|
Leave a review too
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Back in 2016 I got a lawyer to help handle some family law nonsense and this lawyer has been amazing. I'd like to thank them for handling this, whats the best way to do that? I've already sent a card and several clients their way. One thing I'm consistently told by folks in private non-firm type practice is that word of mouth is by far the best form of advertising they get, so just spread the word about what a good lawyer they are and how much they helped you whenever the opportunity arises and you'll be doing them the most good you possibly can. And yeah leave reviews and such too. This will help them buy lots of booze with their own money, which is a far better thank you than sending a lesser amount of booze directly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Another law school success story. Can't read because it's pay-walled, but ummm why? Could he really not make things work on a $130k salary?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 19:51
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Can't read because it's pay-walled, but ummm why? Could he really not make things work on a $130k salary? My theory is he wanted a source of outside income to hide alcohol purchases from his wife. Would also explain why he was doing it during working hours when his wife would've thought he was at the office. Blackmail or harder drugs are also possibles but less likely imho because you don't make that kind of money off uber eats.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 20:17
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Can't read because it's pay-walled, but ummm why? Could he really not make things work on a $130k salary? He blamed his "personal life" so I'm guessing substance abuse or gambling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:He blamed his "personal life" so I'm guessing substance abuse or gambling. Huh, I was thinking divorce.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Can't read because it's pay-walled, but ummm why? Could he really not make things work on a $130k salary?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
Ani posted:I'm in biglaw. I would never have an "I told you so" call with a client because that's a good way for your client to stop being your client. I do sometimes commiserate, usually with other lawyers at my firm or sometimes even the lawyers representing the counterparty in the transaction, very much in a "these loving people, we did tell them this was going to happen and it would be a shitshow" kind of way. Partner told me when I was just getting started out that we yell at each other because we can’t yell at our clients. E: He did yell at me a lot, though. Maybe it was just me? Beefeater1980 fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Mar 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2021 03:41
|
|
|
thread posted:Usually while they're screaming at you as if it's your fault. "Look, dude, you're right. You are getting hosed, and it's not fair. But I need you to listen to me. Right now, you're on a train track. You can try standing on the track and yelling at me and at the train and see how that works, or you can listen and I can try to help you ride the train out of this building" [this building being the jail] Depending on your jurisdiction the penalty for not blowing is probably the same or worse and proof a lot easier to adduce than if you blow. Literally had a convo the other day: N: If you go to treatment this will go better, and you'll stop making so much work for me. A: I want to go, but not this time. Next time? N: You're the boss! e: nm. still alarming ee: "proof easier to advice"? gently caress typing on phones Nichol fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
Nichol posted:e: nm. still alarming You're free to disagree, but I feel that you DUI guys are providing lots of support for my point of view.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Edit: nah.
BigHead fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
Many times lawyers actually can’t drop clients because judges won’t let them. Whereas I’ve never heard of a doctor being forced to continue treating a patient who wasn’t paying, or whose morals the doctor disagreed with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 14:00
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Many times lawyers actually can’t drop clients because judges won’t let them. Whereas I’ve never heard of a doctor being forced to continue treating a patient who wasn’t paying, or whose morals the doctor disagreed with. I've even seen it in the civil context, where motions to withdraw are denied. Its typically in the 11th hour before a big hearing where a problematic party has stalled, delayed, lied, ignored orders, and/or regularly claimed they couldn't get an attorney in order to push off a hearing or something. I feel bad for the lawyer because they're essentially being ordered to show up and take an rear end whipping so that the moving party can get their pound of flesh out of the lovely party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 15:52
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I've even seen it in the civil context, where motions to withdraw are denied. Its typically in the 11th hour before a big hearing where a problematic party has stalled, delayed, lied, ignored orders, and/or regularly claimed they couldn't get an attorney in order to push off a hearing or something. I feel bad for the lawyer because they're essentially being ordered to show up and take an rear end whipping so that the moving party can get their pound of flesh out of the lovely party. I'm certain that in many of those circumstances (non-legal aid civil cases), the would-be former lawyer had no part in helping their client stall, delay, lie, or avoid complying with orders. In other circumstances, I suspect that the attorney was the architect, at at least an enabler. There will always be attorneys who are willing partners to this sort of cost-dilating behavior. I just hope that someday the profession gets to a place where the attorneys who now begrudgingly or reluctantly help this type of client will instead withdraw at the earliest possible moment, or alternatively, not take the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
