|
ActusRhesus posted:Ugh. Yeah. You’d think they’d learn. Probably wasn't covered in their CLEs.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 03:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
if you integrated "don't spy on opposing counsel" into their sharp ppt they'd probably remember
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
More likely the opposite: they learned to do that from a ppt presented by prosecutors at The Naval Justice School. page 20
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 03:59
|
|
|
I just hogged a fart that sounded like a phone book being ripped in half
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 07:45
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Different states have different rules but yeah, that's how it was when I first passed the bar in my state. There was a division between criminal and civil cases, only criminal attorneys could be appointed to criminal cases, but anybody could be appointed to civil cases where there was a right to have an attorney appointed (i.e., family court juvenile detention proceedings, mental health commitments, etc.) These were also unpaid and the official rationale was that serving a certain number of appointed cases was, in effect, part of the licensing fee for having a law license.There are also a host of exceptions and I've never actually had to take an appointed case because I've always been in a job that fell into one of the exceptions (basically any government attorney or public-interest/nonprofit attorney is exempted). Thanks. As someone working in an extremely specific area who practically never touches litigation in any way that sounds nightmarish! I suppose I'd fall into the category of hiring someone else to do it for me but then isn't that basically just forcing random lawyers to pay peoples' legal fees?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 11:05
|
|
|
joat mon posted:More likely the opposite: they learned to do that from a ppt presented by prosecutors at The Naval Justice School. I'm not seeing the connection... unless the point is mil prosecutors are unethical in general, in which case... concur. The JAG Corps sucks. And is now the subject of a full top down review... the same type of review they do on ships that run aground. Which is pretty epic. Also rumor that the JAG actual got a letter of instruction from CNO... which is epic. (for civilian folks, that's formal adverse paper that goes on your permanent record which doesn't really matter in this case because he's pretty much gone as high as he can go... but Admirals don't get them. An admiral getting an LOI means someone higher on the food chain considers them a colossal fuckup) Also CNO has pretty much publicly stated "they give lovely legal advice and I'm tired of it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 12:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'm not seeing the connection... unless the point is mil prosecutors are unethical in general, in which case... concur. The JAG Corps sucks. And is now the subject of a full top down review... the same type of review they do on ships that run aground. Which is pretty epic. Perhaps they're just lacking in mentors who 1) have more than a tour more experience than them and 2) didn't come up under the exact same system. Hubris too. I knew the TC for the Cavalese cable car trial. They had hubris for miles. Have TC and DC become separate tracks, or can you do both in a tour/couple of tours?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
Organza Quiz posted:Thanks. As someone working in an extremely specific area who practically never touches litigation in any way that sounds nightmarish! I suppose I'd fall into the category of hiring someone else to do it for me but then isn't that basically just forcing random lawyers to pay peoples' legal fees? Yes. Or as I said, open yourself to personal liability for malpractice claims. As I've said, it's utterly bullshit, and one of the areas where I think the bar is just full on idiot. Why are attorneys this special breed that have to do these things? It's not like the plumber's union mandates that each plumber give free plumbing services to the indigent or similar stupid things. Of course, I've always thought that malpractice claims should be forbidden when you're working pro bono, absent really, really clear cases of intentional malfeasance (e.g. not just negligence, failure to file, etc. - like if it's free and you can't afford anything else, you don't get to sue me for doing what I can for free for you).
