|
If you're confused or unsure how to do something, loving tell someone. Use your judgment if that means going back to the partner who gave you the work or an associate in the same practice area.
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Non Serviam posted:General question for American lawyers here : should you guys get rid of trial by jury? Most of the developed world sort of gave up on that already. No, juries are generally not as jaded as judges, good for occasionally calling bullshit on the state's case, and for introducing unpredictability for when you haven't got much else.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
I am a much bigger believer in juries after practicing for a while that I ever was before.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Fuzzie Dunlop posted:So my Biglaw summer associate job starts in a few weeks any tips, particularly for someone in their early 30s with work experience? Also what do you actually do? Everyone just says lunch and events but I haven't heard much as far as what you're actually doing during the day. Talk to the first years to get some sense of what the difference is between their summer experience and their current one. If it's bad they'll probably lie about if they like it, but they'll still probably be honest about the underlying facts. The most important thing for you is to not do something that shows you have really poor judgment. It's fine not to know what you're doing, that's expected. Anyone who lets your work go anywhere without it getting redone by an actual lawyer is probably in line for a firin', so as long as you clearly worked on it and didn't, like, slap it together in fifteen minutes with a hangover you'll be fine. When someone gives you an assignment, bring a notepad, take notes, and then ask all the questions you have about what they're looking for in the work product and any background on the case you need. Nobody's good at knowing what you need to know, and it's best if you ask the questions then while they've set aside the time for you. If it's a partner, ask if there's someone you can talk to about the case background if something comes up so you can pester an associate with your questions instead of them. If you don't know how to do something a partner is asking you to do, find an associate to ask those questions: preferably the junior or midlevel associate on the case. That's not just to not bother the partner with dumb questions about how one opens up Westlaw, but also because they haven't done any of the stuff they're asking you to do in ten years or more while the associate has done it recently. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:18 on May 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
^^^^^ all true. You're not expected to know how to do this. Be nice, be personable, and ask about what you don't know. And try not to mess up what you do know. The only thing that will actually stick with me about a summer's work is if there's typos, its sloppy, etc. I don't expect you to know how to be a lawyer yet, but I do expect you to know how to write accurate English. Say yes to everything - someone invites you to coffee, say yes. Someone says they have some work for you, say yes. Someone invites you to a pasta-making and wine tasting evening event, say yes. Be honest about your time and commitments ("I promised Jim I'd get him this memo before I leave today, but I'd be happy to turn to this tomorrow" etc.) but say yes when you can. Also, are you in one practice group or rotating through a couple?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Oh, you have one of those mythical "well paying lawyer jobs" I keep hearing about! Nah, I'm sure that's good pay compared to living costs in the US. In Norway, that's pretty much minimum wage or slightly above. Six figures in freedom units is pretty much where you'd want to be as a lawyer with any experience on a basic level. With a normal (and legally required 4 weeks) minimum of 5 weeks paid vacation (6 if you're over sixty), 12 (3x4) legal minimum sick days (children's illness excluded) a year without a doctor's note (sick leave is unlimited, doesn't count against anything), year's quarantine when sick (can't be fired before a year has passed when away sick), legally mandated overtime over the normal 37,5 hour full time work week, and free blowjobs every wednesday. That last one is a lie.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Local attorneys representing the Sheriff's dept just got a batson violation. Protip: if you kick the black juror with some college and keep the white jurors who have never seen a college, don't claim you kicked the black guy because he didn't have enough education. California is really progressive ya'll.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
nm posted:Local attorneys representing the Sheriff's dept just got a batson violation. Are they declaring a mistrial as a result? What's the outcome?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Are they declaring a mistrial as a result? What's the outcome? Their peremptory of the black guy gets denied and voir dire continues.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:
I'll be in litigation but beyond that I'm not sure. They had us list a few areas of interest. During my callback and post offer visit I basically met exclusively with the people in the practice group I want to work with, which is also directly related to my work experience. The folks I met with said they'd be seeking me out due to my experience, for what that's worth. Whether that was meant as SA or first year I don't really know. Thanks everyone for the great tips so far.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Their peremptory of the black guy gets denied and voir dire continues. I didn't know if the batson violation came during voir dire or after. I just recall it resulting in mistrials in some cases.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
JohnCompany posted:^^^^^ all true. Also, when drafting something, partners will repeatedly redraft or eliminate stuff they themselves put in. Edits aren't a criticism of your work (or theirs) so don't bring it up that it's their own stuff in there they're editing, they can change their mind too. Do not, ever, just accept someone's track changes and move on. They will be full of typos. You're expected to correct those, especially since doing edits in track changes means it's hard to spot some typos like extra spaces and double periods and doing stuff in track changes always creates those.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Do not, ever, just accept someone's track changes and move on. They will be full of typos. You're expected to correct those, especially since doing edits in track changes means it's hard to spot some typos like extra spaces and double periods and doing stuff in track changes always creates those. I've gotten to the point where I always make edits in a clean document and then have word generate a tracked changes set later for this reason.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
ulmont posted:I've gotten to the point where I always make edits in a clean document and then have word generate a tracked changes set later for this reason. Make sure to select "simple markup" instead of full, and the document looks clean while tracking the changes.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:47
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:Make sure to select "simple markup" instead of full, and the document looks clean while tracking the changes. The generated changes will usually be more minimalist as well as word combines various moves, formatting changes, etc. rather than keeping each one.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Are they declaring a mistrial as a result? What's the outcome? New jury. The violation was found only after all the black peoplw were kicked, so. . . .
