|
euphronius posted:I can’t think of a scenario where a defendant and the plaintiff lawyer would be in a relationship such that a cause of action for malpractice against the plaintiff lawyer by the defendant would arise or - if arisen - have any damages I briefed this out in Texas once like 6 years ago so I don't remember the details, but fundamentally it's the duty element that negates the claim, And that it almost any conceivable scenario where there might be a bad act, and damages, it lies under a different tort.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 16:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Yeah exactly. Or instead of tort, a sanctionable act or an act that could be prosecuted by the disciplinary agency (which may award damages to the victims[usually only restitution])
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 16:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I can’t think of a scenario where a defendant and the plaintiff lawyer would be in a relationship such that a cause of action for malpractice against the plaintiff lawyer by the defendant would arise or - if arisen - have any damages I think Munki's talking about the legal malpractice plaintiff later suing the legal malpractice lawyer for malpractice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
The obvious answer is something literally screwy: opposing counsels getting it on and not recusing or revealing the conflict.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 18:16
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:You guys have mentioned that it is common for lawyers to refer other lawyers, so what do you think of lawyers that represent clients suing other lawyers for malpractice? Are they the lepers of the legal world? i know at least one large firm, and i suspect others have a similar policy, that they will not take legal malpractice claims against "peer firms". basically i think the general way that people think about it is that in the abstract plaintiffs doing legal malpractice aren't bad people or anything - but everyone's gonna take it personally if you sue them (or object to their fees, etc) so generally speaking that sort of thing isn't done by firms against the sort of firms that travel in the same circles as they do. too much of the job requires being able to get along with opposing counsel, and being unable to deal with them because they hate your guts for suing them will make some cases a lot harder and may make it so you don't get other cases in the future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 18:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i know at least one large firm, and i suspect others have a similar policy, that they will not take legal malpractice claims against "peer firms". A lot of large firms are self-insured for malpractice through ALAS (Attorneys' Liability Assurance Society Program). To be part of that you have to sign up for ALAS's policies and practices (designed to minimize risks) which probably comes with a "don't sue someone else we're insuring" clause. https://alas.com/public/our_firms.aspx
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 19:35
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i know at least one large firm, and i suspect others have a similar policy, that they will not take legal malpractice claims against "peer firms". basically i think the general way that people think about it is that in the abstract plaintiffs doing legal malpractice aren't bad people or anything - but everyone's gonna take it personally if you sue them (or object to their fees, etc) so generally speaking that sort of thing isn't done by firms against the sort of firms that travel in the same circles as they do. too much of the job requires being able to get along with opposing counsel, and being unable to deal with them because they hate your guts for suing them will make some cases a lot harder and may make it so you don't get other cases in the future. Yes insurance companies often have captured law firms who do this work for them
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
I mean, who wants to be that guy?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 19:42
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:I think Munki's talking about the legal malpractice plaintiff later suing the legal malpractice lawyer for malpractice. I actually assisted on a case like that, but the ex-client declined in the end to pursue a legal malpractice suit against the partner (who I assisted against ex-client) who rep'd their legal malpractice suit, because the ex-client went full sovcit and "couldn't trust the system" (well then don't loving file a police report against every judge on your case, complaint everyone including the judges to the various ethics boards, and generally act like a crazy person). And if any partners are reading this, don't loving take cases from this kind of client you short-sighted, money chasing moron of a fuckstick idiot Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Feb 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2020 20:28
|
|
|
Never be the third lawyer to represent a client on the same case
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I mean, who wants to be that guy? "I love being hated it's great it lets me know that I made it i wouldn't have it no other way I wouldn't trade it for the world." -M. Mathers