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 14:00
|
|
|
How exactly did this email thing you're discussing work? Read receipts let someone access more emails? In personal news my worst nightmare might come true, a coworker unknowingly was on an arbitration panel with my mother in law who was bemoaning her lack of work. He suggested she come do doc review. Im absolutely certain I could not handle this job if I had to do it next to my mother in law please God no
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
You should never spy on opposing counsel to benefit yourself in court, that’s monstrous. It’s strictly a recreational activity.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 14:29 on Aug 6, 2019 |
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 14:26
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Yes. Or as I said, open yourself to personal liability for malpractice claims. As I've said, it's utterly bullshit, and one of the areas where I think the bar is just full on idiot. Why are attorneys this special breed that have to do these things? It's not like the plumber's union mandates that each plumber give free plumbing services to the indigent or similar stupid things. The constitution apparently guarantees lawyers, but doesn’t come close to guaranteeing running water. Also the Supreme Court couldn’t be assed to explain how these guaranteed lawyers would be paid, so here we are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 14:28
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:How exactly did this email thing you're discussing work? Read receipts let someone access more emails? This would be something like a tracking pixel (i.e. you know exactly when it was opened and by what IP) except that while tracking pixels are frequently blocked I believe there's tricks you can do with loading fonts or other formatting data that uses the same principle and is less frequently blocked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 14:53
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Yes. Or as I said, open yourself to personal liability for malpractice claims. I'm pretty sure states where this is a requirement make IAC claims even harder than they usually are, or for civil matters they're so small in money value that no one is going to sue you or they're too poor to. So only truly egregiously bad conduct or indifference is going to get you sued or disciplined. They don't do this in my state though. Ergo gently caress you, got mine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 15:19
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Perhaps they're just lacking in mentors who 1) have more than a tour more experience than them and 2) didn't come up under the exact same system. I think it’s still one track, but not the same tour. And yeah. The experience issue is a huge problem. There just aren’t enough courts-martial to learn how to try a case. My “senior trial counsel” had tried ONE case to verdict and it was just some piddly rear end njp refusal. evilweasel posted:This would be something like a tracking pixel (i.e. you know exactly when it was opened and by what IP) except that while tracking pixels are frequently blocked I believe there's tricks you can do with loading fonts or other formatting data that uses the same principle and is less frequently blocked. Correct. But they also stay attached if the email is forwarded. Basically they were trying to see if defense was talking to the media. So not as bad as reading for content. But still... don’t “investigate” defense counsel on the sly. And really, the idea of a prosecutor doing that sort of thing to anyone without a warrant feels icky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
I enjoy sending emails to lawyers in August.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
Do most lawyers literally just copy lexis headnotes and not actually read the case? Yesterday addressed a solo practitioner’s motion by pointing out his cases actually support my claim. OC from a medium to large size firm here in the state did the same on an appellate answer brief.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Also 4.0 through first semester of grad school.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Also 4.0 through first semester of grad school. There is no curve in most grad school, and the lowest grade you are likely to receive is a B+.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Also 4.0 through first semester of grad school. Maybe I'd you would've tried that hard in law school you wouldn't need further educating!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:35
|
|
|
I just read an entire brief where the cases cited support 100% the opposite the conclusions suggest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:37
|
|
|
Pretty common with garbage attorneys in my experience. There are a few firms I hate getting briefs from because I know that 99% of the “case law” they cite will be either off point or the opposite of what they say and half my pages will be spent correcting their misstatement of the law. The question I always have is “stupid or liar?”
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
I think lazy has more to do with it. homullus posted:There is no curve in most grad school, and the lowest grade you are likely to receive is a B+. There are people that failed one class this semester.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
A lot of civil defense attorneys aren't taking cases based on whether or not they would actually win if it went to a courtroom, they're taking cases based on whether or not they think they can outlast and delay their opponent. Once you get them to the mat, sure, they'll lose, but they're betting you can't or won't take it that far. From that perspective, having good or winning arguments is irrelevant, all that matters is having a strong enough argument to avoid rule 11 sanctions, and generally as long as you're still asking "stupid or liar?" the judge will give them the benefit of the doubt. I've asked for sanctions more than once in such cases (both involving denials of medically necessary treatment to indigent children, which just makes me angry), but the requests were probably a bad idea as I've never had them granted. OTOH I won each of the cases. I'm not sure if it was worthwhile or not. I told myself it was a way to shift the Court's frame of reference about the case, but it probably just made me look like an rear end in a top hat. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Aug 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Kawasaki Nun posted:Maybe I'd you would've tried that hard in law school you wouldn't need further educating! The actual thing is, law school is just plain the hardest school of them all and all other fields of study become trivial in comparison. You heard it here first.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 19:18