probably 9 times out of 10 the lawyer was at least complicit, if not the architect of the client's designs, but somebody's gotta take those cases and never get paid on them because it sure as poo poo ain't gonna be me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
Usually (unless you're after a default judgment) you want the other side represented by counsel because nothing is more onerous than a pro se who knows enough to make everything impossible, but not enough to actually win a case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:You're free to disagree, but I feel that you DUI guys are providing lots of support for my point of view. Understanding the nuances of DUI law and ensuring anyone accused of a crime by the government is vigorously defended is... just due process? We try to provide that to everyone, so that people who’d prefer to turn their nose up at “bad guys” don’t get to decide who, and to what extent, a person is “truly” worthy of a defense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Usually (unless you're after a default judgment) you want the other side represented by counsel because nothing is more onerous than a pro se who knows enough to make everything impossible, but not enough to actually win a case. Even in transactional, this was always a coin flip for me. Occasionally, for something relatively small, someone would want to just negotiate and work the contract themselves without counsel. It would either be great because I could just run roughshod and get the drat thing done quickly, or horrible because they would be worse than a goddammit attorney and argue everything (generally not even knowing what they were arguing about), including all the things a competent attorney would give on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:Even in transactional, this was always a coin flip for me. Occasionally, for something relatively small, someone would want to just negotiate and work the contract themselves without counsel. I helped draft up an independent contractor agreement for a local non-profit to use with their accountant. The first draft they had made was a mess and would have been held up as an employment agreement with a fixed salary of $400/week. I drafted them a new agreement and got questions about everything. "Do we really need this integration clause? Of course the agreement is the whole agreement. What does that even mean? We just want to keep this simple!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 18:41
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:"We just want to keep this simple!"  aaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 19:03
|
|
|
Sounds like they should just do a handshake deal. Nothing more simple than that!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Sounds like they should just do a handshake deal. Nothing more simple than that! AAH gently caress YOU
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 20:39
|
|
|
First Amendment/Litigation goons, question:bleeding kansas posted:the kraken is still out, nobody caught the kraken https://twitter.com/zoetillman/status/1374100890181902340?s=21 By making this argument, isn't Powell acknowledging she knew her claims were bullshit when she slandered Dominion? Isn't this filing just doing the hard part of a "Public Figure" libel claim for the plaintiffs?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
I think Powell also argued in another case that she technically didn't sign her pleadings because she typed her signature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 00:26
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:First Amendment/Litigation goons, question: it does seem like she's basically admitting to a rule 11 violation but what she appears to be arguing is (a) she can say whatever the drat hell she wants in a lawsuit and its not defamation (true, to avoid all lawsuit answers containing a defamation suit); (b) therefore repeating the same things she says in a lawsuit in public everywhere that will let her speak into a microphone cannot be defamation because a reasonable listener would know she was just repeating stuff from a lawsuit that therefore had no truth value which is a very bad argument to my ears but seems to be trying to thread the needle of not admitting to a rule 11 violation
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it does seem like she's basically admitting to a rule 11 violation but what she appears to be arguing is (a) she can say whatever the drat hell she wants in a lawsuit and its not defamation (true, to avoid all lawsuit answers containing a defamation suit); (b) therefore repeating the same things she says in a lawsuit in public everywhere that will let her speak into a microphone cannot be defamation because a reasonable listener would know she was just repeating stuff from a lawsuit that therefore had no truth value one weird trick to avoid defamation: put it all in a lawsuit first
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
It's cool that fully 1/3 of the country thinks that the secret, real election results were hidden by the Deep State (tm) and sent to Germany and there's nothing that could ever change their minds on the matter, and we just have to live with that until they finally die off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 01:42
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it does seem like she's basically admitting to a rule 11 violation but what she appears to be arguing is (a) she can say whatever the drat hell she wants in a lawsuit and its not defamation (true, to avoid all lawsuit answers containing a defamation suit); (b) therefore repeating the same things she says in a lawsuit in public everywhere that will let her speak into a microphone cannot be defamation because a reasonable listener would know she was just repeating stuff from a lawsuit that therefore had no truth value
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 02:28
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:one weird trick to avoid defamation: put it all in a lawsuit first I would be very un-surprised if this was literally their argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 02:34
|
|
|
