Phil Moscowitz posted:SCOTUS is above all an autoerotic fartsniffing enterprise with political characteristics. Strong post/av combo
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Good advice. The problem is he bills flat fee for cases so there are no "billable hours." He makes 5-7k per case and has about 300 active cases. I'd tell you to do a contract where you essentially trade equity for years of service with a guaranteed base salary and a increasing revocable percentage of ownership every year, with you receiving the greater part of net proceeds or your salary, depending on which is which and a buyout provision if you're there more than 3 years but less than 7. You can totally negotiate this to where you're not screwed. You're a lawyer goddammit!
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Good advice. The problem is he bills flat fee for cases so there are no "billable hours." He makes 5-7k per case and has about 300 active cases. What guarantee do you have that the client---who appears to represent 100% of this dude's business---will continue with you when he decides to retire? I assume this is an insurance company?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Dear Debbie, Tell him you don't want the work but you're willing to spend more time with his family for him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
Couldn't this guy just choose his cases and get some kind of referral bonus + brownie points for referring work he turns out to a friendly firm in the same field of law? Is the idea that when he retires hell still be collecting some % of what your making? Like some kind of tithe?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2019 23:10
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Couldn't this guy just choose his cases and get some kind of referral bonus + brownie points for referring work he turns out to a friendly firm in the same field of law? Is the idea that when he retires hell still be collecting some % of what your making? Like some kind of tithe? He'll probably be doing that well before he retires. Like the goal is probably to barely come into the office at all and pull down >50% of the firm profits. You can't just refer work to another lawyer and get a percentage of the fee. You have to actually do something to charge a client. Ethics or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:05
|
|
|
Let me give you the harsh reality of a legal practice. If you don’t have any clients, then you don’t have any leverage. Plain and simple. What are you going to do if he never gives you any ownership? Try to steal the client? That he wins trials for all the time? Or watch the sharks circle your sinking ship, biting chunks off of you over a few years until he retires? This isn’t directly only at “you” Roger. Just in general.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:21
|
|
|
It just seems odd to me that he'd only bring on 1 extra associate if he wants this to be a self-sustaining operation. If there is no one for Mudd to compete against then won't he (mudd) want to terminate this relationship as soon as the guy retires and whatever agreement they have is completed so he can keep 100% of the earnings? Looking to coast off of 1 other person's work because you brought them in seems pretty brittle imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:23
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:It just seems odd to me that he'd only bring on 1 extra associate if he wants this to be a self-sustaining operation. If there is no one for Mudd to compete against then won't he (mudd) want to terminate this relationship as soon as the guy retires and whatever agreement they have is completed so he can keep 100% of the earnings? Looking to coast off of 1 other person's work because you brought them in seems pretty brittle imo Unless he contractually agrees to retire at a certain age and give away his firm (lol), why would he? Unless and until Mudd knows he can leave and take the client with him, Midd will be carrying water as long as the guy is alive. Hopefully getting well paid for it, but I’ve never seen an employment contract for a non-owner lawyer that didn’t allow termination. Nor a partnership/operating agreement that didn’t allow the majority stakeholders to throw out a minority. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Feb 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:30
|
|
|
hmm not sure but I would hope that in 5 years I'd be able to figure something out! Particularly if I was becoming something of a known quantity in the field / region
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:hmm not sure but I would hope that in 5 years I'd be able to figure something out! Particularly if I was becoming something of a known quantity in the field / region Whoops I edited my post on accident when I meant to make a reply. Yes of course that’s the goal, but there are a lot of risks to consider.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 00:39
|
|
|
Jesus Christ: https://theslot.jezebel.com/covington-high-school-teen-sues-the-washington-post-for-1832742408/amp?__twitter_impression=true
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Jesus Christ: https://theslot.jezebel.com/covington-high-school-teen-sues-the-washington-post-for-1832742408/amp?__twitter_impression=true Lol yea sure good luck. I’m sure that third party company you hired to do the “investigation” will sure win you one of the hardest lawsuits against one of the biggest newspapers
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