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I can’t think of a scenario where a defendant and the plaintiff lawyer would be in a relationship such that a cause of action for malpractice against the plaintiff lawyer by the defendant would arise or - if arisen - have any damages study partners.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:17
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Never be the third lawyer to represent a client on the same case What about the fourth? Can I be the fourth lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 06:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:study partners. Never gets old.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 09:48
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Never be lawyer
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 09:49
|
|
|
You lawyer types probably already know this but Kim Kardashian is studying for the California bar and of course a cottage industry has popped up around her. This is the best thing I've seen in the last 2 weeks. https://abovethelaw.com/2020/02/kim-kardashian-reacts-to-law-school-practice-questions-featuring-kim-kardashian/ quote:A man wanted to impress a woman who he knew was a huge Kim Kardashian West fan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:You lawyer types probably already know this but Kim Kardashian is studying for the California bar and of course a cottage industry has popped up around her. This is the best thing I've seen in the last 2 weeks. "Practice questions" is a weird way to write "Product placement" though. quote:A celebrity loved her KKW SOOO FIRE promotional box. She kept it on her kitchen counter. One day, her boyfriend, who recently moved into the celebrity’s house, decided to start a fire in the grill. He poured lighter fluid all over the coals in the grill. He lit the match on the KKW SOOO FIRE promotional box. Unfortunately, the wind was blowing in the direction of the home and it lit the celebrity’s house on fire. Fire crews were able to stop the fire. A small portion of the house was damaged. Tag yourselves, I'm the "ha ha whoops what a crazy accident" alibi for insurance fraud
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 15:00
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:You lawyer types probably already know this but Kim Kardashian is studying for the California bar and of course a cottage industry has popped up around her. This is the best thing I've seen in the last 2 weeks. Not culpable (you use liable for criminal culpa?) for battery if the man misunderstood, within reason (lack of intent). Although he would have to be pretty loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:"Practice questions" is a weird way to write "Product placement" though. None of those are a defence to arson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 15:13
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:None of those are a defence to arson. Arson requires malicious intent. I think A is correct, he's negligent, but not malicious in burning down the house. https://lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/arson quote:The mens rea required for arson is malice. Please understand that this does not mean that the defendant did not like or wanted to harm the victim. What malice means in this context is that the defendant either intended to burn the dwelling, knew that because of his or her actions the dwelling would burn, or that the defendant intentionally created a fire hazard that threatened the dwelling. Because of this requirement of malice, if a defendant burns the dwelling of another through an act of negligence, he cannot be convicted of arson. See Morris v. State, 27 So. 336 (Ala. 1900).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 15:43
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:"Practice questions" is a weird way to write "Product placement" though. I'm "it's not arson if it doesn't burn down all the way"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 16:18
|
|
|
BonerGhost posted:I'm "it's not arson if it doesn't burn down all the way" The Just-the-tip defence, applied to property crimes. Personally I’d go with “if it’s legitimate arson, the house has ways of shutting it down.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 16:25
|
|
|
Devor posted:Arson requires malicious intent. I think A is correct, he's negligent, but not malicious in burning down the house. No it doesn't. The post doesn't specify that the house is in an american jurisdiction. It might be inferred that it's supposed to be in California, but the text does not mention it and assuming makes an rear end out of Uming. So it could be any old jurisdiction, which includes mine. The central fact of the arson statute is whether the fire damage poses a possible risk to human life. If intentional, it's 2 to 21 years. If reckless/negligent it's a 2 year max. Otherwise it's bog standard negligent fire damage to property after the fire safety act and thats a fine or a 3 month max.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 16:37
|
|
|
Lol at assuming KKW isn’t America-centric.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 16:49
|
|
|
I'm not sure anyone in possession of a KKW SOOO FIRE promotional box meets the practical requirements for personhood, so how would any lives but the defendant be threatened?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 16:51
