|
In the places I've worked the 'overtime dinners' were always delivery from a few Chinese and burger joints where the firm had an account with them.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
I don't doubt you for a second. The example of the guy at the big firm seemed like the guy doing it because he could. I guess I'm wondering about that. Hell yeah if you're going above and beyond a client should be paying the above and beyond rate. But the guy using a limo instead of an available taxi and billing the client? That has to be an outlier, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:I don't doubt you for a second. The example of the guy at the big firm seemed like the guy doing it because he could. I guess I'm wondering about that. He works overtime because he's gotta work overtime. I'm sure he'd rather not, given that he's salaried, but I think he works close to 80 hours/week. As for the limo service, that is one of the cases where the firm has an account with them and just about everyone uses them. For what it's worth, their clients aren't usually the likes of you and me; they're typically large, often multinational corporations *cough*Apple*cough* (disclaimer: Not Apple). I doubt even a year's worth of $80 rides home would make a visible dent in their invoices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
I was going to say, I am pretty sure this is something that just varies by firm and client. If you are working for some huge firm that does tons of work for big companies, you can probably bill them all sorts of things and they won't blink because their legal budget is a quadrillion dollars and your $20 meal isn't poo poo. But if you are in a tiny firm/solo working in family law and you try to bill your steak-and-strippers limo ride to some lower-middle income dude in his divorce, it's not going to fly. Due to the nature of our work we work with both companies and individuals (immigration) and I've never had a company push back on expenses and half the time the way they have us submit them it isn't even clearly itemized. Whereas individuals will examine every thing and ask if they can translate their own documents or whatever to cut any cost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2012 23:04
|
|
|
Daggerpants posted:No it's just a speeding ticket. He said since my speed would have been acceptable if the sign wasn't lit he wasn't going to give me a reckless - although I think that just saves me on the fine, it will still be 6 points. I get what you're saying about the playgrounds. The indicators are regularly malfunctioning but I'm not going to be able to prove they were on that day, just that they do from time to time. If you're concerned about the points, hire a lawyer. When I got a reckless (20 over on the toll road), I paid a lawyer $500 to get it reduced to something that was only 3 points. It's fairly standard, and in Northern Virginia there are a bunch of lawyers that will help you (if you just want them to talk to the prosecutor and get it reduced) for a flat price of around $500... for the lawyer, plus whatever the fine winds up being. In my case, I was fine with paying a 'high' fine (max is $2.5k? for reckless, I wound up paying about $300) to get it reduced, but you aren't allowed to talk to the prosecutor if you're not a lawyer in my county. I doubt you'd be able to get it completely eliminated, though. It might be worth talking to a lawyer and seeing what you hear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I was going to say, I am pretty sure this is something that just varies by firm and client. If you are working for some huge firm that does tons of work for big companies, you can probably bill them all sorts of things and they won't blink because their legal budget is a quadrillion dollars and your $20 meal isn't poo poo. But if you are in a tiny firm/solo working in family law and you try to bill your steak-and-strippers limo ride to some lower-middle income dude in his divorce, it's not going to fly. Even for smaller firms with less sophisticated clients I don't totally see what the issue is. They probably wouldn't complain if you didn't charge by line (.03 cents/copy, 10$ food for working after six) and just charged a slightly higher hourly rate (260$/hr instead of 250$/hr). And those kind of incidental, reasonable expenses are chump change compared to the real expenses. If a client is distressed about buying cheap chinese on your 14th hour on the office, I would like to be in the room when they find out how much it's going to be to have a doctor prepared for, and present at, trial
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
Zauper posted:If you're concerned about the points, hire a lawyer. When I got a reckless (20 over on the toll road), I paid a lawyer $500 to get it reduced to something that was only 3 points. This is right. Also: In VA, you can do driving school once every 5 years and escape the ticket. But it all depends on your driving record and the offense, you gotta show up and ask the judge to let you do it. An attorney could tip the scales if you're a borderline case. It varies by county, but the game seems to be a big reduction or driving school for people with good records.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:Even for smaller firms with less sophisticated clients I don't totally see what the issue is. They probably wouldn't complain if you didn't charge by line (.03 cents/copy, 10$ food for working after six) and just charged a slightly higher hourly rate (260$/hr instead of 250$/hr). quote:And those kind of incidental, reasonable expenses are chump change compared to the real expenses. If a client is distressed about buying cheap chinese on your 14th hour on the office, I would like to be in the room when they find out how much it's going to be to have a doctor prepared for, and present at, trial
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
