|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Maybe I'll just start hanging around the court house, jumping into cases where someone is about to be defaulted, then send them a bill under quantum meruit. If they don't pay I'll just withdraw! A super hero for the Defaulted. Super Appearance!
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
I've had judges allow husbands to appear on behalf of their spouse despite not being an attorney. Then they argue a bunch on nonsense and the judge just makes up a motion to construe that as and grant it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Today was a pretty lovely day in Court. 0Ls, read this post. Then kill yourselves
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Not sure if anyone here knows anything about it, but is taking the US Tax Court Practitioner (USTCP) exam worth it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:An attorney who announces that she is not yet retained in the case appears and alleges error in the supporting affidavit. What? Is she part of some non-profit that does this type of stuff or is she hoping to maybe get hired later?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Today was a pretty lovely day in Court. Yeah what kind of technical error was this that the court found it was so prejudicial that there wasn't enough for the court to find service occurred? Sucks man. Judges I've dealt with would probably rule the same way re: the non-retained attorney but that attorney would definitely be on the hook for any and all future appearances, the reasoning generally being "well I guess there's an attorney I can deal with now instead of some pro se doofus." We have people who get attorneys in family court the day before/of trial sometimes and the presumption is that everyone should be/needs to be represented. Glambags fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Not sure if anyone here knows anything about it, but is taking the US Tax Court Practitioner (USTCP) exam worth it? Probably not, but why are you thinking it might be? If you're a CPA or an EA you can already represent your client in front of exam, appeals, and even chief counsel after the client's filed a petition. I don't have statistics on this, but the percentage of audits that end up requiring actual litigation in Tax Court has to be minuscule. And if a case requires real litigation, a taxpayer would likely be better served having someone who is in Tax Court a lot than someone who is almost never there but theoretically could - it's got some procedural quirks that are tricky for attorneys who are used to litigation in other courts, let alone someone who's rarely in court at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
MaximumBob posted:And if a case requires real litigation, a taxpayer would likely be better served having someone who is in Tax Court a lot than someone who is almost never there but theoretically could - it's got some procedural quirks that are tricky for attorneys who are used to litigation in other courts, let alone someone who's rarely in court at all. From what I read about the success rates in the Tax Court (something around 15-20% for the taxpayer), maybe it doesn't matter who's the legal rep? ^  ^
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
Fun fact: IRS personal income tax debt is 100% dischargeable in bankruptcy after various time thresholds have passed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:From what I read about the success rates in the Tax Court (something around 15-20% for the taxpayer), maybe it doesn't matter who's the legal rep? ^ The reason the IRS wins most of the cases that go to trial is because a huge proportion of those cases are brought by pro se taxpayers who have no clue if their position has merit. A competent practitioner knows when a case can't be won and concedes before trial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
10-8 posted:There's literally a study showing that there's no IRS bias in the Tax Court: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=179196 Eh, I've read cases where the Tax Court judge basically pulled a justification to back the IRS from their rear end, so I wouldn't say there's no bias at all, but it's heavily overrated due to sovereign citizen/tax protestor/other pro se cases. Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Mar 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
Guy I went to pre-school and elementary school with just got indicted in the Dewey thing. NYtimes article indicates that he didn't lawyer up when he spoke with the feds and DA. This is despite being a law school grad with a federal clerkship, a mother law prof, and a father who was a judge. You almost wonder if the last two made him trust the system too much. This is why everyone needs a lawyer. This is the second person in my elementary class (plus or minus a year) to get white collar charges (other guy almost got away with it, but got busted crossing the border with money stuffed in his cowboy boots). Interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
nm posted:Guy I went to pre-school and elementary school with just got indicted in the Dewey thing. I saw that article. I was very surprised he didn't lawyer up when it went from meeting with SEC (civil) representatives to meeting with the DA.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 02:53
|
|
|