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Lol at assuming KKW isn’t America-centric. I hope to gently caress it is, because I don't know and I don't want to know Outrail posted:I'm not sure anyone in possession of a KKW SOOO FIRE promotional box meets the practical requirements for personhood, so how would any lives but the defendant be threatened? Well I guess a fireman could trip over it and die in a potential blaze, which is enough to qualify. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I hope to gently caress it is, because I don't know and I don't want to know In my jurisdiction, if a fireman is injured in any way, it's 7-life, in addition to any arson charges. If they could possibly have been injured, it's only 3-10.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:05
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Well I guess a fireman could trip over it and die in a potential blaze, which is enough to qualify. I love how unexpectedly useful that and  have turned out to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
I represented a dude who had a murder conviction because he was loving around with fireworks with his kid, started a fire, and a helicopter crashed fighting the fire. They only found him because he turned himself in. The DA went a hin hard, charged him with 2nd degree murder. Judge can't dump the charge, but have him a deal where if he plead to everything, he'd get probation. He successfully completed probation, but was completed racked with guilt and was also no longer employable in his field due to a murder conviction. Started doing meth etc. Had some mh issues. Technically, because he was given probation for a non-sex offense, his murder was expungeable in california and because he never violated, the DA wasn't even allowed to oppose. He just had 1 year of probation on another case. He was so happy and nice. We were going to do this, which I don't think had ever been done in CA. He killed himself by driving his car into a bridge abutment at 100mph. We know it was intentional because he stopped, let the other person in the car out, and floored it. I'll always remember that guy. If he's never turned himself in, he'd probably be living some semi-professional life as a taxpayer and a dad. There need to be consequences for thing, but murder always seemed a bit much.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:25
|
|
|
The violence inherent in the system
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 19:38
|
|
|
Don't talk to cops dot txt
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:01
|
|
|
nm posted:I represented a dude who had a murder conviction because he was loving around with fireworks with his kid, started a fire, and a helicopter crashed fighting the fire. They only found him because he turned himself in. The DA went a hin hard, charged him with 2nd degree murder. Judge can't dump the charge, but have him a deal where if he plead to everything, he'd get probation. Did he plead to 2nd murder? Would the life consequences have been noticeably better if he plead to something along the lines of negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter? The prosecutor definitely should have given him a break since he turned himself in, but what's the lowest acceptable charge for the conduct and outcome there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:18
|
|
|
in my non lawyer opinion, "prosecutorial discretion" is horseshit, particularly when prosecutors are elected officials. do the lawyers generally agree or are you guys like also broadly of the opinion that it's cool and good for the DA to get to decide all on their own what crime you'll be tried for
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
It would be great if they actually dropped cases that lacked merit, but they just drop cases they think will make them look bad, which isnt the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:Did he plead to 2nd murder? Would the life consequences have been noticeably better if he plead to something along the lines of negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter? The prosecutor definitely should have given him a break since he turned himself in, but what's the lowest acceptable charge for the conduct and outcome there? Yes it would have. Trying to convince employers your murder conviction was not for what people think of as murder is hard v. Manslaughter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:in my non lawyer opinion, "prosecutorial discretion" is horseshit, particularly when prosecutors are elected officials. do the lawyers generally agree or are you guys like also broadly of the opinion that it's cool and good for the DA to get to decide all on their own what crime you'll be tried for First off, its a necessary component of a functioning criminal justice system. Citizens Report Crime - Police Investigate Crime - Prosecutors Prosecute Crime - Judges/Courts Adjudicate Crime. Each level in the process has some degree of discretion to begin with. Citizens can decide not to report a crime, Police can decide they don't have the resources, desire, or evidence to charge a crime, Prosecutors can decide they don't have the evidence or public support to file a case on a crime, and Judges can decide there was a defect somewhere along the way, or in the verdict, and dismiss the case or overturn the verdict, or amend the sentence offered up by the jury. Functionally, if you try to remove "prosecutorial discretion" you're really just suborning prosecutors to some other component of the process. If prosecutors can't choose whether or not to prosecute a case, then someone else is telling them whether or not to prosecute a case. Putting that power in the hands of the citizens or police is a bad idea, and its ridiculous