|
I'm more pointing to organizing your thoughts in advance as opposed to freeform blurting on the phone, not the difference between typing/reading and verbal conversation
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
Lawyers can interview you efficiently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Lawyers can interview you efficiently. Yeah but think of it from the client stand point. It costs the client nothing to themselves be organized. Even if the writing of the document organizes their own thoughts. Who hasn't seen someone try to explain a series of events in a random and unorganized fashion and thought "can you get to the point?" Also from a clients perspective there's no reason to assume a lawyer would want to get the information out efficiently if they're charging by the hour. Moreover if you're so disorganized that it takes great interviewing skill from the lawyer to organize your thoughts then you probably should pay them more. All in all great advice to organize thoughts ahead of time before meeting with a professional that may charge you by the hour.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 03:02
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Yes, through the landlord’s family-owned-and-operated insurance company Is this a joke or did you post under the wrong account tinytort posted:Divorce law question, sort of. I'm in the process of looking for a divorce lawyer, and my dad is convinced that the best thing for me to do is to write out what happened, so that I can hand over a typed-out transcript of events to the lawyer. This will, he's sure, save time and money. I have clients that send me long detailed emails, some that send written case summaries, and some that send me a complaint with an answer due 3 days ago and just tell me to handle it It’s entirely dependent on the client, the lawyer, and the case. If it will be helpful for you to write it down, then do so. People have terrible memories for the most part, but how accurate you want your memory to be is also a litigation strategy. Keep in mind A written statement might have to be produced during discovery. Best option is get an attorney first and ask if he wants you to write down a version of your story
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
My neighbor had an irl tree law issue. His neighbor on the other side had a tree collapse in the yard presumably from weather across the property line. Because the tree was alive, the owner of the tree source property has no liability. Had it been dead, he would. Make sure you have property/homeowners/renters insurance everyone!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
Yeah I had to cut down a dying tree this summer just for that reason. If it fell I’d be 100% liable - no insurance
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
tinytort posted:Divorce law question, sort of. I'm in the process of looking for a divorce lawyer, and my dad is convinced that the best thing for me to do is to write out what happened, so that I can hand over a typed-out transcript of events to the lawyer. This will, he's sure, save time and money. This depends on you and the attorney. If it helps you organize your thoughts go for it, just realize the attorney will still need to read through it and ask plenty of follow up questions. So likely not much time/money savings. For example as part of my work I typically receive restraining order declarations that an unrepresented person wrote up themselves. Some of them are extremely detailed and organized, which is great! But my intake appointment is still going to be at least a hour to pick out the issues and goals. Your real costs are going to depend on the facts of your divorce, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 04:07
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Is this a joke or did you post under the wrong account Well I thought it was funny 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 07:59
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Keep in mind A written statement might have to be produced during discovery. Wait, are there circumstances where a communication between client and lawyer would have to be produced? I thought those were always kept confidential.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 12:56
|
|
|
You could always write something up, then go to the lawyer and ask 'do you want a written version of events?' and if they say yes give it to them and if they say no don't give it to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 13:10
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:Wait, are there circumstances where a communication between client and lawyer would have to be produced? I thought those were always kept confidential. Suppose you decide to email it to your dad for input before sending it to your lawyer. Edit: I mean in general yeah, anything you send to your lawyer is privileged. (Rather, the communication itself is. You can’t take something non-privileged and make it privileged by sending it to your lawyer.) and something like this would probably be privileged even though the underlying facts aren’t privileged. Either under work product or attorney client privilege. Arcturas fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Dec 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:07
|
|
|
Javid posted:That sounds like an extremely great idea honestly. Don't just send it unsolicited but if they're like "yeah tell me about the situation" it's just ready to read from or email or whatever This may be an individual practice thing, but I have all of my clients do this and send it to me in word, and it does save time for me. I also make sure they do it in chronological order.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:25
|
|
|
Bad Munki posted:Well I thought it was funny I support you
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:29
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:Wait, are there circumstances where a communication between client and lawyer would have to be produced? I thought those were always kept confidential. Facts aren’t privileged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:38
|
|
|
Soricidus posted:Wait, are there circumstances where a communication between client and lawyer would have to be produced? I thought those were always kept confidential. One of the myriad good things we can't have anymore because Trump bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
I think you probably should skip the lawyers altogether, and just give your wife the people's elbow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I support you Cool you’re my lawyer now in regards to this matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