If his wife wants him to work less and his employee allows him to do so, why would he ever retire? Moreover, why would anyone turn over a $1.2m business to an employee who is bringing in zero new revenue to the firm? Is he just the world's nicest guy or something? Personally I'd treat it like a straight employment offer. If the present dollars he's offering match the present work required then go for it. But I'd discount future retirement / profit sharing to zero.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 04:46
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Jesus Christ: https://theslot.jezebel.com/covington-high-school-teen-sues-the-washington-post-for-1832742408/amp?__twitter_impression=true Well, Thomas did write recently that he wants to rip up New York Times v. Sullivan!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 10:54
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Well, Thomas did write recently that he wants to rip up New York Times v. Sullivan! You summoned me? Here is a pube for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Second interview scheduled for monday with the general counsel for the entire agency. That seems like an offer in the works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 15:58
|
|
|
I've seen countless examples of attorneys who "are going to retire and hand over the business" on some multiyear plan. They almost never do. The greed, ego, and inherent nature of attorneys to want to keep an asset/weapon (clients) is always too strong. I think in many cases, they may genuinely believe it themselves, for a while. Well, actually I don't completely think that. But let's say I did. I still think that as time goes on, that desire to be the man out at lunch with the client, the realization that "Hey, I can be a little lazier and dump all the irritating poo poo off to this schmuck, and just keep the sweet money flowing in along with a country club and dinners on the firm," they all kick in. And no one is better than an attorney at rationalizing and arguing why they're not really renegging on a deal, why they're really not being an rear end in a top hat, why the younger attorney "just isn't ready yet," or even just "I changed my mind, I've built this over my entire life, it's perfectly fair for me to decide I'm not ready to go yet." Even my own firm (well, maybe my old firm, you get the point) has some mega-hitter who has been on a five year plan to retire for about the last 15 years. He just keeps draining more money than he would otherwise get out of the firm under some illusory promise that he'll start working in the juniors more and transition the stuff. He's more than happy to play king of the hill, dine with clients, dump gross poo poo onto the junior partners and associates, etc. Stop working and actually transition clients? Not so much. He still goes out to dinner and drinks with the clients alone. It's a delicate thing, you see. The clients love him. They're not comfortable yet with others. He's trying to work with them on it, but it will just queer the relationship if anyone but him drinks scotch with the GC (or anyone else in the company). Fucker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:06
|
|
|
on the one hand timbs v. indiana is a very good, effectively unanimous decision, on the other hand i am extremely perturbed to find myself vaugely agreeing with gorusch and thomas that all of substantive due process should really be under the privileges and immunities clause
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:on the one hand timbs v. indiana is a very good, effectively unanimous decision, on the other hand i am extremely perturbed to find myself vaugely agreeing with gorusch and thomas that all of substantive due process should really be under the privileges and immunities clause That's their method of overturning all abortion laws. Thomas has been writing dissents and concurrences saying that since he's been on the bench. I remember a while back and flipped through a bunch of decisions and Thomas takes every opportunity to bitch about due process incorporation that he can. e: also privs & immunity applies to US citizens vs due process that applies to everyone under the constitution's jurisdiction. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:46 on Feb 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:That's their method of overturning all abortion laws. Thomas has been writing dissents and concurrences saying that since he's been on the bench. thomas has always done it, it's someone agreeing with him that gets me quizzical as i see it there's not actually a fundamental difference in the results you can get by placing incorporation in the due process clause rather than the privileges and immunities clause and it makes so much more sense because that's what the privileges and immunities clause was meant to do before it was interpreted into meaninglessness, but there's definitely a risk that transitioning between the two would be used as an excuse to drop pesky decisions a conservative court no longer wants to follow Mr. Nice! posted:e: also privs & immunity applies to US citizens vs due process that applies to everyone under the constitution's jurisdiction. aaaaaaaaaah, there's the trapdoor, thanks
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:thomas has always done it, it's someone agreeing with him that gets me quizzical I added in why via edit: P&I applies to US Citizens where due process applies to all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:47
|
|
|
apparently the other trapdoor (the other way) is that corporations - who are not citizens - would lose the protection of the bill of rights
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:apparently the other trapdoor (the other way) is that corporations - who are not citizens - would lose the protection of the bill of rights Corporate citizenship is the obvious solution to this oversight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:52
|
|
|
