|
Tibalt posted:but I'm not sure if there's some risk I'm unaware of. Tibalt posted:, and then decided to buy a house Do what you want. You got a recommendation to hire a lawyer from a PA lawyer who practiced that specific law. 
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Do what you want. You got a recommendation to hire a lawyer from a PA lawyer who practiced that specific law. Should he put all his money into paying off his mortgage early so that he's judgment proof, yes/no
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
That wouldn’t create a judgment proof scenario unless you are thinking of something I don’t know about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Do what you want. You got a recommendation to hire a lawyer from a PA lawyer who practiced that specific law. Are you saying that, since I'll own a house, I should have a lawyer negotiate leaving the lease early from step 1 to ensure I'm not a risk, and I shouldn't even try to resolve this Edit since that might not be the best word to use.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
I’m saying hire a lawyer and do what she says. if she says you write the first letter than do that. Hire a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
Sorry a local lawyer. Hire a local lawyer from the town in which the rental property is. Don’t hire some Philadelphia law form for 600$ an hour or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Do it, spend the money, if it's as easy as a letter (which can be more effective when on an attorney's letterhead in these dumb landlord/tenant scenarios) it won't even cost that much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 17:54
|
|
|
Your best case scenario: No more lease. Your worst case scenario: loving up, owing thousands of dollars in rent, having a judgment against you and ruining your credit. Is there risk in writing the email/letter yourself? If I could count high enough, I'd give you the number of people I've represented the last six months who hosed up by 'just writing the letter themselves.' but I've only got 20 fingers+toes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask / Tell > The Legal Questions Thread: Talk To An Attorney in Your Local Area
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Just so we’re clear, there’s no way he’s on the hook for anything other than the remaining 8 months on the lease, right? It’s still dumb as gently caress but that’s what I get from the review quotes above.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
I could conceive of damages in excess of that. If you are asking like “What could be put in a complaint or demand” But I worked with and against slum lords so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 19:52
|
|
|
I meant specifically wrt to terminating the lease early. The landlord can definitely claim he wore down the carpet or some bullshit for extra damages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Does PA have shifting fees in LL/tenant disputes?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
It’s in every lease I’ve seen that tenant pays fees for successful landlord suit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s in every lease I’ve seen that tenant pays fees for successful landlord suit. Lots of leases are filled with clauses that are outright invalid under local state law, though. I have no knowledge of PA specifically but of the five or so landlord/tenant contracts I can remember looking at in my state, every one of them had at least one provision that was outright invalid under local law (usually waiving rights that state law prevents tenants from waiving, etc.). Either they're something the landlord's kid cooked up with an app or they're put together by the legal team for the out-of-state conglomerate that owns the building, etc. This is a big part of why the answer to landlord/tenant questions is almost always "talk to an attorney in your area" EDIT: oh you are a PA attorney and this is in PA ! sorry my bad missed that part. I'd guess you're probably right then! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Aug 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
It was enforceable when I did them. It will depend on the arbitrators or judge whether they are ultimately enforced tho (get a local attorney). It will also of course depend on the drafting of the language in the lease and “reasonability” . I haven’t done LT for 4 years so they could have been a Court cases proscribing them idk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:It’s in every lease I’ve seen that tenant pays fees for successful landlord suit.  he's boned
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
I mean... I'm kind of hoping to avoid going to court. I'm pretty sure I can just keep paying a lease on an empty apartment if necessary, you all scared me straight here. Edit: assuming I can't find a tenant willing to take on the 12+ month lease that meets her standards, I mean. Tibalt fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Aug 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 20:57
|
|
|
Hiring a lawyer doesn't mean going to court. A probable outcome will resemble: Lawyer listens to your situation, says "gently caress 20 months, you're responsible for the rest of the lease and that's it", you find someone willing to take the rest of your lease, your lawyer sends the landlord that info + a letter that says, in better language, "gently caress 20 months, he's only responsible for the remaining 8, here's someone who wants the apartment for 8 months, let's wrap this poo poo up all nice-like", and the landlord takes it A consult with a landlord/tenant lawyer will cost between 0 and a couple hundred dollars which is basically nothing given that thousands are involved here. It's also possible the landlord is nuts and decides to die on that hill in court at which point you definitely need the lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
1,000 lawyers: hire a lawyer Goon: maybe there is another way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
