|
They just need to sue the government for promissary estoppel.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:They just need to sue the government for promissary estoppel. where's the detriment though. most of the government jobs, at least for lawyers, are far better than anything else except biglaw (heck, which is questionable due to the stress).
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:where's the detriment though. most of the government jobs, at least for lawyers, are far better than anything else except biglaw (heck, which is questionable due to the stress). They went to law school didn't they?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
I will pay off my loans in 2022. Also about the time my kids (hopefully) will be in public school. Instant $40,000 annual household raise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
I normally just delete those lawyer news blast emails, but today I finally broke the seal and clicked on one: http://www.jdjournal.com/2017/03/31/power-rangers-star-sentenced-to-six-years-in-prison-for-murdering-roommate/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
I take my first vacation in three years and I get the loving flu coming home. And I got a flu shot too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I take my first vacation in three years and I get the loving flu coming home. And I got a flu shot too. Sounds like you had a pretty sick time, bro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:lmao a third of a million dollars in debt. these people do it to themselves I'm fairly newly minted and I'm in the hole for about 50 000$. For comparison, that's about equivalent to a tenth of the value of an average house. Luckily they are socialism'd loans and are legally required to be just incredibly cheap. Almost no interest. The system works!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Sounds like you had a pretty sick time, bro. Boo this man! Boooo!
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
SOVEREIGN CITIZEN FURRY ALERT (from the AUG thread) http://dogpatch.press/2017/04/10/rocky-mountain-fur-con-threat/
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Boo this man! Boooo! Listen, I'm humoristically challenged, okay. It's a legitimate disability. I'm a freeposter of the land.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:It's not really answerable by us. Whether 1 is a good idea or not entirely hinges on who you'd be working for / with, whether he's going to be crazy or abusive or just garden variety neglectful. I don't know many people who articled for solos and had it be a good time, but if he's a good lawyer and good guy and you get along and will get good work delegated to you in an appropriate way it could be OK. It's like asking us if you want to partner up with someone, the question is necessarily going to be "well, who's the partner"? Thank you. Point very much taken and I'll have to think about it over the next few weeks. Thankfully there's no pressure to decide until after my exams
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Sounds like you had a pretty sick time, bro. I did! I saw Waitress, Hamilton, and Natasha, Pierre, and the Great comet. Now I'm working from home while running a fever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
The Saga of Ashton O'Dwyer -OR- How Not to Avoid Disbarment and Financial Ruin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fHjmubiWw4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt1lgUNKBMQ http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/11/new_orleans_lawyer_suspended_f.html http://abovethelaw.com/2009/06/how-to-curse-out-a-judge-in-new-orleans/ http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2009/09/disbarred_lawyer_appeals_judgm.html http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/01/new_orleans_lawyer_arrested_fb.html http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/16B1848.OPN.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:SOVEREIGN CITIZEN FURRY ALERT Hahahahaha. Oh man. This is hilarious. And awful. I can only hope the thumbprint is in blood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The Saga of Ashton O'Dwyer I see he drug out the final Louisiana disbarment for almost 9 years though - initial complaint filed in November 2008, final disbarment in March 2017.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:SOVEREIGN CITIZEN FURRY ALERT God drat. A furry newsletter does a better job describing sovereign citizens and their effect on other private parties than most national press.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:and those doctors with 300k+ of debt are absolutely the ones who are going to get the program canceled or curtailed into uselessness like Obama proposed Don't hate the player  170 but still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
