|
Relevant Australian conduct rules and ethical code, for those who are curious. Here's another interesting hypothetical. When you're making your disclosures to be admitted, they now want you, in addition to disclosing criminal and academic history, to disclose mental health information. So if you've ever been diagnosed with anxiety or depression, for example, they want you to disclose. Unlike the other matters, my understanding is they can't actually punish you for not disclosing, they just really really like you to. Would you disclose?
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
What the gently caress? Thats insane. Thats going to push people to go untreated
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:02
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Relevant Australian conduct rules and ethical code, for those who are curious. Can’t disclose anxiety if you don’t see someone to diagnose it! Right???
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
never thought id live to see the day when phil mouskewitz was polluting this thread with bad 1L hypos. never meet yr heroes, folks
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:never thought id live to see the day when phil mouskewitz was polluting this thread with bad 1L hypos. never meet yr heroes, folks It’s a good hypo because it got the greybeard a B-
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:04
|
|
|
Doesn’t Florida allow firm appearances? Seems like that would fix it
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I disagree that it's as simple as you say, though perhaps "attach" was bad wording on my part. Obviously the conversation is a privileged attorney-client communication, and most likely you are correct that the crime occurs before you have any mandatory obligation to report it under Rule 1.6. His statements would not give you a reasonable belief of impending death or great bodily harm. No, he didn't take my advice and in fact he did what I specifically told him not to do. It told him no and why. The client isn't misusing my advice, he's ignoring it. I'm not giving him information he wouldn't otherwise have that he needs to commit a crime, he's already got it. I think furtherance exists on a spectrum like certainty does. Stating that you can't prevent a witness from testifying could be one end of the spectrum. To make "there's no way under the law to stop her from testifying" a statement in furtherance of crime/fraud , let alone creating a 'may disclose' due to misuse of ACR situation, would completely swallow Rule 1.6. Where I see 'may disclose' starting to come into the furtherance spectrum is if the police report (which I gave a copy of to my client) has the witness's address. Probably still not there yet (unless after I tell him I can't stop her from testifying, client specifically asks for it and I still give it over) If my investigator's report includes her daily schedule (and I give the client a copy) is a little further up the spectrum. That might be may disclose under misuse of advice, but not crime/fraud exception. If I tell him that she gets out of choir practice at the Salvation Army Wednesday at 8 and walks home alone down Dunkelbaum Alley and she disappears after choir practice, that's way, way up into tell client to rectify and then legally may/morally shall disclose. As a practical matter, how could one give competent advice about something material to a client without it potentially being in furtherance of a crime? What if the client expressed the intent to tamper with a witness if he was looking at going to prison. I advise him that would be illegal, but tell him that the crime carries mandatory prison time. He then ignores my advice and has the witness killed. My stating the law did not further the crime, nor did it instruct my client how to commit the crime. Similarly, can I remain within the ACR and tell a client what the range of punishment is if that information might raise the stakes of the case farther than my client thought previously? I just don't see how one can construe "no, you can't do that and here's why, and no you can't do [illegal thing] either" as making the later commission of a crime "in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services" without completely standing 1.6 on its head. Only bad lawyers who don't fully advise their clients would be able to have an (albeit worthless) ACR. Whitlam posted:Relevant Australian conduct rules and ethical code, for those who are curious. We yanks have commentaries and discussion sections that come along with the bare rules. Do those exist for 9.2? I couldn't find any. e: Phil Moscowitz posted:It’s a good hypo because it got the greybeard a B- Nice piece of fish posted:What does a soft appearance look like? I'll confess if I can get a change of venue to Norway. joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
What does a soft appearance look like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Relevant Australian conduct rules and ethical code, for those who are curious. lol no gently caress them
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