I think one of the things that should be repeatedly highlighted is that "hire a lawyer" doesn't spending thousands to retain a crack legal team but spending a small sum of money for some basic advice and to make sure the letter that is sent doesn't come to bite you in the rear end later. Most stuff never goes to trial etc since that it expensive for everyone involved and if you hired a lawyer to get the letter right at the outset it also makes it much less likely they can find anything to get you for. Anyway, is there any way to get something in the OP to give people an idea of what getting a lawyer to look at a small routing matter might cost since so many people who wander in here seem to be under the impression that hiring a lawyer is the nuclear option that will cost a fortune rather than a sensible decision like checking with a surveyor whether the wall you are about to knock down in your house is load bearing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 04:10
|
|
|
More legal theory questions due to major Federal Campaign Candidate news yesterday. Discussion of committing criminal acts is not privileged communication, right? I assume lawyers cannot speak about prior attorney-client privileged conversations, even after they are no longer representing said client? What is the penalty if they do, being disbarred? If an attorney IS disbarred, could they THEN speak about that stuff, or because they were an attorney at the time the privilege would still exist?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:More legal theory questions due to major Federal Campaign Candidate news yesterday. Discussion of committing criminal acts is not privileged communication, right? "Discussion" of criminal acts, in and of itself, could be privileged. You have to understand there are two distinct sets of rules here. One is a lawyer's ethical obligations, and the privileges that relate to them. The other is a lawyer's obligation, like everyone else, to follow the law. On the ethical/privilege side, a lawyer is typically ethically bound not to disclose confidential information of a client, EXCEPT where the lawyer reasonably believes disclosure is necessary: Rule 1.6 posted:(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; There are other exceptions but these are the most relevant here I think. So, if your client tells you they committed a crime in the past, you cannot disclose that unless the disclosure will prevent injury or death, or the client used you to commit a crime. This is called the "crime-fraud exception" and applies to much of what Cohen is involved in (to the extent he is even acting as a lawyer at all). This also applies where, for example, someone consults with you for advice or assistance in committing crimes or fraud (e.g. Cohen). This can also apply where "discussion" of the criminal acts happens, and then your client tells you they are going to talk to the FBI or testify before a grand jury and lie about it. If the lawyer allows this to happen, they could be criminally liable for suborning perjury. You get all kinds of interesting scenarios where for example a client wants to lie under oath, and the lawyer has to withdraw (so as not to suborn perjury) without revealing the confidential reason why he is withdrawing. I assume lawyers cannot speak about prior attorney-client privileged conversations, even after they are no longer representing said client? Correct. Though there are exceptions, like above. Also, if one of your clients sues you, you have the right to disclose confidential information to the extent necessary to defend yourself. What is the penalty if they do, being disbarred? Professional discipline usually depends on the interaction of numerous mitigating and aggravating factors, including the severity of the crime, cooperation of the lawyer, disciplinary history of the lawyer, etc. Discipline can go from no sanction or private admonishment of the lawyer (i.e. lawyer is reprimanded but only the act and sanction are made public--not the identity of the lawyer), to formal public reprimand or suspension from practice for a time, all the way to permanent disbarment. You may also have criminal exposure or civil malpractice liability as a result. It all depends. If an attorney IS disbarred, could they THEN speak about that stuff, or because they were an attorney at the time the privilege would still exist? I believe the confidentiality requirement survives disbarment. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Aug 22, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
Also of note is that the attorney-client privilege is vested with the client - if the client waives the privilege, there's nothing protecting the attorney from having the communications subject to discovery. This came up recently with Cohen's recordings - Trump's lawyers waived privilege over them during the 'special master' process, so the recordings were available to the FBI even though Cohen may have preferred that they not be.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 15:05
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:More legal theory questions due to major Federal Campaign Candidate news yesterday. Edit: I spent too long writing an angry email; read the other replies. However, Something Else you might be interested in: When an attorney calls their witness to the stand, the attorney is legally bound not to call someone they know is going to lie under oath. So, if your client says to the attorney, "yeah, just put me on the stand and I'm going to lie my rear end off and get away with it." the attorney is ethically bound not to call their client as a witness. But a defendant has the legal right to testify on their behalf, if they so choose. So, what do you do then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 15:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:When an attorney calls their witness to the stand, the attorney is legally bound not to call someone they know is going to lie under oath. So, if your client says to the attorney, "yeah, just put me on the stand and I'm going to lie my rear end off and get away with it." the attorney is ethically bound not to call their client as a witness. But a defendant has the legal right to testify on their behalf, if they so choose. Ask the judge to be dismissed from the case, explain why in a sidebar, have your request denied The judge asks your client if he wishes to testify, he says yes You call your client as a witness pursuant to that request You let the client testify in narrative form Is that about right from what I remembered from last time
