|
moonsour posted:Also is a "confession of judgement" still something that happens? Yes. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22confession+of+judgment%22&hl=en&as_sdt=8000006&as_ylo=2010&as_yhi=
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:in some states your city may not even exist Your city contains substances known to the state of California to cause cancer
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Is there ever a case where a client would be well-advised to lie to their lawyer, assuming the lawyer follows all applicable laws and bar association rules?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Is there ever a case where a client would be well-advised to lie to their lawyer, assuming the lawyer follows all applicable laws and bar association rules? If you were planning to do more illegal stuff, especially as a part of your case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
Does anyone have any examples of subpoenaing records from email providers (particularly Google)? Court decisions I can read from are fine. I don't live or work in the US but we're looking at maybe eventually trying to get emails from the defendant's Gmail account on a civil liability case, and while obviously that will have to be handled by US lawyers, I'd like to read up a bit on what it would take or even if it would be possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
baquerd posted:Is there ever a case where a client would be well-advised to lie to their lawyer, assuming the lawyer follows all applicable laws and bar association rules? One of the "fun" ethics questions for attorneys is when a criminal defendant tells their lawyer they want to take the stand and lie in their own defense. On the one hand, a lawyer is ethically required to offer their client up as a witness if their client desires. On the other hand, a lawyer is ethically prohibited from presenting evidence or testimony he knows to be false. (suborning perjury.) He can't refuse to offer his client, and he can't tell the Court, "my client is about to lie so don't get mad at me." because that would be a breach of the attorney-client privilege.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Does anyone have any examples of subpoenaing records from email providers (particularly Google)? Court decisions I can read from are fine. You just send the subpoena.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You just send the subpoena. I guess I had the idea that Google would fight it as a general rule on grounds of confidentiality, privacy, and just to not generate a precedent of acquiescing to government requests. That happens down here, but then again judicial decisions can/must be appealed to a superior court before they're enforceable which I guess doesn't happen in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
Google/Facebook/etc will usually comply with a subpoena. They might fight it in this case, if you're subpoenaing them for something that the other party in the suit could provide, in which case you should subpoena them, and have them get it. Facebook at least has done so in the past, I forget the outcome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:One of the "fun" ethics questions for attorneys is when a criminal defendant tells their lawyer they want to take the stand and lie in their own defense. On the one hand, a lawyer is ethically required to offer their client up as a witness if their client desires. On the other hand, a lawyer is ethically prohibited from presenting evidence or testimony he knows to be false. (suborning perjury.) The "solution" to this that they offer, to have your client testify in the narrative form, basically telegraphs that it's all BS
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:The "solution" to this that they offer, to have your client testify in the narrative form, basically telegraphs that it's all BS I think it varies from state to state, irritatingly, but yeah there is a standard form for this. "Is there anything else you'd like to tell the jury" or something similar, because you can't be a part of eliciting the testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
And of course that 'solution' is fraught with issues as well, because in addition to basically telling the judge and prosecutor ,"my client is about to lie his rear end off." when you ask them, "is there anything else you want to say?" you already know what they're about to say, so you know you're eliciting false testimony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Google/Facebook/etc will usually comply with a subpoena. They might fight it in this case, if you're subpoenaing them for something that the other party in the suit could provide, in which case you should subpoena them, and have them get it. Facebook at least has done so in the past, I forget the outcome. Facebook at least takes the blanket position that they will not comply with civil subpoenas based on the Stored Communications Act. https://m.facebook.com/help/133221086752707?helpref=uf_permalink I think they're full of poo poo but in my experience they fight the subpoena and I've never had a case where the return justified the litigation Facebook is fine paying for, i.e. traveling to California to litigate a motion to quash etc. Truthfully I think Facebook doesn't want to become public the extent of information they keep on their members. So they have this "download your account" thing which only provides the basic information and which is probably all that anyone in litigation really wants anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Neither party resides or operates in the US, and I can't force the other party to present the emails, it's just not a thing here. The way this is gonna go is that we're going to introduce our emails as evidence, and the other party will likely claim they are fake, and it's gonna be on me to prove that they are real. There's different ways to do this but in an ideal world I could just ask Google to verify they are actually real. so the judge is gonna issue an "international subpoena" which basically will enable me to go to a US lawyer in california and have them ask a local judge to subpoena google this ofc extremely time consuming and expensive, which is why I'm trying to get a feel on whether there's an actual chance Google will actually answer Edit: yeah, basically I want to avoid the scenario Phil Moscowitz is describing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:21
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Facebook at least takes the blanket position that they will not comply with civil subpoenas based on the Stored Communications Act. Sorry, yes, I was mixing it up with warrants. What's missing from DYI? I know the people who maintain the tool, I'd be interested in letting them know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:One of the "fun" ethics questions for attorneys is when a criminal defendant tells their lawyer they want to take the stand and lie in their own defense. On the one hand, a lawyer is ethically required to offer their client up as a witness if their client desires. On the other hand, a lawyer is ethically prohibited from presenting evidence or testimony he knows to be false. (suborning perjury.) How can anyone really know whether a person is going to tell what they subjectively know to be the truth, other than them telling you (and you knowing that that is the truth) that they're going to lie?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
joat mon posted:How can anyone really know whether a person is going to tell what they subjectively know to be the truth, other than them telling you (and you knowing that that is the truth) that they're going to lie? Yeah, this is explicitly the case where the defendant says so, if I'm reading blarzgh's post correctly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Right, but if the client informs you they're going to lie, they are thus establishing themselves as a liar, so how can you really be sure that they're not lying about their intent to lie, HMMMMMM?????
