|
nutri_void posted:I will never not find it funny that you people have to do CLEs about substance abuse It's window dressing. "Our profession is terrible at substance abuse but hey this year we made them do a class on it that doesn't at all address the root of the issues hope it helps tia"
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
Reminds me of when a gip goon’s armywife punched her ticket one of the first things big army wanted to know was whether or not she had completed her annual suicide awareness training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 13:16
|
|
|
hahahahaha so much for that "global peace" or whatever the Sackler family wanted https://portal.ct.gov/AG/Press-Rele...rdue-Bankruptcy e: opinions are free to read as always but I'm too lazy to find a host for a 140 page pdf. SDNY, 7:21-cv-07532-CM Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Dec 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 01:50
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:hahahahaha so much for that "global peace" or whatever the Sackler family wanted also the ruling says they can never get global peace (in the second circuit, if the ruling stands on appeal which is iffy) having to read a 140 page decision as soon as I got home: not great
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
i don’t know why you would put a litigator on your criminal trial jury and then try to impeach the witness with a tiny trivial inconsistency in an email you say they wrote the next day (and don’t let the jury see, because it’s hearsay) when you should realize that you have just informed the litigator that email backs up their story 99.9% also now that I have been on a jury the rule against hearsay is kind of dumb in practice especially because the jury is not informed about it or why things they hear that are obviously relevant to credibility are not shown to them because they then assume it’s bad for someone but can easily get wrong who it’s bad for also holy hell criminal defendants should not testify evilweasel fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Dec 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
I think they should unless you can came up with a good, individualized reason why they shouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 05:47
|
|
|
joat mon posted:I think they should unless you can came up with a good, individualized reason why they shouldn't. Ya the only people I've ever heard say "never let a defendant testify" are non criminal attorneys. To be clear sometimes it is a VERY bad idea. But in most situations, a jury wants to hear from a defendant, hear them deny it, hear their reason. Sometimes the defendant is the only one with the complete picture. Again, huge caveat that this does not all the time. If your client is gonna blame his spouse for the beating he gave her, probably don't. Pook Good Mook fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Dec 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i don’t know why you would put a litigator on your criminal trial jury and then try to impeach the witness with a tiny trivial inconsistency in an email you say they wrote the next day (and don’t let the jury see, because it’s hearsay) when you should realize that you have just informed the litigator that email backs up their story 99.9% If you know it's hearsay and you know the other side is going to object, always 100% offer it into evidence loudly in front of the jury so they see it's the other guys who are hiding evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 06:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:
I watched a murder trial recently where the defendant testified and it resulted in a not guilty verdict (self defense). Whole thing was on video start to finish and it would've been a slam dunk conviction but the dude had *great* presence and really sold it to the jury and it worked. The hilarious thing about it was that the defense attorney (a friend of mine) had virtually no idea how to do direct exam and the prosecutor had no goddam idea at all how to do cross.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 09:36
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Ya the only people I've ever heard say "never let a defendant testify" are non criminal attorneys. In the case I was a juror on the defendants direct testimony was devastating to him. The cross was basically “just repeat that all again, please.” Perhaps if he had been a better liar it might have worked but he had such brazen and unbelievable lies that the defense closing kept suggesting we could disregard his testimony.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Given that, incidentally, my strong suspicion is the defendant testified against the advice of his lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 14:28
|
|
|
The jury has to hear from the defendant for claims of self defense (not literally). Other than that it can be a very humanizing process thats probably only worth it if your client has some serious personality and storytelling upside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
I saw it be effective in a case where there was one serious charge (distribution) and two lessers (possession, open intox); the goal of the defendant testifying was to get him off of the distribution charge by giving the jury an alternative story/portraying him as an ordinary person. It worked, and I’m not sure it would have had he decided not to testify.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 16:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Given that, incidentally, my strong suspicion is the defendant testified against the advice of his lawyer. I'm sure you're right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
My general experience has been that typically (but not always of course) the more a defendant insists on testifying the higher chance they gently caress themselves. Clients who have a good defense but not good enough to get a dismissal pre-trial tend to be pretty scared about it and hope they don't have to take the stand. I'd say of the cases where a client of mine testified to their own benefit most of them required a lot of work to get them to not be complete nervous wrecks on the stand, which juries mostly assume means guilt rather than having sat through court for months and seeing how little justice actually occurs and being worried about what is going to happen when its your turn. The number of completely innocent people I've had to talk out of taking plea bargains because they had no faith in the system and the facts of their case meant the state was worried about losing and thus gave a good plea deal is depressing, and much moreso when you realize that most defense attorneys think a client willing to plea is the end of the case. But yes, in general if you don't have a very good reason to testify, don't. And also the rule against hearsay is horrible in practice, if you object on it the jury just thinks you're trying to hide something and assumes something much worse than the actual testimony would be 99% of the time. It's one of the worst things newbie defense attorneys do is yell out OBJECTION HEARSAY every time they can and then look around for their cookie, and I swear a lot of public defenders offices them to do this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2021 16:54
|
|
|
I liked having clients testify in involuntary committals because the attorney general and the doctor from the state hospital were assholes. .
