|
HolySwissCheese posted:No joke, my evidence prof at UT spent a good part of the class distinguishing what would fly in an ordinary courtroom vs what kind of poo poo Sam Sparks just plain does not put up with. I want to see one of the really crazy pro se sovereign citizen cases get assigned to his courtroom, it's not like there's a shortage of them in Texas.
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
HolySwissCheese posted:No joke, my evidence prof at UT spent a good part of the class distinguishing what would fly in an ordinary courtroom vs what kind of poo poo Sam Sparks just plain does not put up with. I just want to let you know that I done miss you, baby girl. Good luck with the PI stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
I love when New York lawyers come down here, especially to state court. One time I was waiting for a New Orleans judge to open his courtroom for motion day. Everything was locked up, so an entire docket's worth of lawyers was milling around the hallway. I chatted four or five of them obviously there on the same case, two from New York and a few from Houston. Court was supposed to start at 8:30, so people began to get antsy around 8:45. Finally, the minute clerk walks up to unlock the door to chambers and looks confused. Ten minutes later, she comes back out and tells everyone that court has been cancelled because the judge was in DC for Obama's inauguration. No notice had been given to anyone. Sorry! The New York lawyers seriously thought it was a practical joke.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I love when New York lawyers come down here, especially to state court. I would be pretty appalled if a judge pulled that without providing notice to people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
SOOTHINV APORS PAY ATTENTION I'm gonna be setting up lawgoons fantasy football here in the next week or two. Who's in? We've always done H2H, so it'll be H2H again and you'll loving like it. I'll post details once it's set up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:41
|
|
|
tau posted:SOOTHINV APORS PAY ATTENTION I'm in it to win* it. *Come in third place, like every prior season.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
tau posted:SOOTHINV APORS PAY ATTENTION I'm down
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I love when New York lawyers come down here, especially to state court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 22:33
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I love when New York lawyers come down here, especially to state court. I thought this was going to be about a New York lawyer trying to bring a case to the Supreme Court in your state. Your humorous anecdote disappoints me 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 22:41
|
|
|
tau posted:SOOTHINV APORS PAY ATTENTION I will do this thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2012 23:44
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I love when New York lawyers come down here, especially to state court. Isn't Louisiana state law a thing unto itself? Why would you send out-of-state lawyers, unless they went to Tulane? (Hi. Not a lawyer, not going to become one, everybody dies alone anyway.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:41
|
|
|
I too will do this Fantasy Football thing, though I have little (no) experience with it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
tau posted:SOOTHINV APORS PAY ATTENTION I'm always looking for more fantasy leagues to lose in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 00:53
|
|
|
I'm in for fantasy football.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
ugggh shut up nerds *sorts Magic cards by set and rarity
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
Welp, I was told I was going to be invited in for a second round of interviews, but then got a letter saying that I wasn't suitable and that they'd be "continuing their search." gently caress gently caress gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
tau posted:SOOTHINV APORS PAY ATTENTION yessssssssss
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Welp, I was told I was going to be invited in for a second round of interviews, but then got a letter saying that I wasn't suitable and that they'd be "continuing their search." gently caress gently caress gently caress. Wait what? I check out the law megathread for the first time in over 6 months and run smack dab into a Martin Random seriouspost? Huh???