WaveLength posted:Thank you. Point very much taken and I'll have to think about it over the next few weeks. Thankfully there's no pressure to decide until after my exams I've heard Montreal is politicky as gently caress and you could eat a lot of poo poo if you're not a true francophone, plus a host of other personality issues. We actually had someone for partial articles because they couldn't deal with their insane principal out there. Toronto is pretty sweet and that seems like a waaaay safer option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I take my first vacation in three years and I get the loving flu coming home. And I got a flu shot too. WTF do you do that you've had no time off in three years? My firm lets us free a few times a year.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:WTF do you do that you've had no time off in three years? My firm lets us free a few times a year. I have a toddler, so I haven't taken a vacation (without the child) since he was born 3 years ago. I don't consider traveling with my kid for weddings or to family to be vacations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Your job is a vacation. From poverty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:Your job is a vacation. From poverty. You live in Hawaii, motherfucker.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I have a toddler, so I haven't taken a vacation (without the child) since he was born 3 years ago. The difference between "vacations" and "trips" is very real.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:I've heard Montreal is politicky as gently caress and you could eat a lot of poo poo if you're not a true francophone, plus a host of other personality issues. We actually had someone for partial articles because they couldn't deal with their insane principal out there. This seems to be the consensus of other people I've talked to as well. I just got within a hair's breath of those sweet biglaw golden cuffs and it's hard to let go of the dream, so the solo's biglaw connex were enticing
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Nothing beats the old "My client's bad, your honour, but not statutorily really bad"
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The difference between "vacations" and "trips" is very real. For awhile, I considered weekends that weren't spent billing vacations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Any Texas lawyers have experience with underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage, can I ask you a quick question via PM?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Any Texas lawyers have experience with underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage, can I ask you a quick question via PM? Both Rog and I can help you, holler at us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
It's a pretty simple question - how does Texas law treat underlying limits when determining exposure of the UM carrier? The statute says: quote:Underinsured motorist coverage must provide for payment to the insured of all amounts that the insured is legally entitled to recover as damages from owners or operators of underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury or property damage, not to exceed the limit specified in the insurance policy, and reduced by the amount recovered or recoverable from the insurer of the underinsured motor vehicle. There are a couple ways to interpret this and the cases are inconsistent, probably because the language has changed slightly. I haven't done a ton of research and was hoping someone knows the answer as it's a common question (I know the answer in LA, MS, MO, and CA but every state seems to have a little variation on it). Example A - tortfeasor has $50,000, but plaintiff settles for $40,000. UM limit is $100,000. Damages are $100,000. UM is entitled to a setoff of the full $50,000 "recoverable" regardless of the amount of the settlement, meaning UM exposure is $50,000. If damages were $200,000, UM would be on the hook for the $100,000 limit, since even with the $50,000 credit the exposure exceeds the $100k. Example B - same policy limits. Plaintiff settles for $40,000. Plaintiff did not "exhaust" the underlying limits, so the tortfeasor driver is not "underinsured" and UM exposure is $0. Example C - same limits. Because there is $50,000 in underlying coverage, the $100,000 UM limit is reduced by that coverage, meaning UM maximum exposure is $50,000 (even if damages are $200,000). Example D - same limits. Plaintiff settles for $40,000. Because only $40,000 is recovered, UM gets a credit for only that amount (not the entire $50,000 he could have recovered). Seems Texas is either A or D, but the statute could allow either and arguably could also allow C.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish, here is a choice of law question in real time! I am trying to figure out whether to argue for Louisiana or Texas law to apply to this insurance contract.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Nice piece of fish, here is a choice of law question in real time! I am trying to figure out whether to argue for Louisiana or Texas law to apply to this insurance contract. I'm reading and also interested. If it's not too much trouble, I'd love a quick summary on the relevant Louisiana statute as well, just for comparison. For funsies I'm going to compare it to "my" insurance law, so I might comment if I can understand the issue properly and make a comparison that makes any kind of sense. Because I am a nerd.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Except for 3 months right out of law school, I've never worked for someone as a lawyer. Working now as a 6th chair on a products liability case. Working for people sucks balls, how do you guys do this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm reading and also interested. If it's not too much trouble, I'd love a quick summary on the relevant Louisiana statute as well, just for comparison. For funsies I'm going to compare it to "my" insurance law, so I might comment if I can understand the issue properly and make a comparison that makes any kind of sense. The Louisiana statute doesn't have language like this. It simply says that automobile policies must provide coverage quote:for the protection of persons insured thereunder who are legally entitled to recover nonpunitive damages from owners or operators of uninsured or underinsured motor vehicles because of bodily injury, sickness, or disease, including death resulting therefrom[...] This has been interpreted by Louisiana courts to mean that a UM carrier is obligated to the extent that the damages exceed the underlying coverage available. Example A, in my previous post. Insurers have tailored their contract language accordingly. So, if A is the law in Texas, I'm not going to plead that Texas law applies and probably neither will anyone else because plaintiff lawyers are lazy and don't pay attention. If it's D, then I am definitely not pleading Texas law. But if it's either B or C, then I have to consider it. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Apr 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:plaintiff lawyers are lazy and don't pay attention. says the guy asking plaintiff lawyers for texas law pointers lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Another step further on the student loan death march, still many more to come: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-11/devos-undoes-obama-student-loan-protections https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/student-loan-servicer-recompete.pdf
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Except for 3 months right out of law school, I've never worked for someone as a lawyer. Working now as a 6th chair on a products liability case. Is the government people? if so: Lots and lots of paid vacations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 06:46
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:The Louisiana statute doesn't have language like this. It simply says that automobile policies must provide coverage Pretty interesting. I was scratching my head trying to figure out why I couldn't off the top of my head think of a comparison to our insurance law, so I looked up the statutes and almost smacked myself in the face. Of course I've never heard of this issue, we don't have it. Our solution follows from a special car liability law, wherein any car on the road is legally required to have insurance. The insurance limit of such policy may never be lower than: - bodily injury etc.: Unlimited. - material damages: limited to around 1,5 million USD If the car in question doesn't have insurance, it is still insured and the cost is spread among all licensed insurers. Only in cases of DUI may the company (companies) claim regressus, or recover cost from the culpable party. Where this gets interesting, however, is when your field comes in. If it's a domestic accident with domestic parties, the law applies regardless. If the culpable party is foreign, with or without insurance, the law applies to the benefit of the damaged party - even when the accident happens anywhere in the EU/EEA area. If, however, a foreign citizen has an accident caused by a domestic citizen the case is tried in the foreign country, but with liability according to the domestic insurance terms. In cases of domestic accidents with foreign (insured or uninsured) parties, it looks like the case should be tried in the country of origin of the tortfeasor with their insurance law and insurance terms, however there are exceptions (because there are always exceptions) - because of an approval requirement for foreign insurance coverage. Not gonna get into that. This is apparently "cross border" insurance law, and not something 99% of us ever touch, because it's never an issue. Almost always, the law applies and gives about as good a coverage as you could reasonably need. We have similar problems to what you're talking about in contract law, but that's not really subject to statutory regulation in the same way. Let me know what the correct answer turns out being, it's pretty interesting stuff. nm posted:Is the government people? I'm not even sure it's human.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Except for 3 months right out of law school, I've never worked for someone as a lawyer. Working now as a 6th chair on a products liability case. You have to use a flared base, and work the sphincter muscles loose slowly and gradually.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Pretty interesting. I was scratching my head trying to figure out why I couldn't off the top of my head think of a comparison to our insurance law, so I looked up the statutes and almost smacked myself in the face. Of course I've never heard of this issue, we don't have it. How barbaric! Sounds like socialism. How much do these unlimited liability policies cost? Here in the US we also have mandatory liability insurance. Each state mandates that people have liability insurance in a particular amount (varies by state, for example in Louisiana it's $15,000 per person, but in Florida it's $10,000 and Alaska it's $50,000). Of course that doesn't really pay for much when you are hospitalized with a broken anything, much less have major injuries like brain or spine which are very common biomechanical results from auto accidents. Also there are countless yokels driving around without any insurance at all. Only a crime if you get caught! So the solution has been to require insurance companies to provide "underinsured motorist coverage" to bridge the gap between a tortfeasor's limit and your actual injuries. Most states require this coverage to be at a minimum the amount of liability coverage on the policy. Of course, the insurance company allows you to waive this coverage and pay a lower premium, if you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2017 15:53
|
|