|
|
|
I recently had a case where the plaintiff lawyer (let's call him Penfold) was so confident and dismissive of our position. The week before a jury trial was set to begin, Penfold was literally laughing at me, like "You think you're going to convince the jury of that? Haha good luck!  "When Penfold submitted his proposed jury instructions he had the law wrong on a major, crucial element of the case. He was citing old statutory language that had been amended in 2014 or so. Like, he even attached the old statute to support his proposed instruction, presumably photocopied out of his old codebooks. When I pointed this out to him and the judge it was too late. He just insisted that his interpretation of the statute was correct---even though the amendment specifically removed the thing he relied on. He died on that hill and got zeroed. At the close of my case Penfold moved for a directed verdict (LOL denied) and then a new trial. At the hearing on his motion for new trial he actually asked the judge to take "judicial notice" that Penfold's clients routinely lose on this issue because judges apply the law incorrectly. An exquisite self-own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At the hearing on his motion for new trial he actually asked the judge to take "judicial notice" that Penfold's clients routinely lose on this issue because judges apply the law incorrectly. An exquisite self-own.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 19:49
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At the hearing on his motion for new trial he actually asked the judge to take "judicial notice" that Penfold's clients routinely lose on this issue because judges apply the law incorrectly. An exquisite self-own. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
In case it's not clear, he routinely loses cases because he didn't know to argue to the judges that the law had changed (which would work in his favor in those cases), so they apply the same (incorrect) interpretation he was trying to get in my case. Please take judicial notice that I commit malpractice on a regular basis, Your Honor. Seriously, the instruction that I asked for (and the judge eventually gave to the jury) was LITERALLY READING THE STATUTE VERBATIM.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:In case it's not clear, he routinely loses cases because he didn't know to argue to the judges that the law had changed (which would work in his favor in those cases), so they apply the same (incorrect) interpretation he was trying to get in my case. Please take judicial notice that I commit malpractice on a regular basis, Your Honor. lol i didn't realize that was the issue so he's been regularly in your shoes and losing because he didn't check the statute, was super stoked to be on the other side, and things went poorly?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:lol i didn't realize that was the issue Basically. His clients have been taking it on the chin because he didn't realize he should be arguing what I argued, so he wanted that to be proof that he was right--and me, the judge, and the actual words of the statute were wrong. I had already punked this guy on an interlocutory issue he took to the state supreme court, where he also argued a diametrically incorrect legal position. But this was funnier because of just how obviously stupid it was. Literally photocopying the page in his 2010 codebook and attaching it to his pleadings without ever checking it lmao.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Goddam, that's somehow even dumber than what I originally thought you meant, which was that he'd won before under the old law and wanted the judge to recognize that Just . . . never checking at all 
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Hey something interesting out of my province.quote:https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/67281 The actual court case goes into detail but surprise, surprise her lsat score was 130. The average score for the U of S is around 160. She must really want to be a lawyer to take this poo poo to the court of appeal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
If you're scoring that low on the lsat there are some other things at work. I'm incomprehensibly stupid and I got a 160 on the LSAT.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Hey something interesting out of my province. tbf i don't think i'd do too well on the lsat if i was getting blazed during the test either Kimsemus posted:If you're scoring that low on the lsat there are some other things at work. I'm incomprehensibly stupid and I got a 160 on the LSAT. such as requesting to get high during the test evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:tbf i don't think i'd do too well on the lsat if i was getting blazed during the test either Sounds like she didn't get the marijuana breaks though? Maybe she just smoked a shitload of it before the test started.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
Aren’t lsat scores normalized
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
I feel like just paying to take a barbri LSAT course or something where they literally teach you how to get 100% of logic games correct could improve your score past 130 as opposed to smoking weed in between questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:such as requesting to get high during the test how else would one get a high score?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Phil, that’s amazing. And not surprising. Meanwhile I’ve got a toothless hag of an OC frothing at the mouth for “making fun of her associates.” I quoted him. With context. If directly quoting you is making fun of you... idk. Maybe stop saying things that are dumb?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:04 |
|
|
I just had a lawyer use a She Her Hers pronoun guide in her email footer Neat
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2019 20:52
|
|