|
Alexeythegreat posted:Wait, is this a choice of law or a forum selection question? Kind of both, actually, because in this specific case, jurisdiction will determine choice of law. Well, should. This is the most iffy part, but there's case law on this that mostly supports my interpretation. It's kind of complicated.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Flutieflakes017 posted:Well, I'm sure this is going to lead to me getting lit up by half the regular posters on the thread who have done actual lawyering, but here we go: Interesting. Yeah this would be hella disallowed, but we have a type of associate attourneyship that sort of serves the same function, degree is the only beginning requirement.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:https://www.yahoo.com/news/four-top-law-firms-turned-requests-represent-trump-122423972.html Won't listen, won't pay.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
Not to mention incompetent (as if there was any doubt). Who in their right mind would pay Paul Clement to work on a federal criminal investigation, he's an appellate litigator? Fish, does it matter that this is a consumer contract? If I remember, you crazy socialists are all about protecting consumers in weird ways in all these jurisdictional treaties.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
I mean Clement and K&E have the experience, organizational skills and the logistical support for a complex investigation. It's criminal in a sense, yes, but far more complex than your run of the mill criminal proceeding. White collar defense at this level is a different animal. Still amazing and hilarious that everyone said "uh, no thanks" lol
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Won't listen, won't pay. Yup. He'll demand all your time, ignore everything you say, tarnish your reputation and then sue you when you try to collect. You'd have to be desperate to take him as a client.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
If you're only hiring a single attorney, probably not Clement. But if you're building a defense team for a complex defense with potentially unprecedented factual and legal issues, you definitely want an appellate guy/gal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Fish, does it matter that this is a consumer contract? If I remember, you crazy socialists are all about protecting consumers in weird ways in all these jurisdictional treaties. It does, it's actually the central fact. Good on you for taking that darned socialisms into consideration! You've pretty much solved it, there, because that determines both jurisdiction and choice of law. E: I'll post about it tomorrow, need sleep. The answer may be shocking (it won't be shocking) and intrigue you (won't even be interesting). Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jun 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If you're only hiring a single attorney, probably not Clement. But if you're building a defense team for a complex defense with potentially unprecedented factual and legal issues, you definitely want an appellate guy/gal. Plus, Clement's not just any appellate guy. He's the former solicitor general who has argued more Supreme Court cases than anyone else around. If there's any chance you're going to wind up in front of the Supreme Court (a definite possibility in given the Constitutional ramifications of the case) then Clement's your guy. Of course, when you have a reputation of stiffing the people you hire and not listening to anyone but the demons in your head, you end up having to use your old divorce lawyer to defend yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
GamingHyena posted:Plus, Clement's not just any appellate guy. He's the former solicitor general who has argued more Supreme Court cases than anyone else around. If there's any chance you're going to wind up in front of the Supreme Court (a definite possibility in given the Constitutional ramifications of the case) then Clement's your guy. What's your email gh?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:What's your email gh? GamingHyena fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Got it, sent
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:E: I'll post about it tomorrow, need sleep. The answer may be shocking (it won't be shocking) and intrigue you (won't even be interesting). Nice piece of fish posted:Consumer bought a house kit (effectively a factory makes a house, ships it and builds it on your plot) through a domestic national agency. Producer is in Finland. The plot of land is domestic, and the deal's been negotiated purely through the domestic agency, which also handles contractor stuff associated with the build. However, the contract for delivery of the house kit is with the finnish company directly, and finnish law allows for - and this is a part of the agreement - that any disputes between the contracting parties must be handled in Finland according to finnish contract law. Alright, so here's the thing (just, you know, the quick and dirty version). The Lugano convention applies, but the Brussels Regime does not, due to reasons of interlegal conflict between national and international law. Only the Lugano convention has been ratified and incorporated in my country. At the outset, it's an art. 5 issue. Lugano convention art. 5 posted:Article 5 However, as ulmont pointed out, art 23 gives preeminence to choice of jurisdiction, which has been entered into written contract per the legal requirement. At the same time, this is a consumer issue, as JohnCompany pointed out. Therefore, art. 17 comes into play: Lugano convention art. 17 