Ghostnuke posted:I think you probably should skip the lawyers altogether, and just give your wife the people's elbow. Bad Munki posted:Cool you’re my lawyer now in regards to this matter
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Please don't send me a 3000 word document in which you try and pick the "relevant" details of your case. After our initial meeting I will pick out what I believe to be relevant and then you may send that in an concise email to me. The part that does come with practice is learning to interrupt client and cut off useless tangents without sounding like an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:The part that does come with practice is learning to interrupt client and cut off useless tangents without sounding like an rear end in a top hat. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SHE TAPPED OR NOT, YOU CAN'T WRESTLE YOUR STUDENTS
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Ghostnuke posted:IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SHE TAPPED OR NOT, YOU CAN'T WRESTLE YOUR STUDENTS If RAW IS WAR, then WRASSLIN a student is a war crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Ghostnuke posted:I think you probably should skip the lawyers altogether, and just give your wife the people's elbow. Sadly, what I want can't be obtained by someone tackling my ex. So lawyer it is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 20:59
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Please don't send me a 3000 word document in which you try and pick the "relevant" details of your case. God no. This is going to be, more or less, getting my thoughts in order and trying to make sure I don't forget to mention anything that's definitely going to be relevant. I'm not about to try and highlight anything in this clusterfuck as being relevant, that's what the lawyer gets paid for - the stuff I think is relevant might not actually be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
I mean for example if this is a divorce you are gonna be fighting over money probably so it's not a terrible idea to have a list of your financial assets? Yes. You want a text dump of her messages you stole off her phone listing every time your wife said something lovely about you to her friends? Hey maybe not that second thing? I am not a lawyer I'm just a newly forged fan of the lawyer thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Divorces are not reducible to generalities
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2019 22:08
|
|
|
In a criminal case, are there things the lawyer would rather not know about? I've always wondered if you were charged criminally, would it be better to tell the lawyer everything, or only what the lawyer specifically asks for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 02:39
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:In a criminal case, are there things the lawyer would rather not know about? I've always wondered if you were charged criminally, would it be better to tell the lawyer everything, or only what the lawyer specifically asks for. Only what they specifically ask for, but everything they ask for. Let them decide what is and isn’t relevant. “Tell me what the government is going to try to prove and what facts they may argue are proof.” Just remember a lawyer can’t enable an ongoing criminal enterprise or allow a witness to present false testimony, or make material misrepresentations to the court. They also generally should not allow someone to be harmed because they keep quiet about something they know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 03:24
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Just remember a lawyer can’t...allow a witness to present false testimony, or make material misrepresentations to the court.. i'd like to clarify: does this include their clients? i'm sure this is a dumb question, but can a lawyer not tell you "your best bet is to lie" and help you get your story straight? tv makes it seem like this is a thing they do all the time, like that+trying to get stuff thrown out on technicalities is half of criminal defense
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 03:52
|
|
|
Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal Share this: Advocate (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; (2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 03:55
|
|
|
Comment 6 [6] If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the lawyer may call the witness to testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the testimony that the lawyer knows is false.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 03:57
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:i'd like to clarify: does this include their clients? i'm sure this is a dumb question, but can a lawyer not tell you "your best bet is to lie" and help you get your story straight? tv makes it seem like this is a thing they do all the time, like that+trying to get stuff thrown out on technicalities is half of criminal defense At best a lawyer who advises a client to lie (under oath) is committing an ethical violation and is probably suborning perjury, which is a crime in most jurisdictions. Most likely no defendant will be testifying anyway but you still can’t put in a witness who gives testimony you know if false (because your client told you the truth which is contrary). In reality it’s always much more subtle than this of course. “Truth” can be subjective. “Technicalities” are the constitution. TV is not real life. Some lawyers are also criminals. —The Facts
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 04:01
|
|
|
edit: I read the posts better this question is dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 04:55
|
|
|
Lawyers are less ethical than the ethical guidelines make them out to be
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 05:15