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Non Serviam posted:General question for American lawyers here : should you guys get rid of trial by jury? Most of the developed world sort of gave up on that already. Trial by jury is only hope innocent people have where I practice.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Juries are great for criminal charges even when bullshit happens and bundys get off for their bullshit. Juries should not be involved in highly technical cases like patent infringement and the like.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
All my cases are jury trials. The idea is that we'll let 6 tax payers determine damages rather than the bureaucracy or a judge.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:Trial by jury is only hope innocent people have where I practice. Where I practice, there is no hope for innocent people. So I don't practice criminal law, gently caress that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Alexeythegreat posted:Where I practice, there is no hope for innocent people. Yeah, I thought criminal law was where it all meant a drat thing back when I had my innocence (as in, before most of law school). I'm not that dumb anymore. I'm still dumb, just not that dumb. The jury is going away in my country, but then we really only had juries in high court criminal cases. Instead we get by with lay judges, who are hardly any better, but in a somewhat functioning system like ours every non-jurist judge is pretty much good for letting guilty people walk and falling asleep during trial. Getting to be a judge in my country is loving incredibly difficult, which makes them take even criminal cases very seriously. Eliminating the jury as well as lay judges would probably improve the quality of criminal trials immensely...right at this moment. However, if the system is changed or some other poo poo hits the fan, lay judges are an important check on judicial power. Can't manipulate lay judges too much though, because if they gently caress up too bad the judge can just nullify them. Yes, that's right, we have the opposite of jury nullification (sorta, and not in every case, YMMV).
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:Yeah, I thought criminal law was where it all meant a drat thing back when I had my innocence (as in, before most of law school). I'm not that dumb anymore. I'm still dumb, just not that dumb. My state had an analogue of lay judges called justices of the peace who handled minor civil and minor criminal cases but whose decisions were appealable de novo. We got rid of them in 1968, but I think Texas and a few other states still have them.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Juries are way better than judges as they currently exist, especially elected judges. But I like federal judges in highly specific areas like admiralty. I also think if the judiciary were professionalized, as in there was a "judge degree" that only very qualified lawyers could get, with training on application of the law and procedure and legal history, it would make more sense. I also like the idea of having mixed panel of professional judges and lay jurors with inquisitorial powers, each of whom can ask questions of witnesses, and each of whom has a say in a final decision. If we're fantasizing about perfect legal systems I would also like to see court-appointed experts provide opinions on technical matters as opposed to each side hiring their own whore.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:If we're fantasizing about perfect legal systems I would also like to see court-appointed experts provide opinions on technical matters as opposed to each side hiring their own whore. If you could really get an unbiased expert that would loving own. Biggest problem I could see, though, would be getting the funding to pay for it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Juries are way better than judges as they currently exist, especially elected judges. But I like federal judges in highly specific areas like admiralty. I also think if the judiciary were professionalized, as in there was a "judge degree" that only very qualified lawyers could get, with training on application of the law and procedure and legal history, it would make more sense. Oh, so you'd like to practice in Norway then. Because that's pretty much what you just described. 1. Judges are not elected, but hired through a collegial vetting process. To be a judge, you must have a lot of experience working as a top level legal expert/phd, you usually will have to have trained under a judge of some experience as an associate judge (most do) and you must have pretty much straight As from uni, every year of the master's degree and must have gotten absolute top marks in the dissertation. To be a high/supreme court judge, you by law must have pretty much straight As, it's not a requirement for lower courts but the same rule is enforced. We also have specialty judges who are experts in certain legal fields, for when they are required. 2. In technical cases, or anything requiring special knowledge that isn't handled by a specialized tribunal, the lay judges appointed are usually experts in their fields and it is highly usual for both the judge and the expert lay judges to actively ask questions of the parties and witnesses - because it's actually a mostly inquisitorial process here. 3. Expert witnesses are allowed to appear before the court under certain restrictions, but in less-than-fully-dispositive cases, custody battles, psych. reviews, criminal cases and a bunch of other special cases the court appoints - either by plaintiff/defendant's request or by its own volition - an expert witness to aid in trial as an impartial helper for the court. Mr. Nice! posted:If you could really get an unbiased expert that would loving own. Biggest problem I could see, though, would be getting the funding to pay for it. Yeah, well. Not always. Sometimes getting an unbiased expert in as small a bumfuck country as mine is impossible, and sometimes the expert is a real peace of poo poo who couldn't expert his way out of a wet paper bag, but he's court appointed so what are you going to do? Contradict the expert? It's not always an ideal solution, and may force you to have to spend money on an expert of your own to refute... again, the court-appointed expert who the judge usually assumes is pretty competent and neutral. It's a mixed bag.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
