase price and a bit for the sofa.... but in practical reality you don't. Like in theoretical Judge Judy court, she'd tell them they got to live rent-free, too bad so sad, and here's $50 for half of a used-TV and zero for a couch they sat on. You owe them a minimal amount for that property, not their original investment. So legally you can put them out in the time it takes the police to arrive, and not pay them anything and let them sue if they feel like it. But that's a pretty drastic action. If it's a more standard break-up situation, just base it on what you think is reasonable/comfortable/safe. Give them until X date depending on what you think, but it's totally your decision as you can pull the ripcord at a moment's notice. Maybe pay them $100-$200 for the now used TV, mostly just to shut them up about it? (Or not) There's a cost for all the ways you can stick it to them, so weigh what's worth it. (I dunno if "lodger" is a thing in Canada. But in the US you're either a tenant, which can just be a verbal lease or paying partial rent, or you're nothing and can put thrown out like a rowdy houseguest despite living there for years. Perhaps there's more of a duty to house people in Canada due to rabid penguins and eternal blizzards, but here that SO is SOL.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 06:41
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I dunno what kinda eskimo tribal laws will apply to you up there. But where I'm at in the US, and based on the situation you describe, you could call the police and put their rear end out within 15 minutes of reading this post. They have no lease, verbal or otherwise, and you can put them out at the drop of a hat, no question. The police would stand around and let them pack to stay the night someplace else. A bad cop will take them out and there are a lot of bad cops.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 07:03
|
|
|
Yeah it may just be my area. If the SO told the cop some story about an agreement or sharing duties, they would toss up their hands and say go to court. But without that, here they'd kick them out because the potential for violence outweighs the cost of a motel. They err on the side of adios. If a court-ordered eviction is required, it all depends on the speed of local court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 07:14
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:(I dunno if "lodger" is a thing in Canada. It's a thing in the US, too. My state (California) recognizes the existence of lodgers, who have mostly the same rights as tenants as long as the right conditions are met. The main difference that I can think of is that if you only have the one lodger in your house, you don't have to go through eviction proceedings. Instead, if the lodger still hasn't left after the requisite amount of notice has been given, the lodger can be treated as a trespasser. I'd be very surprised if California was the only state to have laws on the books about lodgers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 07:46
|
|
|
What gives me pause is that usually what defines a lodger is living with the owner and not having exclusive possession. The OP isn't the owner of the flat, his parents are. What matters is the relationship between the OP's partner and his parents, and if they're treating it as a tenancy relationship, combined with periodic payments (the ones for utilities), then that may constitute a periodic tenancy. The sensible and mature thing to do is to talk about it and give plenty of notice that she needs to find somewhere else to live.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 10:42
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The sensible and mature thing to do is to talk about it and give plenty of notice that she needs to find somewhere else to live. While you're right, I am somewhat amused that we're discussing sensible and reasonable in the context of domestic disputes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:While you're right, I am somewhat amused that we're discussing sensible and reasonable in the context of domestic disputes. In any domestic dispute the first advice should be 'your best legal option may also be the one that gives the other side the most incentive to take every chance to gently caress with your life, you need to factor this into your decisions' fake edit: oh gently caress yes this is awesome
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:In any domestic dispute the first advice should be 'your best legal option may also be the one that gives the other side the most incentive to take every chance to gently caress with your life, you need to factor this into your decisions' Yeah, there's always an odd balance between finding quick and effective non-judicial solutions to domestic disputes, and protecting yourself should the dispute continue and require legal action. It's tricky walking the "lets be reasonable and figure this out" line without crossing over into "oh poo poo, I just gave away the house, kids, TV, and dog!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
My god, the Alchenar/Arcturas battle of avatars has finally begun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:I'm not an attorney, I'm not your attorney, and a Florida attorney that does landlord/tenant/PI stuff would be able to help you more. Your town or county may also have specific mold or water damage remediation laws in its housing code. I can't be the only one that first thinks of the King of the Hill episode about black mold, whenever an issue like this comes up. Am I? http://www.tv.com/shows/king-of-the-hill/after-the-mold-rush-286678/
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 20:49
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:My god, the Alchenar/Arcturas battle of avatars has finally begun. Hahaha this is great, they even have similar writing voices so it almost reads like one person talking to himself. CONTENT: not a lawyer, but I think that even if the SO does turn out to have lodger or tenant status (due to a verbal contract), eJoanna would "only" need to provide a 30 days notice to vacate since there is no actual lease and they are essentially going month-to-month. I think after that point [s]he would have a pretty slam-dunk case in court to evict the SO. Of course, 30 days with someone you don't get along with can be pretty miserable. And someone please correct me if I'm totally wrong here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
.