Hey I looked up libel on wikipedia and I still have no idea how it works. How would this hypothetical play out? I post on a blog and appear on every news show in my town telling everybody that Carl from ABC plumbing came to my house drunk, broke my shower, made a pass at my wife, and pooped in my sink. This demonstrably causes ABC plumbing to lose $100,000 in business. Consider the following scenarios: A: My statements are true and undeniably provable. B: My statements are true and cannot be proven. C: My statements are false and cannot be disproved. D: My statements are false and can be absolutely disproved. In each of these scenarios, what are my odds of being successfully sued or convicted of libel? I'm interested in B and C in particular.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
euphronius posted:What the gently caress? Well, I should explain that working as a defence attorney isn't inherently bad or anything. I am just more concerned about the way some private attorneys (or would-be attorneys) talk about "zealous advocacy" as if it means going all out for whoever is paying them. Presenting a complete and accurate defence case is important, but my point is that members of the bar should be closer to one another and given to higher ideals. I would hate to think that attorneys might give themselves over to the petty goals of some random client; in this sense a split-profession is superior. Agesilaus fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:46
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Well, I should explain that working as a defence attorney isn't inherently bad or anything. I am just more concerned about the way some private attorneys (or would-be attorneys) talk about "zealous advocacy" as if it means going all out for whoever is paying them. Presenting a complete and accurate defence case is important, but my point is that members of the bar should be closer to one another and given to higher ideals. I would hate to think that attorneys might give themselves over to the petty goals of some random client; in this sense a split-profession is superior. Every time I read one of your posts I get confused, and then I look at your avatar and everything makes sense. Lawyers have a duty of zealous advocacy for their clients. They simultaneously have ethical duties to the court and the profession, but by and large those duties exist to limit the duty of advocacy (or to clarify the duty of advocacy - see the MRPC). The problem I have with the way you phrase everything is that you seem to say we should avoid the "petty goals" of a client, like, I dunno, getting off when they're charged with a crime. Or declaring bankruptcy and leaving their debtors holding the bag. But those are exactly the kinds of things good advocates, and good attorneys, do for their clients. If you're talking about bush league poo poo like "I don't know if I can grant you an extension, let me call my client," then sure, that's a load of crap. Attorneys also have ethical obligations like candor to the court and avoiding misrepresenting facts, etc, but I have almost never seen those ethical obligations to run counter to the duty of zealous advocacy. Rather, attorneys who are ethical and "gentlemanly" as you seem to desire are better advocates for their clients, because they have the trust of the tribunal, and know exactly how far they can push to achieve their client's goals. Remember, clients set the objectives of representation. Attorneys don't. We only set the means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
It's irrelevant. He's either a clueless fuckwit or just trolling us for a reaction. Or a little of A, little of B. Either way there's no positive end to continuing the dialogue as there's nothing to gain. It's designed to provoke and nothing more. On the note of real people with real problems, I signed a reaffirmation in bankruptcy today for a client's dog. Yeah. A secured PMSI on a dog. Being a soulless private attorney, I was kinda hoping to force it on the trustee so he could "administer" it for the benefit of creditors. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:19
|
|
|
Bellagio Sampler posted:Hey I looked up libel on wikipedia and I still have no idea how it works. How would this hypothetical play out? The short answer is that it depends heavily on where you live. In some places the burden of proof is on Carl to demonstrate that your statements were both false and malicious; in other places the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your statements were both true and in the public interest. Also, it's possible that you could be sued in any jurisdiction where one of those news shows was broadcast, or anywhere people were able to read your blog. Thuryl fucked around with this message at 10:12 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Agesilaus posted:Well, I should explain that working as a defence attorney isn't inherently bad or anything. I am just more concerned about the way some private attorneys (or would-be attorneys) talk about "zealous advocacy" as if it means going all out for whoever is paying them. Presenting a complete and accurate defence case is important, but my point is that members of the bar should be closer to one another and given to higher ideals. I would hate to think that attorneys might give themselves over to the petty goals of some random client; in this sense a split-profession is superior. Oh Ok I see what you are saying. Zealously advocacy is only one of many ethical precepts to which attorneys are bound. There are others too which address the issues you bring up. There are also laws which are there to rein in lawyers who get to crazy with their claims. For example quote:Advocate Also quote:Advocate euphronius fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:This is right. In the county my ticket was in, this wasn't an option to do if you show up in court and ask for driving school. It must have been completed in advance, and wouldn't have eliminated any ticket, though it helps to get them reduced. Apparently the volume in my county was high enough that they don't care to let people do it to get out of tickets. Which of course, you wouldn't know if you hadn't asked the lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
