|
Baruch Obamawitz posted:I always start out with a cut and paste, because the only way to get claim language on our end is OCRing poo poo, which is a lot of fun with underlining and strikethroughs. I did the same too, but only for the claims. This clown copy pasted his whole action, including the wrong form paragraph for the conclusion. Still boggles my mind that they don't implement an OCR module in eDan that could handle the strikethroughs or underlines. On a brighter note I got a raise. Woo private sector!
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
wacko_- posted:I did the same too, but only for the claims. This clown copy pasted his whole action, including the wrong form paragraph for the conclusion. Still boggles my mind that they don't implement an OCR module in eDan that could handle the strikethroughs or underlines. I just got cockslapped with a 150-page Invalidation Appeal for a patent I've never handled before. This patent went through 4 previous invalidation attempts as well, all of which I have to review and add up to well over 2000 pages of bedtime reading (not that I will be anywhere close to a bed). Woo private sector! (Still better than dealing with US examiners)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Prussian, I told you not to flash your badge at strip clubs. (Wish I could post a link from my phone)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
nm posted:Prussian, I told you not to flash your badge at strip clubs. quote:Pregen got belligerent with Goldrush's front door bouncers, demanding he and his crew be allowed into the club without paying the cover charge. Security called Levy, who came to the front door. He explained to Pregen that he only allowed military with a valid ID to enter the strip joint for free. "Mr. Pregen was more persistent and told me that he had not paid for admission fees for years," Levy recollected. "Mr. Pregen reached for his wallet and flashed his State Attorney's badge at me." Wow. What a douchebag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Ugh. I'm taking the Washington Bar Examination next week at my firm's behest, despite working 60 hour weeks and already being licensed in two states. Looking for some good luck and cheer here people. God save me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Petey posted:B.O. and I owned a very serious internet media company together for a time. Yet somehow he is rich and I am not. Hrm. RIP the cakefarts.com media empire TenementFunster posted:Managing partner ran into me in the bathroom and asked if I played golf. I replied that I do not. gently caress. You dumb motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
HiddenReplaced posted:Don't you work at a plaintiff's firm? I didn't realize you guys even had managing partners. Isn't it just a bunch of capn'scraps mother fuckers sharing an office and a secretary? Do you guys draw straws to pick the managing partner for the month? I enjoyed this post very much. Also, I was browsing one of the old lawthreads and found this blast from the past: Soothing Vapors posted:I have a friend (0L at DePaul) who won't shut up about how when she graduates she's going to run an NGO for the UN or something else in INTERNATIONAL LAW Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Feb 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
How do all of you make privilege logs? I have about 15,000 pages to go through and I'm using Adobe Acrobat's redaction tool and making entries into an Excel spreadsheet by hand. I'm trying to decide if everyone is in my boat or if this is something I can legitimately gripe about to my higher-ups. It seems wholly inefficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
10-8 posted:How do all of you make privilege logs? I have about 15,000 pages to go through and I'm using Adobe Acrobat's redaction tool and making entries into an Excel spreadsheet by hand. I'm trying to decide if everyone is in my boat or if this is something I can legitimately gripe about to my higher-ups. It seems wholly inefficient. That's how I've always seen them made, except you can usually trick a paralegal into doing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
I got that kind of thing dumped on me when I was a paralegal. It blew, but if the docs are already marked as privileged it's not particularly difficult. It's not like you need a ton of info - just the Bates stamp, maybe a brief description of what kind of doc it is, and some super vague reason for the claim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
10-8 posted:It seems wholly inefficient.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 20:04
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Inefficiency in a law firm?!?!? It's almost as though they want to spend an unnecessary amount of hours on it. What fools!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
10-8 posted:How do all of you make privilege logs? I have about 15,000 pages to go through and I'm using Adobe Acrobat's redaction tool and making entries into an Excel spreadsheet by hand. I'm trying to decide if everyone is in my boat or if this is something I can legitimately gripe about to my higher-ups. It seems wholly inefficient. I did document review for a while... We had software that just loaded up the scanned pdfs of a hundred thousand images, with little buttons on the side. So there was a toggle for PRIV, and a text field for PRIV REASON. So after knowing the keyboard shortcuts, I could one-handed fly through a thousand docs checking on priv then ctrl-V with my vague priv reason. Then the associate tasked with making the priv log just printed that poo poo out from the software and turned it in. I imagine the doc review software is needlessly expensive, but you should make your firm buy it. Even if you're the one clicking the buttons, it's gotta be like 10x faster.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