Tokelau All Star fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 21, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2021 07:13
|
|
|
nutri_void posted:I will never not find it funny that you people have to do CLEs about substance abuse CLEs make sense from a theory point of view. A lot of people that come into Alcoholics Anonymous had never heard of it before someone told them about / took them to a meeting. And a lot of people are incredibly uninformed / misinformed about mental health treatment, resources available, etc. Convincing people that they could—gasp—be a person with a problem and that—gasp—it’s okay to get help is very difficult From a practical standpoint CLEs may not be super effective but if you suffer from addiction issues than statistically you are hosed anyways
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2021 10:14
|
|
|
Do any of you guys have good resources/suggestions on how to best write an expert opinion/report for a medmal case? I've found some examples/resources, but was curious if you guys had suggestions. This is my first. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 20:51
|
|
|
Did the people paying you not tell you how they want it? Ask them. They’re the ones whose opinions matter here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
100% what SlothBear said. Ask them, but not in writing. Have a zoom call and share your screen if you want to show them a draft, but don't e-mail drafts around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 20:56
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Did the people paying you not tell you how they want it? Ask them. They’re the ones whose opinions matter here. Soothing Vapors posted:100% what SlothBear said. Ask them, but not in writing. Have a zoom call and share your screen if you want to show them a draft, but don't e-mail drafts around. Duh, will do. Thanks guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
And bill them for it
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 04:56
|
|
|
"At [firm], we are deeply committed to advancing mental well-being in our industry, as well as continuing to raise awareness and implement new measures to meet the needs of our greatest asset – our people. Have you ever questioned why we drink the way we do? Have you been thinking about your own drinking habits? Join this session, led by [Dr. Distinguished], to explore the “sober spectrum,” the benefits of being "sober sometimes," as well as ideas for transforming mindless drinking into mindful drinking. This will be a Listen & Learn session with cameras off and the ability to join anonymously, so you can confidently join with any questions you may have."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 09:01
|
|
|
I admit to sometimes feeling sober-curious
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 09:01
|
|
|
I'm not so much "sober sometimes" as "sober occasionally". What does that get me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 13:53
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:I'm not so much "sober sometimes" as "sober occasionally". What does that get me? Cirrhosis
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:100% what SlothBear said. Ask them, but not in writing. Have a zoom call and share your screen if you want to show them a draft, but don't e-mail drafts around. The rules have changed to allow you to send drafts to lawyers but like you I don’t quite remember the exact details so I tend to default to this  But if you want to send a draft just call them and ask what the lawyers want to do it’s their job not to gently caress up what is discoverable, not the experts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 14:49
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:"At [firm], we are deeply committed to advancing mental well-being in our industry, as well as continuing to raise awareness and implement new measures to meet the needs of our greatest asset – our people. this sounds like a session to pressure you into drinking
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 14:51
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:I admit to sometimes feeling sober-curious I'm sober divergent every Fri after 5
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 14:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:this sounds like a session to pressure you into drinking I got roped into "mentoring" some law students recently Their year had been hell of course because school during covid Apparently their law school's approach to remedying this was just to give them like daily "self care" lectures. Take care of yourself! It's on you! We aren't gonna tell you how!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 15:54
|
|
|
Mindful drinking. Namaste
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
quote:Have you ever questioned why we drink the way we do? quote:We believe, and so suggested a few years ago, that the action of alcohol on these chronic alcoholics is a manifestation of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is limited to this class and never occurs in the average temperate drinker. These allergic types can never safely use alcohol in any form at all; and once having formed the habit and found they cannot break it, once having lost their self-confidence, their reliance upon things human, their problems pile up on them and become astonishingly difficult to solve.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2022 21:33
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The rules have changed to allow you to send drafts to lawyers but like you I don’t quite remember the exact details so I tend to default to this Oh yeah? Man i gotta start doing CLE E: lol quoted the wrong post Soothing Vapors fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Jan 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2022 06:23
|
|
|
quote:Hello, Is what he sent back when I asked for money upfront to review the records. That's...not normal, right? I'm not spending my time reviewing a bunch of medical records for free.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2022 19:08
|
|
|
Residency Evil posted:Is what he sent back when I asked for money upfront to review the records. It is not uncommon in medmal in FL for doctors to have a variable fee schedule. It’s necessary to get an expert report presuit in FL medmal. Doctors will charge a smaller rate to review the records and see if there’s a case first. There’s a flat rate for records review with an hourly rate (with minimum call times) to discuss the case and see if it merits further pursuit for some while others just charge a flat rate. If, after discussion, the lawyer feels there’s a case, they’ll pay the additional fee for the written report and file suit. You should bill for the record review and call. They’ll pay you more for you to draft a report if it’s needed. At least that’s what I would do. Don’t review poo poo for free, and I don’t expect any decent lawfirm would want you to, either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It is not uncommon in medmal in FL for doctors to have a variable fee schedule. It’s necessary to get an expert report presuit in FL medmal. Doctors will charge a smaller rate to review the records and see if there’s a case first. There’s a flat rate for records review with an hourly rate (with minimum call times) to discuss the case and see if it merits further pursuit for some while others just charge a flat rate. If, after discussion, the lawyer feels there’s a case, they’ll pay the additional fee for the written report and file suit. That was his response to a 4 hour minimum retainer for initial review. Everyone tells me to demand payment for that upfront. Is that wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2022 20:29
|
|
|
Tell him your standard practice before evaluating a set of records is to have a retainer of at least four hours' time, and that you'll bill it at an hourly rate of $XXX/hr (say, $500).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Tell him your standard practice before evaluating a set of records is to have a retainer of at least four hours' time, and that you'll bill it at an hourly rate of $XXX/hr (say, $500). Thanks, I’ll send that message again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
I happened to be looking at the website for the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. I noticed it had a "Notable Cases" dropdown. It has only two entries: 1) Hurricane Sandy cases (makes sense) 2) UNITED STATES v. BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 20:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:01 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:I happened to be looking at the website for the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. I noticed it had a "Notable Cases" dropdown. Isn't that the one where they completely botched it and had to dismiss it? They charged him with DUI when his BAC was at .02.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2022 20:07
|
|