|
feels like I passed an important milestone, for the first time (that I can prove), a client straight up lied, or if we're being charitable, omit, really important details to me that completely fucks over his application for a different holiday parenting schedule.
Monaghan fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Mar 5, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Canada. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Wait. you're right. As I typed that last bit I recalled two of my co-workers reenacting the post red-ticket locker room scene in major league. "HEY gently caress YOU MAN! gently caress YOU!" In the courthouse. In front of the hordes of family docket litigants. Some people cannot, in fact, take jokes. Long wanger. Throbbing cock. Ugh!
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Those first few weeks at a new job where you don't know yet who can joke and who is a super serious lawyer are the worst.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Their cases are adjudicated by Santa's workshop?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Yeah, one thing about Canadian law is that we have much sillier court outfits. American lawyers don't even wear gowns?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Today is apparently "beat the poo poo out of lawyers who don't know what they're doing in federal court" day. Highlights include: (1) denying a motion to amend because counsel has no idea how preemption works. Plaintiff alleged that a preemption provision created a cause of action. They are going to lose on summary judgment because they were too lazy to bother to check the citing references for a few CFR provisions. (2) sanctioning counsel $5k for arguing that state pleading standards apply in federal court and dismissing the case with prejudice because counsel hosed up the statute of limitations. I would be amazed if she didn't get sued for legal malpractice. (3) two show cause orders because nobody correctly alleges diversity jurisdiction. (4) granting a motion to dismiss because plaintiff just used a form state court complaint and filed it in federal court. Sorry, two pages for a 1983 action isn't ever gonna survive a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff didn't even bother to change the heading. (5) sanctions hearing. Judge told counsel that back in his day, "lawyers were afraid to step foot in federal court because they respected the institution. Maybe you should be scared because I haven't seen any respect." Pretty great "oh poo poo" moment. I'm much more in favor of a British style system after clerking. Judges already do most of the work anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Why do you move to dismiss anyways? I tend to see them as "tell OC how to do their job" motions, and would rather wait to move for summary judgment on whatever elements they forgot they needed. If you can get dismissal with prejudice, or there's a purely legal reason they lose that more pleading can't fix, it's worth your time, but otherwise it seems like they'll just amend their complaint and you've wasted everyone's time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Why do you move to dismiss anyways? I tend to see them as "tell OC how to do their job" motions, and would rather wait to move for summary judgment on whatever elements they forgot they needed. If you can get dismissal with prejudice, or there's a purely legal reason they lose that more pleading can't fix, it's worth your time, but otherwise it seems like they'll just amend their complaint and you've wasted everyone's time. Yup you're exactly right. I guess it's so you can tell the client hell yeah I'm so awesome I got some claims dismissed because the plaintiff forgot to add two sentences about qualified immunity in the complaint. I'm such a good lawyer, retain me more often.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Those first few weeks at a new job where you don't know yet who can joke and who is a super serious lawyer are the worst. *Sung to the Tune of 'Jive Talkin' by the Bee Gees* Slyyyy froggin, Have elf sex with me. Slyyy froggin, Don't let the partners see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
I get such schadenfreude from watching good judges shred bad lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Why do you move to dismiss anyways? I tend to see them as "tell OC how to do their job" motions, and would rather wait to move for summary judgment on whatever elements they forgot they needed. If you can get dismissal with prejudice, or there's a purely legal reason they lose that more pleading can't fix, it's worth your time, but otherwise it seems like they'll just amend their complaint and you've wasted everyone's time. Cut away some of the chaff early if there are multiple causes of action. Make use of the SoL and such as well. Incur additional costs in time and money for the opposing party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:I get such schadenfreude from watching good judges shred bad lawyers. I should have invited you guys to watch me get my rear end in a top hat tenderized by the Sixth Circuit, it would have been a blast for you
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Why do you move to dismiss anyways? I tend to see them as "tell OC how to do their job" motions, and would rather wait to move for summary judgment on whatever elements they forgot they needed. If you can get dismissal with prejudice, or there's a purely legal reason they lose that more pleading can't fix, it's worth your time, but otherwise it seems like they'll just amend their complaint and you've wasted everyone's time. My practice is all commercial contract litigation; we only use them on obviously defective claims when we already have a grasp of the project history. It can help you limit the scope of discovery too. It's worth a shot sometimes because it can save a lot of money; once you move into discovery and summary judgment it gets expensive very quickly, so you wouldn't want to sit on a simple defense like statute of limitations, failure to follow dispute resolution provisions, or similar. Vox Nihili posted:Incur additional costs in time and money for the opposing party. This too. I've seen an m2d as a "put up or shut up" move against a plaintiff looking for nuisance money before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I should have invited you guys to watch me get my rear end in a top hat tenderized by the Sixth Circuit, it would have been a blast for you Well still, you got to go before a circuit court. That's pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want. Law school was the only place you could have found that out?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want.  eat poo poo, 99%er
