Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›528 »

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

TheMadMilkman posted:

Ghosts?

While discussing whether you were required to disclose that a house was haunted, our property professor mentioned that his sister�s house was haunted. He said that you would be sitting in the house and it would feel like everything moved.

An older classmate, who had worked as a general contractor before law school, asked where she lived. After being told what part of town it was, she basically said that ya, the water table out there is so high that you can feel it rise and fall. Those houses never should have been built and she�s going to have foundation issues.

Last I heard the sister moved. And the houses there all have foundation issues.

Your property class must not have touched on Stambovsky v. Ackley yet.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 13:54

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:15

Nonexistence: Jan 6, 2014

Tipps posted:

Just another day in weirdlaw.

An employee in one of our offices is convinced that there are ghosts in the office, and is very afraid of them. He has begun telling his coworkers about his paranormal experiences, resulting in two camps forming.

A large chunk of his colleagues are now super annoyed with him because he is too preoccupied with ghosts to do his job and is causing disruption.

A larger chunk of his colleagues are now equally afraid of the ghosts and are too scared to go into certain parts of the building, drastically impacting workplace productivity.

I have been asked for legal advice re: how/whether to discipline the disruptor, and what to do about the ghost-fearing employees.

This is actually not the first time I've heard stories about there being ghosts in this particular building.

Relevant ghost law

# ? Aug 21, 2018 13:56

Tipps: Apr 18, 2006; party in the front

business in the back

Pretty sure there have been real estate cases where failing to disclose that the house for sale was believed to be haunted has been found to be a material defect that needs to be disclosed, as it has the reasonable potential to interfere with the buyer's use and enjoyment of the home.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 13:57

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

two posts right after mine talking about the same thing. Someone called me a gunner in this thread when I first got excited about Stambovsky.

E: class action firm still hasn't got back with me. not surprised. saw a job posting in Gainesville for a part time lawyer at a LL/tenant clinic for 22/hrs a week at $35-50/hr that I might through an application at. Just have to find a way to get to gainesville and a place to crash 3 nights a week.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:01

Tipps: Apr 18, 2006; party in the front

business in the back

Listen buddy, I can't be expected to know the minutia of US Ghost Law up here in the Canadian arctic!

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:07

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Tipps posted:

Listen buddy, I can't be expected to know the minutia of US Ghost Law up here in the Canadian arctic!

It�s all good. It�s a common case used at the beginning of property classes because it illustrates some aspects of property law very well while being a little bit fun. I mean, what 1L doesn�t get a little excited at legally haunted house?

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:11

nutri_void: Apr 18, 2015; I shall devour your soul.; Grimey Drawer

Mr. Nice! posted:

It�s all good. It�s a common case used at the beginning of property classes because it illustrates some aspects of property law very well while being a little bit fun. I mean, what 1L doesn�t get a little excited at legally haunted house?

I wasn't [at similar things]

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:12

homullus: Mar 27, 2009

Mr. Nice! posted:

I mean, what 1L doesn�t get a little excited at legally haunted house?

Hey, wait, I know the answer to this one! "One who shouldn't be in law school," right?

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:15

Hoshi: Jan 20, 2013

Thanks to this thread I now know that ghost insurance exists and is nowhere near as cool as it should be

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:18

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

Mr. Nice! posted:

two posts right after mine talking about the same thing. Someone called me a gunner in this thread when I first got excited about Stambovsky.

E: class action firm still hasn't got back with me. not surprised. saw a job posting in Gainesville for a part time lawyer at a LL/tenant clinic for 22/hrs a week at $35-50/hr that I might through an application at. Just have to find a way to get to gainesville and a place to crash 3 nights a week.

Tinder up a UF student.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:19

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Look Sir Droids posted:

Tinder up a UF student.

Either way I'm going to go ahead and shoot them my resume/cover letter/reference list and roll the dice on it. I figure it's a long shot, but I deal with LL/tenant stuff at the clinic from time to time. Plus it's totally worth it to go work there a couple of days a week since they actually pay worth a drat.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:27

TheMadMilkman: Dec 10, 2007

Mr. Nice! posted:

Your property class must not have touched on Stambovsky v. Ackley yet.

Oh hey, that was the case that started the discussion. I couldn't remember the name and couldn't be bothered to search for it.

To be fair, this was 12 years ago, and I don't practice law, so I don't remember squat.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 14:57

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

Update to my ethical issue.

I told my immediate supervisor, who also supervises NA. He was irate. Not at someone leaving, but at NA keeping it a secret. Turns out we have an agency policy that requires you to disclose if you're interviewing outside the agency for private practice. You know, to prevent conflicts?

Anyway, it's now being passed up the ladder. And I'm absolved of any further responsibilities. There's a good chance NA will be let go today. He'll probably be pissed off but that's how it goes. If he had told admin, they may have been more amenable.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:05

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

Update to my ethical issue.

