|
EwokEntourage posted:Lawyers are less ethical than the ethical guidelines make them out to be They are not guidelines
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
euphronius posted:They are not guidelines Wait they are actual rules???? Oh poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 13:33
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Lawyers are less ethical than the ethical guidelines make them out to be Hence the need for the guidelines
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 13:35
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Wait they are actual rules???? In PA they are established by order of the Supreme Court and basically the law for lawyers. Lawyers can and do get busted for breaking them all the time. They are not guidelines
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
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. Great scene. Show this to 10 lawyers and you’ll get 10 different opinions about whether any/what parts were unethical. To the owlhawk911, joat mon is your best bet at staying out of jail. I’m a civil lawyer. Though I did get people out of jail on “technicalities” a few times, a long time ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
I'm not very civil, but I try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 14:36
|
|
|
Let's say you're trying a case and your client is about to lie, but you whack the ref with a folding chair first so that he's out cold and doesn't hear it. Legal/illegal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:04
|
|
|
No way the bailiff is going to allow you to clock the judge, so you gotta nail him first.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
you def don't want my rear end on a felony case A SPPEDING TICKET HOWEVER
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
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. this clip was great, i watched a couple others too and i think i might watch the whole movie tonight. illustrates the scenario i was thinking of very well, thanks. so pretty much there are lots of clever ways a lawyer can guide you toward getting your story straight, but they can't (legally) help you outright fabricate one or hide/destroy damning evidence. there are lawyers who do that, but they themselves are breaking the law. how to find one would be better for the "illegal questions" thread, and there isn't one i will probably be back with new, dumber questions after watching this movie
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
So how bad would it be for a licensed attorney in VA defending against a trademark cancellation pro se to just skip out on a subpoenaed deposition? They were going to be deposed as the owner of the llc who registered the trademark under appeal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 18:56
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:So how bad would it be for a licensed attorney in VA defending against a trademark cancellation pro se to just skip out on a subpoenaed deposition? They were going to be deposed as the owner of the llc who registered the trademark under appeal. Assuming it's in federal court he or she could be sanctioned under FRCP 37.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Brute Squad posted:So how bad would it be for a licensed attorney in VA defending against a trademark cancellation pro se to just skip out on a subpoenaed deposition? They were going to be deposed as the owner of the llc who registered the trademark under appeal. In order of descending likelihood, from guaranteed, to not happening: 1) Lose credibility with the Court 2) Ordered to pay sanctions (cut a check to the other side for ~the cost of the aborted deposition + some juice for bad behavior) 3) Have certain discovery matters resolved against him by default ("Oh, you refuse to answer this question? Then the Court hereby deems you to have answered 'yes,' assuming 'yes' is bad for your case.") 4) Death penalty sanctions - case resolved entirely against him, he loses; this is extremely rare, and requires months of discovery abuse
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 20:52
|
|
|
Unamuno posted:Assuming it's in federal court he or she could be sanctioned under FRCP 37. Subpoena was issued from the local fed district court, but he filed his motion to quash under 5th amendment protection with the TTAB. To my knowledge he made no filings with the district court. blarzgh posted:2) Ordered to pay sanctions (cut a check to the other side for ~the cost of the aborted deposition + some juice for bad behavior) Would the district court have standing to impose sanctions? TTAB is limited to non-monetary sanctions (502.05 TTAB manual of procedure)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
I have a legal question, but I'm not sure its sought advice so much as wanting to understand how things work. My frustration: I'm on the job hunt. I live in a fairly tech-savvy city, and there's a fairly big push to paperless as far as correspondence, hiring papers, doing training online, that sort of stuff. Its to the point where places are like (you can't email us a resume, apply online only) that sort of things. I understand that us contract law always gives you an opportunity to cross out things in a contract you don't agree with by making counter offers. You can always take a sharpie and void things you don't agree with. For example, microsoft(disney too?) was famous for a while for putting clauses in work contracts that they own the intellectual property for all your off the clock work (and sometimes, past creations entirely) How does this work at the intersection of 'sign this pdf saying you agree' digital only paperwork? Can you insist all paperwork be printed and sign in person? What is your recourse if they say no? As a more extreme example, I'm thinking about online services like, say, Wonder or a background check services that just staple an uneditable