|
xrunner posted:...I was out of town the night she had the stroke and her daughter talked the doctor into overriding her advanced care directive). I read too many news articles about this poo poo, and this terrifies me.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Without seeing the language of the document who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 13:14
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Common enough that it’s addressed in ethic / disciplinary rules Could you say more about the ethics rules here? euphronius posted:Without seeing the language of the document who knows. What language would be required for someone to be able to sue a doctor who disregarded the directive? Pick your jurisdiction, really.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Could you say more about the ethics rules here? Here's the applicable part of the Georgia rules: RULE 7.5 FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEADS posted:(a) A lawyer shall not use a firm name, letterhead or other professional designation that violates Rule 7.1. And the same for Louisiana: RULE 7.10. FIRM NAMES AND LETTERHEAD posted:(a) False, Misleading, or Deceptive. A lawyer or law firm shall not use a firm name, logo, letterhead, professional designation, trade name or service mark that violates the provisions of these Rules. To sum up: you have to have the name of a lawyer working for the firm in the firm name...or the name of a retired former firm member. Most of the BIGLAW firms are named for partners long since dead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:
Language they doesn’t allow the hc poa and doctors to use their judgment in the case the person can’t communicate
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
7.1 in Texas, pretty similar quote:(a) A lawyer in private practice shall not practice under a trade name, a name that is misleading as to the identity of the lawyer or lawyers practicing under such name, or a firm name containing names other than those of one or more of the lawyers in the firm, except that the names of a professional corporation, professional association, limited liability partnership, or professional limited liability company may contain “P.C.,” “L.L.P.,” “P.L.L.C.,” or similar symbols indicating the nature of the organization, and if otherwise lawful a firm may use as, or continue to include in, its name the name or names of one or more deceased or retired members of the firm or of a predecessor firm in a continuing line of succession. Nothing herein shall prohibit a married woman from practicing under her maiden name. Person has to be dead or retired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:What language would be required for someone to be able to sue a doctor who disregarded the directive? Pick your jurisdiction, really. The number of states where this information is in an easily accessible location for all health care providers (EMS, hospitals, whoever) is far less than 50. Even when we receive people directly from nursing homes in the ER, finding the specifics of their wishes for intervention is surprisingly challenging as it’s hidden in a ream of worthless records of when their last statin was delivered. Add to this the fact that these decisions are far from clear cut and that there is a very significant fear of liability that may result from failing to intervene in a very limited window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They never do i got a lawyer and had a very neutral experience with the whole thing! E: My lawyer was amazing!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 07:35
|
|
|
I never became a lawyer, but if I did, my firm would be called "LawMart" and I'd make a killing on divorces and wills. Nobody can remember the names of all those dead lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I never became a lawyer, but if I did, my firm would be called "LawMart" and I'd make a killing on divorces and wills. Bad news, every state I'm aware of prohibits the use of trade names for your firm, and requires that you use partner names, dead or alive. A bunch of smaller-type operations (car wreck, insurance, duis) will kind of skirt around this by using a creative domain name for their website, like "LawMart.com" and just advertise the poo poo out of their website as if its the name of their firm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
The rule is explicitly designed to "protect the integrity of the profession" lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
You can use a trade name in Louisiana but it can’t violate the rules in any way, including implying specialization or expertise without meeting the bar requirements for doing so or misleading the public. If those seem vague to you you probably understand why very few law firms go this route. But don’t worry! Most lawyers are narcissistic megalomaniacs who are happy to have the firm just be their name. Also 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Bad news, every state I'm aware of prohibits the use of trade names for your firm, and requires that you use partner names, dead or alive. Trade names are allowed in the model rules and many states.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
To be fair, I'd also be the type of lawyer to incorporate in a foreign country without such silly things as "rules" and "ethics" and tell clients "Here's your paperwork. Sign it and file it at this address." Don't hire me as a lawyer. Edit: Did I just reinvent LegalZoom? Double edit: What if I change my last name to LawMart? Or my middle name? I don't see anything saying you can't use your middle name. KillHour fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I never became a lawyer, but if I did, my firm would be called "LawMart" and I'd make a killing on divorces and wills. You wouldn’t make a killing do divorces and wills for poor people
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:31
|
|
|
I think you underestimate the number of people here getting divorced who drive $60k+ pickup trucks and would totally hire a lawyer from LawMart. You don't have to be poor to be trashy. poo poo, I bet our president would get a divorce from LawMart. KillHour fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I think you underestimate the number of people here getting divorced who drive $60k+ pickup trucks and would totally hire a lawyer from LawMart. You don't have to be poor to be trashy. Trump would absolutely get a LawMart divorce as a photo-op/publicity stunt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:34