posted:The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement: Art 17 points to art. 16, which is basically the same as art 5. The agreement does nothing, as this is a special socialist snowflake consumer question. It's a bit more complicated than just that, but this is a sure thing for a few other reasons as well. Then, of course, there's the obvious choice of law question. Even if the agreement of finnish jurdisdiction can't stand, surely finnish contract law will still apply. No. Firstly, all of the above already follows from the code of civil procedure, which is presumed to be in harmony with international treaties and such, but in case of conflict is given preeminence. Special snowflake, remember? The Supreme court has had a number of cases where this has been tried, and it is not in question. The court decides which law to apply, and through the Lugano convention, the parties must abide by this. So why wouldn't the court choose finnish law? Well firstly, the court is already bound to applying domestic law per the legal court administration law. Secondly, it's a consumer issue. This means that the consumer protection act applies to this contract, not regular contract law, and the consumer protection act disallows any agreement where the law does not apply and in fact disallows any and all exceptions from the law, legal or otherwise. But isn't there a bunch of EU/EEA and contract treaty law that applies to... Yes, but preeminence. If there's any other source of law to be considered here, domestic law wins any conflict. Well, that's bullshit right? Choice of law in this case is specifically regulated through Rome I (Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations). It is. However, when it comes to peremptory law (such as the consumer protection act), lex fori applies. This is reflected in Rome I in art. 9: Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations posted:Overriding mandatory provisions As you can see from 1, there's also a question of Ordre Public, which in this case is secondary but definitely may apply. This last part is the most shaky part, I feel, but I'm pretty certain. So that's pretty much it. In most other cases, art. 23 would apply and this would be finnish law in Finland. But it's a consumer issue, and that means everything changes to as far as possible benefit the consumer. The consumer protection act will apply, which in real terms means that finnish law won't matter at all for the issue, which is fantastic for the client because the consumer protection act is a huge help for any contract issue. I can drat near guarantee that the finnish company isn't in compliance. In other words, some contract monkey in Finland hosed up. Which is why you go to lawyers for your contracts. This is the moral of the story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:So why wouldn't the court choose finnish law? Well firstly, the court is already bound to applying domestic law per the legal court administration law. Secondly, it's a consumer issue. This means that the consumer protection act applies to this contract, not regular contract law, and the consumer protection act disallows any agreement where the law does not apply and in fact disallows any and all exceptions from the law, legal or otherwise. I'd hardly call relying on a law that says "this applies to every consumer contract and there's NO WAY, AND WE MEAN IT, to get around it" to establish a sufficiently compelling argument on ordre public (the old Vis mootie in me finds it really difficult to type anything but "contrary to the public policy") "shaky," myself, but you're the actual expert here and I'm just playing in your sandbox for fun.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:I'd hardly call relying on a law that says "this applies to every consumer contract and there's NO WAY, AND WE MEAN IT, to get around it" to establish a sufficiently compelling argument on ordre public (the old Vis mootie in me finds it really difficult to type anything but "contrary to the public policy") "shaky," myself, but you're the actual expert here and I'm just playing in your sandbox for fun. Yeah, you common law people like to use "public policy", don't you. I know it may seem like it, but this really opens up a question that hasn't been answered in court, legislation or even really in legal theory. At least as far as I can find. The closest thing to a ordre public examination of consumer contract law in the supreme court (which is really the only thing that matters for a question like this), stems from the twenties, predates every drat thing and is near worthless. Legal theory mostly examines cases of family law, criminal law or intersecting legal fields as well as municipal law etc. The question of ordre public arises incredibly rarely over here, because we have some very positivist ideas around choice of law and forum, and it's just very rarely argued and examined. Honestly, it's a question that should probably be (and maybe even is) examined at a university research level. As this particular question stands, I don't think I should confidently claim anything one way or the other, and I wouldn't rely on it for litigation to put a point on it. What the heck is a vismoothie? Also, I hate it when people call me an expert on anything because it makes me involuntarily go back and doublecheck everything. I just read a 60 page dissertation draft on ordre public just to confirm what I already knew. I need to become more arrogant.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Oh, Vis mootie, as in I did the Vis commercial arbitration moot for a number of years in law school, and one of the grounds for non-enforcement of an arbitral award under the New York Convention is that it would "be contrary to the public policy" of the recognizing country, and the equally authoritative French text of the same uses "ordre public," so I'm just being silly with my language. Did not mean to kick you back to your books at all, but thanks for the illuminating discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 19:06