class action waiver or similiar as a pre-agreement to even like, submitting an application. Basically, how do you deal with that sort of... what? Off the bat advantage taking? And to clarify, I don't mean EULAS, but the sort of 'digital HR' where hiring stuff is all online or agreements need to be made to proceed. I had one temp agency, for example, that had a 1 year noncompete buried in their agreement to use their applicant portal/resume submitting thing at like the third step. TheParadigm fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:I understand that us contract law always gives you an opportunity to cross out things in a contract you don't agree with by making counter offers. You can always take a sharpie and void things you don't agree with. This is every major tech company, if you don't strike this provision you have to petition them to work on your own open source projects. It sucks and it's just the state of the industry in hell world. quote:Can you insist all paperwork be printed and sign in person? You don't work there, then. They're free to offer terms, you're free to say no or counter offer, they're free to decline or accept counter offers. If you can't get a better hiring discussion than "well that's the online portal, I can't really change that" then they don't think that you're important enough to bother negotiating with. It's a take it or leave it offer at that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
If your applying for jobs through an online portal they’re not going to negotiate the employment contract (if you have one) Contracts of adhesion are legal and that will never change EwokEntourage fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:32
|
|
|
Assault on legislators/politicians is generally a more severe crime than the same assault on someone who doesn't make laws, right? If so, is that still the case when they leave office?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:45
|
|
|
It’s not really a more severe crime unless it’s the a President. It’s just more likely to be noticed and probably in public. The dude that kicked Rand Paul’s rear end didn’t get extra charges on him because Paul is a senator. I recall that guy getting handled about as you’d expect for what he did. Although as an upper class white dude, eh he probably would have gotten off easier if he assaulted a poor person, so he may have gotten a harsher sentence but not on the basis of any law stepping that sentence up bc the victim is a public figure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 04:05
|
|
|
Regarding lawyer ethics, note that lawyers, like doctors, are a self-governing profession in many ways, and the governing bodies are made up of lawyers who practice at the state level, with relatively few checks. The various ethics standards governing legal practice are, perhaps unsurprisingly, comically lax compared to other professions, because, well, lawyers are trained in creating such loopholes. "You can't sleep with your clients" versus "You can't sleep with your clients, here's a page-long list of exceptions". Like other professions, though, the big problem is disciplinary entities. Whatever the rules are, they often only bring the hammer down after years and years of misconduct, when it's become so public that they risk losing their self-regulatory power if the problem becomes more widely known. The details and ramifications of these factors vary heavily by state. I personally consider it a good sign if a state still has the ban on direct-to-consumer mass media lawyer advertising. If you live in a state that doesn't have such a ban, and notice the airwaves being dominated by one or two lawyers playing ads incessantly, know that a) that lawyer is probably an inhuman monster, and b) that lawyer is the face of a very big legal firm that will collectively have a lot of pull in the state's legal politics. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 04:57
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:It’s not really a more severe crime unless it’s the a President. It’s just more likely to be noticed and probably in public. The dude that kicked Rand Paul’s rear end didn’t get extra charges on him because Paul is a senator. I recall that guy getting handled about as you’d expect for what he did. Although as an upper class white dude, eh he probably would have gotten off easier if he assaulted a poor person, so he may have gotten a harsher sentence but not on the basis of any law stepping that sentence up bc the victim is a public figure. I actually think it varies depending on whether the person was assaulted in their role as an elected official vs. their role as a private citizen. Rand Paul’s neighbor beat him up because of an interpersonal dispute, so he didn’t run afoul of 18 U. S. C., section 111, but there are sentence enhancements for assaulting or injuring elected officials while they are operating in that role. That said, I have no idea of how actual cases have been decided.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
owlhawk911 posted:this clip was great, i watched a couple others too and i think i might watch the whole movie tonight. illustrates the scenario i was thinking of very well, thanks. so pretty much there are lots of clever ways a lawyer can guide you toward getting your story straight, but they can't (legally) help you outright fabricate one or hide/destroy damning evidence. there are lawyers who do that, but they themselves are breaking the law. how to find one would be better for the "illegal questions" thread, and there isn't one On the hiding evidence note, read about Kenneth Murray, the lawyer for serial killer Paul Bernardo, who hid video tapes depicting some gruesome things. Very interesting issues and now required reading for every law student in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:This is every major tech company, if you don't strike this provision you have to petition them to work on your own open source projects. It sucks and it's just the state of the industry in hell world. Thanks for responding! To the first bit - yeah, exactly. My concern is when they don't even give you an oppportunity to strike that clause. So, basically, its a question of whether a prospective employer is willing to work with you or not? Alright, thanks. That's still useful as a litmus test for how much they want you on the team, anyway. What's a contract of adhesion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 07:09
