|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yuns you should start a gym at work and require that junior associates train. don't require them just constantly talk about it and how you don't respect anyone who doesn't work out and working out shows your work ethic that way they feel like they're forcing themselves to do it and hate themselves in addition to hating you
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yuns you should start a gym at work and require that junior associates train.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:don't require them
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Stop wearing suits in the office and flex menacingly at any other partner that dares disrespect the guns. Casual fridays can turn into gi fridays but only for associates that train regularly and have received their first belt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:11
|
|
|
Wear tracksuits. There’s this rich plaintiff attorney who does that to depositions and stuff and it’s funny
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 17:15
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yuns you should start a gym at work and require that junior associates train. Unless it means that they train at 4:30 am or whenever the hell Yuns trains, it's not a very lawyer thing to do because it's beneficial for the junior associates in question
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:30
|
|
|
linked someone to the saga of toonaquote:Oh God toona no not the study group girl
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
I'm happy to report that after two abortive efforts, Roger Stone's attorneys figured out how to get admitted pro hac vice
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
every so often i recall that some lawyers accidentally released liens on 1.5 billion of GM collateral by mistake and nobody paid any attention to it for years and that GM then went into bankruptcy i'm glad that wasn't me
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:every so often i recall that some lawyers accidentally released liens on 1.5 billion of GM collateral by mistake and nobody paid any attention to it for years and that GM then went into bankruptcy Wait, a debtor can just unilaterally cancel loan collateral? What do the (formerly) secured creditors do about it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 20:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Yuns is the best. He could also beat up pretty much any other goon. I like Yuns (phone autocorrects to Guns lmao) but I found out in the whiskey thread that he spits when tasting and I'm not sure I can be OK with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Wait, a debtor can just unilaterally cancel loan collateral? What do the (formerly) secured creditors do about it? the secured lenders signed off on the form canceling the security interest, it wasn't unilateral
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:02
|
|
|
So It Goes posted:Wait, a debtor can just unilaterally cancel loan collateral? What do the (formerly) secured creditors do about it? I think he means GM was the creditor
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I think he means GM was the creditor no, gm was the borrower, they borrowed money from a consortium of secured lenders lead by JPM. they paid off some small part to get a small part of the collateral released. the paralegal told to draft the document to release the small part of the collateral instead drafted a document to release all collateral. the senior gm lawyers didn't notice. they sent it over to JPM, the agent for the secured lenders, who didn't notice. JPM said "looks good, file it" it was filed gm went into bankruptcy and suddenly everyone realized that the $1.5 billion of secured debt...was not oops! https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...N0KU2AY20150121
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I like Yuns (phone autocorrects to Guns lmao) but I found out in the whiskey thread that he spits when tasting and I'm not sure I can be OK with that. Someday I'll be rich enough to afford to waste whiskey like that
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
GM frantically cutting costs during their bankruptcy era by designing and building vehicles with the most easily sourced components has made the parts hilariously universal and cheap for us now which is pretty great. e: I hope the paralegal that drafted that got a bonus when they figured it out tbh
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 21:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We let juries decide on the validity of patents. From a few pages ago - but we largely let juries in Marshall Texas decide on the validity of patents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:From a few pages ago - but we largely let juries in Marshall Texas decide on the validity of patents. Nah, TC Heartland killed that. It's down to 1 in 7. At this point it's more juries in Wilmington, Delaware. quote:In TC Heartland (2017) the Supreme Court ruled that a patent infringement lawsuit against a US company can only be filed in a venue (1) where the defendant is registered as a corporation (i.e., “a Delaware Corporation”); or (2) a venue where the defendant “has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Quoting 28 U.S.C. 1400(b). Previously, the Federal Circuit had ruled that venue was proper in any court with personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Nah, TC Heartland killed that. It's down to 1 in 7. At this point it's more juries in Wilmington, Delaware. the original "venue is anywhere despite this specific statute on point limiting patent venue" decision was one of the patented federal circuit doozies that somehow survived a few decades
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 02:43
|
|
|
Just got an offer at a more different big tech company not in the Bay Area. Yaaaay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:the original "venue is anywhere despite this specific statute on point limiting patent venue" decision was one of the patented federal circuit doozies that somehow survived a few decades It turns out that the Supreme Court only noticing bad statutory interpretation when there's a circuit split doesn't work very well when only one Circuit can hear certain appeals...no one could have predicted this!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 05:08
