|
samglover posted:This is one of the best posts we did while we still owned Bitter Lawyer: http://www.bitterlawyer.com/ride-a-bicycle-drunk/ That's fantastic, I knew MN would be progressive but Oregon is shameful.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:pays to be jewish So, how excited are you for the upcoming shutdown in a few weeks?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
wrap it up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcCsTyh-DsM
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
The first 2 minutes of this video is some of the best stuff I've ever heard. Syntax is on the table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
I just rando-clicked on one of his other videos, at a rando-time, and got, "and 2012 is just around the corner, and soon, the entire world is going to communicate in mathematical truths and syntax is going to be on the table. And right after that, somebody's gonna come knocking, from another world, and if we don't communicate truthfully with them, in sytnax, they're going to hurdle a giant rock the size of Texas at us at 44,000 miles an hour if we're not truthful."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
His cell phone and email address are at the bottom of his home page. http://dwmlc.com/ I don't have the guts. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Isn't this the same guy who claims that he hasn't aged a day past 20 since he was involved in some car accident? EDIT: My bad, he says it was aliens. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Nov 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
I'm tired of FRCP 12(f). Can we talk about something else now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
The Lawyerist chatroom is very amused. This is enlightening: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/David_Wynn_Miller
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
samglover posted:The Lawyerist chatroom is very amused. I've never seen wikiwand before. When did this become a thing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:So, how excited are you for the upcoming shutdown in a few weeks? I got a promotion to GS-14 on Wednesday and to celebrate I started sending out my resume
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Dude, Defleshed, you may want to pop in over at the LT Kaffee thread in GiP... Yeah I just now read that. Not sure how anyone who has practiced military justice for more than 5 minutes would ever have that impression. I loving love plea deals because trials are a pain in the rear end and a gamble. Judges love them because they don't have to do anything. e: I enjoyed the discussion over the past couple pages regarding rape/sexual assault allegations. The whole subject is broadly fascinating to me and there are so many things that directly and indirectly influence people's perceptions of the process. Having spent the past two years in my own corner of the massive media attention on the military's sexual assault "problem", I have a ton of thoughts on it that someday I want to organize into some academic work. Defleshed fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Nov 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:ouch. Judges seem to give criminal cases a higher priority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Monday myself and my mentor have a mediation. There are 7 parties. It begins at 9 AM. At around 10:30 PM we go a little crazy and the mediator is not present. So we break into his snack closet and start eating his snacks and cackling hysterically because they're so loving stale. He walks in and overhears us cracking up and talking poo poo about his stale rear end snacks. I went to a mediation seminar recently and all of the mediators seemed much happier than the lawyers in the audience... now I know why. I've been thinking about getting accredited over the summer as a plan b incase I don't end up getting a scholarship for my bar equivalent year. Speaking of is it better to have a lame rear end reference from a law tutor or a possibly lame rear end one from a non-law employer? My undergrad (non-law) tutor and a biglaw acquaintance have agreed to give me references too, and I know they'll be really good. The law tutor agreed before I applied and has now changed their mind now I've submitted it. None of my results for the year will be released before the absolute deadline for references, so they say they won't have anything to write about. I spoke to the people doing the scholarships and they'll let me change a reference, but I'm just worried it'll look really bad and be enough to sink me, along with my 'colourful educational past' (mature student).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Lawyers, folks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...42a2_story.htmlquote:But the prosecutor said that this was no ordinary burglary — it was something more sordid: revenge. And that the alleged perpetrators were a pair of lawyers, one of whom was angry over her recent dismissal from Fisher’s Arlington County firm, Bean, Kinney & Korman. Go to Valpo, get life in prison for torture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Tetrix posted:Lawyers, folks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...42a2_story.html The diaper is the best part. Cause why not?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: husband/wife attorneys = bad news.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I've said it before, and I'll say it again: husband/wife attorneys = bad news. Every pair I've met are loving terrible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Every pair I've met are loving terrible. I think it is civil lawyers who are the problem. I tell all my friends not to date lawyers though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
nm posted:I disagree to an extent, but every successful lawyer couple I know involves at least one defense attorney (including the fabled DA-PD marriage). One of my co-workers is married to a defense attorney. They're ok. Actually, I only know her by her (good) reputation, but he's freaking awesome.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Daniels and Pearlman, hell yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:One of my co-workers is married to a defense attorney. They're ok. Actually, I only know her by her (good) reputation, but he's freaking awesome. I do believe it is a requirement though that married lawyers not work in the same office. Any married couple attorneys who are partners are insufferable. They weren't friends but the prenda law couple went to my law school and they were terrible even then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
nm posted:I do believe it is a requirement though that married lawyers not work in the same office. Any married couple attorneys who are partners are insufferable. There's a married couple in my office both of whom are great, but they work in totally different practice groups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm married to a prosecutor but there's no way in hell we'd work in the same office. It might still end horribly, but so far so good?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
The husband and wife team i was up against had no idea of the rule of civil procedure. Unfortunately, neither did I. So when the other half of the pair started questioning the witness the first had already questioned, the only name for the objection was what they taught me in law school: "Objection, judge. One horse, one rider." Thank god this was Texas and the judge busted up laughing and knew what I meant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
We just say one lawyer per witness...but I like your version better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:"Objection, judge. One horse, one rider." Oh man, I am totally using this next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2014 17:09
|
|
|
What do you folks think is the ideal way to handle ex parte letters to the judge? I'm not talking "inmate in the jail wanting to get out on funeral leave" letters. More like your classic family law "I have TERRIBLE SECRETS to tell you about the in-laws. Please don't tell them I told!" scenario. I see a two major approaches: 1) Return with cover letter. Judge cannot read etc. 2) Provide to parties and file it. Anything else? Best practices? I'm always looking for ways to make things easier, which is why I'm thinking about this stuff at midnight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:What do you folks think is the ideal way to handle ex parte letters to the judge? I'm not talking "inmate in the jail wanting to get out on funeral leave" letters. More like your classic family law "I have TERRIBLE SECRETS to tell you about the in-laws. Please don't tell them I told!" scenario. In criminal law if they get a letter from a client they return it to the party's attorney. Otherwise, they provide a copy to both parties.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
So much for the repeat (gently caress you Mike Evans).