I told my immediate supervisor, who also supervises NA. He was irate. Not at someone leaving, but at NA keeping it a secret. Turns out we have an agency policy that requires you to disclose if you're interviewing outside the agency for private practice. You know, to prevent conflicts?

Anyway, it's now being passed up the ladder. And I'm absolved of any further responsibilities. There's a good chance NA will be let go today. He'll probably be pissed off but that's how it goes. If he had told admin, they may have been more amenable.

dusted.

You absolutely did the right thing.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:07

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

Update to my ethical issue.

I told my immediate supervisor, who also supervises NA. He was irate. Not at someone leaving, but at NA keeping it a secret. Turns out we have an agency policy that requires you to disclose if you're interviewing outside the agency for private practice. You know, to prevent conflicts?

Anyway, it's now being passed up the ladder. And I'm absolved of any further responsibilities. There's a good chance NA will be let go today. He'll probably be pissed off but that's how it goes. If he had told admin, they may have been more amenable.

This is the correct course of action and result.

Though the "require to disclose interviews" seems problematic. Once the job is taken, sure, but otherwise seems ripe for retaliatory action.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:23

Toona the Cat: Jun 9, 2004; The Greatest

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

Update to my ethical issue.

I told my immediate supervisor, who also supervises NA. He was irate. Not at someone leaving, but at NA keeping it a secret. Turns out we have an agency policy that requires you to disclose if you're interviewing outside the agency for private practice. You know, to prevent conflicts?

Anyway, it's now being passed up the ladder. And I'm absolved of any further responsibilities. There's a good chance NA will be let go today. He'll probably be pissed off but that's how it goes. If he had told admin, they may have been more amenable.

IANAL but this seems like a good call

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:25

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

This is the correct course of action and result.

Though the "require to disclose interviews" seems problematic. Once the job is taken, sure, but otherwise seems ripe for retaliatory action.

It's probably more "if you're interviewing at one of the firms that we routinely see across the aisle" rather than moving across state and done entirely for conflict/taint reasons.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:25

Pook Good Mook: Aug 6, 2013; ENFORCE THE UNITED STATES DRESS CODE AT ALL COSTS!

This message paid for by the Men's Wearhouse& Jos A Bank Lobbying Group

Toona the Cat posted:

IANAL but this seems like a good call

Goddamn it Toona we don't deserve this kind of quality.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:36

Soothing Vapors: Mar 26, 2006; Associate Justice Lena "Kegels" Dunham: An uncool thought to have: 'is that guy walking in the dark behind me a rapist? Never mind, he's Asian.

lol

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:37

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

Phil Moscowitz posted:

This is the correct course of action and result.

Though the "require to disclose interviews" seems problematic. Once the job is taken, sure, but otherwise seems ripe for retaliatory action.

yeah though if you're in government, it seems less problematic. if it were a private firm you betcha i'd ignore the gently caress out of that rule.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:48

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

Mr. Nice! posted:

It's probably more "if you're interviewing at one of the firms that we routinely see across the aisle" rather than moving across state and done entirely for conflict/taint reasons.

They want to make sure you're walled off from those firms. There is absolutely retaliation though. I've seen it happen. And I work at the AG, so there isn't a firm in Texas that doesn't have at least one case with us. But our niche sees that same 20 firms primarily.

Anyway, the "don't be the highest level person in your bureaucracy with a secret" advice really hit home so thanks for that!

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:49

evilweasel: Aug 24, 2002

that said i'd probably have done the same thing as that guy even in government, you'd have to be loving insane to inform your employer you're interviewing before having a job lined up. but, uh, keep your mouth shut about it.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:52

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

joat mon posted:

Not on him, either.

AR is {{{Yankish}}}

Take that back, you jackass.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 15:54

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

They want to make sure you're walled off from those firms. There is absolutely retaliation though. I've seen it happen. And I work at the AG, so there isn't a firm in Texas that doesn't have at least one case with us. But our niche sees that same 20 firms primarily.

Anyway, the "don't be the highest level person in your bureaucracy with a secret" advice really hit home so thanks for that!

No sweat. I learned that one the hard way, but it really makes sense when you think about it. poo poo rolls down hill. Best to sidestep it as much as possible.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:03

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

HDD, how did you know he is leaving? Might have missed that. Lol if he told you.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:34

Hoshi: Jan 20, 2013

Look Sir Droids posted:

HDD, how did you know he is leaving? Might have missed that. Lol if he told you.

Mutual friend warned him I think

# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:42

blarzgh: Apr 14, 2009; SNITCHIN' RANDY; Grimey Drawer

Mr. Nice! posted:

No sweat. I learned that one the hard way, but it really makes sense when you think about it. poo poo rolls down hill. Best to sidestep it as much as possible.

The "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge" philosophy.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 16:44

Nice piece of fish: Jan 29, 2008; Ultra Carp

Hoshi posted:

Mutual friend warned him I think

That friend deserves a drink, I think.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 17:36

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

Hoshi posted:

Mutual friend warned him I think

That's exactly correct.