nm posted:Guy I went to pre-school and elementary school with just got indicted in the Dewey thing. Is he the guy who got indicted as a co-defendant on, like, the one singular count 318 or whichever count was the very last "conspiracy to commit consanguinity of purpose to conspire to help defraud someone"? BigHead fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Mar 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Is he the guy who got indicted as a co-defendant on, like, the one singular count 318 or whichever count was the very last "conspiracy to commit consanguinity of purpose to conspire to help defraud someone"? I would assume so (I haven't read the complaint). He was a 24 year old who tried to get money out of clients. I'm still confused as to how someone like that could get caught up in this, well, except for the whole talking to prosecutors without a lawyer thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Eh, I've read cases where the Tax Court judge basically pulled a justification to back the IRS from their rear end, so I wouldn't say there's no bias at all, but it's heavily overrated due to sovereign citizen/tax protestor/other pro se cases. Keep in mind that you don't have to go to Tax Court, any District Court or the Court of Federal Claims can hear tax cases if the taxpayer pays beforehand. If attorneys really thought that the Tax Court was biased they would just recommend their clients go that route.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:Keep in mind that you don't have to go to Tax Court, any District Court or the Court of Federal Claims can hear tax cases if the taxpayer pays beforehand. If attorneys really thought that the Tax Court was biased they would just recommend their clients go that route. I know this, and this is pretty much what happens, anyway (cherry picking the most favorable court in terms of stare decisis), although it doesn't help if you're poor enough that you can't actually pay and claim a refund in District Court or the Court of Federal Claims where your argument is more likely to be listened to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Is he the guy who got indicted as a co-defendant on, like, the one singular count 318 or whichever count was the very last "conspiracy to commit consanguinity of purpose to conspire to help defraud someone"? Pretty much. Zach Warren is indicted on Counts 1 and 106, scheme to defraud and conspiracy to scheme to defraud: quote:COUNT ONE: quote:7. On or about December 31, 2008, in New York County, Employee C documented the fraudulent adjustments he and defendant SANDERS decided to employ in the presence of defendant WARREN on or about December 30, 2008 in a document Employee C named the “Master Plan.” ...worth noting the SEC didn't bother to file against Warren on the civil side.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
The one indictment I looked at is kind of hilarious reading. Note: If you are committing a fraud, it's probably a good idea to keep terms like "fake income," "cooking the books," and "accounting tricks" out of your e-mails.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Looks like Law Schools have now resorted to to paying their graduates salaries to improve their rankings in the U.S. News & World Report. Law schools are so consumed with performing well in these rankings that they are going to outrageous lengths to make it look like their students are performing better financially after graduation than they actually are. One of the most ridiculous ways they achieve this is by paying the salaries of their graduates upon graduation. This way, students can take on employment at non-profits and government agencies, positions they would never otherwise consider in light of their mountains of student debt. In return, their alma maters can pretend their graduates got real jobs. This isn’t just a minor trend of one-offs being exaggerated by the media either. For example, George Washington University paid the starting salaries of 22% of its graduates in 2012, while the University of Virginia paid for 15%. quote:EACH YEAR when U.S. News, an American publisher, releases its league table of law schools, potential students seize on it and the universities decry it for oversimplifying a personal and unquantifiable decision. But the schools can ill afford to ignore it, since not just applicants but donors and even credit-rating agencies pay close attention to the scores. source:http://www.economist.com/news/business/21599037-some-american-law-schools-are-paying-many-their-graduates-salaries-price-success
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
gvibes posted:The one indictment I looked at is kind of hilarious reading. Note: If you are committing a fraud, it's probably a good idea to keep terms like "fake income," "cooking the books," and "accounting tricks" out of your e-mails. Another example of law school failing to prepare students for the practice of law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
stewdiny posted:Looks like Law Schools have now resorted to to paying their graduates salaries to improve their rankings in the U.S. News & World Report. The only thing that strikes me as needing to change is to not weigh a school-paid temporary job/fellowship the same as a not-school-paid job in the rankings system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
stewdiny posted:Looks like Law Schools have now resorted to to paying their graduates salaries to improve their rankings in the U.S. News & World Report. This isn't a new thing, we've been talking about this for years. Year-long school-sponsored public interest fellowships own, by the way, it's good for there to be lots of them. Three-to-six-month long law library jobs are a lot sleazier though, but again, not a new trend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
MoFauxHawk posted:This isn't a new thing, we've been talking about this for years. Year-long school-sponsored public interest fellowships own, by the way, it's good for there to be lots of them. Three-to-six-month long law library jobs are a lot sleazier though, but again, not a new trend. Yeah, one of the problems is this line : "Moreover, their success in getting graduates into genuine jobs is spotty: the NALP survey found that only 24% of participants from the class of 2012 had been hired by their employers or in related fields by the following February. " So you get a stipend for a year, then 3/4s of you are out on your rear end and unemployed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
I searched for legal jobs at some universities and one at the GW Office of General Counsel popped up and excited me. One requirement in the job description was that the applicant be someone graduating from GW Law in May 2014. The position was for one year. Wah wah. Kind of funny to think that they are staffing their OGC with their law students who couldn't get jobs elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
Did anyone end up going to that Harvard symposium on D&D? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t04LM3vCDSg