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
BUT WHAT IF ****FAARRRRTTTT*****
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
All I know is that I'd be asking for payment up front
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 18:51
|
|
|
Is that not a noisy withdrawal scenario?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is that not a noisy withdrawal scenario? You can't disclose why you're withdrawing and might not be permitted to withdraw if the judge is being obtuse that day, and that might also be an ethical violation to withdraw when your client cannot secure effective replacement representation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Is that not a noisy withdrawal scenario? This almost always only happens with PDs. We don't get to withdraw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
This "profession" is garbage
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:You can't disclose why you're withdrawing and might not be permitted to withdraw if the judge is being obtuse that day, and that might also be an ethical violation to withdraw when your client cannot secure effective replacement representation. Sure, I'm familiar with the exceptions and drawbacks, but it seems like it's what the procedure is made for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I think it varies from state to state, irritatingly, but yeah there is a standard form for this. "Is there anything else you'd like to tell the jury" or something similar, because you can't be a part of eliciting the testimony. In some states (Texas) the attorney is obligated to narc on his client. Comment on Rule 3.03 - Candor Towards the Tribunal posted:11. Three resolutions of this dilemma have been proposed. One is to permit the accused to testify by a
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:In some states (Texas) the attorney is obligated to narc on his client. Any decisions that have upheld such an interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Those are just the comments to the rule; we don't have to rat out our clients. Edit: quite frankly, its all mental masturbation. You never hear about attorneys getting in trouble for it, and in practice it never seems to come up. No attorney would ever admit that he knew his client was going to lie on the stand, and no other attorney would ever investigate whether the defense attorney knew his client was going to lie on the stand, and 99% of clients either a) tell the same lie to their attorneys as they're going to tell on the stand, or b) are too dumb/smart to ignore the advice of counsel and lie anyways. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Those are just the comments to the rule; we don't have to rat out our clients. How could you make that investigation when the evidence would all be privileged? Oh wait it's when the client gets caught lying and is found guilty and then appeals on the basis that his lawyer was incompetent because he said he was going to lie and wasn't stopped. e: cardinal rule drilled into me at law school: you can't narc on your client, but have a rock solid audit trail from start to finish because they will throw you in front of a bus in a heartbeat if they sense it'll save their skin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:How could you make that investigation when the evidence would all be privileged? "Ineffective assistance of counsel can certainly manifest itself a number of ways; here, the Defendant should have been advised by his attorney not to lie about shooting the deceased. Had his attorney told him to simply tell the truth on the stand about killing the man, since the defendant demanded to testify, the the outcome at trial might have been different."
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"Ineffective assistance of counsel can certainly manifest itself a number of ways; here, the Defendant should have been advised by his attorney not to lie about shooting the deceased. Had his attorney told him to simply tell the truth on the stand about killing the man, since the defendant demanded to testify, the the outcome at trial might have been different." Outcome of sentence might certainly be different. e: by which I mean the argument is 'had I had adequate advice then I would have pleaded guilty and received the benefit of a discounted sentence' and then you have hope to hell your notes are in order showing that he told you he committed the offence, that you advised him to plead guilty, and that subsequently you successfully navigated the ethical quagmire of not deceiving the court. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"Ineffective assistance of counsel can certainly manifest itself a number of ways; here, the Defendant should have been advised by his attorney not to lie about shooting the deceased. Had his attorney told him to simply tell the truth on the stand about killing the man, since the defendant demanded to testify, the the outcome at trial might have been different." I would be less concerned with the defendant winning his IAC claim and more with an idiot defendant thinking that testifying how he definitely told his lawyer he planned to lie would help with his IAC claim, starting an ethics inquiry independent of the IAC claim.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
So my girlfriend's new apartment in Pennsylvania came with an unpaid electric bill. Utility company has not turned the power on yet because of the balance and won't make it out there for another 4 days, it's been 3 already. What are her options?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Wait until tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Wait until tomorrow I think he means 7 days total.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
If party B signs a contract with party A, and then breaks it, but sends an email to party A saying "hey i broke the contract" is there a time that party A has to act? Is there something like acquiescence that can happen here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:If party B signs a contract with party A, and then breaks it, but sends an email to party A saying "hey i broke the contract" is there a time that party A has to act? Is there something like acquiescence that can happen here? Time: 4 years to sue (statute of limitations in most jurisdictions) Action: Acceptance of the breach by some confirming act can be a waiver in certain cases. Simple inaction, without more, probably wouldn't be a novation, or confirmation or waiver of the breach, but honestly it depends alot on the facts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
did she talk to the landlord?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:did she talk to the landlord? Yeah, but strangely enough me harassing customer service via Facebook chat seems to have taken care of the problem. It'll be turned on by 8AM tomorrow
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
First thread success story of 2017 only two weeks in, after what feels like a completely dry run in all of 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2017 21:54
|
|