|
loving fantastic
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 12:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Going on first serious leave in a while. Burn out folks, don't do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 12:29
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:At least once, minimum. After that, depends on how composed you are. I feel like the state of decomposition of your visitors depends on how long it’s been since their visit “concluded.”
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:loving fantastic Also considered "if it's legitimate hope, law school has a way of shutting that down"
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 12:39
|
|
|
Simpsons Reference posted:Also considered "if it's legitimate hope, law school has a way of shutting that down" You are the mod we need, but not the one we deserve.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 13:13
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Going on first serious leave in a while. I'm working my (for now) last day as an attorney tomorrow. My desk is empty of paperwork now for the first time in like... 5 years. It feels weird. But like a good weird, you know? Go to law school. Simpsons Reference posted:Also considered "if it's legitimate hope, law school has a way of shutting that down" Would also have been good, but I like this one better.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 13:43
|
|
|
therobit posted:Exchange your wife for a study buddy. Just make sure it’s a wife that’ll give you a mulligan
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Just make sure it’s a wife that’ll give you a mulligan So that's what we're calling them these days?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 14:12
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:Just make sure it’s a wife that’ll give you a mulligan Is that the thing where the man is on the toilet?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 14:16
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I'm working my (for now) last day as an attorney tomorrow. What did I miss?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 14:24
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lol people thinking you can just up and move to Canada like they don’t have an immigration policy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 14:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:What did I miss? I got a new job as a not-attorney in a municipal administration gig? More money, fewer hours, great pension plan and benefits, significantly shorter commute, extreme job security? E: To explain, it's a lawyer job in a legal advisory position (think government in-house) but due to rules I am no longer permitted to retain my active license as an advocate. I will now have a passive license. It's an entirely arbitrary distinction except my working title changes. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 14:56 on Jul 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 14:50
|
|
|
Simpsons Reference posted:Also considered "if it's legitimate hope, law school has a way of shutting that down" Save that for later. One day we will need it. I was reading through some of the advice from litigators in this thread and it surprised me how little abuse of process people described. I started my career at an English firm called Herbert Smith (now HSF after acquiring some Aussie firm, and apparently still the top English firm for disputes) whose informal motto was, according to people I met after leaving the firm, “never knowingly polite”. The belief that process was there to be abused was deeply held by many of the people who were then partners, and while I loathed my mandatory 6 months in litigation (and to be fair was equally loathed by my supervisor), I actually rather enjoyed the intellectual exercise of bending the process as far as it would go.* Weirdly this bled into the corporate practice that I ended up in, making the firm’s ambitious associates hyper aggressive in a way that ensured most never got close to partnership. *Also writing scrupulously polite letters implying that opposing counsel might very well be the worst, laziest, most incompetent individuals ever to practise. That was a lot of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 15:16
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Save that for later. One day we will need it. That explains my “thank you for your undated letter” story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 15:22
|
|
|
This is criminal law and I work for "the man," but if I was constantly trying to skirt procedure and bend rules "just cause" I would be rightly chewed out by every judge I practiced with and then probably fired. Prosecutors do better when they're the ones following rules and being dependable. I see the same judges every single day, and gain nothing by being shifty. When the situation calls for me to attempt to bend a rule, the judge is more likely to give me a break when I can explain why this situation is unique and calls for a deviation from my standard reliability. Being trustworthy bleeds into actually winning motions too; I'm usually the one the judge asks for a factual synopsis from, not the blustering defense attorney.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:This is criminal law and I work for "the man," but if I was constantly trying to skirt procedure and bend rules "just cause" I would be rightly chewed out by every judge I practiced with and then probably fired. In civil litigation, a lot of the process stuff happens outside the view of the judge, and the judge will be very mad at both sides if he has to deal with it unless one side is so very clearly in the wrong he's only mad at that side. So there's a lot of games of chicken about "is this unreasonable enough to actually risk going to the judge" and "is he actually willing to take this to the judge or is he bluffing?". I generally find it's a waste of time but it's very different from the criminal context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:This is criminal law and I work for "the man," but if I was constantly trying to skirt procedure and bend rules "just cause" I would be rightly chewed out by every judge I practiced with and then probably fired. Similarly as (very green) defence counsel I have found that knowing procedure and sticking to it is not only advantageous to your client in the vast majority of circumstances because of reasons described here, but it gives you a lot more leeway when you actually do gently caress up and need the court and the prosecutor to allow you to bend the rules a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lol people thinking you can just up and move to Canada like they don’t have an immigration policy. Canada's immigration system is much more sensible, unless you have a 9 year old simple dui. But, I have a passport, so whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