A few months ago I got an out-of-state speeding ticket (in update NY). I just found the ticket in my travel bag and realized I forgot to send in a guilty plea before the court date. Oops. Do I wait until I get a letter from them or should I call/contact the court?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Go on and call them, they'll most likely tack on some fees though, especially if they put out a warrant. No sense in waiting, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
Anyone familiar with copyright law / fair use provisions / derivative works as it applies to visual images? I'm in DC if that matters (pretty sure it doesn't vary state to state). Situation: a photo I took years ago is (possibly) going to be used as a background image in a advertisement, however the designer cropped in on a portion of the image and blurred it a bit. It's displaying roughly 30% of the original image, and the blurring is enough to obscure detail, but the content of the image is still obvious. I have no plans to do anything about it at the moment as I don't mind this particular person using it, but I'd like to understand the laws a bit better in case I ever run into this problem in the future. So I guess how much change is required for something to be considered a derivative work, and if something is considered a derivative work, what impact does that have on my ability to stop the person from using the image?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
kedo posted:Anyone familiar with copyright law / fair use provisions / derivative works as it applies to visual images? I'm in DC if that matters (pretty sure it doesn't vary state to state). In theory, it doesn't--copyright is federal law. In practice, the different federal Courts of Appeals have slightly different approaches. For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (California, Washington, and some other places) is relatively more forgiving on fair use, allowing reverse engineering of game consoles for emulator development purposes and generation of thumbnails for Google Image Search. quote:Situation: a photo I took years ago is (possibly) going to be used as a background image in a advertisement, however the designer cropped in on a portion of the image and blurred it a bit. It's displaying roughly 30% of the original image, and the blurring is enough to obscure detail, but the content of the image is still obvious. First of all, whether it's a derivative work or a straight-up copy makes no difference (so long as it's not fair use, etc.) The statute provides that: 17 U.S.C. 106 posted:Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: Second, the definition of a derivative work is broader than most people realize. From the statute: 17 U.S.C. 101 posted:a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. So anything "based upon" another work may be a derivative work. For instance, a Seinfeld trivia book is an infringing derivative work of Seinfeld. A comic retelling of the OJ Simpson case in the style of The Cat in the Hat is an infringing derivative work, too. But third, if you wanted to, you could assert direct infringement as well as derivative-works liability. A reproduction/publication of another's copyrighted work doesn't have to reproduce the whole thing to be infringing. It's enough that they use a protectable element of your photograph. See Mannion v. Coors Brewing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Go on and call them, they'll most likely tack on some fees though, especially if they put out a warrant. No sense in waiting, however.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:words of wisdom Thanks much, that's a great explanation. Much appreciated!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Remulak posted:Would pretending I sent it in be an OK, bad, or really bad idea? I assumed that they'd just call me guilty and send something, but this doesn't seem to be the case, since I haven't gotten anything and it's been months. For what it's worth, you're on the favorable end of the court's cost/benefit analysis. Most likely they just filed a warrant for your arrest; that's easily and cheaply done. It's too much cost and pain in the rear end for them to extradite you from wherever you are just because you welched on a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean that you're free and clear, however. Do you mean "pretending" as in lying to yourself that you sent it and ignoring it? So long as you don't apply for a license/clearance/job that requires a decent background check or go back to NY, you can probably continue to avoid responsibility for your speeding ticket. (Not because you're in the clear, but because it costs too much in time and money to come get you) If the arrest warrant has gone into a national database (some jurisdictions upload every arrest warrant, some don't put up ones for traffic tickets) you'll get arrested and taken to jail every time you get stopped for anything. If you pay a bondsman and get out of jail, and if you bother to go to court, you'll find out that NY doesn't want to come get you and you'll be free to go. (until you get stopped again) If you don't bond out, you'll sit in jail for 1-5 weeks to find out you're free to go. (until you get stopped again) If you bond out and can't be bothered to take care of your new case either, you'll get a new arrest warrant in the new jurisdiction and (depending on your state) a bounty hunter sent after you by your unhappy bondsman. Do you mean "pretending" as in comitting a new crime by lying to the court and telling them you sent it in but didn't? Don't. (It won't get you out of the ticket in any event) Call them already. Find out how much you owe already. Pay them already.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