hayden. fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
I appreciate all of the answers on the apartment situation, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 23:33
|
|
|
I vote that only Alchenar and Acturas be allowed to give legal advice henceforth only for the sheer hilarity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
spregalia posted:I vote that only Alchenar and Acturas be allowed to give legal advice henceforth only for the sheer hilarity. Also, they should start giving car advice. Click and Clack are well missed, after all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 00:59
|
|
|
hayden. posted:Has anyone else been in this position and have advice? If I go ahead and just take them off before getting it cleared, and they wind up paying me for them, can they come back later and say "hey we paid you too much, give us money back"? If you're in the US, vacation/sick time is not generally required by law and thus there aren't usually any laws about how it can be granted or used, so vacation policies are entirely up to the company. If they say you can't take paid sick days after you put in your notice, then you can't. If their latest written policy specifically says something to the contrary, or they have generally let employees who have given notice subsequently put in for vacation/sick time in the past and have suddenly changed their minds without putting out some sort of written notice about a policy change, then you might have some sort of case against them, but unless you're very well paid, it'd almost certainly cost you more to pursue it than you'd ever recover, not to mention you'd be burning whatever bridges you had with that company and your bosses there. If their policy is not to allow vacation/sick time after giving notice, they probably just won't pay you, but if their payroll department fucks up and pays you for your time off in error, they can and most likely will send you a bill for the overage (just like they would with any other payroll errors in your favor) and it will go to collections and/or court if you don't pay them back. As a personal anecdote, when I resigned my job earlier this year, I took a paid week off after giving notice (gave them three weeks notice and took the second week off), but I'd had that vacation time scheduled months in advance. My former company didn't allow you to put in new time off requests after giving notice, but if a request had already been approved prior to you resigning, they wouldn't take it away.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 01:23
|
|
|
I appreciate the response. That was sort of what I feared, and I guess lesson learned to not try to be a nice guy and make someone else's life easier. Oh well, it's only 5 more days of work. It's a shame the world has to work this way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Hello legal gurus. I have a question about small claims. I received corrective plastic surgery on my face after an assault. I had two plates put into the right side of my face. While prepping me the surgical team didn't close my left eye all the way when they covered it. When I woke up I couldn't see and I was in excruciating pain in my left eye. Turns out having your eye open during surgery for three to four hours dries it out and causes abrasions. I went to my optometrist under emergency treatment. I had an 8mm abrasion on the surface of my eye. It was bad enough that the other eye doctors each looked at me out of medical curiosity. I was in excruciating pain for about five days and couldn't really see. After the five days the pain waned but was still very noticeable. After a couple of weeks the pain subsided and vision returned. My question is this. I talked to the surgeons office and asked them to reimburse me for the whopping $59 of co-pays for all the eye appointments. The people that do the billing have no idea what happened medically, I told them to ask the surgeon about what happened and they said they did and they they're wont reimburse me. Can I sue in small claims court for the co-pay plus pain and suffering for the extreme pain caused by their negligence? Or can I only sue for the co-pay? Another quick question about the assault. The dude was charged with felony malicious wounding because he really really worked me over and it was completely one sided. Can I sue him for my pain and suffering or do I have to wait for his conviction (his preliminary was pushed out almost a year because of a deployment).
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 15:44
|
|
|
Re the doctors: Why are you this upset about $59. THe time and expense of suing them in small claims will be more than that most likely. Pain and suffering is awarded in tort (medmal) suits which are not small claims (in any small claims court I know about.) You were only in pain for like a month so I don't know if that would be worth much of anything anything to a jury. Depends on a lot of factors. Talk to a lawyer. That is assuming you can prove duty and breech which is doubtful. Also talk to a lawyer about that. Depends on your local laws. Re the guy who assaulted you: Yes (no guarantee you will win), maybe depending on your legal strategy. You should be able to get a lawyer on contingency, but the defendant is probably judgement proof so don't get your hopes up. Again talk to a lawyer. euphronius fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Re the doctors: I'm fuming at the doctors office for the amazing amount of disrespect. The pain is gone but I can no longer wear contact lenses because the abrasion can open. You don't think I'm entitled to anything for the pain I endured for their negligence. I guess it's more of the principle of the matter as the doctor told me not to worry about a thing and now his office minions are basically saying it didn't happen. As far as the assault goes, why wouldn't I win? The dude attacked me three separate times within thirty minutes. He broke my face, knocked me unconscious and choked me to unconsciousness. He was also charged with felony destruction of property because when he repeatedly slammed into a car, he caused $4000 worth a damage (not my car) with my body. What does judgment proof mean?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Some states allow limited pain and suffering in small claims cases. Where are you? If dude is deployed, you're probably going to have to wait to sue him, just like the prosecutor. Some prosecutor's offices have a victim's assistance fund. Call up the prosecutor on your case and ask him/her about it. Also talk with the prosecutor about making restitution to you part of any plea bargain with dude. Like euphronius said, you're going to pay a lot more than $59 in pain in the rear end. (which is not recoverable in small claims) e: If can't wear contacts ever again, that's more tangible and recoverable than pain and suffering, but small claims is probably not the right venue. Check with an attorney. (You may have some problems proving the inability to wear contacts was the result of negligence rather than the assault) Judgment proof means even if you win, if dude hasn't got a dollar to his name, there's no way to recover any money from him. There are ways to do it, but the pain in the rear end costs go way up. On the other hand, if he's military, he's a lot less judgment proof. ee: Looks like VA would allow a P&S claim in small claims court. joat mon fucked around with this message at 17:16 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:50 |
|
|
front wing flexing posted:What does judgment proof mean? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_proof
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 16:43
|
|