joat mon posted:No, he didn't take my advice and in fact he did what I specifically told him not to do. It told him no and why. The client isn't misusing my advice, he's ignoring it. I'm not giving him information he wouldn't otherwise have that he needs to commit a crime, he's already got it. I’m not going to say you are wrong because to my knowledge these questions are not resolved. Like I said, I asked to see where you stand on the question. The problem with your analysis, in my opinion, is that it eviscerates the crime fraud exception even where a lawyer provides the complete framework for breaking the law (explaining what conduct would be illegal but difficult to detect, what would achieve the desired illegal result but through untested and potentially illegal conduct, or what would be legal but barely so), but then tells the client “I’m telling you this so that you are aware of the limits of legal activity. I advise you to follow the law.” I don’t think the CF exception cares about the lawyer’s intent (unless the lawyer’s intent is criminal). It’s there to expose the client’s crime, and will pierce the AC privilege to do so. The privilege isn’t the lawyer’s. To go back to my hypo, it was blurry on purpose. Did the client take the “legal advice” as “You really can’t do anything other than the criminal conduct you are suggesting if you want to avoid prison,” or does the intent of the lawyer have any role in the analysis? If the client discloses an intent to commit fraud, and the lawyer explains how law enforcement will be able to detect and prosecute the particular criminal activity and recommends against pursuing it, and the client then makes a few changes to the plan to avoid the pitfalls pointed out to the lawyer and carries it out without telling the lawyer—does the CF exception apply? Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:03
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Relevant Australian conduct rules and ethical code, for those who are curious. I'm going to tell my client that they really, really want him to disclose but he is not obligated to, and then, at the end of the conversation, strike up a talk about how I just ordered some hair loss pills from a reputable online pharmacy that is based outside of Australian jurisdiction
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
joat mon posted:We yanks have commentaries and discussion sections that come along with the bare rules. Do those exist for 9.2? I couldn't find any. My ethics lecturer vanished half way through the semester for "health reasons". We later found out she was struck off for unethical behaviour. The woman who replaced her later lodged a formal bullying complaint against our Dean. C'est la vie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:What does a soft appearance look like? There’s a dick joke in here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:There’s a dick joke in here. — AR’s vagina
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:It’s a good hypo because it got the greybeard a B- Lol Phil Moscowitz posted:— AR’s vagina Lol x2
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
Also as I think I mentioned, I didn't make partner so the choices over the last few weeks were laid out before me (with some haggling): -new title, sizable raise, significant billable hour reduction, pretty much removed from partnership consideration, employment for as long as I stay profitable/generate work -stay an associate 1-2 more years, hope for the best next year Firm pushed option 2 pretty hard. I hope it goes without saying I'm taking option 1
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Also as I think I mentioned, I didn't make partner so the choices over the last few weeks were laid out before me (with some haggling): congrats man. I start my new life as a jew banker next week and I'm never looking back
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 00:27
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:congrats man. Thanks friend. Just remember no matter how rough banking gets, its definitely better than law
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
Yeah take door number one, stay profitable, lateral/in house as necessary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 00:57
|
|
|
I always think this is amusing because counsel do get promoted up to partner occasionally. You made the right call. If you can also find some free space to actually develop your own clients who will leave if you do, then you’ve got some leverage to revisit the issue later anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 01:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:— AR’s vagina Aren’t you like 60 years old? Ew. Stay out of my vagina. Sorry to hear it, SV. And yes. Option one. Hardcore. Become a man of leisure. Also, I am seriously considering writing a post trial response brief that says “the petitioner has wasted 9 months of the court’s time on this bullshit. I won’t waste any more of it. The petitioner failed to meet his burden. Thank you.” Thoughts? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Dec 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 01:08
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Also, I am seriously considering writing a post trial response brief that says “the petitioner has wasted 9 months of the court’s time on this bullshit. I won’t waste any more of it. The petitioner failed to meet his burden. Thank you.” Thoughts? Paraphrase to avoid "waste" and "bullshit" and I think you'd be good. In more important news, https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1070107251656945665
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 01:18
|
|
|
Popehat continues to suck poo poo even compared to other online lawyers
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 02:32
|
|
|