So, I need to find a case file from 1995. The case was not handled by the public defender, but a conflict panel that lost the contract 10 years ago. Basically every attorney who touched the case is dead except one attorney who covered an appearance once. I hate my life. Also, afraid this client is cursed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 01:38
|
|
|
I'm cross posting this from the accounting thread from a few days ago for this sides opinion. I noticed in the OP it specifically mentions tax law as an acceptable justification for law school. I'm finishing up with my BS in Accounting in a non-major school next year and that means it's time to start looking at the Grad school's available. I'm not concerned with the Big 4 nor with a top school and have already had internships on the Audit side of things, which I despised. I am debating between going to law school to get my JD and use those credits to fulfill the 150 requirement for the CPA. After that I would go for a Masters program in Tax Law. The alternative is to just go for a Masters in Accounting (MBA or MAcc) and specialize in Tax. I'm looking for some insight from either side of the fence as both seem reasonable to me. Also are all laws schools going to cost me triple my current debt?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
himurak posted:I'm cross posting this from the accounting thread from a few days ago for this sides opinion. I noticed in the OP it specifically mentions tax law as an acceptable justification for law school. Assume law school will cost you ~200k minus whatever grant aid you get (probably not much). Now realize that your chances of landing a BigLaw tax job are just as poo poo as everyone else's (really not good unless you go to a top law school, still not good if you do). Nothing forces you to go straight through and I will tell you that you will, if you decide to go to law school, get more out of it if you work for a bit first. I strongly recommend actually working in the area before you decide to spend three years and 200k on a JD. Actually, you would be looking at 4 years and 275k since you'd want a tax LLM as well. Here is the question you need to be able to answer: What exactly would a tax law degree get you that an MAcc wouldn't?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I did document review for a while...
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 06:42
|
|
|
himurak posted:I'm cross posting this from the accounting thread from a few days ago for this sides opinion. I noticed in the OP it specifically mentions tax law as an acceptable justification for law school. Also, getting a JD to fulfill the CPA education requirement is one of the least cost-effective things I've ever heard of. The CPA education requirement doesn't care about the quality of your education, just that you have the minimum number of credits overall and in the business and accounting subfields. If you just want to churn credits you can do it for a hell of a lot cheaper. But there's ultimately the biggest reason why this is a mistake: tax law /= tax accounting. We do two separate things. Law school and a tax LLM program are going to teach you everything about tax (i.e., planning, controversy, etc.) except for the accounting. P.S. a one-year tax LLM at NYU costs about $60,000. That's after you get your JD. Edit: The fact that NYU felt it necessary to add the following paragraph to its admissions website tells you everything you need to know about the job placement rate of its LLM program lately... quote:8. WHAT ARE CONSIDERED “RESPECTABLE” GRADES IN THE TAX LL.M. PROGRAM? 10-8 fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Feb 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Thanks for the quick replies Masters in Accounting it is. I only wish I could find a Tax Law Master's program that didn't require a JD to take it. The legal aspects of tax do interest me just not for 200k + the cost of the Masters program afterward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Assume law school will cost you ~200k minus whatever grant aid you get (probably not much). Now realize that your chances of landing a BigLaw tax job are just as poo poo as everyone else's (really not good unless you go to a top law school, still not good if you do). I can't really speak to the American market, but the other thing that I've noticed here in Canada is that specializing in tax will really cut down on the firms you might lateral to (basically, those with experienced partners already). It will be YEARS before you are competent to fly solo in tax.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
Zo posted:I just got cockslapped with a 150-page Invalidation Appeal for a patent I've never handled before. This patent went through 4 previous invalidation attempts as well, all of which I have to review and add up to well over 2000 pages of bedtime reading (not that I will be anywhere close to a bed). Lovely, good luck with that. I'm reviewing the file history for the next reexam later today. My girlfriend broke up with me on Thursday. Woo private sector!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Schitzo posted:I can't really speak to the American market, but the other thing that I've noticed here in Canada is that specializing in tax will really cut down on the firms you might lateral to (basically, those with experienced partners already). It will be YEARS before you are competent to fly solo in tax. Those guys are really expensive, I don't know how practical it would be to market yourself at a discount. Also in Canada if you wanted to do tax you really ought to clerk at the Tax Court of Canada.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:Also in Canada if you wanted to do tax you really ought to clerk at the Tax Court of Canada. Welp, schitzo, you better tell your firm that you're not suitable for being in the tax group since you didn't clerk at Tax Court.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Penguins Like Pies posted:Welp, schitzo, you better tell your firm that you're not suitable for being in the tax group since you didn't clerk at Tax Court. Not saying it's a requirement, but it helps (from the people I've spoken with) to get jobs if you didn't originally article with a particular firm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