About 6 years ago, my wife cosigned onto a house with her mother. About 4-5 years ago the house got foreclosed on. Earlier this week a credit alert popped up on one of those credit monitoring sites for my wife, when we called they said that a second mortage was taken out on the house and that 23,000-ish was due and they will settle for 10,500 "or anything reasonable". They said if we don't pay by 1 Jan it will be reported to our taxes and such. My wife just got off the phone with her mom and she has the foreclosure on her credit report but no other mortage. Additionally, the house has been sold a couple of times since then. We're a military family and we are going to go to the base legal office tomorrow and see what they can do, but I'm trying to get information now. We're in Delaware and the house was in South Carolina. Is this a company just buying up old debt (Compass Resolutions, Santa Ana, CA) and trying to scare us into paying? edit: my wife is also saying that she DID cosign the initial mortage but has not signed anything else. These just sounds so shifty... edit 2: this is not the original debt holder, my wife didn't sign anything saying she'd pay them. Is that a thing? omnibobb fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
She's either on the 2nd deed of trust or she's not. I'm not saying that to fuss, but there's a definitive answer waiting out there somewhere for you. At the courthouse in SC in the county where that house is located is a recorded deed of trust on the 2nd mortgage. If your wife's signature is on it, then she's on the hook. If not, then she's not. It would not be shocking for her to be on the deed (ownership) and the 1st deed of trust (mortgage), but not the 2nd deed of trust. It would also not be shocking that she signed on the 2nd at the initial closing and says "holy cow, that was a 2nd?". So you want to know for sure. Many counties will look up deeds for you and send you copies for like 25 bucks for a typical deed of trust. Calling the SC county court is the place to start, unless you know people that still live there. JAG should be able to assist you with that. If her name isn't on it, end of inquiry. They got jack and you can tell them to gently caress off. But if she's on it, then it's going to fallback positions. JAG could also assist you with that. One angle might be waiting out the statute of limitations, or working out something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Does an attorney have any obligation to a client to a certain standard or level of efficiency? For that matter, does he have any obligation of transparency in how he bills ahead of time or is it simply buyer beware? Just as an example, I would wonder if I'd been cheated if my attorney had a lot of technology at his disposal for which I'm ostensibly paying worked into his fee, and then I'm charged for the three reams of paper it took him to print research, the staples to keep it together, and the 10 minutes it took to itemize the supplies, then the paper my billing statement goes on, then the time to bill for the paper my statement went on... Can't speak for every jurisdiction, but where I'm located there was until very recently a restriction on who could own shares in a professional corporation carrying on legal services. So there was no easy way to income-split the income earned as a partner in a law firm - your wife or kids couldn't own shares in your P.C. But if there was a second, seperate partnership that provided everything under the sun except legal services (i.e. photocopying charges and every other admin/office expense), there would be no such restriction and each law firm partner could also set up a corporation in the non-legal partnership. Bang, income-split with your spouse. So that might be the practical explanation for why it happens. But at the end of the day, that's one place where the lawyer should have a lot of discretion to reduce or write off certain disbursements and fees.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Looking for a way to cover my rear end in a lease if I need to in a tactful but legally binding way. I rent a house with oil heat right now, and the oil tank level gauge is not reading accurately. This almost cost me money the last time I had it filled, but more pressing is if the tank ever runs dry it is insanely expensive to fix and I would be responsible. I've told the owner twice now but she doesn't seem interested in fixing it. I feel like if they are not willing to maintain or repair it (which I am not responsible for) I should not be held liable if the tank runs dry without my knowledge. It's also in my best interest to wait longer to fill it, as I mentioned it almost wasted me some money last time. Is there any legal precedent for what I'm talking about? If so, what can I do on my end to ensure there is enough of a record to keep me in the clear?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:06
|
|
|
Synonamess Botch posted:Looking for a way to cover my rear end in a lease if I need to in a tactful but legally binding way. Easiest method: write to your landlord expressing precisely these concerns and getting back written acknowledgement that you would not be held responsible if the tank ran dry due to a faulty gauge. Best case is that when the landlord realises that you think this is a big enough deal to start covering your rear end, they'll be prompted to do the easiest thing to cover their rear end, which is to get the gauge fixed. But just be blunt. Don't put it "I want this fixed", put it "this has a serious risk of going wrong and neither of us wants that to happen but I need to cover my rear end so I'm saying now that there's a risk of the tank getting damaged and if you don't want to fix it then it's on you". Nobody minds someone covering their rear end so long as they are honest about it and do it before things go wrong. Your landlord will understand that you are just doing what you need to do to protect yourself. If they start insisting that you'll have to pay anyway then you should take that as a sign that you need to think about moving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 15:38
|
|
|
Also the mailing should be certified mail, return receipt requested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also the mailing should be certified mail, return receipt requested. This. A thousand times this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Thanks for the tips, that's exactly what I'll do.euphronius posted:Also the mailing should be certified mail, return receipt requested. Don't suppose you know how that works with a PO box do you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
*Situation resolved by the magic words "I want to speak to your supervisor."
