|
That's pretty much what I expected. My plan is if he can't get it fixed by Tuesday next week, to notify the landlord so that we can find out how much he will charge us and I have a few days to try to collect payment. I really don't see any other alternative.
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
If you're going to be recovering cash either way why not get it fixed yourself instead of waiting for your landlord to hold your deposit?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
Canuckistan posted:If you're going to be recovering cash either way why not get it fixed yourself instead of waiting for your landlord to hold your deposit? My guess is no cash in hand, whereas the landlord already has four hundred of his money dollars
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 17:41
|
|
|
The landlord actually has a check from me (but hasn't cashed it as it's from an American bank). I would prefer to just pay a glazier to fix it (I would do it myself, but all my tools are back in the states) as I can't imagine a glazier charging more than 50 euro. I spoke with the roommate and he agreed if he can't find someone to fix it by Tuesday, I'm going to notify the landlord so we can find out what he will charge us. That will give me a few days to hound him for the money before he returns to the States on Saturday. When we signed the lease, he agreed to hold the check until checkout and then just return it if there were no damages. I'm sure the landlord would gladly prefer cash-in-hand to a check from a foreign bank.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 18:44
|
|
|
FWIW, as a landlord, I often regret allowing tenants to fix things themselves/hire others to fix. It's almost always not fixed in the way I would have liked.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
I've got a weird question. I'm a brand-new attorney in New Jersey and I'm both bad at my job and don't know what I'm doing since law school never really taught me the practicals of what documents to file when to do what. A friend of mine is a paralegal who seems to know everything. Until recently, she worked for a family law attorney; now, she works for another attorney. She was telling me how she intended on getting a divorce, but her employer had no interest in helping her pursue it because that's not really his thing. We talked a little bit about things, and since she's a friend, I wanted to offer to handle things for her. I'd be treating it as something of a learning experience as I've never handled a divorce before, but she's well-versed in everything that has to take place and I think she'd be able to basically walk me through it. However, I know from experience that she has basically no money to speak of. I don't mind doing pro bono work for her, but I'm trying to figure out if this is something I'll regret due to the amount of time and energy it might take to see it through. Can anyone give me an idea of if I'm about to walk into a nightmare here, generally speaking? Harvey Baldman fucked around with this message at 20:27 on May 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
JamSessionEin posted:I've got a weird question. Don't do it unless she pays and you establish a clear client lawyer relationship. She has a job so she has money. People always say they don't have money. Alternatively she should file pro se and then you can just give casual advice. What state are you in. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
JamSessionEin posted:I've got a weird question. Does she have kids? Is she fighting with her soon-to-be ex-husband over alimony or the division of assets? If she did work as a family law paralegal, that's nice but you would still be the attorney at the end of the day - and any mistakes would come back to you. I don't think you could defend against a bar complaint or malpractice by saying "well, I relied on my client's expertise in this area" - especially when your client isn't an attorney. Personally, if her divorce is uncomplicated, then I would probably try to help her out. I would get a good practice guide and make contact with an established family law attorney. If my client had paralegal experience in this area, then I would pay attention to any tips or comments that she may give me, but I would still do a lot of work reading up on the process. Also, you should try cultivating relationships with some senior attorneys who can mentor you. edit: also, if her husband hires an experienced family law attorney to represent him, you may be doing your friend a disservice. Family law involves very sensitive matters and is one of those areas where your client can hate you by the end (for not being aggressive enough, for not doing what your client wanted, for not doing this or that, etc.). So if you like this friend, seriously consider whether you want to go down this road with her. edit2: I wouldn't do it unless the divorce is uncontested and there are no kids. entris fucked around with this message at 20:31 on May 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Don't do it unless she pays and you establish a clear client lawyer relationship. She has a job so she has money. People always say they don't have money. Edited the original to indicate I'm in New Jersey, but you got the reply off faster. She can definitely file pro se and handle it herself, but I was the one hoping for casual advice in this situation since I've never gotten my hands dirty in family law and it looked like a relatively accessible situation, given that she's got the experience in it. entris posted:Does she have kids? Is she fighting with her soon-to-be ex-husband over alimony or the division of assets? She has kids, but they're older and out of school now, so I don't think they're an issue. No fighting with the ex-husband, divided most of their stuff up already, no alimony as far as I know because as far as she says they're both pretty much broke (thought that may be a reason to fight, in itself, who knows), and since they left things on reasonably good terms I don't think there will be much left to contest. I'll look around for an experienced attorney to latch onto for advice on this, I've just been hesitant to break that ice because I felt like nobody'd particularly want to give me that kind of time.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 20:35
