|
Link, my mom did that and actually had success
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Worked out GREAT for the internet, though!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:Whatever you do, don't interview literally every divorce attorney in town in an attempt to create so much privilege that your partner will be unable to find an attorney. That didn't work out well for a guy on reddit. Please link this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Isn't that a plot point from the sopranos
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
quote:A while back I asked for advice on a good divorce attorney in another sub [He asked in /r/exmormon/]. Someone said:
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Please link this. https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/222o70/need_a_good_divorce_attorney_salt_lake_area/ The guy who gives him the advice is long deleted, but you can see people replying to him saying "Oh god no that is bad do not do that" which led to this: http://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/2cpyke/im_in_some_deep_shit_in_a_divorce/ And that original post is deleted but edit: is above:
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The willingness and hope for future work may be a motivation but the number one and most significant motivation is to provide legal advice to individuals who likely can't get access to quality legal advice. Pro bono publico if you will. You're boned even by that standard- the motivation just has to be "significant" to trigger the rule, not the "most significant". Proof seems like the obstacle there. joat mon posted:So you are asking "how is leggal avize formed?" But you're asking for a friend! Yes yes, I'm such a groupthinker   Anyways, they appear to have "covered themselves" by handing a letter of introduction to the guard at the front of the compound with "ADVERTISING MATERIAL" written at the top. My post to the occupation thread was Discendo Vox posted:Dowd's been arrested. This is one of the earlier occupiers. The charges were unrelated to the occupation, a prior theft of a firearm.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
We had a lawyer from a big divorce firm give a talk at our law school and he told us if we were going to get a divorce, we should totes talk to every lawyer in town first. It's definitely bad advice, but divorce lawyers seem to like giving it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
My wife and I sat down and discussed how we would split our assets before even talking to a lawyer, and are now using the same lawyer. Because we're both well adjusted adults who aren't trying to cut off our own nose to spite our face. But apparently that's uncommon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
KillHour posted:My wife and I sat down and discussed how we would split our assets before even talking to a lawyer, and are now using the same lawyer. Because we're both well adjusted adults who aren't trying to cut off our own nose to spite our face. But apparently that's uncommon. If people were generally able to resolve their differences reasonably and amicably, I wouldn't have a job.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:If people were generally able to resolve their differences reasonably and amicably, I wouldn't have a job. Is $1,300 including court fees the cheapest divorce in history? I think it might be. Ignoring Henry VIII, I mean.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Is $1,300 including court fees the cheapest divorce in history? I think it might be. Some divorce lawyers prey on low-income areas, doing "agreed divorces" for like $150.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Some divorce lawyers prey on low-income areas, doing "agreed divorces" for like $150. Are those even legal? Or do they give them some fake "Congratulations, you're divorced!" certificate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
I jam through an uncontested divorce every week. $800 no kids, $1200 with kids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Including filling fees?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Are those even legal? Or do they give them some fake "Congratulations, you're divorced!" certificate? If done properly, yes. If you're charging $150, probably not. edit: The "if done properly" assumes compliance with the rules of disciplinary conduct regarding appropriate representation, and conflicts of interest. The problem is when the couple starts squabbling, the attorney can find himself representing two clients with disparate interests, and then he's in a conflict. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
KillHour posted:My wife and I sat down and discussed how we would split our assets before even talking to a lawyer, and are now using the same lawyer. Because we're both well adjusted adults who aren't trying to cut off our own nose to spite our face. But apparently that's uncommon. When I floated the idea that maybe kids weren't such a great idea considering my depression, he yelled at me for literally four hours. Four solid hours. I'm not comfortable speaking with him about any of this without support and representation. But I promise I'll take my drama back to EN now...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You're boned even by that standard- the motivation just has to be "significant" to trigger the rule, not the "most significant". Proof seems like the obstacle there. Proof certainly is the obstacle, along with what is "significant." I don't know what Oregon considers significant, and I will admit that generally when I've given people free legal services with the hopes of more work in the future, it's because they mentioned it to me first. But if you can answer "yes" when asked whether you would provide the pro bono services even if you know you will never get any business from it in the future, how can it possibly be a "significant" motivation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
finch in a pinch posted:When I floated the idea that maybe kids weren't such a great idea considering my depression, he yelled at me for literally four hours. Four solid hours. I'm not comfortable speaking with him about any of this without support and representation. You live in a no fault state, you don't have to prove that he's an rear end in a top hat or abusive or anything. You just have to say 'I don't want to be married anymore' and like Miss Manners says, 'No' is a complete sentence. The law is not for resolving relationship issues, it's for your financials unless you need a restraining order or something. You should perhaps stop cheating on him until you sort this out since the law people said that will count against you, and work with your therapist on your issues. And maybe we can ALL pledge to keep the EN where it belongs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