My understanding is the defense bluster is not for the court's benefit nor the cases, but for the client's perception of "fighting". See also elected prosecutors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:In civil litigation, a lot of the process stuff happens outside the view of the judge, and the judge will be very mad at both sides if he has to deal with it unless one side is so very clearly in the wrong he's only mad at that side. So there's a lot of games of chicken about "is this unreasonable enough to actually risk going to the judge" and "is he actually willing to take this to the judge or is he bluffing?". A propos this, leaving law and having to find actual commercially viable solutions to problems was a total mindfuck and I spent two years head in hands, gibbering “the horror...the horror” as I wondered what kind of madhouse I’d entered where it was necessary to actually reach an imperfect solution that satisfied juuuust enough people because otherwise we make no money and our business folds. Maybe being a mediator would prepare a person for this. It gave me a phenomenal respect for small-mid tier firm practitioners because holy poo poo guys, establishing a reputation without borrowing your firm’s prestige is HARD.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 18:05
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My understanding is the defense bluster is not for the court's benefit nor the cases, but for the client's perception of "fighting". See also elected prosecutors. This is true for corporate law too. The best partners I worked with or opposite knew which points to genuinely fight and which to just concede. They got deals closed quickly, quietly and efficiently. The most commercially successful sometimes missed the big points, but were A-1 on knowing which ones they could embarrass the other side or go super-partisan on. Clients loving lapped this poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
'Round these parts, a person who gets a reputation as someone who tries to bend the rules or someone who is unprofessional will be remembered by every judge and attorney in the county, and those people walk into every court room on every case with a handicap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 18:17
|
|
|
You guys might know. I'm trying to find (or aggregate) a list of relatively high profile or high value convictions/sentences. I know there's this which is pretty neat but I'm wondering how I would go about finding more. I checked but it doesn't look like superior courts generally release information like this, so I'm not sure what source I would really be looking for. unless that literally IS a list of everything in the country, which it might be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Thumbtacks posted:You guys might know. I'm trying to find (or aggregate) a list of relatively high profile or high value convictions/sentences. I know there's this which is pretty neat but I'm wondering how I would go about finding more. I checked but it doesn't look like superior courts generally release information like this, so I'm not sure what source I would really be looking for. i don't even know what you mean by "relatively high profile or high value convictions/sentences", but at a minimum you'd also want to look at NY AG press releases, and probably other large state press releases
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Yeah if I tried to skirt the process in the regular I'd get turbo hosed by the judges in short order. Then pick up that reputation and get what on by OCs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 21:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don't even know what you mean by "relatively high profile or high value convictions/sentences", but at a minimum you'd also want to look at NY AG press releases, and probably other large state press releases it's a long story but basically there's a guy i'm working with that tries to help people get lower sentences or to at least prep them for how much jail is going to suck but he wants to primarily target white collar crime (so basically just fraud) of relatively high amounts, so i figure that site will probably mention most of the high value offenses, but he also wants just a general list of like people convicted of fraud every week and im struggling to figure out how exactly to curate that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Thumbtacks posted:it's a long story but basically there's a guy i'm working with that tries to help people get lower sentences or to at least prep them for how much jail is going to suck but he wants to primarily target white collar crime (so basically just fraud) of relatively high amounts, so i figure that site will probably mention most of the high value offenses, but he also wants just a general list of like people convicted of fraud every week and im struggling to figure out how exactly to curate that. sounds like a google news alert sort of situation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Thumbtacks posted:it's a long story but basically there's a guy i'm working with that tries to help people get lower sentences or to at least prep them for how much jail is going to suck but he wants to primarily target white collar crime (so basically just fraud) of relatively high amounts, so i figure that site will probably mention most of the high value offenses, but he also wants just a general list of like people convicted of fraud every week and im struggling to figure out how exactly to curate that. Do you have access to Westlaw or Lexis or some kind of wire service that will send you alerts that you can tailor with search terms?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
I do use Lexis, actually, although I've never used it for this kind of thing. Would LN do this for me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
Thumbtacks posted:I do use Lexis, actually, although I've never used it for this kind of thing. Would LN do this for me? Yes, if you call their research attorney, or customer service, or your rep, they should walk you through how to do it. Research attorney would be best since they'll know how to do Boolean. Also you can mix and match sources this way, so you can include news articles, wire reports and press releases, court opinions. Whatever sources you have in your contract.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Yes, if you call their research attorney, or customer service, or your rep, they should walk you through how to do it. Research attorney would be best since they'll know how to do Boolean. oh poo poo that's awesome, thank you!