|
|
|
There are other ways to learn how to do stuff besides doing "pro bono" charity work for a friend for which you do not seem prepared. It is almost unethical.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
JamSessionEin posted:Edited the original to indicate I'm in New Jersey, but you got the reply off faster. Ok is it just this guy or is it a quirk of US legal practice that it isn't considered immensely unethical to accept work that one is unprepared to handle? e: ^^ it isn't 'almost' unethical, it's straight up dangerous. If you take work that you don't have the competence to do then not only is that a negligence suit waiting to happen but you are denying your client the benefit of sound legal advice. Which in the case of a divorce can absolutely gently caress up someone's life. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:15 on May 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
I have a different philosophy, as they don't call it the "practice" of law for nothing. I think as long as you are very clear about your experience and her expectations, that you don't cross any lines. (I have no clue about New Jersey bar rules or anything). Even with that said, I'd agree with others that if there are kids or significant assets involved, I would advise not taking the case. But if it's uncontested and lower stakes, it's very worthwhile to learn the paperwork process.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Ok is it just this guy or is it a quirk of US legal practice that it isn't considered immensely unethical to accept work that one is immensely unprepared to handle? To be fair, the details I'm "immensely unprepared" for are largely clerical in nature, since I'm not familiar with the attendant paperwork. I don't know how much of the job that actually constitutes, which is partly why I'm asking if I'm walking into something that's over my head. Insofar as the job requires research, briefing, litigation or negotiation skills, well, that's pretty much all law school gave me.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Either there is a client lawyer relationship or there isn't. If there is, then all ethical obligations apply. edit I think your best bet is to let her file pro se and ask her to explain what she is doing while at the same time you read the statutes and codes. euphronius fucked around with this message at 21:24 on May 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:19
|
|
|
JamSessionEin posted:She was telling me how she intended on getting a divorce, but her employer had no interest in helping her pursue it because that's not really his thing. We talked a little bit about things, and since she's a friend, I wanted to offer to handle things for her. I'd be treating it as something of a learning experience as I've never handled a divorce before, but she's well-versed in everything that has to take place and I think she'd be able to basically walk me through it. However, I know from experience that she has basically no money to speak of. I don't mind doing pro bono work for her, but I'm trying to figure out if this is something I'll regret due to the amount of time and energy it might take to see it through. Can anyone give me an idea of if I'm about to walk into a nightmare here, generally speaking? NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. I'm a young attorney doing a pro bono family divorce now. GOD was this a mistake. gently caress her, she has money. Paralegals make some bank. She's full of poo poo. Get money from her, otherwise she'll want you to fight over everything. Cut her a discount if you want. God i need to draw up that motion to withdraw today.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Every client I have ever met says "I don't have any money".
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 21:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:I think your best bet is to let her file pro se and ask her to explain what she is doing while at the same time you read the statutes and codes. I think I agree with this, and the bulk of the other stuff you guys have posted in response. Thanks for the advice.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 22:34
|
|
|
http://www.legalshield.com/cp/plans/consumerPlans.html How is a lawyer participating in this not a major ethics violation? Doesn't seem to fall within the bounds of or rules for a legal referral service, and it kind of looks like fee sharing with non-lawyers, among other things.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:http://www.legalshield.com/cp/plans/consumerPlans.html It looks like another prepaid legal company. The lawyers are separate from legalshield. I don't think there's any fee sharing. For these folks, there might be a misrepresentation of services angle with regard to the need for additional payments to the attorney, in particular with the trial defense program that provides 60 hours of defense, but only 2.5 hours of that 60 can be used for pretrial work. The ratios only get wilder, up to 65:1 trial/pretrial time. For an additional monthly fee, you can buy 15 more hours of pretrial time.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 12:43
|
|
|
I love reading prepaid legal plan things, because they are such a terrible waste of money for clients. I always get a chuckle reading them.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 14:08
|
|
|
Yeah, pre-paid legal is universally terrible. They prey on the fears of people who feel the system will screw them (fear of police), so it's sold as police insurance. But the representation is worthless and designed to burn through the "plan" immediately and require a high premium for "off-plan" work. So rather than protect people, it guarantees the system will screw them either out of decent legal representation or premium payments.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