|
|
|
I'm on vacation and just e-filed an opposition in federal court, sorry I am not reading that treatise but will instead drink a martini
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:Oh, Vis mootie, as in I did the Vis commercial arbitration moot for a number of years in law school, and one of the grounds for non-enforcement of an arbitral award under the New York Convention is that it would "be contrary to the public policy" of the recognizing country, and the equally authoritative French text of the same uses "ordre public," so I'm just being silly with my language. Oh, yeah, the UNICITRAL thing. We're party to that. Pretty cool. Don't worry about it, it's purely for my own satisfaction. Thanks for the interest, and I'm sorry (not sorry) for being such a nerd. Also, good call on consumer protection being a thing, diploma's in the mail. Phil Moscowitz posted:I'm on vacation and just e-filed an opposition in federal court, sorry I am not reading that treatise but will instead drink a martini You're a sensible fellow. I have an inexplicable toothache, so I'm going to try some drugs instead. Aspirin is a drug. I'm basically a cool kid now. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Alright, so here's the thing (just, you know, the quick and dirty version). 1) Do you not have the distinction between procedural and substantive law re: choice of law? In my jurisdiction (Russia), Russian procedural rules will always apply, but the substantive law does not necessarily have to be Russian. This means that, in theory, a Russian court may end up having to try a case and apply, say, Illinois law (of course, no one is actually dumb enough to design any contract like that. I hope). In commecrial disputes, the court is only free to apply Russian law in these situations if the parties to the disopute fail to bring any evidence of what the content of the foreign law in question actually is. In non-commercial disputes (commercial disputes have a separate loving procedure code for them, which is an 85% duplicate of the general civil procedure code), I have no loving idea 2) Wait, what's the point even of being a party to anything international or European, then, barring the slow crawling process of harmonization? Also, I have my doubts on whether choice of law in consumer protection can be elevated to the level of public policy
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
i thought russian law was you just put each side's bribe on one side of the scales of justice and the side with the meritorious case drops to the ground
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i thought russian law was you just put each side's bribe on one side of the scales of justice and the side with the meritorious case drops to the ground No, it's just regular civil law in regular commercial disputes, "you're hosed" in criminal law, "i have no idea what's going on" in non-commercial disputes. The only thing close to what you describe is battling against state corporations when they really want something to happen, but even then it's not bribes you put on the scales, but the amount of ex-KGB gangsters you can recruit to support your position (in which case you're hosed if the answer is zero or you refuse to do it for ethical reasons) The age of bribes in courts is (mostly) gone, today is the age of fear
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 23:55
|
|
|
This job is breaking my brain because I get so much stupid poo poo. A deeds a piece of property to B OR C. (B and C being daughter and granddaughter of A). Repeatedly, throughout the document, to B or C. Not and. A dies. B dies. C strolls in with an affidavit signed by only herself saying she held it in joint tenancy with B and wants a certificate of title. I want to go home and drink myself into oblivion. But I can't, because there were literally six other things brought to my desk this morning as stupid or worse than that, and this afternoon I have to go in front of our legislature and explain why land registration cases move slowly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Hey, I asked for application advice ITT a while back and displayed my massive ignorance and general shameful optimism, and now I'm more pessimistic but still making a go of it. Through the process I managed to whittle down my choices to either Wake or Bama with the understanding that I both enjoy the Southeast and that if I wanted to go home (Buffalo), the market in my home city mainly recruits from its t3 state school and my higher ranked out of state degree would stand a fighting chance in that sense (assuming decent performance). I could attend either of these schools for between 5-10k tuition per year, which didn't make me want to run and scream, I guess. Today, I got cold-called by Cuse offering me full tuition. I hadn't really considered the school because I figured if I wanted to get a leg up on networking at home I'd just stay home rather than go to central NY. The school's ranking is obviously quite lower than my other options, but proximity to home and no tuition cost has me thrown off a bit. I don't have any biglaw aspirations, and have connections at a few firms and businesses at home as well as within local and state government. No explicit "yeah of course we'll hire you" or anything but a soft internship offer with a state office, which is a start. On a more personal note, I've recently discovered my father and uncle are both in poor health and might not last three years. I think that may be clouding my judgment as to what's best for me, and I'd appreciate a more objective read. If nothing else it's therapeutic to express what I'm feeling, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