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:Welp, I was told I was going to be invited in for a second round of interviews, but then got a letter saying that I wasn't suitable and that they'd be "continuing their search." gently caress gently caress gently caress. Applying for jobs blows. Also, fantasy football ruins football.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
In original news, an open letter to a certain DA: Dear Ms. DA, I acknowledge that sometimes I don't stipulate to evidence when you request it. You probably haven't recognized the trend, but I generally only do this when you're essentially asking me to forgo cross-examining somebody. However, this is not a reason for you to declare "turnabout is fair play" when I ask you to stipulate to the admissibility of a document. We have different duties, you and I. My duty is to defend my client. The government is trying to put her in a cage. She is a human being. Common decency demands that she be provided with an advocate that will do anything within the rule of law to keep her out of that cage. I am that advocate. (I know you are a Christian, btw, Ms. DA. This is directly analogizable to the Christian concept of "grace." Please ponder.) Your duty, Ms. DA, is to do justice. In this particular instance, that means you should stipulate to the admission of the bank records I am offering up unless you have a reasonable suspicion that they are not genuine. The no-copy watermarked paper and completely unremarkable (and corroborated) nature of these records should be enough for you to stipulate to their admission. "Sorry, it's bad for my case" should not be in your vocabulary. Yet that's exactly what you said when explaining why you wouldn't stipulate. I wish California was not a two-party consent state. I am rather confident I could have your law license suspended within the next year otherwise. gently caress you. The judge will now grant my continuance, and my client will now miss a couple more days of work, because your unaccountable fat rear end doesn't loving understand its job. Sincerely, srsly
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
That's why you get them to put it on the record. Also, aren't you in big law now? You should just crush DAs under paper. nm fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 04:38
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Isn't Louisiana state law a thing unto itself? Why would you send out-of-state lawyers, unless they went to Tulane? They had local counsel there, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
srsly posted:In original news, an open letter to a certain DA: Or you could skip the analogy and go for word-for-word with 'paraclete.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 15:22
|
|
|
srsly posted:We have different duties, you and I. My duty is to defend my client. The government is trying to put her in a cage. She is a human being. Common decency demands that she be provided with an advocate that will do anything within the rule of law to keep her out of that cage. I am that advocate. I really liked this bit. Very powerful! quote:(I know you are a Christian, btw, Ms. DA. This is directly analogizable to the Christian concept of "grace." Please ponder.) I don't really get this part. Christian grace is the idea that God has mercy on sinners, with no preconditions on His exercise of mercy. In contrast, the government is only interested in caging your client because she has been accused of doing something wrong. We provide public defenders because they are necessary to ferret out the truth of the accusations - not because we want to have mercy on the accused. Maybe you should explain that you generally refuse to stipulate when it would preclude you from cross-examining a witness. She would probably understand that, and not take it so personally.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
entris posted:I don't really get this part. Christian grace is the idea that God has mercy on sinners, with no preconditions on His exercise of mercy. In contrast, the government is only interested in caging your client because she has been accused of doing something wrong. We provide public defenders because they are necessary to ferret out the truth of the accusations - not because we want to have mercy on the accused. Edit: This is particularly true if you consider that, for many people, the idea of actually guilty persons escaping punishment, beyond what they've already experienced from having been accused, isn't always a bad thing, and that that view is born out of compassion and empathy. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
So, today I got paid to take a restorative afternoon constitutional. Technically I was delivering a brief to a barrister's chambers on the other side of the CBD, but it was basically just a nice walk on an otherwise-sleepy afternoon. My walk cost the client $180. Eight weeks as a part-time paralegal, and I'm starting to think that there's something quite deeply strange about this industry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 16:22
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:So, today I got paid to take a restorative afternoon constitutional. Technically I was delivering a brief to a barrister's chambers on the other side of the CBD, but it was basically just a nice walk on an otherwise-sleepy afternoon. My walk cost the client $180. When I was a paralegal, we charged a client thousands of dollars for me to fly to Houston to collect some personal property he had forgotten in a hotel. It's a funny old business.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
entris posted:I really liked this bit. Very powerful! I ripped it off from Ken White at Popehat in a post explaining that yes, there are some people he would not represent as a criminal defendant. quote:I don't defend people because I support, or approve of, or like their conduct — or when I do, it's purely coincidental. Often I despise what they have been accused of — which is quite often something within shouting distance of what they actually did. But that has nothing to do with why I defend them. I do it because I believe firmly that the system works best (not perfectly, but optimally) when everyone accused by the state gets someone in their corner fighting for them — not because they are likable, not because in any objective sense that they deserve support, but because our society believes that the irreducible quality of being a human being is that when the government tries to stick you in a cage, we will give you one person who is on your side and doing their best to keep you out if the rule of law allows it. He also explains the grace part much better for anybody interested. I'm just a lousy plagiarist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Really, more than anything else, you exist to conspicuously remind everyone involved about the 5th and 6th Amendments so that the police don't go power tripping on us innocents