Back around page 45ish, a couple of people posted questions about this sort of thing but didn't ask this specifically and I haven't read past the first 50 pages or so of this thread so I apologize in advance if this has already been asked. Topic: Deferred judgment/Gun ownership/voting State: Colorado Having said that, a buddy brought this up the other day and I became kind of curious about it so thought I would ask. I'm not sure if this would be a state or federal thing. About 7 years ago he was involved in a felony (don't recall what class he said it was) DV/stalking case. I'll leave out the details. But, he was eventually offered a deal between pleading guilty to a misdemeanor harassment charge that would permanently be on his record, or he could plead guilty to the felony stalking charge on a deferred judgement which would be expunged on the successful completion of his probation. He took the deferred judgment deal because "I thought it would mean I wouldn't have to explain the conviction on every job interview I went on for the rest of his life." Fair enough. So at the time, he apparently had to get rid of his guns while he was serving his probation. He isn't sure if he can own guns now that he's successfully completed his probation. He also isn't sure if he can vote any more. He says he hasn't voted since he was convicted because he's not sure if he can get in trouble for voting as a felon. Does he regain his right to own guns and vote after finishing his probation and his record has been expunged? He said he asked his defense lawyer at the time when they were considering the plea deals and that his lawyer was not sure. He never pressed him on it so he never got a clear answer. Frankly, I'm not even sure he ever lost his right to vote in the first place. The gun thing totally makes sense though. But, technically, isn't he still considered a convicted felon in the eyes of the police? So if they ever find him with a gun, he gets 10 years for possession by a felon?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
burnt_offerings posted:Frankly, I'm not even sure he ever lost his right to vote in the first place. You're right. He didn't. Colorado Constitution, Article 7, section 10 Colorado Rvised Statutes, 1-2-103(4) If you go to prison, you lose your right to vote until the later of release from prison or finishing parole. Because your friend was 'just' on probation, he never lost his right to vote. The gun question is harder.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
It looks like the CO constitution restores civil rights upon completion of sentence, which would count for guns as well, and I THINK keep him out of any federal gun crimes (if I remember right, that would have to be a year sentence or longer for a felony, anyway). I am not a Colorado lawyer, though. edit: hmm there is another law about this edit2: so normally it would be 10 years after release (including release from supervision). If his record is expunged, I don't know. Dogen fucked around with this message at 19:42 on May 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 19:35
|
|
|
I guess the best thing is for him to contact a lawyer who has experience/specializes in the whole gun part pertaining to deferred judgments. Just to be sure he's in the clear. Sounds like it's not such a simple question after all. I'll pass the links joat mon posted on to him. Thanks for that. I think he'll be quite pleased to know he can vote. And thank you both for at least giving it a cursory glance.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
Dogen posted:edit2: so normally it would be 10 years after release (including release from supervision). If his record is expunged, I don't know. I think that 10 years applies only if he was adjudicated as a juvenile. e: or gets you a sentence enhancement if you had a violent prior in the 10 years before picking up your felon in possession case burnt_offerings posted:I guess the best thing is for him to contact a lawyer who has experience/specializes in the whole gun part pertaining to deferred judgments. Just to be sure he's in the clear. Sounds like it's not such a simple question after all. I'm not a Colorado attorney. This is not legal advice, merely a collection of publicly available information. (-)There is a Colorado court of appeals case that says a deferred judgment is a conviction for gun purposes. (in that case, the defendant's deferred judgment had been revoked, but the court's ruling did not take that into account) (+)There's another court of appeals case that says a completed deferred judgment is not a conviction for sex offender registration purposes. (+)There's a Colorado supreme court case that says a completed deferred judgment is not a conviction for bond purposes. (+or-)The felon in possession statute has language that people pleading to a deferred judgment must have a felon in possession warning included in their stipulation; that is, their rules and conditions of deferred judgment. This either indicates that the prohibition applies only to the deferred judgment period, or that deferred judgment folks are being put on notice that they can't possess firearms, period. On the Fed side, generally if it's not a conviction under the State's rules, it's not considered a conviction for firearm possession purposes. Maybe your friend could call a gun dealer and ask the dealer to run his name through Colorado's instacheck system. That would at least provide a starting point. If he's on the no guns list, his attorney can start a court process to get that fixed. If he's not on the no guns list... unfortunately he can't safely rely on that to mean he's OK. Friend needs to check with a CO attorney if he wants guns. joat mon fucked around with this message at 21:52 on May 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 21:42
|
|
|
The standard ATF pre-purchase paperwork has a lot of language relating to this which may be helpful: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 21:48
|
|
|
Update: The roomie hired a glazier and the repaired window will be installed tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Excellent suggestions, joat mon.Javid posted:The standard ATF pre-purchase paperwork has a lot of language relating to this which may be helpful: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf Hadn't even thought about this. Very good point, Javid. After looking over the application, there may be a possibility he could fall into the exception category. Might be a good litmus test to see if he can even get past the screening. I suppose worse thing that could happen is his application would be denied. Could there be any negative ramifications for the application attempt if it's denied? Say, ATF wanting to have a chat with him afterwards or something equally gestapo-ish?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