If you wanna practice tax in the US, you have to get yourself a really sweet cowboy hat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:If you wanna practice tax in the US, you have to get yourself a really sweet cowboy hat. I thought that was lawyers who advertise on late-night television about how they will GET YOU THE MONEY YOU DESERVE!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 02:08
|
|
|
1800 - LAWYERB THE B IS FOR BARGAIN! wacko_- posted:My girlfriend broke up with me on Thursday. Woo private sector! Can't you just buy a new one? Isn't that how the private sector works?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 09:35
|
|
|
This is just a discussion question (because I'm weird and think about weird things in the shower): Can self-defense justify criminal acts that don't involve the use of force? I'm thinking particularly of speech. Defendant reasonably fears for his life. Before Attacker can swing, Defendant falsely claims to be a cop. Attacker is dissuaded and backs down. Defendant is charged with impersonating a police officer and asserts self-defense. My thinking is that (assuming the jury buys it, etc) this is a correct application of self-defense. The self-defense doctrine, at its core, says "an otherwise illegal act become legal if you do it in self-defense and meet certain conditions." The fact that it's usually applied to force is really irrelevant. Anyone have a different opinion? Know of any rules or cases that contradict my speculation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:This is just a discussion question (because I'm weird and think about weird things in the shower): This wouldn't fly in Canada because of the particular wording of our self-defence provisions, but an easier route in any event would be to argue necessity. Self-defence is just a more concrete necessity argument anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:This is just a discussion question (because I'm weird and think about weird things in the shower):
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:This is just a discussion question (because I'm weird and think about weird things in the shower): Yes, see the necessity defense.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Self-defence is just a more concrete necessity argument anyway. This is could be a jurisdictional difference (or my brain could be on the fritz), but my recollection is that necessity requires a threat caused by natural physical force, while duress is a threat from another human. I take your point, though -- my question wasn't actually limited to self-defense. It's just the first one that came to me because I was thinking about a fight, and I didn't bother to inquire whether another affirmative defense would be more applicable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:This is could be a jurisdictional difference (or my brain could be on the fritz), but my recollection is that necessity requires a threat caused by natural physical force, while duress is a threat from another human. Not in California, at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
In Michigan it is. At least based on some quick, non-thorough, non-billable research. Feel foolish that I didn't think of necessity/duress right off the bat, though. Glad I'm not one of those people taking the You-Know-What this week.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
What the heck prosecutor would prosecute that? Also, what the heck jury would ever convict on that regardless of the self-defense / justification argument was raised?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
BigHead posted:What the heck prosecutor would prosecute that? Also, what the heck jury would ever convict on that regardless of the self-defense / justification argument was raised? Welcome to the lower 48 excluding Minnesota (which is basically the westernmost colony of norway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
If someone was breaking into my house and I yelled out "I have a gun and I'm going to shoot you if you come in here," I don't see any chance in hell of an assault charge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
First jury trial tomorrow. Car wreck. Wooo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
BigHead posted:What the heck prosecutor would prosecute that? Also, what the heck jury would ever convict on that regardless of the self-defense / justification argument was raised? I didn't say it was realistic. It was just a fact pattern that crossed my mind. If I had known "this fact pattern is unrealistic" was a valid reply, my exams would have been much easier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 00:37 |
|
|
Alaemon posted:I didn't say it was realistic. It was just a fact pattern that crossed my mind. Wait, are you trying to tell me that guys named Abe don't routinely beat up and rob guys named Bill who're transporting a shipment of bananas with Bible verses printed on them, pursuant to a UCC-2 contract between Carl and a partnership consisting of Doug and Abe's wife Wendy who just died of a heart attack P.S. The anime will continue until morale improves 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 00:29
|
|