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
A friend from years ago that became a teacher is now considering law school. When I asked her what she wanted to do her response was: "I want to be a human rights researcher." Does someone have any clue what the gently caress that means? It's hard to discourage someone when you're not even clear what their goal is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:31
|
|
|
So I'm throwing a resume at anything with an opening. I get a bite from some temp JD firm that does all the grunt work for a mass tort plaintiff's firm, and does all their HR. I do my lame little phone interview with them. Then I get a call from a different person an hour later, saying that they are puling my resume out of their normal hiring process and bouncing it directly up to the firm that they do their work for. They want to directly hire someone with my securities and investigations experience at the real law firm, they want me down interviewing with them in LA as soon as possible. Good news follows bad, I suppose. Anyone have experience with mass tort plaintiff work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:A friend from years ago that became a teacher is now considering law school. When I asked her what she wanted to do her response was: It means "I want to go to the Hague and mill about smartly, but with the modicum of professional/social stature that a law degree provides" slightly more seriously, somebody who, given 'x' bad things happening somewhere, finds the yn international laws/treaties that technically provide a course of action to stop/punish the bad things, to give that information to somebody else who will try very hard not to be ignored by the international community.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:They had local counsel there, too. I got a mysterious email from one of my fellow associates you and I are both familiar with. The subject line was, "What's your personal cell number?" The body, "I need to text you  ."I would be lying if I said I wasn't at least a little bit excited. Turns out she just wanted to tell me about an opening at another firm. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:A friend from years ago that became a teacher is now considering law school. When I asked her what she wanted to do her response was: I bet a lot of the discouragement would be similar to international law panda stuff since anyone who's saying "human rights researcher" almost certainly is thinking global. It kind of sounds like she wants to work at a think tank but doesn't realize what that work really entails/who pays for most of them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
sigmachiev posted:I bet a lot of the discouragement would be similar to international law panda stuff since anyone who's saying "human rights researcher" almost certainly is thinking global. Is this something JDs even do? Any suggestions on alternatives I could give her? Also, on a completely unrelated note, did you end up going back to SD or are you in another city? HiddenReplaced fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Jul 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
srsly posted:We have different duties, you and I. My duty is to defend my client. The government is trying to put her in a cage. She is a human being. Common decency demands that she be provided with an advocate that will do anything within the rule of law to keep her out of that cage. I am that advocate. Nope, and lmao at the idea of a defence attorney stipping to lab results, it's apparently more fun to wait until they drive down pursuant to the phone hold despite there being no doubt at all that everything is above board.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 00:27
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Is this something JDs even do? It's something JDs do. But it's not something that a JD is required or even particular useful for. Depending on what area of human rights she's interested in working in, she's probably better off with a more relevant degree (e.g., a friend works as a researcher in health issues during international humanitarian crises - e.g. Haiti. She has a JD, but she got hired because she got an MPH before the JD.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
Martin Random posted:
My wife worked as a paralegal for a class action / mass tort plaintiff firm. The cases drag on forever, discovery is incredibly boring (and will probably be even more boring in the securities context), and you are constantly trying to find another large enough group of potential plaintiffs that you can convince to sue some large corporation. If you win a settlement or, even more unlikely, win a case, then you spend months fighting over attorneys' fees. I wouldn't recommend it, personally, but if it's your only offer...
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:A friend from years ago that became a teacher is now considering law school. When I asked her what she wanted to do her response was: It means your friend is loving stupid
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 03:39 |
|
|
entris posted:My wife worked as a paralegal for a class action / mass tort plaintiff firm. The cases drag on forever, discovery is incredibly boring (and will probably be even more boring in the securities context), and you are constantly trying to find another large enough group of potential plaintiffs that you can convince to sue some large corporation. If you win a settlement or, even more unlikely, win a case, then you spend months fighting over attorneys' fees. Mass Tort is awesome for exactly the reasons you stated above. LIBOR cases are gearing up big time. Roger_Mudd fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jul 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2012 02:09
|
|