If you answer the questions truthfully, no consequences other than you being out the $10 or whatever it costs to run it. If you're not sure about any of the answers, though, don't. Lying on that thing is a big deal, even if you would've passed anyway. (ianal, just regurgitating a few previous discussions of this topic from the thread)
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 22:29
|
|
|
This is probably a stupid question, but: A friend of mine adamantly insists he has once gotten out of a speeding ticket with no repercussions, simply because they had taken his name and address down incorrectly during the stop; he claims he went to court, insisted that the information was incorrect and he shouldn't be charged, and they let him off. Is there ANY sort of inkling of truth to this? He's not generally the type to bullshit to this degree, but it seems wholly unrealistic. We're in MD, if that matters at all.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 22:47
|
|
|
I got out of a ticket from a speed trap once when they couldn't be arsed to finish writing my name before getting back to pulling over someone else. It's up to the judge, though, they could just amend it... but I guess the judge decided it wasn't worth his time (I also had a lawyer with me). This was in traffic court in a big city in Texas, so YMMV.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Javid posted:If you're not sure about any of the answers, though, don't. Lying on that thing is a big deal, even if you would've passed anyway. Is it true that lying on any federal application is a felony? e: grammar VVVVVV: IANAL, but remember this, kids, when you're filling out your federal student aid forms. burnt_offerings fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jun 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
burnt_offerings posted:Is it true that lying on any federal application is a felony? Generally yes, under 18 USC 1001: quote:(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
burnt_offerings posted:Is it true that lying on any federal application is a felony? JohnnyHildo posted:Generally yes, under 18 USC 1001: And more specifically, if you lie on this one: Javid posted:The standard ATF pre-purchase paperwork: http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf The penalty is up to 10 years, not 5. offense subsection (a)6 penalty subsection (a)2
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Legal Advice Needed Recently, I had my credit card information stolen from me by a vendor. I know it was a vendor because the same thing happened to my roommate and we only share 1 transaction in common over the last 120 days and I still have my (now dead) card. I was looking to build a case against the vendor that I believe is the culprit. What I want to do is, when I get my new card, only use secured withdrawing to pay for my day to day activities (cash from ATMS and checks). At the same time, I want to use this vendor in question only once and time stamp the transaction along with the name of the person that cashed me out(they wear nametags). If the fraud happens again (I will have a fixed amount of money in the account), I will have my proof down to the business. If I do all this, would I be able to go after them and maybe give justice to the low-life that is doing this? Also: When the person stole my card information, they racked up about $400 worth of transactions in 1 day to various merchants in a different area. Would I be able to go after those merchants for not having the low-life present ID at the time of purchase? Would it even be worth my while? The fraud didn't effect me very much. My bank is amazing and refunded the money no problem, but I can't help but want to go after the person responsible so they don't do it to anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Uhhh.... Call the police.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 15:24
|
|
|
Xistaben posted:I was looking to build a case against the vendor that I believe is the culprit. What I want to do is, when I get my new card, only use secured withdrawing to pay for my day to day activities (cash from ATMS and checks). At the same time, I want to use this vendor in question only once and time stamp the transaction along with the name of the person that cashed me out(they wear nametags). If the fraud happens again (I will have a fixed amount of money in the account), I will have my proof down to the business. This is not legal advice. Your proof in your outlined case is still circumstantial, and even if the vendor is the essential source of the information leak, they may not be aware or culpable. Your actual damages are practically non-existent as you admit. Merchants are almost never bound to ask for ID for transactions, and are in fact prohibited by contract in many cases. It would be neither worth your while or really feasible to go after the merchants. Feel free to file a police report, but don't be surprised if they don't care.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
baquerd posted:This is not legal advice. Your proof in your outlined case is still circumstantial, and even if the vendor is the essential source of the information leak, they may not be aware or culpable. That is exactly what I wanted to know. I know this poo poo happens constantly to a lot of people, but if it's just going to drain my time for little or no resolution, then I won't pursue it. It's hard to tell which is law and which is myth. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 15:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:56 |
|
|
Xistaben posted:That is exactly what I wanted to know. I know this poo poo happens constantly to a lot of people, but if it's just going to drain my time for little or no resolution, then I won't pursue it. They didn't steal from you, so there is little you can do. They stole from the bank that issued your card - it wasn't your money. Legally, they are the only ones who can do anything about it - you are not involved anymore now that you have disputed it and they have confirmed it. Leave it to them. If anything can be done, they'll do it better than you possibly could.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 15:51
|
|