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:To the first bit - yeah, exactly. My concern is when they don't even give you an oppportunity to strike that clause. When they give you a take it or leave it contract offer. There’s no obligation on their part to consider the changes you want to make, any more than your grocery store is obligated to listen to your offer to buy a banana for 50c instead of 99c; in either case, they have made an offer of a contract and you can either accept it unchanged or gently caress off, they don’t care which.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 07:30
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:you def don't want my rear end on a felony case So what's the most corrupt thing you've seen an authority do to ping people with speeding tickets? I've heard about dodgy manipulation of traffic lights phasing to get more red light tickets, wondering if the world of speeding is the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 07:44
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:So what's the most corrupt thing you've seen an authority do to ping people with speeding tickets? Honestly nothing from my prosecutor's chair. I've reviewed 1,000 videos of traffic stops and violations, and I'm not kidding you when I say Every. Single. Time. the person was doing exactly what they were charged with doing. The closest thing to what people might call "corruption" if they were really mad about it, is really ticky tacky code enforcement tickets (Grass higher than 12" ticket for a few weeds along the fence), but every one of those were accompanied by months of warnings and tickets on a whole host of other things like trash in the yard and other stuff. Some other stuff I've seen: - Lady gets a ticket for "Trash Rubbish or Other Debris" in addition to 4 other legit tickets. The pictures show a couple of boxes, a trash bag, and an old bed frame, all up against the garage door. Like, come on. Upon further inspection, the driveway ran up the side of the building and around back - those tiny things were basically in the back yard and not visible from the street, the code enforcement officer had walked around behind the house to take the pictures. All still technically a violation, but really pretty dumb. - Guy gets a ticket for doing 45 in a 35. Contests it. Comes in claiming there were no 35mph speed limit signs, so he was still doing 45 from further up the road where that is the correct speed limit. I'm like, "OK, bud." He pulls out his cell phone, and shows us a video he took, driving down that stretch of road right after he got his ticket. 45..... 45... ........ .......... ...........?? No 35 sign? Call the police chief, "Yo, whats this about?" He comes down to Court, and asks, "What day was the ticket? Tell him the date, he goes, "Hang on... Yeah, here's the email from TXDoT; they took the 35mph signs down that day for construction, so we got the email that morning, and told all our officers right afterwards to no give tickets on that stretch of road." Because the officer had written his last ticket of the day to that dude for 45 in a 35, he got off before he got the memo, and forgot about the ticket bc lots of other tickets. This dude had gotten his speeding ticket within the ~ 30 minute window where TXDoT had taken down the signs, but the memo hadn't gone around yet! Case dismissed. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 16:04 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 15:50
|
|
|
I've seen some "corruption" from city officials, though. And I can honestly say, never ever from one of the cities I've represented. I've seen a city counsel of incumbents conspire to block an incoming counsel woman from taking her seat and participating in city counsel because she, prior to running and winning her seat, had an active facebook page making fun of all them. That city counsel and their lawyer got their rear end handed to them in Court. The worst was a rogue mayor and his panel of asswipes on the city counsel. I represented a guy who owned a tree trimming service. Local powerline company says, "go out and cut back these trees at 1000 Street Dr. in UppityTown, Texas. Guy goes out, is cutting the scrub trees back, mayor shows up. This town has a "Tree Preservation Ordinance" that says you can't cut down nice trees without a permit. (However, because these trees were in an easement, and for other reasons, the powerline company had absolute authority to order them cut down, ordinance notwithstanding.) Mayor proceeds to cuss the guy out, screaming, calls the cops on them, cops come out and say there is nothing they can do, so mayor says "write this man a ticket!!!" Cops refuse, call it a civil matter, and leave. Apparently Mr. Mayor got a text from "A Concerned Citizen" who is most likely the owner of the building the trees are out in front of, and who also happens to be the Mayor's butt buddy on the city counsel. A couple days later, the mayor sends this poor rear end tree trimmer a "Notice of Violation" which is just a fuckin letter that says, "because the total circumference of the trees you cut down was XX inches, and the violation is $500/inch, you are hereby fined $17,500.00. Pay it or ELSE!(?)!!" After a kangaroo court of an "appeal" of the violation in front of city counsel, I draft a 20 page lawsuit alleging violations of the Texas Constitution, Federal Constitution, Texas Local Government Code, separation of powers doctrine, and some other stuff and send it to them, with a cover letter that says, "Your letter is not a fine, citation, or anything really. Its bullshit, and if my guy ever hears about it again from you, this lawsuit gets filed the next day, and your city and you personally can pay the statutory fines and my attorneys fees for doing it." Never heard from them again. blarzgh fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 16:03