sounds ridiculous. the best judges are the ones who give the most money to the local politicians or marry them
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:My state had an analogue of lay judges called justices of the peace who handled minor civil and minor criminal cases but whose decisions were appealable de novo. We got rid of them in 1968, but I think Texas and a few other states still have them. Yes, we do, and they are terrible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:sounds ridiculous. the best judges are the ones who give the most money to the local politicians or marry them The best judges are the ones who give the most money to the plaintiffs.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yes, we do, and they are terrible. Some are good. Most are incompetent.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure further entrenching the idea that the highest judges should basically be Ivy-exclusive would be a good thing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
Popero posted:I'm not sure further entrenching the idea that the highest judges should basically be Ivy-exclusive would be a good thing. It is in fact not. For a loving bunch of reasons. Not the least of which the fact that cheating or faking your way to good grades is both very possible and widely practiced, and that good grades rarely determine if the actual loving jurist will be any good at law, their job and particularly being a judge. mastershakeman posted:sounds ridiculous. the best judges are the ones who give the most money to the local politicians or marry them Yeah. Pretty much. However, as a code of ethics thing, judges are under incredible pressure to be the most prissy, hermit-like ascetics with a gigantic loving wall between them and the rest of the legal field. They loving define ivory-tower mentality. It is both great and horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
I think the value of a jury system is that they're strangers to the court process and so the arguments have to make some basic sense. I think it's too easy to get used to "legal" reasoning and stop noticing when things don't actually make any sense. At least in criminal trials I have found juries are just as sensible as your average superior court judge.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Popero posted:I'm not sure further entrenching the idea that the highest judges should basically be Ivy-exclusive would be a good thing. everything should be ivy-exclusive imo
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
joat mon posted:My state had an analogue of lay judges called justices of the peace who handled minor civil and minor criminal cases but whose decisions were appealable de novo. We got rid of them in 1968, but I think Texas and a few other states still have them. A plumber won an election as a magistrate here and failed the course they give non-lawyers...twice. Third time was the charm!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Jury trials are relatively rare here in Canada so it's hard to get experience in them. In my limited experience I haven't liked them. But if they acquit my guy I sure will!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Toona the Cat posted:A plumber won an election as a magistrate here and failed the course they give non-lawyers...twice. Third time was the charm! Toona! You're a rising 3L. How's it going?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
CmdrSmirnoff posted:Jury trials are relatively rare here in Canada so it's hard to get experience in them. In my limited experience I haven't liked them. They're basically for sex assaults and murders. Kind of tough to break into your first jury trial when them's the stakes and jury trials are so touchy / technical / slow compared to even regular superior court trials.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
terrorist ambulance posted:They're basically for sex assaults and murders. Kind of tough to break into your first jury trial when them's the stakes and jury trials are so touchy / technical / slow compared to even regular superior court trials. I've found recently where I work people have been electing judge and jury more often. I think it's because juries tend to be suspicious of the police and tend to acquit. To be fair, I'm suspicious of the police and I'm a Crown. I find it interesting how much John Q Public seems to believe that all sentences should be much higher but also that all police officers are bent or incompetent or both.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Punitives are going to the jury ladies and gents.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:23 |
|
|
Abugadu posted:Found out yesterday that my land registration case for tomorrow morning has a bit of a criminal aspect to it, and so I'm setting a trap. Going to try to get one of the petitioners to testify and have the crim division use that testimony later against him. JFC Good luck.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2017 02:11
|
|