both of those trapdoors would interact very oddly with the equal protection clause, however, in a way that would probably lead to unending litigation
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:on the one hand timbs v. indiana is a very good, effectively unanimous decision, on the other hand i am extremely perturbed to find myself vaugely agreeing with gorusch and thomas that all of substantive due process should really be under the privileges and immunities clause Privileges or immunities We will not abide such inaccuracies in our Court
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 16:56
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:I've seen countless examples of attorneys who "are going to retire and hand over the business" on some multiyear plan. They almost never do. The greed, ego, and inherent nature of attorneys to want to keep an asset/weapon (clients) is always too strong. There's also no ethical or contractual way to guarantee a whale client stays with the firm when a lawyer leaves so the whole promise is illusory.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:12
|
|
|
Really leaning in on your av, phil. I like this new you! We've got a Stanford Prison Experiment going on with these new avatars. I'm disappointed that I was slow to share the Covington filing. The filing itself is worth reading. quote:...the Post engaged in a modern-day form of McCarthyism by competing with CNN and NBC, among others, to claim leadership of a mainstream and social media mob of bullies which attacked, vilified, and threatened Nicholas Sandmann quote:The Post wrongfully targeted and bullied Nicholas because he was the white, Catholic student wearing a red “Make America Great Again” souvenir cap on a school field trip to the January 18 March for Life in Washington, D.C. when he was unexpectedly and suddenly confronted by Nathan Phillips (“Phillips”), a known Native American activist, who beat a drum and sang loudly within inches of his face (“the January 18 incident”). Like, every paragraph of this is just...magnificent. quote:In order to fully compensate Nicholas for his damages and to punish, deter, and teach the Post a lesson it will never forget, this action seeks money damages in excess of Two Hundred and Fifty Million Dollars ($250,000,000.00) – the amount Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest person, paid in cash for the Post when his company, Nash Holdings, purchased the newspaper in 2013. (actual filing heading) quote:AN INVESTIGATION REVEALS THE TRUTH Like, it's full of this poo poo top to bottom. fake edit: oh god lol it's L. Lin Wood, and their instate is a corporate firm
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
So could this Covington case be subject to Anti-SLAPP? Cause lol. Discovery in this case gonna be lit. lol if they think they're going to bully Bezos in to settling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:23
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:So could this Covington case be subject to Anti-SLAPP? Cause lol. yeah you gotta sue the newspapers that are on shaky financial footing not the ones owned by the world's richest man who is currently going nuclear on someone else trying to bully him
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheRealEGS/status/1098047327468695552 USPOL thread math is that (setting aside all the issues with liquid assets, etc) 250 million is 13 hours of Bezos income.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:https://twitter.com/TheRealEGS/status/1098047327468695552 that math is bad; his net worth is 113b. someone assumed he made 113b last year which, uh, he didn't. edit: actually someone assumed he made something like 168b. he made a buttload of money but he didn't make that much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
My bad, I didn't check. Still, lol.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Privileges or immunities Im s-s-s-sorry Judge Senpai!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
His (Bezos') wealth is likely heavily tied to the price of Amazon stock. He doesn't have $168 billion and he's not going to sell a bunch of his stock to get close to that. I think his Amazon salary is like $75k. I'm sorry, "$75k."
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
How about the equivalent of 'punishing' a mere millionaire by forcing them to part with a cheap ($2500) used car? For the average American, a 250 million dollar judgement against Bezos is the equivalent of a speeding ticket (including court costs) Think about that for a moment. joat mon fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Feb 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
"Time to bully my way to my bully pulpit and hate on some Catholics" Jeff Bezosjoat mon posted:How about the equivalent of 'punishing' a mere millionaire by forcing them to part with a cheap ($2500) used car? We should sue him!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:There's also no ethical or contractual way to guarantee a whale client stays with the firm when a lawyer leaves so the whole promise is illusory. Yep. And it's also incredibly convenient - when the person finally does retire or loving kicks off, well, they tried their best - can't force a client to transition or stay. Never mind that trying their best meant doing jackshit to actually integrate other people into the work/client relations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 18:33
|
|
|
Well, I presume they are trying to get a similar long shot to Gawker. Try often enough and they'll find a sufficiently upset/conservative jury eventually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 09:06 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Covington filing. Gee, thanks for tricking me into reading about this dumbass bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2019 19:48
|
|