|
evilweasel posted:You ask the person who is relating the dying declaration for the circumstances of the dying declaration, seems easy to me. The person introducing the statement can still be crossed, the statement has to be put into evidence somehow and if it’s not the person who heard the dying declaration then you have a separate hearsay objection. I used a written dying declaration once (made sure an old witness on a deathbed wrote down his poo poo before the trial in case he died - he died). Both the judge and OC wigged the gently caress out and due to a fuckup in pretrial neither of the pretrial judges managed to settle the issue (it was part of a late discovery and evidence submission) so I had to demand to be able to put forward the evidence during trial, which meant halting the trial for an appealable procedural ruling. I got that, won (because why would I go through all of that poo poo if I didn't know about the specific exception that allows me to do so), had all my evidence submitted. Still mostly lost the case though. Maybe I pissed off the judge, the judgement seemed all sorts of whack.
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:
I do justice when I trick the new DA into giving my client a deal that will get the DA yelled at by his co-workers / supervisor / the Judge and you can't tell me otherwise
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
GrandmaParty posted:The easiest two that gently caress judges up are "Reply letter doctrine" and "Not offering for the truth of the matter asserted but only to show that it was sent." The bolded above drives me loving crazy because there's two judges in the courthouse which fundamentally don't seem to understand what hearsay even is. I had a trial where a Defendant's story to police was that his counselor or therapist told them and their partner something during a session. Their partner (my victim/witness) laughed when I asked about it in prep and was like, "No, we never had a conversation about this." So I ask them, "Did you and your partner ever discuss Topic X with your counselor?" I got a sustained objection to it and we had to go off the record because I kept bringing up all the ways the Judge was wrong in front of the jury. - I was asking whether a conversation took place (not hearsay) - I was not asking about what the Dr. may or may not have said in that conversation (which didn't take place) - Even if the conversation took place, and even IF I was asking about it, it still isn't hearsay because the content of that conversation or the statement doesn't matter, only whether it took place Judge was like, "Well the only way you ask the answer is relevant is if it's about the topic, and she can't talk about the topic, so hearsay and upheld" That's not goddamn hearsay and a judge sustaining that is either, A) Enabling a dumb defense attorney or, B) Enabling a smart defense attorney knowingly trying to confuse the judge and get us off topic. Another favorite is judges who ignore all the cases I give them that say, "You can use the hearsay statement itself to determine if an exception applies." You see this poo poo with 911 calls or people yelling/crying during an assault. When I'm trying to put in a 911 call of a clearly terrified victim and the defendant is like, "How does the State know if they're emotional or upset? They haven't introduced any witnesses to state that." The law says the judge can listen to the statement to determine the applicability of an exception to that statement, we don't need an independent hearing on how upset the victim was. I've had two judges ignore a page's worth of case law from every level of review to rule that I needed a separate witness to testify about the applicability of an exception. Evidence isn't that loving hard but some judges act like the FRE is the loving Magna Carta
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Honestly " my parent is partner in a practice I can inherit" is the best reason to go to law school You can't inherit a public defender practice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Goons help me make a life changing decision. Current junior funds attorney at sole-proprietorship. I have an offer at a mid-sized firm doing general capital markets work and an interview for a cap markets staff attorney at an AM Law 50. I do capital markets work in biglaw and I've worked at three different big firms. In my experience, the kind of work that staff attorneys do in cap markets is not going to train you to be a partner-track associate doing capital markets work. You'll be stuck doing uninteresting due diligence and boilerplate parts of routine SEC filings. The staff attorney job may be better for other reasons, but I don't think it's going to help your legal career progress.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 20:57
|
|
|
Yeah the recruiter played up the staff attorney position. Mid-sized law firm it is. Thanks everybody.evilweasel posted:i dont know what the gently caress funds attorneys or corporate attorneys in general do We chase our client's money around in our offices with a broom. builds character posted:What are your long term goals? There's a few people from LinkedIn that made it to associates. Long term goal is in-house although after chatting with the mid-sized law firm people there seems to be a place for growth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 22:10
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I used a written dying declaration once (made sure an old witness on a deathbed wrote down his poo poo before the trial in case he died - he died). Who cares about the silly case, you are now part of an elite cadre of attorneys who actually got to use the dying declaration exception to admit evidence. Way cooler than "winning."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
nm posted:You can't inherit a public defender practice. You might be able to inherit some clients though
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:You might be able to inherit some clients though If you don't you just haven't been there long enough