finch in a pinch posted:When I floated the idea that maybe kids weren't such a great idea considering my depression, he yelled at me for literally four hours. Four solid hours. I'm not comfortable speaking with him about any of this without support and representation. The next time you want to marry someone it's best to have the 'I don't want kids' conversation first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
My legal advice is to have kids with either the husband or the side guy, but play"guess who" regarding paternity. But I'm a bad lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Proof certainly is the obstacle, along with what is "significant." I don't know what Oregon considers significant, and I will admit that generally when I've given people free legal services with the hopes of more work in the future, it's because they mentioned it to me first. I dunno if it's a but for test or what- absent language I'd think the standard would be lower in normal legal interpretation, but hey, lawyers regulating lawyers. Remember, though, this is specifically in a context where initial contact was them driving up to the compound and handing the dude standing there illegally with a rifle their ADVERTISING MATERIAL. There's another part of the same rule that's apparently Oregon-specific that may come into play: quote:A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in-person, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if: Hot Dog Day #91 posted:My legal advice is to have kids with either the husband or the side guy, but play"guess who" regarding paternity. But I'm a bad lawyer. Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Including filling fees? Yup. But each of my contracts has a clause that says if you can't agree and I have to do something besides draw up papers, it's a contested divorce and my contract gets renegotiated. 90% are copy and paste work, no joke. And then I can usually up sell them on a will and mpoa. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Feb 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Don't forget the clear coat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:45
|
|
|
sullat posted:We had a lawyer from a big divorce firm give a talk at our law school and he told us if we were going to get a divorce, we should totes talk to every lawyer in town first. It's definitely bad advice, but divorce lawyers seem to like giving it. this actually happened on /r/legaladvice http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/this-is-what-happens-when-you-ask-reddit-for-legal-advi-1619404235 that's what happens when you follow that guy's advice
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
FordPRefectLL posted:this actually happened on /r/legaladvice I know this thread is 540 pages long and all but really you would have just needed to read like ten posts back to have already seen that posted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
Oops! SALR put me in a weird spot between iPad/PC and it made sense given the context. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Forgive my lack of civics education: A bill (resolution?) H.R.3016 was passed by the House but I think it's being voted on by committee. Does this mean it doesn't go in front of all Reps who showed up to work that day, just this very small group? If it was passed by this committee, who votes on it when it goes to the Senate?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Forgive my lack of civics education: If it passes out of committee, it goes to the House as a whole (who may or may not schedule it for a vote.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:If it passes out of committee, it goes to the House as a whole (who may or may not schedule it for a vote.) It says it passed House on the status, though. So does that mean it passed as a whole? Would it just die if the House as a whole didn't schedule it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:It says it passed House on the status, though. So does that mean it passed as a whole? Would it just die if the House as a whole didn't schedule it? Yes, it passed the house as a whole (check under Actions in the drop down box), and yes, if a bill isn't scheduled for a vote by the House as a whole (also called a floor vote) it dies at the end of the congressional session.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, it passed the house as a whole (check under Actions in the drop down box), and yes, if a bill isn't scheduled for a vote by the House as a whole (also called a floor vote) it dies at the end of the congressional session. Gotcha, thank you. Is there a simpler way than checking the Senate floor schedule to find out when this is up for a vote?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Gotcha, thank you. Is there a simpler way than checking the Senate floor schedule to find out when this is up for a vote? The "Get Alerts" button should help. You also need to find out if there's a Senate counterpart bill which might see Senate action instead of the House bill. And it might get referred to a Senate committee before going to the Senate floor (if it does go to the Senate floor), so you would want to check that as well. But get alerts should help.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
That fuckin Podiatrist lobby is outta control!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:That fuckin Podiatrist lobby is outta control! Now, my opponent might be willing to be bought by Big Foot, but I say that stinks! We gotta stomp out Big Foot and run towards the public!
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The "Get Alerts" button should help. Thank you Yeah I could care less about the podiatrists, they're really loving with education benefits and it fucks up my 5 year plan pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
quote:[SC]Can signing a receipt or purchase order in red pen really mean the customer doesn't have to pay? (self.legaladvice) ... whaaaaaaaat
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:... whaaaaaaaat This just in: dummies are dumb Also in the news: sovcits still preaching dumb poo poo to dummies
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Did you know that the ionic particles in silicone are what inhibit cunductionness of electric signals in computer chips? If you just dip the circuit in iodine (ionized water), the water will absorb the ions from the silicon particulate, and quadruple or more your processing speed! Manufacturers don't want you to know this, so they can manufacture the same chips, but sell them for different prices and just "dip" the ones they want to sell as faster chips. This is me doing the computer version of Sovereign Citizens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
EAT THE EGGS RICOLA posted:... whaaaaaaaat It used to be banks would scan cheques with scanners where red ink would show up poorly, so they asked you to always use blue or black ink. I highly doubt it matters now, or ever honestly. The fear was someone gives you a cheque, you give them the product, they skee-daddle, you go to the bank and the bank is all whoa this thing is missing a signature, gently caress you no money.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 21:22
|
|