to think Courts should, have the capacity to, or that it would be constitutional for Courts to do it. Second, its helpful to remember that you only hear about the cases that suck, and the results that suck and the prosecutors that suck. For the literally hundreds of thousands of criminal cases per year that go right, and generally reach the right result, you won't hear anything because its not news when the system works. The platonic ideal is a system where every result is just for everyone, but the reality of criminal justice (and the justice system in general) is that its basically impossible for both sides of a Court case to say, "well, I'm happy with how that turned out." Its the nature of a system where two opposing sides submit their fate to a third, and that always means one is going to be unhappy. Then extrapolate that out to people opining about how a close case turned out, and appreciate that for every person who agrees with a verdict, there will be another person who disagrees with the verdict. The lady cop in Dallas is headed to jail for shooting the dude in his apartment, and people are fighting over whether she's going for long enough, whether she should go at all, and in the mean time the decedent's brother is hugging her after the trial, and praying for her. Shits complicated, yo. So, in summation, I think prosecutorial discretion is "fine and good" as its a necessary gear in the machinery, and, in the right hands it can lead to more just results (in many people's minds), and - like literally anything of power or influence - in the wrong hands can lead to injustice (in many people's minds).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
nm posted:Yes it would have. “The murder rap? Ok here’s what happened. I was playing with fireworks with my kid, ok? And this firework set off a wildfire so I grab the kid and run like hell. Called the cops and told them, hey guys, I started a wildfire. They send an helicopter to put it out, copter crashes, and next thing I know I’m getting charged for murder of the helicopter pilot.”  “yeah no I’d like the real story please.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
nm posted:I represented a dude who had a murder conviction because he was loving around with fireworks with his kid, started a fire, and a helicopter crashed fighting the fire. They only found him because he turned himself in. The DA went a hin hard, charged him with 2nd degree murder. Judge can't dump the charge, but have him a deal where if he plead to everything, he'd get probation. Fuuuuuck that's hard. That'd be a two year max over here, likely 12 months at the outset and turning himself in when the cops would otherwise not get him would be worth a max of 1/3 reduction, so probably 8 months hard time. But then employers wouldn't necessarily know he was a convict either, since background checks are only allowed for pretty much security and child care jobs. How was that second degree murder though? Or am I missing something? A prosecutor over here would never take a chance on that charge (ethics aside), since murder and manslaughter are considered fundamentally different charges and that would mean acquittal for the obviously wrong murder charge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:in my non lawyer opinion, "prosecutorial discretion" is horseshit, particularly when prosecutors are elected officials. do the lawyers generally agree or are you guys like also broadly of the opinion that it's cool and good for the DA to get to decide all on their own what crime you'll be tried for Depends where you live and the quality of the elected officials. In my state it varies pretty drastically by county. Prosecutorial discretion discretion is necessary so long as the legislature keeps passing hard-on-crime poo poo and never repealing crimes, meaning we have almost all committed enough felonies to be put in prison for life. The prosecutors literally do not have the staff or resources to prosecute every crime. So it's only "prosecutorial discretion" that keeps all Americans (sorry fish, I'm only talking about America) out of jail and keeps the system quasi-functional. The problem is it tends to be applied in biased ways (either intentionally or unintentionally). Dunno what the solution is, but I'm not sure how non-specific railing against "prosecutorial discretion" helps. EDIT: What blarzgh said. People tend to get grumpy either when prosecutors exercise discretion to let someone off the hook that we think should have been punished more, or when you see a story about someone who got prosecuted but it feels bad because the results are harsh. poo poo sucks but whatcha gonna do and why are we picking on prosecutors rather than other parts of the system? Arcturas fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Feb 4, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Fuuuuuck that's hard. That'd be a two year max over here, likely 12 months at the outset and turning himself in when the cops would otherwise not get him would be worth a max of 1/3 reduction, so probably 8 months hard time. But then employers wouldn't necessarily know he was a convict either, since background checks are only allowed for pretty much security and child care jobs. Maybe a felony murder thing? I always wondered about that as well; how do you try & convict someone for a murder that occurred while they were doing a different crime but has a long af kill chain and no intent? Is it some sort of negligent homicide?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2020 22:35
|
|