Mutual friend only informed me because it would gently caress up my trial schedule and life to not know I'm about to first chair this case. Also he was worried about ethics too (he also works in the agency but not our division).

The answer is keep your mouth shut, and if you start applying to firms wall yourself off.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 18:49

Mr. Nice!: Oct 13, 2005; bone shaking.
soul baking.

Cohen pled :lol:

Also haven�t heard back at all from class action firm. Also :lol:

# ? Aug 21, 2018 18:51

Soothing Vapors: Mar 26, 2006; Associate Justice Lena "Kegels" Dunham: An uncool thought to have: 'is that guy walking in the dark behind me a rapist? Never mind, he's Asian.

cant believe my good friend hot dog day number ninety and one is a fuckin snitch

# ? Aug 21, 2018 19:18

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Mr. Nice! posted:

Cohen pled

Also haven�t heard back at all from class action firm. Also

PEE BARGAIN TIME

# ? Aug 21, 2018 19:20

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

At my agency you're supposed to remove yourself from any cases if you're applying for jobs with the opposing side. Which is obviously a huge tell if you tell your boss that you can't work on evicting the war widow being represented by the firm, but you don't technically have to tell them you're interviewing.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 19:27

Alaemon: Jan 4, 2009; Proctors are guardians of the sanctity and integrity of legal education, therefore they are responsible for the nourishment of the soul.

Tipps posted:

Listen buddy, I can't be expected to know the minutia of US Ghost Law up here in the Canadian arctic!

I'm sure there enough ghost cases on CanDIE.org.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 20:02

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

Louisiana lawyers, making sure I�m reading your rules right. I don�t speak civil code. For subpoenas, the objection period for the opposing party is 15 days?

# ? Aug 21, 2018 20:27

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Look Sir Droids posted:

Louisiana lawyers, making sure I�m reading your rules right. I don�t speak civil code. For subpoenas, the objection period for the opposing party is 15 days?

15 days for the person subpoenaed to send an objection to the lawyer or party requesting the subpoena, though it is officially limited to subpoenas duces tecum. I don't think there is an actual right for a party to "object" to a subpoena not issued to them. I mean you can send a letter, but legally, by itself, you can't rely on that letter for anything. The person subpoenaed is still under subpoena.

An opposing party (that is not also the person subpoenaed) needs to file a motion to quash the subpoena and/or a motion for protective order. Though there isn't a formal time limit, obviously ASAP is a good idea. The subpoena should be suspended pending adjudication of the motion(s) and I typically include in my order setting such a motion for hearing an order by the court explicitly staying the subpoena.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 20:55

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

poo poo. We got subpoenaed and I want to get out of responding without having to do anything. If you�re a third party do you have to file your objection with the court or just respond to the issuing party?

Or call plaintiffs counsel to see if they�ll do me a solid.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:19

Phil Moscowitz: Feb 19, 2007; If blood be the price of admiralty,
Lord God, we ha' paid in full!

Look Sir Droids posted:

poo poo. We got subpoenaed and I want to get out of responding without having to do anything. If you�re a third party do you have to file your objection with the court or just respond to the issuing party?

Or call plaintiffs counsel to see if they�ll do me a solid.

If you are a third party, send them an objection letter (or call them AND send a letter). Then they have to file a motion to compel if they really want your stuff, and you don't have to do anything else.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:31

GamingHyena: Jul 25, 2003; Devil's Advocate

Tipps posted:

Just another day in weirdlaw.

An employee in one of our offices is convinced that there are ghosts in the office, and is very afraid of them. He has begun telling his coworkers about his paranormal experiences, resulting in two camps forming.

A large chunk of his colleagues are now super annoyed with him because he is too preoccupied with ghosts to do his job and is causing disruption.

A larger chunk of his colleagues are now equally afraid of the ghosts and are too scared to go into certain parts of the building, drastically impacting workplace productivity.

I have been asked for legal advice re: how/whether to discipline the disruptor, and what to do about the ghost-fearing employees.

This is actually not the first time I've heard stories about there being ghosts in this particular building.

Send an inter-office memo reminding employees that the nightmare of being trapped in eternal limbo is nothing compared to the late stage capitalist hellscape the workers currently inhabit. Imply the spirits are the ghosts of previously fired employees who died of easily treatable diseases after being cut off from the company�s health insurance plan.

Reassign Disruptor to a position that ONLY works in the haunted parts of the building in the hope she�ll either quit or can be fired for cause.

# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 05:15

Look Sir Droids: Jan 27, 2015; The tracks go off in this direction.

Phil Moscowitz posted:

If you are a third party, send them an objection letter (or call them AND send a letter). Then they have to file a motion to compel if they really want your stuff, and you don't have to do anything else.

Thanks!

# ? Aug 21, 2018 21:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

«‹›528 »