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 22:13
|
|
|
Man, I just got loving owned in a case. Our case is presided over by judge A. The magistrate judge M issued a nice report/recommendation for us, and other side objected. Judge B for some reason issued an order two days ago adopting the report. No idea why judge B issued it, but oh well, we won. Two days later, the order got pulled as filed in error. How does a judge issue an order in case that is not his? It was a nicely reasoned order too. gvibes fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jul 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:In civil litigation, a lot of the process stuff happens outside the view of the judge, and the judge will be very mad at both sides if he has to deal with it unless one side is so very clearly in the wrong he's only mad at that side. So there's a lot of games of chicken about "is this unreasonable enough to actually risk going to the judge" and "is he actually willing to take this to the judge or is he bluffing?". Michigan just revised its discovery rules so courts can order discovery disputes into mediation. Courts can also require that you can't file a motion regarding a discovery dispute unless you have already mediated unsuccessfully or have some reason it's so urgent mediation is inappropriate. It's more formal than my traditional process for resolving discovery disputes, which is to take the attorneys into a side room when they show up for their motion on Friday afternoon and say "Welcome to your new home, you can come out when you have a stipulated order. If you can't reach a stipulation, Judge has an opening on his calendar at 8:00 a.m. on Monday and he'll see you then."
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
gvibes posted:Man, I just got loving owned in a case. Our case is presided over by judge A. The magistrate judge M issued a nice report/recommendation for us, and other side objected. Judge B for some reason issued an order two days ago adopting the report. No idea why judge B issued it, but oh well, we won. Two days later, the order got pulled as filed in error. One time I had a final protective order signed before a hearing was held. That ruled.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 00:49
|
|
|
Thumbtacks posted:it's a long story but basically there's a guy i'm working with that tries to help people get lower sentences or to at least prep them for how much jail is going to suck but he wants to primarily target white collar crime (so basically just fraud) of relatively high amounts, so i figure that site will probably mention most of the high value offenses, but he also wants just a general list of like people convicted of fraud every week and im struggling to figure out how exactly to curate that. This is definitely the plot of a movie. I feel like Will Ferrell is in it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 01:27
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:This is definitely the plot of a movie. I feel like Will Ferrell is in it. Get Hard
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
I’m working on a giant case, and the court set a hearing tomorrow to announce its forthcoming decision on a preliminary injunction motion we filed. It’ll be a great or terrible way to end the week! As an added bonus, later that day, I have to defend the depo of someone who is, by a wide margin, the worst witness I have ever prepped. I’ll be thrilled if it’s no worse than “mysterious Russian sub leaking massive amounts of radiation” bad. Alaemon posted:Michigan just revised its discovery rules so courts can order discovery disputes into mediation. Courts can also require that you can't file a motion regarding a discovery dispute unless you have already mediated unsuccessfully or have some reason it's so urgent mediation is inappropriate. All discovery disputes should be handled by letter (two pages max), followed by conference call, with option to request in the letter full briefing on the issue if one or both parties think the issues are complex enough to warrant full briefing. Makes disputes easier to resolve and tends to lower the bullshit because judges don’t mind dealing discovery disputes if they can issue an oral order after a 15 minute phone call.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 05:50
|
|
|
Acosta resigned. Good, obviously. But anyone else got the sense that he was looking for a way out and took it? It's not like the Labor Secretary of all people would survive scrutiny over a prior lawyer decision. Like, this is small beans compared to straight-up embezzlement that the other cabinet secretaries are practicing. He either wanted to leave and find his excuse, or he knows this Epstein story is going to get worse before it gets better (it's probably the latter).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 15:45
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Acosta resigned. nah. if he wanted a way out he would have just resigned, nobody leaves the trump admin with their reputation intact and if you want to leave and have the chance to, you take it. he tried to survive, and either got quietly told trump was going to fire him soon and decided he'd rather walk the plank himself, or decided that as long as he was SecLabor he was going to get a lot more scrutiny but if he resigned maybe people would stop focusing on his obviously corrupt plea bargain and he would have a better shot of getting away with it
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Acosta is the rare Trump official that besmirched himself before his Trump tenure. I'm sure he's been a trash Labor Secretary for workers, but that's not going to be the worst thing about his career in his Wikipedia entry. I don't think Trump would have fired him because deep down Trump is a coward about firing people. He only fired Sessions because he thought he had to to save his own rear end. That's not a consideration for Labor Secretary. He just wouldn't care and he'd shun Acosta. I take it Acosta figured if he's going to be shunned and ignored, might as well leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2019 16:14
|
|