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
nm posted:You can't inherit a public defender practice. no but if the parent was a public defender they've probably either gone private by now or made a zillion connections or both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 23:29
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:Yeah the recruiter played up the staff attorney position. Mid-sized law firm it is. Thanks everybody. In-house at someone like the mid-sized law firm's clients? Because that makes the decision you've already made even easier.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 00:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:no but if the parent was a public defender they've probably either gone private by now or made a zillion connections or both. Or they're burned up husks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 02:07
|
|
|
Xtronoc posted:We chase our client's money around in our offices with a broom. Most of my job is this plus yelling at associates in other practice groups because they don’t have the client’s loving org docs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 05:28
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Who cares about the silly case, you are now part of an elite cadre of attorneys who actually got to use the dying declaration exception to admit evidence. Way cooler than "winning." So true. Client cared a little bit, but at the same time gently caress'm he was the defendant and had me throw all sorts of poo poo to the wall to make it stick. Not that he should have lost outright though, but then the judge got tossed off the bench not long after and had to go back to private practice so I can't have been the only nonplussed customer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 06:52
|
|
|
Ani posted:You'll be stuck doing uninteresting due diligence and boilerplate parts of routine SEC filings. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 13:06
|
|
|
nm posted:Or they're burned up husks. The gently caress you say about my momma?!?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 14:41
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:The gently caress you say about my momma?!? Burned up, not used up
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 14:46
|
|
|
nm posted:Or they're burned up husks. That's probably an "and" not an "or"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
For those of you who work in big law, what sense are you getting from your offices about what their plans are for remote work going forward? My office hasn't announced anything concrete, but it isn't exactly a secret that management is jonesing for asses in seats 5 days a week. I really, really do not want to go back to doing that and I hope that is not the way the industry is headed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 20:36
|
|
|
Not biglaw but we’ve been asses in seats since May 2020. Only a 10% office Covid infection rate, one ventilator, no fatalities. Get back to work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
No one here (Bay Area) is planning to return to office for at least a few more months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:No one here (Bay Area) is planning to return to office for at least a few more months. This is a same in a lot of smaller offices too, or limited in office hours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:56
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:For those of you who work in big law, what sense are you getting from your offices about what their plans are for remote work going forward? My office hasn't announced anything concrete, but it isn't exactly a secret that management is jonesing for asses in seats 5 days a week. I really, really do not want to go back to doing that and I hope that is not the way the industry is headed. Nobody will be asked to be back in the office before September. Beyond that I think there will be more tolerance for working from home but nobody knows yet. Partners also have gotten somewhat accustomed to no commute!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 21:58
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:For those of you who work in big law, what sense are you getting from your offices about what their plans are for remote work going forward? My office hasn't announced anything concrete, but it isn't exactly a secret that management is jonesing for asses in seats 5 days a week. I really, really do not want to go back to doing that and I hope that is not the way the industry is headed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:08
|
|
|
In my office, about 75 total employees, we are in the office but remote for court. All attorneys are vaccinated and most staff. Staff who aren't vaccinated can work from home still.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 22:25
|
|
|
Large company in-house here. All indications are we will not be required to come back to the office maybe ever. My boss asked everyone what their preference is, and said it was fine if that included "never darkening the door of corporate HQ again."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2021 23:23
|
|
|
My org just basically gave the okay for vaccinated staff to return to the office if they wish. Nothing mandatory. Non vaccinated staff cannot return yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:For those of you who work in big law, what sense are you getting from your offices about what their plans are for remote work going forward? My office hasn't announced anything concrete, but it isn't exactly a secret that management is jonesing for asses in seats 5 days a week. I really, really do not want to go back to doing that and I hope that is not the way the industry is headed. Biglaw firm that's been fully work from home since March 2020. Active encouragement from HR to come back to the office "whenever you feel ready," but the same HR folk have also let us know that they're currently putting together an "expansive" post-covid remote work policy. The feeling I get is that a substantial amount of remote work will be allowed post-covid (at least for my position), but that occasionally I will still need to come into the office, and that I will need to be ready and available to do so when requested. I personally will need to return to the office starting in May because I am a part of a trial team for a large trial starting at that time. If not for this trial, then I don't think I would be asked to return to the office in any capacity until August or September at the earliest. Kefit fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:34