GOD do I the big smart man with the huge dick have to explain this legal thing to you simpering loving morons? Fine, I guess, as long as you know I'm so smart that what you dont understand I find boring *posts stupid unfunny poo poo like that 5 times a day that people repost like piss pigs*
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 02:45
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:Also as I think I mentioned, I didn't make partner so the choices over the last few weeks were laid out before me (with some haggling): At the end of the day, if you are profitable enough down the road for the firm to make you a partner (with you potentially twisting their arm because of economic leverage at the time), they’ll do it, regardless of whether you pick option 1 or 2 now. It will be clearly a matter of the economics. Therefore, I see next to no possible value in taking Option 2. SlyFrog fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Dec 5, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
Also the Flynn filing dropped and is just a big cocktease
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:GOD do I the big smart man with the huge dick have to explain this legal thing to you simpering loving morons? Fine, I guess, as long as you know I'm so smart that what you dont understand I find boring Hard to believe that a lawyer would act in such a manner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
I wonder if Mueller gets tomorrow off? Might be one way to short-circuit the investigation; declare every day a federal holiday! Someone get that idea on Fox and Friends, stat!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 06:14
|
|
|
sullat posted:I wonder if Mueller gets tomorrow off? Might be one way to short-circuit the investigation; declare every day a federal holiday! Someone get that idea on Fox and Friends, stat! I believe that was how one of Caesar's opponents tried to hinder one of his power grabs - by declaring every remaining day of a particular term a holy holiday (so that Caesar could not take action).
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 06:29
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I believe that was how one of Caesar's opponents tried to hinder one of his power grabs - by declaring every remaining day of a particular term a holy holiday (so that Caesar could not take action). Yeah, the Julian calendar was established to end the sort of horilogical fuckery that the Romans (and Greeks) liked to do. The calendar was set each year by the high priest of Rome; when Caesar was high priest and his enemy was consul, Caesar made the year about 200 days long. When his ally was consul, he made the year 440 days long. The augurs could declare any day to be 'bad luck' and no political decisions could be made on that day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 06:32
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Hard to believe that a lawyer would act in such a manner. Yeah, I post the popehat tweets because he reminds me so much of my beloved friends in this thread I would honestly be surprised if he didn't have an SA account at some point
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 07:24
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah, the Julian calendar was established to end the sort of horilogical fuckery that the Romans (and Greeks) liked to do. The calendar was set each year by the high priest of Rome; when Caesar was high priest and his enemy was consul, Caesar made the year about 200 days long. When his ally was consul, he made the year 440 days long. The augurs could declare any day to be 'bad luck' and no political decisions could be made on that day. Also why Sept (7)ember Oct(8)over Nov(9)ember and Dec(10)ember are all off by two nominal months, because they just stuck July(Julius) and August (Agustus) smack dab in the middle to make 12 months.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 07:51
|
|
|
You plebs using an antique Gregorian calendar make me sick. I only use the French Revolution's calendar. Happy du Quartidi of Frimaire, year 227.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 13:24
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You plebs using an antique Gregorian calendar make me sick. I only use the French Revolution's calendar. Happy du Quartidi of Frimaire, year 227. Happy day of the pig, citizen!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Fomenko's calendar or gtfo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:You plebs using an antique Gregorian calendar make me sick. I only use the French Revolution's calendar. Happy du Quartidi of Frimaire, year 227. Plebs make you sick? This way to Madame Guillotine, citizen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
I prefer to measure time in “days without wanting to murder opposing counsel.” I’m up to 7. But two of my hearings were cancelled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
uberkeyzer posted:Plebs make you sick? This way to Madame Guillotine, citizen. Jokes on you I'm Tribune of the plebians!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 16:00
|
|
 Yes I'm sure he let you climb up there and lean over the divider
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 03:15 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:
First off, wouldn't that testimony be admissible? And second, should the judge really be objecting on behalf of her opponent? Whatever it's a comic is the answer to both questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 19:04
|
|