|
|
|
I think overall having a unified patent appeals court has been good for patent law. The Supreme Court has done more than their share to mess things up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 08:04
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I like Yuns (phone autocorrects to Guns lmao) but I found out in the whiskey thread that he spits when tasting and I'm not sure I can be OK with that. I thought the whole point of making partner was so you no longer had to deal with spitting/swallowing. Meatbag Esq. posted:I think overall having a unified patent appeals court has been good for patent law. The Supreme Court has done more than their share to mess things up. Yeah, no. CAFC is terrible (and completely captured), and the Supreme Court's involvement in patent law over the past ~15 years (which has mostly consisted of looking at CAFC's output and going "what the gently caress is wrong with you people?") has been A+.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 09:35
|
|
|
CAFC's Alice interpretation has been a total mess, not that the Office's response has been any better
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 14:47
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:CAFC's patent law interpretation has been a total mess, not that the Office's response has been any better
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 15:57
|
|
|
I was told the other day that information wants to be free
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
The test should be 1) is there an improvement disclosed 2) how is the improvement captured in the claims 3) is the specific way that the improvement captured in the claims routine and conventional (with some tighter rules on what qualifies as "routine and conventional" than merely known in the art. I think a good standard would be a reference describing the subject matter in a manner that makes it clear that it's not the author's own work) 4) do the specific means preempt the improvement itself The biggest problem the examining corps has had is that everything but the third step is totally outside their expertise The biggest issue I have with the office's guidance is that it doesn't treat something like "determining a key word using latent semantic analysis" the same as "determining a keyword using a processor" when at the end of the day the computer implementation in the former is pretty much just as generic as the latter
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 16:35
|
|
|
I love it when all the patent nerds get going because it reminds me of how laypersons probably feel when trying to parse our general talking shop; like dimly aware of whats being said, but no real concrete idea of what it means or its practical application.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 17:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I love it when all the patent nerds get going because it reminds me of how laypersons probably feel when trying to parse our general talking shop; like dimly aware of whats being said, but no real concrete idea of what it means or its practical application. Imagine talking to laypersons daily I'm two months in and I still can't figure out if I love it or hate it
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I thought the whole point of making partner was so you no longer had to deal with spitting/swallowing. I'm sure the practice chairs, rainmakers, and managing partner will require frequent servicing, not to mention The Client.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2019 21:08
|
|
|
I got to impeach a witness today during cross with video footage of them doing the exact thing they were denying doing. It was the highlight of my legal career so far. (I lost the trial anyway).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 04:18
|
|
|
Hey, I want to remind you all to quote "good" posts in the legal questions thread in case they get deleted before everyone else can laugh. Like that maybe (but I can't tell because OP edited) sexual harassment one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:I got to impeach a witness today during cross with video footage of them doing the exact thing they were denying doing. It was the highlight of my legal career so far. (I lost the trial anyway). Video impeachment is the absolute best, especially of cops. When I was a PD and the video clearly contradicted the officer, I'd keep asking the officer what he was seeing until he testified it was different than his report/testimony or until I got an objection for asked and answered. Until then I would replay the video as many times as it took for the officer to admit he was wrong/exaggerating/lying.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
Tokelau All Star posted:I got to impeach a witness today during cross with video footage of them doing the exact thing they were denying doing. It was the highlight of my legal career so far. (I lost the trial anyway). i got to impeach a plaintiff once with his own expert's testimony which had contradicted him on every key point that was fun, don't use expert witnesses when you're lying through your teeth about very basic things - and if you do, uh, make sure the expert is on board with those lies before you let him get deposed rather than letting him happily concede every element that proves your claim is nonsense
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 17:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i got to impeach a plaintiff once with his own expert's testimony which had contradicted him on every key point Sounds like the expert was happy to torpedo a case he didn't want on his calendar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Is anyone aware of a jurisdiction where you would legitimately say it is difficult to fire people 'for poor performance' because of something law related? Basically every single time In my life I have encountered someone saying "its hard to fire people" it seems like its really just a bureaucratic/organizational failure of management, or maybe its just a difficult and uncomfortable thing that people will always mess up somehow as basic as you can make the process. There is obviously more to it and varies but my experiences tell me basically in almost all cases giving a performance review and putting the employee on notice of a single itemized performance issue and then documenting a subsequent review where that thing was still happening would count for just cause or whatever is needed to fire someone in that particular place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 18:34