What's the most ridiculous poo poo I can research/gawk at on WL or Lexis beforecI have to buy a more limited plan? Looking for either journals or obscure secondary sources. This stuff is wasted on law students.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Jonathan Fisk posted:Hey, I asked for application advice ITT a while back and displayed my massive ignorance and general shameful optimism, and now I'm more pessimistic but still making a go of it. Through the process I managed to whittle down my choices to either Wake or Bama with the understanding that I both enjoy the Southeast and that if I wanted to go home (Buffalo), the market in my home city mainly recruits from its t3 state school and my higher ranked out of state degree would stand a fighting chance in that sense (assuming decent performance). I could attend either of these schools for between 5-10k tuition per year, which didn't make me want to run and scream, I guess. Take the 'Cuse Money and stay home. Freedom of movement for a Bama or Wake grad is minimal unless you're top 10% or law review - you can't really count on either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:This job is breaking my brain because I get so much stupid poo poo. Ever think of trying to go back to our old division now that the dust has settled? Assuming ETC will retire eventually and they want someone with experience on how stuff actually works, though that second part may be dangerous to assume. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 05:37 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Ever think of trying to go back to our old division now that the dust has settled? Assuming ETC will retire eventually and they want someone with experience on how stuff actually works, though that second part may be dangerous to assume. Probably not as anything other than a deputy, though it's becoming more enticing recently. But as awful as some of the days are here, at least I'm learning new things, which I wouldn't be doing there. I'd also likely be far down in the pecking order, like 4th or 5th, or worse, seeing as I'm fairly certain the current deputy hasn't forgotten how I stole away one of the attorneys she loved to emotionally abuse at her previous post, and I have less seniority than some of the newer transfers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:1) Do you not have the distinction between procedural and substantive law re: choice of law? In my jurisdiction (Russia), Russian procedural rules will always apply, but the substantive law does not necessarily have to be Russian. This means that, in theory, a Russian court may end up having to try a case and apply, say, Illinois law (of course, no one is actually dumb enough to design any contract like that. I hope). In commecrial disputes, the court is only free to apply Russian law in these situations if the parties to the disopute fail to bring any evidence of what the content of the foreign law in question actually is. In non-commercial disputes (commercial disputes have a separate loving procedure code for them, which is an 85% duplicate of the general civil procedure code), I have no loving idea 1) That's a very complicated question actually. Firstly, and I apologize if my translation of law nomenclature is poor, the civil procedure code and the legal court administration law are seperate laws governing seperate parts of practical and legal procedure, but they are very heavily interlinked to the point that you really must know both to understand civil procedure. At the outset, Norwegian procedural rules will almost always be given preeminence regardless, with a few exceptions. When it comes to substantive law, there's a general assessment of "what makes the most sense" in the most basic of terms, that closely follows the same model but is also influenced heavily by - for instance - Rome I. It's important to note that I maybe oversimplified the applicability of Rome I - courts follow it mostly on principle but if push comes to shove, Norway isn't party to Rome I. We don't give a gently caress, we're a special snowflake. Now, in practical terms, it doesn't matter, because even if Norway was party to Rome I, the rule of national legal preeminence would win, if the law is applicable. So to answer your question, in theory yes, in practice - from what I can tell at least - mostly yes. Or rather, as a rule no - domestic law applies at the outset - but exceptions do exist and are honored. The biggest problem is that this would likely vary from field to field. For consumer issues, however, it's mostly a resounding no. In other cases, lex causae absolutely can and will apply for substantive law, but almost never for procedure. Ultimately though, the court decides and has a lot of interesting ways to say gently caress you no thanks to foreign law. I'll get back to that one. 2) See, now that's a good loving question. Norway is incredibly recalcitrant about joining or practicing anyfuckingthing that removes any form of legal sovereignty or control. We're not party to Rome I or II (even though we do have some harmonizing duty or loyalty through EEA), we're not a member of the Brussels Regime, and ideologically we hate and mostly avoid giving weight to any international or extranational