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At best a lawyer who advises a client to lie (under oath) is committing an ethical violation and is probably suborning perjury, which is a crime in most jurisdictions. Most likely no defendant will be testifying anyway but you still can’t put in a witness who gives testimony you know if false (because your client told you the truth which is contrary). i am shocked that "better call saul" would lie to me, thanks for the response. i guess it didn't lie, it's just about a lawyer/criminal and supposed to be fun more than accurate. i know there are good reasons for those "technicalities" and am very glad they are there, that's just how it gets presented (especially on cop shows). "i guess the murderer walks, those drat lawyers did x" and then a loose cannon serves up justice his own way, hot and fresh straight to the streets like a food truck. is there a piece of media you think represents lawyers more accurately, specifically criminal defense? i did really have the perception that all truly high-level crimesters had lawyers to help enable their behaviour, but i guess the explanation for that is as simple as "their lawyers are sometimes criminals too" twodot posted:edit: I read the posts better this question is dumb. aren't you the dice fairness guy? i am well aware my question was dumb, i even said that. if this isn't the place i'll stop, i've just been lurking a few pages and posting without a filter. wrasslin ra, charity guy, the wide variety of reactions lawyers have to clients getting their poo poo together before they come in (some don't like it?), all interesting stuff. i would trust phil moscowitz or blarzgh to keep me out of jail based solely on the strength of their posting itt, i don't care what kind of lawyers they are or where. a good poster would be probably be good in court too, that's my thinking
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 06:17
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:In a criminal case, are there things the lawyer would rather not know about? I've always wondered if you were charged criminally, would it be better to tell the lawyer everything, or only what the lawyer specifically asks for. The above discussion about knowingly condoning or allowing lying is one reason why a criminal defence lawyer may not want to know everything. But there are creative ways to "massage" the truth so it better supports your case. Anyway, in criminal matters I always start by informing clients that the burden is on the state (the Crown, in Canada) to prove the case and don't ask them any questions until I revieve the material from the Crown. Then I will review that material with the client and determine a strategy. If that strategy involves having the client testify or otherwise actively participate in the defence, I may need to ask more questions. Generally it's easier to construct a case when you can put up a reasonable doubt in your own mind, I find. Obviously this varies case to case and lawyer to lawyer. Some lawyers I know insist on everything up front.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:At best a lawyer who advises a client to lie (under oath) is committing an ethical violation and is probably suborning perjury, which is a crime in most jurisdictions. Most likely no defendant will be testifying anyway but you still can’t put in a witness who gives testimony you know if false (because your client told you the truth which is contrary). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NAaB24PNBM
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
joat mon posted:You can't advise a client to lie. If your client tells you they're going to lie, you've got to do something about that, too. Pretty much everything else is subtle and subjective. I can, and have, informed my clients of their right to lie to the police and the court. And I think that's proper. In my country a defendant cannot perjure himself and is allowed to say anything in his defence, so long as it isn't falsely accusing someone else of the crime or in any other way criminal. I usually follow that up with "but if you lie to the police or the court you are a giant moron and if they catch you in it - which they will, it's their job - there will be nothing I can do to save you". But outright helping/advising a client lie is accessory to perjury and that's license gone. Think I've said this previously but you should always assume the client will be dumb enough to go "but my lawyer said to tell you this story and you'll let me go" to the court which is... Yeah. Nobody is worth my bar license.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 07:37
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:But outright helping/advising a client lie is accessory to perjury and that's license gone. Think I've said this previously but you should always assume the client will be dumb enough to go "but my lawyer said to tell you this story and you'll let me go" to the court which is... Yeah. Nobody is worth my bar license. This is actually a huge deterrent for us getting anywhere close to even vaguely crossing that kind of line with clients. You don't have to have actually breached any ethical rules, if your client tells a judge "oh my lawyer told me to" then you're going to have a really bad day either way. Even if you didn't actually tell them to, sometimes even if you aren't actually their lawyer and certainly didn't tell them to do whatever it is. If they get it in their head that you are and you did then you're already in poo poo, and even if you do get out of it in the end that's a whole lot of time and stress you don't need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:Please don't send me a 3000 word document in which you try and pick the "relevant" details of your case. Had a client once come in with five binders. Five binders. Of irrelevant poo poo that had no impact on the case, which was wrongful termination. Leperflesh posted:I am not a lawyer I'm just a newly forged fan of the lawyer thread This isn't the lawyer thread, you don't wanna go in there. It's very nerdy, not fast and loose like this thread. owlhawk911 posted:is there a piece of media you think represents lawyers more accurately, specifically criminal defense? i did really have the perception that all truly high-level crimesters had lawyers to help enable their behaviour, but i guess the explanation for that is as simple as "their lawyers are sometimes criminals too" Yeah, better call saul season one episode one is pretty accurate. Also then you definitely want Phil. Definitely not blarzgh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 12:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:47 |
|
|
From my whole three months of criminal practice in magistrates's court: Most of the stuff my clients tell me is either generally irrelevant or irrelevant to the specific facts of the case. So far I haven't had to deal with any clients planning ongoing future crimes or deliberately trying to lie. I tell them up front that the question in the trial is going to be "what can the state prove," not what actually happened. This helps them understand that even if they believe themselves innocent that doesn't mean they will win at trial. Usually they're trying to tell me a story of why they were or weren't justified / in the right; more importantly, usually *everyone's* story, including the officer's, is contradicted by body camera footage anyway. Human memory being poo poo is a far bigger problem than deliberate lying. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Dec 10, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 13:29
|
|