|
|
|
AlbieQuirky posted:I actually think it varies depending on whether the person was assaulted in their role as an elected official vs. their role as a private citizen. Rand Paul’s neighbor beat him up because of an interpersonal dispute, so he didn’t run afoul of 18 U. S. C., section 111, but there are sentence enhancements for assaulting or injuring elected officials while they are operating in that role. I'm pretty sure that statute applies more to federal law enforcement officers, or even someone like an IRS or census worker. But it's probably never been tested on a legislator, likely because they want to keep "federal officials" distinct from politicians. I suppose it could apply to a legislator, but you'd have a fight about whether or not the assault occurred while the congress critter was on official duties. Assaulted while out campaigning likely would not be an official duty. Assaulted while voting or speaking in the chamber would be. I found some jury instructions for the statute here: http://www.scd.uscourts.gov/pji/PatternJuryInstructions.pdf But they don't provide any annotations for the official duties part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 16:38
|
|
|
You may be right. I just remember there being some hypothetical discussion of it after the Gabby Giffords shooting, though the question of enhancements was moot in that case because there were fatalities to others.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 18:21
|
|
|
TheParadigm posted:What's a contract of adhesion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
With lawyer client privilege, what happens if some guy goes to a lawyer for help defending against something relatively minor like robbing a liquor store, and in the course of talking to his client realises the guy is a serial killer or something truly heinous?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
Outrail posted:With lawyer client privilege, what happens if some guy goes to a lawyer for help defending against something relatively minor like robbing a liquor store, and in the course of talking to his client realises the guy is a serial killer or something truly heinous? The lawyer stops the discussion and updates their hourly rate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Regarding lawyer ethics, note that lawyers, like doctors, are a self-governing profession in many ways, and the governing bodies are made up of lawyers who practice at the state level, with relatively few checks. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:49
|
|
|
Rule 1.6 b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm; Comment 6 to rule 1.6 (confidentiality) [6] Although the public interest is usually best served by a strict rule requiring lawyers to preserve the confidentiality of information relating to the representation of their clients, the confidentiality rule is subject to limited exceptions. Paragraph (b)(1) recognizes the overriding value of life and physical integrity and permits disclosure reasonably necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Such harm is reasonably certain to occur if it will be suffered imminently or if there is a present and substantial threat that a person will suffer such harm at a later date if the lawyer fails to take action necessary to eliminate the threat. Thus, a lawyer who knows that a client has accidentally discharged toxic waste into a town's water supply may reveal this information to the authorities if there is a present and substantial risk that a person who drinks the water will contract a life-threatening or debilitating disease and the lawyer's disclosure is necessary to eliminate the threat or reduce the number of victims.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:16
|
|
|
Outrail posted:With lawyer client privilege, what happens if some guy goes to a lawyer for help defending against something relatively minor like robbing a liquor store, and in the course of talking to his client realises the guy is a serial killer or something truly heinous? There are volumes and volumes of literature about the applications of the attorney-client privilege, but the basic gist is this: past crimes, you can't disclose, but you can disclose whatever information you deem necessary to prevent a future crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
One lawyer famously went to jail because he would not tell the cops where a body was. He was right not to tell them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
euphronius posted:One lawyer famously went to jail because he would not tell the cops where a body was. He was right not to tell them. Out of curiosity, why? Is it because it would incriminate his client, or at least tip off that his client as admitting to a crime? My initial reaction is "ACAB" but want to get your take.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Contempt of court iirc Oh why didn’t he do it ?? Rule 1.6 as posted above
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information Share this: Client-Lawyer Relationship (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 01:49 |
|
|
I was legitimately curious to know what the potential consequences of telling people to do hyperbolic violence on the internet, or telling people to do specific violence on the internet. Like can you charge the people in a discord for creating an extremist who goes to shoot up a school?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 22:05
|
|