Brennanite fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Dec 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Synonamess Botch posted:Thanks for the tips, that's exactly what I'll do. Exactly the same as sending it to a physical address if you are in the US.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Bellagio Sampler posted:Hey I looked up libel on wikipedia and I still have no idea how it works. How would this hypothetical play out? For a start, libel is a tort, a civil wrong, not a criminal offence, so you would be getting sued for it, not convicted. In English law, there is a defence of justification against a claim for libel (i.e. arguing "it's not defamatory, it's true"), but the burden of proof lies on the defendant. You have to prove that what you said was true, so you'd be in about equal trouble in scenario B, scenario C or scenario D. Oh, and in England you don't have to prove financial loss to win damages for libel (you do for slander (mostly), which is why no-one sues for slander any more), so that point wouldn't matter. English libel law is famously claimant-friendly, to the extent that there's an ongoing campaign to get it reformed. But for the moment, we are the favoured forum for rich people trying to defend their reputation, to the point where (e.g.) Russian oligarchs will sue in London on the basis of a few copies of some obscure Russian magazine being sold here. General Panic fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The time (usually) reflects more than just the exact amount of seconds they are on the phone with you and speaking. Physicians are expected to do all of this and more with no compensation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:Physicians are expected to do all of this and more with no compensation. Well they should have thought long and hard about that when they decided to help people instead of bleed them dry. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
RICKON WALNUTSBANE posted:Physicians are expected to do all of this and more with no compensation. I would trade the current legal method in 1 nanosecond for the ability to bill Medilegal or Aetna Legal insurance for a legal procedure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
So out of sheer curiosity - and assuming there's anyone here who knows the laws involved in either country - this whole thing with the hospital and Kate and all... I note that some reports have the radio station saying they're confident they didn't do anything illegal... being pretty ignorant of the laws surrounding that anywhere, let alone between England and Australia, is there nothing against calling up a hospital and impersonating someone else in order to obtain personal information about a patient that the patient and/or hospital would otherwise refuse to divulge?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 10:07
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I would trade the current legal method in 1 nanosecond for the ability to bill Medilegal or Aetna Legal insurance for a legal procedure. You wouldn't if you knew more about insurance companies. My insurance just lowballed an anesthesiologist MD down from the $4000 he charged to $240. $240 is not what I pay. That is what insurance paid. No one pays the remaining $3770. That doctor eats it because insurance companies are worse than lawyers. 
BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Dec 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 10:28
|
|
|
No WAY. Someone could be BILLED but not PAY?!?! Why I'm just a simple countray lawyer I wouldn't know NOTHING about such FOOLISHNESS nosiree yes let me be unequivocal all clients pay and that's that yes sir that is a totally correct statement of the way that things are for lawyers in today's world
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 13:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
NancyPants posted:My insurance just lowballed an anesthesiologist MD down from the $4000 he charged to $240. $240 is not what I pay. That is what insurance paid. No one pays the remaining $3770. I think you owe somebody $3770. The insurance company didn't get the anesthesia.... Haha just kidding with you. It's really $3760.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 14:27
|
|