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want. Who is it you think you'll be working for when you get out? e: Hint: It's the people who can pay you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want. As someone who is about to be ground into pulp by the gears of justice, I'll give you a piece of advice: The way you are personally affected by other peoples' lot in life, says nothing about the world and everything about you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want. Yeah but rich people actually pay their legal bills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
mulls posted:Law school was the only place you could have found that out? Absolutely not, but it's almost laughable how rigged the game is. I guess angry was a poor choice of words. Frustrated, but in a way that eschews any effort. I know there's no changing the system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Yeah but rich people actually pay their legal bills. Uhhhhhhhhhh tell that to the partners I have to remind every day to call Client X once again because they still haven't paid us for work dating back 6 months and we really mean it this time we will withdraw from the representation but oh wait no we can't this is an enormous company and a major player in X industry so we essentially have to take this poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
See that's not dealing with the rich. That's just corporate billing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Today I got to see a defense attorney copy and paste an already denied motion to dismiss under the new heading of a motion to suppress and then ask me for a continuance in our trial scheduled next week. She also spelled suppress wrong and showed up at the Sheriff's office to get copies of videos with discs full from videos from old cases. She's private counsel. Someone paid for this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Treemeister posted:Today I got to see a defense attorney copy and paste an already denied motion to dismiss under the new heading of a motion to suppress and then ask me for a continuance in our trial scheduled next week. She also spelled suppress wrong and showed up at the Sheriff's office to get copies of videos with discs full from videos from old cases. Private defense attorneys are almost all clowns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Frustrated, but in a way that eschews any effort. You've done it. You're thinking like a lawyer!!!! nm posted:Private defense attorneys are almost all clowns. Seriously.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
nm posted:Private defense attorneys are almost all clowns. Better Caul Saul is a documentary, and the events occur in realtime
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Better Caul Saul is a documentary, and the events occur in realtime So far Jimmy is ethical and competent compared to some of the poo poo I've seen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:See that's not dealing with the rich. That's just corporate billing. Wait who do you think the rich people are?
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Wait who do you think the rich people are? Legally distinct job-creating angels who are wholly separate people from these "corporations" who get up to trouble from time to time and must be punished with mild fees.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Frustrated, but in a way that eschews any effort. I know there's no changing the system. (but intelligent) Ainsley McTree posted:Legally distinct job-creating angels who are wholly separate people from these "corporations" who get up to trouble from time to time and must be punished with mild fees. Not fees, "innovation taxes."
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
nm posted:Private defense attorneys are almost all clowns. Trust me, I know. It just astounds me sometimes. When I used to work for the PD, I took pleasure in watching my former clients get worse deals after yelling at me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The more time I spend at law school the more I get angry that the rich control everything and are pretty much able to get away with anything they want. Please tell this to the judges I'm in front of every day who side with the little old ladies every freaking time. It's not like the sheriff is going to evict them while it's cold out (which is 6 out of the 12 months in the frozen midwest). ActusRhesus posted:It's going well, actually. I changed my character concept slightly after getting more info on the world we're playing in. What ruleset are you playing? I'll shoot you some ideas. Super modified 2.5 (aka 2e+ the combat&tactics/all those other late game splatbooks). I played a multiclassed rogue and hated him, so I'm hoping my friend's vigilante rogue actually works out. But since his idea is all about getting to knock people out, and the mechanics are objectively against him being able to do this (for really good reason) I'm not holding out much hope. Did your rogue survive in a way that wasn't simply 'run off and hide?'
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
Nerds.
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:
No way. I was a melee baller. Broke druid's concentration on his entanglement spell by chucking a knife at his head, the flew in the face if attacks of opportunity to go bail out other players. My rogue is a ball of stabby fury. Can't help you though. I don't know 2 at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:Nerds. Look, just because I wanted to know if an aoe could hit a fetus, it doesn't make me any more a nerd than anyone else posting to strangers on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Lmao yes in fact it does
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lmao yes in fact it does Weren't you the guy writing warszawa fanfic?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 22:04 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Look, just because I wanted to know if an aoe could hit a fetus, it doesn't make me any more a nerd than anyone else posting to strangers on the internet. Well? Can it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2015 00:42
|
|