TheWordOfTheDayIs posted:You're free to disagree, but I feel that you DUI guys are providing lots of support for my point of view. I'm a ppt guy goddamnit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2021 20:02
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Many times lawyers actually can’t drop clients because judges won’t let them. Whereas I’ve never heard of a doctor being forced to continue treating a patient who wasn’t paying, or whose morals the doctor disagreed with. In many states there’s a stipulation that 30 days notice must be given when a physician decides to end a clinician/patient relationship. That said, there’s not much legislation out there with regards to helping the patient establish a replacement which in the case of specialists in remote areas can be challenging. However with regards to immediately life threatening conditions, EMTALA makes it pretty difficult to refuse care based upon a wallet biopsy. It’s not a perfect law but goddamn is it important. Life threatening conditions tend to vary a bit less with regards to the preferences or beliefs of the patient. Testosterone supplements, on the other hand? Get hosed and enjoy stroking out 
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
Can I slide into the secret Lawyer discord? I’m not gonna post my bar card or anything, but I’ll tell you all about the exciting differences between hearsay exceptions and non-hearsay statements under F.R.E 803 and 801, respectively.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 15:56
|
|
|
Lmao hearsay isn't real
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 16:32
|
|
|
A Tasteful Nude posted:Can I slide into the secret Lawyer discord? PM sent
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
LOL. I am the president of a nonprofit and also their legal counsel. It's a part time volunteer position I perform as part of my pro bono recommendations, although the time I spend on this NPO far exceeds the recommended hourly expenditure. It's a MESS. In the past year I've had to deal with felony-tier embezzlement from our Executive Director and her subsequent termination, as well as job abandonment from a manager who is suspected by many of having an extreme drug problem. Prior to Manager's termination, she pled poverty so our Treasurer, on her own, personally helped her secure an apartment and helped her with rent. I won't go into how that turned out as you can probably guess. Because she reported into me, I got to fire her as well, and she dodged all my calls, emails, texts, and even home visits from other staff, either because she was on a bender, having some personal problem, or literally didn't want to deal with her job, or any combination of the three. It's anyone's guess. So we terminated her and overnighted her final check, which we had to estimate (and based on conversations with other staff about her working hours, probably over-estimated) and she received it the following day. Law in my state requires same-day payment of the final paycheck upon termination, but because she was evading us we issued the check same-day and she received it the next day. All this was done pursuant to our employment attorney's advice. That was November. Twice in the past few months she's surfaced and demanded we pay her a full day's wages because we were a day late in getting her last check to her. She has this pattern where she starts making demands, gets ignored, and wanders off for a few months. (When she first brought it up I explained that her evasion caused the delay, and that we were acting on the advice of counsel.) She has now started quoting loosely-related labor law clauses at me, conveniently leaving off the parts where the delay has to be willful, and that an employee who evades contact is not entitled to relief. We've decided that giving her any money now will just open us up to future grifts. She says if we pay her the $300 or so that she thinks we owe her, she'll sign a document stating that all debts are cleared, then provided her PayPal info. Which, first of all, LOL if you think I believe you'll sign anything. The money will go directly into your arm and in three months you'll be back demanding more. Second of all, she owes us several hundred dollars worth of equipment that mysteriously disappeared from her apartment. Just....being a lawyer sucks, but it is pretty funny when non-lawyers try to threaten legal action at me. If I ever hear from her again the most I'll do is calmly ask for her attorney to contact me. Which we know is about as likely to happen as me ever paying off my student loans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 17:46
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:LOL. Sounds like a non-profit, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 17:49
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Lmao hearsay isn't real How Can Hearsay Be Real If Our Ears Aren't Real
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 17:55
|
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:LOL. You probably know this, but unless and until she gets clean, she will never EVER stop. I guarantee you she's telling everyone that her "piece of poo poo old job" still owes her $300 and I'm sure she's convinced herself that too. It's absurd the number of stalking/harassment charges that start because the Defendant is a drug addict convinced the victim stole a phone/tablet or something worth less than $500 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 14:30 |
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:You probably know this, but unless and until she gets clean, she will never EVER stop. I guarantee you she's telling everyone that her "piece of poo poo old job" still owes her $300 and I'm sure she's convinced herself that too. Yep. As much as I want to firmly shut her down, I know that engaging with her is, at best, a lost cause. It's too bad, up until about a year ago, she was a very good employee, knowledgeable and well liked. Now, her former reports won't speak to her, volunteers are afraid of her, and our Treasurer is personally out tens of thousands of dollars due to trying to help her. I do hope she gets clean and wish the best for her, but we can't do this for her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2021 19:30
|
|