|
|
|
Murrah posted:Is anyone aware of a jurisdiction where you would legitimately say it is difficult to fire people 'for poor performance' because of something law related? Basically every single time In my life I have encountered someone saying "its hard to fire people" it seems like its really just a bureaucratic/organizational failure of management, or maybe its just a difficult and uncomfortable thing that people will always mess up somehow as basic as you can make the process. You mean not as a sort of institutional inertia/won't sell out a useless worker for loyalty issues, but legitimate documented poor performance being insufficient cause? Mine, I guess? I've certainly seen it, worker protections are pretty stong and poor work performance has to be very well documented as well as documentation of all the things the employer ought to have done to remedy the situation (training, guidance, assistance). Of course, it varies with the job. And god help you if they are a protected class and the dismissal smells of discrimination due to reverse burden of proof/assumption of responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 18:49
|
|
|
Found this one on Reddit: So, here's the story: I started law school in August of 2008, two months later the world's economic life dies. I figured "whatever, by the time I graduate things will be fine." Law school in the US is three years and during the summers you work an internship for a law firm or a public organization (District Attorney's office, public defender, etc) and in the past by the time you graduated you would have a job offer. During my first summer, there were no internships. Firms simply weren't doing it; they were laying lawyers off, not taking on new ones, not even interns. During my second summer, I cold-called law firms and offered to volunteer just so I could learn the ropes. They still wouldn't bite; they had no time to teach a new lawyer how to work. I graduated in NYC in May of 2011 and I have to move home to my parents' at the age of 27 because I have no job. I set up an office in their garage and I spent the summer studying for the bar. By August, I'm applying to any law job I can. By November, I find out I passed the bar and I get sworn in; I'm a licensed attorney now, but no job. My loans are now due, but no non-law, yet still white-collar job will hire me because they know I'm a lawyer; they assume I'll just quit as soon as a law job comes through. I need money to pay my loans. A friend who manages the liquor warehouse offers me hours so I take them. I'm one of two attorneys and three people with a JD working at this warehouse. At this point, I decide to take the New York bar (I only took Jersey at first) to be able to cast a wider net with two law licenses. I study my butt off and pass the NY bar in February of 2012. I'm licensed in two states now. I apply to EVERY judge in the state of New Jersey for a clerkship; over 460. I get three interviews, no offers. I keep applying to every job I can find. I network with every connection I can. At this point I'm working as a substitute teacher in a high school, I'm helping my friend with his IT company, I"m working as a leasing agent one day a week at an apartment complex, on weekend nights I'm running a photo booth at weddings and Sweet 16's, and on Sundays I'm back at the liquor store. I also create my own business and start my own law firm to try to get some experience; I do traffic tickets. The thing is: unless you've been trained by someone who knows law, you can't really do law without screwing yourself and your client. But remember, I had no internships and I've never worked as a lawyer. So I"m stuck in the cycle of needing experience to get a job, but not having any experience cause I don't have a job. In April of 2013 I get an offer for a quasi-law job: $45K a year, but not enough to move out of my parents' house and pay my loans. A year later I get a better offer to work for a landlord-tenant firm for $55K. Cool! Private practice! I'm a real lawyer now! I figure I'll get bumped up to a real lawyer's salary in a few months. It never happens. I go to court every day on behalf of landlords, people cry and beg me not to evict them. It's horrible and miserable. I became a lawyer to help people; now I'm evicting them from their homes for $55K. Which was enough to move out and get my own place at the age of 30, but I'm paycheck to paycheck; breaking even every month. I only last 10 months selling my soul to eat ramen every night. I hear about this thing called Document Review. It pays about the same as my current job, but no stress and no bad karma. I quit the Landlord firm and start doing doc review. You sit in front of a computer for 10 hours a day and read documents on a screen and look for certain legal details and stuff that's relevant to the case. Pre-recession, this was the work for the first year associates in a law firm making about $70K; but after the recession law firms started outsourcing it to small firms that just hire attorneys for short term stints and pay them $30 an hour. It's not a terrible salary (but it's awful when you consider the fact that you borrowed $100K+ to go to law school) But I'm a contractor which means I have no benefits, no sick days, no holidays. If you don't work, you don't get paid. You get laid off a lot and move between different staffing agencies often when cases end or settle. I'm making about $50K when you factor in no benefits, but with the loans, I"m squeaking by. I do this for about two years. I go to networking events to try to break away from law and get started in another field. I apply to insurance companies, tech startups, ANYTHING I can think of! No one will give me a chance because I'm a lawyer and not trained in whatever field their business is in. I can't go back to school and take out more loans. Finally I melt down. My lease is ending, I have no permanent