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
nm posted:In criminal law if they get a letter from a client they return it to the party's attorney. Otherwise, they provide a copy to both parties. We have a specific ex-parte rule. If the judge looks at the motion for ex-parte consideration and underlying motion and decides that the underlying motion should not be ex-parte, then the judge must give us the option of dissemination or withdrawal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 09:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There's a married couple in my office both of whom are great, but they work in totally different practice groups. Think of the children of such unions though. [cut and paste every early 20th century quote about interracial marriage] But seriously they may become lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:
It's true  Just read quite possibly the snottiest reply brief ever. To the point where I'm tempted to just go to argument and pull the "the state rests on its brief" card.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Someone in the league please trade me an RB or TE for some of my five retarded stacked WRs, only three of them can carry me to undeserved victories at a time and having 40+ points on my bench is wasteful (I'll do an uneven one-for-one since I know WRs are more common but no two-for-ones unless its like Gronk or some poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:What do you folks think is the ideal way to handle ex parte letters to the judge? I'm not talking "inmate in the jail wanting to get out on funeral leave" letters. More like your classic family law "I have TERRIBLE SECRETS to tell you about the in-laws. Please don't tell them I told!" scenario. I think you gotta tell the Judge about it and let him decide. As a member of your Judge's Court, its not your job to keep secrets from him on behalf of crazy people, and you can't un-read it. Why should it be your responsibility to help ignorant people navigate legal practice? Personally, if I was opposing Counsel, I would want to know the other side was trying to communicate ex parte, so my heart says "loving file it and make their violation public record."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Someone in the league please trade me an RB or TE for some of my five retarded stacked WRs, only three of them can carry me to undeserved victories at a time and having 40+ points on my bench is wasteful Which team are you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:18
|
|
|
"Even respondent implicitly concedes that [Attorney X's] advice was wrong. Resp. Br. at 27-28. Astoundingly - after 27 pages of denying the plain fact that [Attorney X's] generic advice is legally incorrect - Respondent attempts to address his avoidance of the issue: "because the petitioner was fully aware that the court intended to impose a sentence of twenty-five years to serve, counsel's advice regarding parole eligibility, even if erroneous, amounts to nothing more than an estimate or prediction as to the actual time the petitioner might serve." Resp. Br. at 28. In doing so, Respondent finally admits the undeniable. How respondent could deny this for the preceding 27 pages, only to finally admit it, is perplexing, but based on this admission, petitioner submits that there is no contested issue between the parties." Has this guy seriously never heard of assumption in arguendo?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Which team are you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:"Even respondent implicitly concedes that [Attorney X's] advice was wrong. Resp. Br. at 27-28. Astoundingly - after 27 pages of denying the plain fact that [Attorney X's] generic advice is legally incorrect - Respondent attempts to address his avoidance of the issue: "because the petitioner was fully aware that the court intended to impose a sentence of twenty-five years to serve, counsel's advice regarding parole eligibility, even if erroneous, amounts to nothing more than an estimate or prediction as to the actual time the petitioner might serve." Resp. Br. at 28. In doing so, Respondent finally admits the undeniable. How respondent could deny this for the preceding 27 pages, only to finally admit it, is perplexing, but based on this admission, petitioner submits that there is no contested issue between the parties." I do that sometimes by accident, but usually catch it before it makes it out of my office. It looks like he did the thing where he thinks he's found a magic bullet in your brief: "crazy, ar admits that we should win!" In my experience it happens when I've skimmed something and started making assumptions. It's embarrassing as hell to do, especially if you run down to your partners office with a shiteating grin talking about how you solved the case, but missed the "assuming, arguendo...."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
the whole thing is really smarmy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2014 16:46
|
|