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 15:22
|
|
|
mercenarynuker posted:More legal theory questions due to major Federal Campaign Candidate news yesterday. discussion of committing criminal acts would frequently be covered by attorney-client privilege. if you ask your attorney "if I did X, is that a crime?", "how do I do X so it's not a crime?", "I did X, was that a crime?" "I did X and I know it was a crime and i got charged with it, i want you to defend me" are all covered by the privilege. what's not covered is involving your attorney in the crime, "hey i want to commit tax fraud, structure these transactions in a way that will fool the IRS" is not covered, or "take this money and pay off my mistresses to benefit my re-election campaign without filing the necessary reports with the FEC"
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
I have a textbook example of how to effectively represent yourself "pro se" in court: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDdwCYUdNfc I'm sorry, I meant ineffectively.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:I have a textbook example of how to effectively represent yourself "pro se" in court: Hold my beer while I introduce my prior bad acts that the prosecutor was prohibited from discussing
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:19
|
|
|
Being a lawyer seems a lot like being a wizard. Does that make sovereign citizens kobolds?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Being a lawyer seems a lot like being a wizard. Does that make sovereign citizens kobolds? Sorcerer, they use Charisma not Wisdom for their courtroom ability checks
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:28
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:If an attorney IS disbarred, could they THEN speak about that stuff, or because they were an attorney at the time the privilege would still exist? While the Rules of Professional Conduct do attempt to regulate the conduct of even a suspended lawyer (see 5.5(e)(4)), I have some serious questions about the applicable body's ability to apply any additional sanctions (other than, the case of the unauthorized practice of law, referral for criminal prosecution if applicable).
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
ulmont posted:While the Rules of Professional Conduct do attempt to regulate the conduct of even a suspended lawyer (see 5.5(e)(4)), I have some serious questions about the applicable body's ability to apply any additional sanctions (other than, the case of the unauthorized practice of law, referral for criminal prosecution if applicable). Interesting way to look at it. I think if a disbarred lawyer were to seek reinstatement, violations of the rules after disbarment could be relevant to the application for reinstatement. There is also the issue of attorney-client privilege vs. lawyer's duty of confidentiality. Depending on when the information is sought to be obtained from the lawyer, it may be privileged under the rules of evidence of a state. I haven't researched any of that, but it's an additional consideration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Regardless of the consequences to the lawyer, are improperly disclosed privileged conversations admissible as evidence?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
I’ve read a few cases where a suspended lawyer was further sanctioned for activities done while suspended.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Read your states attorney disciplinary board decisions. They are usually hilarious. If you are a bored insane person I guess.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Being a lawyer seems a lot like being a wizard. Does that make sovereign citizens kobolds? Thought Eater.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:Being a lawyer seems a lot like being a wizard. Does that make sovereign citizens kobolds? Kobolds provide useful experience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Interesting way to look at it. I think if a disbarred lawyer were to seek reinstatement, violations of the rules after disbarment could be relevant to the application for reinstatement. Oh, without question. euphronius posted:I’ve read a few cases where a suspended lawyer was further sanctioned for activities done while suspended. Right. But once you hit "permanent disbarment", I think you've hit the limit. euphronius posted:Read your states attorney disciplinary board decisions. They are usually hilarious. If you are a bored insane person I guess. Yup. quote:In late 2013, the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff’s Office obtained information that [attorney James D. Mecca] was receiving drugs for payment of his legal services. Specifically, a cooperating individual (CI) contacted the Narcotics Division of the Sheriff’s Office on December 12, 2013 to advise that she had come into contact with respondent while attending court earlier that morning, and that respondent had offered his legal services in exchange for marijuana. The CI reported that she had used respondent in the past for legal counsel, and had paid him with marijuana on three separate occasions over a period of one year or more. ... Upon review of the findings and recommendations of the hearing committee and disciplinary board, and considering the record and the briefs filed by the parties, it is ordered that James D. Mecca, Louisiana Bar Roll number 28148, be and he hereby is suspended from the practice of law for one year. And, forgot this one: quote:IN RE DEBRA L. CASIBRY (Metairie), 2018-B-2045, (5/1/18)
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
I like reading the discipline reports in the bar journal. I've seen numerous disbarments and suspensions of lawyers I've run into over the years, always thinking they were idiots. It's always fun to see the name of a lawyer you had a problem with in the past, read the reasons for discipline, and say, "yeah that sounds about right."
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2018 21:51
|
|