job, no way to get a new, cheaper lease without a permanent job. I'm in despair and have no idea what to do so I say to myself "Don't get a new job, don't get a new apartment; just leave." On August 13th, 2016, I got in my car with a tent and camping equipment and started driving west. I thought I'd be gone for about 2 months, I ended up being gone for five and half. I stayed with friends and family and lived in my tent and traveled around the entire country; state and National Parks became home. I got back to Jersey in January of 2017, chilled out a bit and reevaluated my values. Decided I was done chasing a higher salary and just decided to live with less and not more. - I went back to doing doc review, refinanced some loans, paid some off, and applied for things I really wanted to do while living in a one-room cabin in Central Jersey. Things took a turn for the better and in April of 2018 I started my first season as a Park Ranger for the National Park Service and this past summer was the most fulfilling 6 months of my entire life. For the first time in my life, all my work and life experience actually made me better and adept at my job; and I excelled. In October of 2018 I was named Ranger of the Month for Gateway National Recreation Area. Everyone starts out as a seasonal Ranger in the NPS, so the job ended at the end of October and I started document review again in December which I'm currently doing in New York City while I wait to hear about my applications for the 2019 National Park Season. (I apologize for typos, poor grammar, and stream of consciousness; it's hard to distill 10 years into a coherent post.) So my advice is: Don't go to law school. Go to the forest instead. EDIT/UPDATE: Many have asked about the ranger job and the loans so here's some details: Firstly, I applied to the ranger jobs after the camping trip in 2017 but didn't get hired. I networked with some rangers who gave some advice on how to structure my resume and application. It worked and I got hired for the 2018 season. I'm an Eagle Scout, had lots of outdoor experience, experience as an actor, and I'm a scholar of history. I've also done some Civil War re-enacting. All these factors made me a good fit to run programs and events at Fort Wadsworth; a Civil War-era fortress on Staten Island built to defend NY harbor. I was an interpretation ranger which means I run/facilitate programs with the public. Host tours, develop new events, create content for social media, and do the nighttime lantern tours! (Those are the best! Walking around a Civil War fort at night; never thought I'd be doing that when I was sitting in court waiting for the judge.) The shutdown did affect hiring but they've begun contacting applicants this week. As far as the loans: they are not paid off and won't be for a long time. I paid off some, refinancing helped with the interest on others, and I got some help from family. Honestly, living on the road and thinking about soldiers during the Civil War has changed my economic life. I cut expenses every way I can. I rent a single room in an apartment. I work from 9-7 every day and I bring a bag lunch and dinner with me every day. [A full day's rations, if you will.  ] I plan to work in parts of the country that are much more affordable as well.BUT, and this is the MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS POST: I am super, super, super, super, super, super fortunate. I have family and friends who stood by me throughout the entire ordeal. I'm single and I have no kids. I only have to worry about myself. I thought I knew what stress was until I saw friends with children get laid off from their jobs. I am not special and I am not unique. Look at the responses to this post. Look at the stories people are sharing. There are millions, MILLIONS, just like me. Millions who got thrashed and wrecked by the economy. I found a way to make a rough situation work for my goals and values and tolerances, but there are millions who continue to struggle and who have no alternatives; who don't have the luxury of dropping what torments them and moving on to a new life. We all got destroyed in '08. Let's support each other and let's never forget what this feels like. Someday we'll own or run companies or be someone's manager or be political leaders. Let's never forget how this humbled us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 18:52
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Sounds like the expert was happy to torpedo a case he didn't want on his calendar. no he literally didn't understand the plaintiff's theory, because between the deposition and the trial the lawyer clearly tried to get him on the same page and he tried singing from the plaintiff's hymnal, until like the eight time that he gave a sort of noncommittal response trying not to lie but not to concede we were right "that's an interesting response. do you recall testifying that..." and having his deposition testimony read aloud it was basically trying to misrepresent how specific types of financial accounts work and what the account statements actually mean and the plaintiff was banking on the judge misunderstanding the account statement
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:28 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:You mean not as a sort of institutional inertia/won't sell out a useless worker for loyalty issues, but legitimate documented poor performance being insufficient cause? Interesting. Modify's my thinking. Vox Nihili posted:Found this one on Reddit: I haven't read one of these stories in a while and they are really amazing and brutal. Im so glad my University education was affordable as it was overseas. Im so glad I didn't try to enter the US law job market or do a LLM with my foreign law degree because I would be competing with hordes of people with JD's just brutally hungry for work like from this story. One of the things that really strikes me, still, is how I can't discuss this kind of reality with any older person in my life. They are all still unwaveringly attached the the prestige that law has and surely it must be a good way to make money still etc. when for a lot of folks its a way to big debt bondage Murrah fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Jan 31, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2019 19:18
|
|