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Those law schools are stupid. For just $300 they could register those graduates as solo practice firms and claim they're self-employed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
From what I understand about law firm hiring practices, once your law school funded position runs out then you're pretty much screwed, since biglaw firms won't hire anyone who isn't either a new graduate or a lateral with at least 5 years of experience. At best you'll be treated the same as a new grad, at worst employers will reject you out of hand since they would rather hire one of hundreds of graduates beating down their doors rather than take someone who was rejected by real employers the first time around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
sullat posted:Another example of law school failing to prepare students for the practice of law. Especially since there's no better expert at cooking the books than the law school administrators in charge of reporting the new grad job percentages.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Konstantin posted:From what I understand about law firm hiring practices, once your law school funded position runs out then you're pretty much screwed, since biglaw firms won't hire anyone who isn't either a new graduate or a lateral with at least 5 years of experience. At best you'll be treated the same as a new grad, at worst employers will reject you out of hand since they would rather hire one of hundreds of graduates beating down their doors rather than take someone who was rejected by real employers the first time around. It's not like the people resorting to these positions had a shot at biglaw in the first place, generally speaking. The idea is generally to land positions in public interest (very few) or with the government (pretty decent shot if you consider state and local gov't).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
I'm beseeching the wizened, shriveled elders of this thread for advice once again. I have an interview for a district court "externship" coming up. What's the best way to go about this sort of interview? Should I expect anything in particular? Is it true that they mostly interview people who they "already want" and I should be able to get the position unless I screw up? Is such an externship (35 hrs/week during the semester!) as valuable as everyone seems to believe? Thanks again, everyone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I have an interview for a district court "externship" coming up. What's the best way to go about this sort of interview? Should I expect anything in particular? Is it true that they mostly interview people who they "already want" and I should be able to get the position unless I screw up? Is such an externship (35 hrs/week during the semester!) as valuable as everyone seems to believe? I can only speak to my own experiences with state courts, but typically we would interview between 3 and 5 applicants for a given externship. We usually wouldn't have a particular favorite in mind, so an applicant's performance at the interview certainly made a difference. The externship may be valuable for future clerkship prospects, depending on who you intend to apply to. Some judges give a strong preference to hiring their former externs as clerks. Other judges won't hire former externs as clerks at all, in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism. In either case, a judge likes to see that an applicant has a general idea of how things work inside a chambers. I don't know how much responsibility this extern position would get, but having some familiarity with how judges make decisions, and some exposure to a broad variety of pleadings and briefs and things, would probably be a useful asset in the job hunt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:Eh, I've read cases where the Tax Court judge basically pulled a justification to back the IRS from their rear end, so I wouldn't say there's no bias at all, but it's heavily overrated due to sovereign citizen/tax protestor/other pro se cases. Do you have any examples?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
So I'm trying to hire a nanny so I can work from home while actually getting work done once my wife goes back to work from maternity leave. Whole lot of lawyers to choose from.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Maybe you can bargain the prices down if you allow them to put down the nannying as legal experience on their resume.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
I bet lawyer nannies are the absolute worst about the nanny contract. "Shut up, this isn't a law interview, if you say UCC again I'm hiring our drug addicted neighbor"
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
I have a friend who works for a state regulatory agency. Today their office was visited by two open-carrying sovereign citizens responding to a regulatory complaint.They insisted they had the right to carry weapons in a government office on account of their sovereign citizenship and further insisted the receptionist was violating their right of movement by not allowing them further into the building for their appointment while armed. The downside is that my friend was locked down in her office for an hour. The upside is that no one in the office complex was hurt and she found out the lockdown was over when she heard capitol police tackle one of them to the floor outside her office.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Good grief, they're lucky they weren't shot and killed. I saw a sovereign citizen today arguing with an eviction judge, it was amazing. It was up on his motion to reconsider, and he kept asserting that his name was technically different than the one on the complaint and that she didn't have jurisdiction over him. The judge kept agreeing and asking why he was here since he wasn't a party by his own admission, and denied the motion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
I don't see nearly enough sovereign citizens in court 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 23:38 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:The judge kept agreeing and asking why he was here since he wasn't a party by his own admission, and denied the motion. This is great
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2014 05:46
|
|