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:For those of you who work in big law, what sense are you getting from your offices about what their plans are for remote work going forward? My office hasn't announced anything concrete, but it isn't exactly a secret that management is jonesing for asses in seats 5 days a week. I really, really do not want to go back to doing that and I hope that is not the way the industry is headed. Texas biglaw. Same wrt nothing concrete yet, but one of our associates told the partners that she intends to move to San Antonio and the partners told her she can stay with the firm until WFH is over, after which she gets the boot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
State agency - Office can accommodate 50% of rated capacity. We can go to the jails as long as we are fully vaccinated and double masked. Jury trials are resuming under modified and very objectionable conditions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:no but if the parent was a public defender they've probably either gone private by now or made a zillion connections or both. She did public defense her whole career and retired. She readily admits to being burnt out by it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 15:38
|
|
|
I expect partners will come in 2-3 days a week generally and associates will be five days required at first year up with a gradual easing up to partner level. And all highly group dependent. If your boss is coming in five days a week they’ll probably want you in too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 00:10
|
|
|
89-ish attorney, single-office firm. I imagine we will never have a requirement that you come back to the office, but the soft expectation will be that you be back in the office sometime in July. There will be folks who don’t, but if you’re younger and need to be seen to get work, you will figure out quickly that you have to be in office to get integrated. If you’re more senior or have your work pipelines lined up, gently caress it do what you want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Bold Robot posted:For those of you who work in big law, what sense are you getting from your offices about what their plans are for remote work going forward? My office hasn't announced anything concrete, but it isn't exactly a secret that management is jonesing for asses in seats 5 days a week. I really, really do not want to go back to doing that and I hope that is not the way the industry is headed. NYC big law. I think more people are likely to leave the officer earlier (6-8pm) to head home, eat dinner there, and be more comfortable working at home the rest of the night. But there isn't going to be some massive shift to working from home. I think there will be substantially less travel for useless things like mediation (just doing them remotely since it was already heading that way anyways with things like the 2d Circuit CAMP mediations that were all done by phone).
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
builds character posted:I expect partners will come in 2-3 days a week generally and associates will be five days required at first year up with a gradual easing up to partner level. And all highly group dependent. If your boss is coming in five days a week they’ll probably want you in too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
From what I know most firms target labor day, but again you have partners and associates that bought real estate in the burbs/travel 2+ hours to and from NJ/CT that can't be assed to go back
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
We've been remote since March 2020 at my big law firm and they keep pushing the official back to office date back. I think it's October now but I wouldn't be surprised if they wait until next year. We've been allowed to go into the office, though, on designated days if we wanted. My particular practice group is now fully remote regardless of the back to office date so I can now work wherever I want from home so long as I'm barred in the state and we have a license to operate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
Small company in-house here. We have been 100% remote (with exceptions made for internet interruptions, etc.) since April 2020 and I don't believe we'll be going back until everyone is fully vaccinated, and even then we will have WFH options. Pre-pandemic I was WFH Fridays and some Tuesdays since my day starts early then. I'll probably go back to remote Tu/Fr, maybe Monday as well, depending on if I have a nice office or not (we moved during the pandemic and my last office was a windowless dungeon that had dozens of boxes stored in it). But we are the G&A of the main team, which is on the other side of the country, and we have people all over the world who work remotely, so WFH was already implemented for us and will probably still be a big part of our culture forever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
FWIW I had a second round interview with a DC big law shop today and what I was told is that they're expecting folks, once vaccinated, to "start" coming back to the office in July, and even then it'd be a few days a week and not daily for a while yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 20:41 |
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oOwQ4GZncQ
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 22:16
|
|