law. Even the goddamned ECHR, which by specific legal incorporation is given preeminence over all substantive law (due to a strictly dualist legal tradition), is (theoretically) subject to the principle of national preeminence should it for some reason be in direct conflict with the constitution or derived constitutional principles or principles of constitutional weight. We're part of a bunch of treaties and conventions, but getting norwegian courts to apply those is difficult. There's a joke that the courts don't allow for direct ECHR arguments if you try to quote the text in english. I'm not so sure it's a joke. There have been numerous cases of courts giving a norwegian translation (and therefore specific legal meaning) weight over the original english wording of a lot of treaty texts. It's a weird, isolationist tradition. I guess it's because our legal tradition stretches so far back we assume a mantle of colossal historical arrogance? It's definitely also a political issue, because we are never joining the EU even if we are a member in everything but name. Anyway, the consumer protection act is routinely amended to harmonize it towards EU/EEA but it's mostly a lot more restrictive and I don't think that's going to change. There's a special Consumer Ombudsman that monitors the market and can issue fines, but is mostly a reporting organ to the parliament about consumer right's abuses which often leads to even more restrictive consumer rights legislation. There's a special tribunal for consumer issues that holds full legal authority in consumer matters, where the consumer can sue without any cost to themselves (other than own legal costs for representation, which they are not required to have and that the system isn't tailored for). Socialism is a hell of a drug. E: Forgot. As to Ordre Public, I have my own reservations there, but the question has never been tried for consumer issues. I don't know. There's a question that's been asked but never answered about whether the general ban of "unfair" agreements in the general agreement law can be grounds for Ordre Public, probably not is my gut feeling, but it's possible. There's also an old law from 1687 that has a general honorability clause towards agreements and contracts, which I'm actually pretty sure would be grounds for Ordre Public. It's certainly still very much a thing. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Jonathan Fisk posted:Hey, I asked for application advice ITT a while back and displayed my massive ignorance and general shameful optimism, and now I'm more pessimistic but still making a go of it. Through the process I managed to whittle down my choices to either Wake or Bama with the understanding that I both enjoy the Southeast and that if I wanted to go home (Buffalo), the market in my home city mainly recruits from its t3 state school and my higher ranked out of state degree would stand a fighting chance in that sense (assuming decent performance). I could attend either of these schools for between 5-10k tuition per year, which didn't make me want to run and scream, I guess. roll tide
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
I have an ma from Bama and a few friends who went to law school there. You'd have a good time and good southern employability. I don't know what kind of water that holds in New York.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:I have an ma from Bama and a few friends who went to law school there. You'd have a good time and good southern employability. roll tide roll
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
If you go to bama there is no point leaving the state when you graduate and you will probably figure that out on your own. As long as you're cool working in Birmingham or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:This job is breaking my brain because I get so much stupid poo poo. Does Guam allow partidas? Partidas are the reason why so many lots in the CNMI are still officially owned by people who died in the 1930s. In local news, I’m on our tiny house committee, and I was sent to a presentation by a former legislator who’s trying to build one. She brought a slide show which was more than a little Groverhausy, with such architectural features as a washer/dryer in the shower.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Never go to Alabama for any reason .
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
JesustheDarkLord posted:Never go to Alabama for any reason . Ra ra footbaw
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I'd pick Syracuse for free. What's their rank?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
92, which is below the range I'd consider if it wasn't "home." I can't find trends but they seem to have dipped heavily, shot up a bit, and then dipped slightly over the past ten years. I don't want to plan on being exceptional in order to make my choice viable, but would a degree from Bama/Wake really not travel to a city that feeds from a third tier school?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Jonathan Fisk posted:I don't want to plan on being exceptional in order to make my choice viable, but would a degree from Bama/Wake really not travel to a city that feeds from a third tier school? Not easily. Pull up the About Us pages from a couple of law firms in the city/state you want to work in, and look at where they attended school. You'll quickly notice a pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
My University of Minnesota degree, a 20 or so ranked law school doesn't travel well, so you can imagibe how a bama degree would go in yankee country.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 17:55
|
|
