euphronius posted:

Telling someone they have a case or not establishes an attorney client relationship 100% and you aren’t getting paid for it . Bad idea

Kimsemus posted:

No it doesn't

please stop posting.

euphronius posted:

Hahah ok.

euphronius posted:

They aren’t going to tell you if you have a case for free. That’s not what a free consult is. In my opinion . Maybe lawyers do that but that seems unwise.
Especially in probate !!!

My point is what is he expecting ? If he has a case I’d imagine the lawyer would require 2k-5k deposit and this guy can’t pay for an hour !

euphronius posted:

Telling someone they have a case or not establishes an attorney client relationship 100% and you aren’t getting paid for it . Bad idea

evilweasel posted:

I would do that and basically every lawyer I'm aware of will get a description of what the matter is and advise the potential client if it's worth retaining them before taking the matter.
.

evilweasel posted:

By doing any client intake interview and explaining if you think it makes sense to retain you may get you conflicted out of the matter if the other side wants to hire you but that's very different from forming an attorney client relationship.

Nonexistence posted:

If guy is still looking at thread, most probate attorneys will give you a free consult, yes it will evaluate the quality of your case, yes they may expect an advance fee to bill against but many probate attorneys accept the majority of their billing coming out of your share of the estate.

The worst and most frequent mistake people in your position make is saying "well I can't afford $100 to explore my options or $2k to start this attorney rolling so I guess I'll just roll over and kiss my 100k+ inheritance goodbye with no resistance." The second worst and most frequent is waiting to do the math and figuring $2k for $100k+ is a pretty ok investment and acting on it when it's too late for your attorney to prevent deadbeat executor from blowing the estate on meth and beanie babies.

euphronius posted:

Kimsemus posted:

your last 5 posts or so have convinced me you're either drunk, had a stroke, or aren't a lawyer (at least not in the US). The fundamental lack of understanding regarding the formation of an attorney-client relationship, common business practice dictated by most bar associations, and making GBS threads on a potentially indigent person with a legal problem is all troubling.

euphronius posted:

I take your criticism seriously and assume it was meritorious. I reread my posts with your criticism in mind and determined they are fine. I am pretty confident about my understanding of the formation of attorney client relationships and (more importantly) malpractice liability. If you can point out specifically how I’m wrong I’ll listen.

Kimsemus posted:

I mean I don't know where to start -- again, you're telling someone a probate lawyer won't give him a free consult to establish the bare facts like can I take your case which is almost universally untrue.

You're demanding/thinking fees are reasonable for doing what amounts to your own due diligence in cases as part of a prelim.

You're asserting that providing advice like "do I have a viable case" is worth a "nominal" fee of $100-$300, because it's "good advice," which is just loving stupid. Answering that question is what every attorney on the planet has to do before they consider taking a case and you want to charge someone with limited funds for it -- which belies either a lack of care or lack of understanding about the profession. Maybe both.

You're asserting that this free consult, if you determine there is no case in your opinion, constitutes an attorney client relationship is objectively false. This is incredibly basic, base-level MPC stuff.

I'm not trying to derail the thread anymore, but you have someone with a genuine concern, who's made the bad decision to post ITT about it, and you could be materially affecting their decision to exercise their legal rights without no care whatsoever. All of this adds up to me to say you either don't know the rules/best practices/common practice/professional ethics and just don't care, or you're just drunk/stoned shitposting.

[/b]Either way, if OP is still reading this thread, PM me and I'll try and help you.[/b]

Javid posted:

Airtight under what legal system? Johnnie Cochran is probably admitted to practice in Hell by now, if you can afford him.

Discendo Vox posted:

There's no such thing as an airtight contract, especially not for someone's soul.

Kimsemus posted:

euphronius posted:

Nice piece of fish posted:

Ladies, ladies, please. Relax.

You're both wrong.

Eminent Domain posted:

This will be settled in the court of P Barnes.

Empress Brosephine posted:

Question

My employer called my doctor this morning, told what I suspect is a lie and got them to release me from the no working stipulation they gave me a few days ago to a light duty one. My question is do they have the right to do this and request my medical records? I don’t care about the work part but the fact that a random person at work has my SS# now and that they were able to alter my work orders when they want?

Thanks all.

Empress Brosephine posted:

I do not think so I only allowed my lawyer and my workmans comp to get it. This was the GM calling up randomly.

evilweasel posted:

if you have a lawyer already this sure seems like a question to ask them!

Soothing Vapors posted:

So I'm a little frustrated by the Michigan Court right now and I thought maybe one of the guild members in this thread could shine some light on exactly how you get a Court officer to back off.

A little background: in 2016 my neighbors to the left and right of my homestead spent a LOT of effort decorating their yards with political signs. They had different political views so it seemed like they were trying to 1-up each other. The left neighbor (let's call her Debbie Democrat) put up a TON of Hillary signs and the right neighbor (Reggie Republican) of course put up a bunch of pro-Trump garbage. My wife and I don't believe in the u.s. federal system so it was a little obnoxious to us, and we gently but firmly reminded our neighbors of our property rights and asked them to take their signage down. They of course refused.

Flash forward to 2018 and I've saved up the money to put up a little signage of my own in front of of my own homestead. - its a 12 sheet billboard framed in a very tasteful light halo. together, with the Gadsden flag emblazoned on it. We also installed some floodlighting to accentuate the design and draw attention to it, and rigged some LEDs to make both the snake and the words "DON'T TREAD ON ME" glow.

I will admit we were being a little petty and wanted to piss off our extremely rude neighbors, but we were unprepared for both how Debbie and Reggie lost their minds. Police were called (we did not allow them on our property of course), reports were made to the city (We ignored the letters from the City, who have no Jurisdiction over MY sovereign lawn) and so forth. Lots of dumb drama for months. Making a long story short, we got a letter from the Michigan Court a few months ago saying that our neighbors had sued us for creating a nuisance percy and the Court wanted us to appear in person.

My wife and I wrote a very polite but very firm letter back to the Court saying that we did not consent to the jurisdiction of the Michigan Court and so we would not be appearing, as it was none of the Michigan Court's business. We received a letter back from the Court saying that our letter was an answer, which it obviously was, and there were some dates listed. Since we had already explained politely to the Court that my billboard was not their concern, I threw the second letter away and thought no more of it.

Last week my wife apparently received a letter from the Michigan Court stating that we now had some sort of liability to our neighbors. She threw it away and so I'm not sure exactly what that liability is supposed to . But so what exactly do I need to do to get it through the Michigan Court's head that I will not be taking my sign down and that this is none of their concern? And given that they arleady acknowledged that I answered their Court letter with a rejection, what is the point of continuing this conversation? I'm assuming the issue here is just some petty overzealous clerk trying to flex his muscle. How do you find a Court clerk's supervisor?