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Bad news, every state I'm aware of prohibits the use of trade names for your firm, and requires that you use partner names, dead or alive. "Red Hot Law Group of blarzgh" and then you advertise like hell as "Red Hot Law Group." Came up in Atlanta in the .com days: https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1999/11/01/story8.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I never became a lawyer, but if I did, my firm would be called "LawMart" and I'd make a killing on divorces and wills. You’d be sued by Walmart for trademark infringement/dilution so goddamn fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
Good thing I'm a lawyer in this scenario  They don't get to own every name ending in "Mart" Edit: I was gonna buy the domain, but someone already beat me to the exact same idea except with a terrible website: https://lawmart.com KillHour fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:19
|
|
|
KillHour posted:
But they sure can swing their deep pocket balls at anyone else that tries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Look Sir Droids posted:But they sure can swing their deep pocket balls at anyone else that tries.  There are seriously like a million of these everywhere so I kinda doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
Not Walmart, but this will give you an idea how petty trademark law can get: https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-md-new-bae-mccormick-20181212-story.html Of course they won't sue every -Mart. They'll just sue the ones that get too big for their britches. Look Sir Droids fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:28
|
|
|
Try opening Walt's Mart as a grocery store and report back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
But I'm not opening a grocery store; I'm opening a fake law practice. Law is literally in the name, and Mart is a real word in English.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:33
|
|
|
KillHour posted:But I'm not opening a grocery store; I'm opening a fake law practice. Law is literally in the name, and Mart is a real word in English. that's why a court will probably find in your favor after years of ruinously expensive litigation
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:34
|
|
|
If I do all my own legal work, it basically amounts to all the free advertisement I could want!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:36
|
|
|
But is it too similar to the law store, conveniently located within Walmart’s https://thelawstore.com/
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that's why a court will probably find in your favor after years of ruinously expensive litigation I mean... depends on the state’s anti SLAPP statute?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
It's not a free speech issue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:It's not a free speech issue. Hence depends on the state and the statute. Some go broader to lawfare in general
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
I'm going to lean on the fact that there is already a non-hypothetical LawMart that presumably hasn't been sued into oblivion to win this argument. Although I hope they do, so I can buy the domain out from under them and post all the Leonard J Crabs letters on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I mean... depends on the state’s anti SLAPP statute? you'd have a real hard time with that as overbroad trademark claims that aren't aimed at chilling speech aren't really covered by any SLAPP law i've ever seen. they just want you as far from their trademark as possible
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:43
|
|
|
Fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Yeah that was my point. Maybe some states have very pro-active unfair trade practices laws with similar relief as anti-SLAPP motions but generally SLAPPs involve non-commercial speech on an issue of public interest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Texas's Anti-SLAPP is so broadly loving written that it probably would apply, and even the Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court have said, explicitly, "holy poo poo, legislature, the way its written there is basically no limit to what it covers."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:49
|
|
|
Problem w UTPA statutes is most say you don’t have standing if you aren’t a “consumer or competitor” so since Walmart isn’t a law firm it may not work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Texas's Anti-SLAPP is so broadly loving written that it probably would apply, and even the Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court have said, explicitly, "holy poo poo, legislature, the way its written there is basically no limit to what it covers." coming from the state that couldn't figure out how to draft a workable motion to dismiss, or even a non-workable one before 2011, that does not surprise me
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:coming from the state that couldn't figure out how to draft a workable motion to dismiss, or even a non-workable one before 2011, that does not surprise me It didn't really surprise anyone here, either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Texas's Anti-SLAPP is so broadly loving written that it probably would apply, and even the Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court have said, explicitly, "holy poo poo, legislature, the way its written there is basically no limit to what it covers." Just briefly looking because I was curious but this case https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/supreme-court/2018/17-0437.html Seems to say that that the commercial speech exception to the anti-SLAPP law does not apply where the speaker's intended audience includes actual or potential customers of the speaker. I would imagine a company's name by definition is intended to be addressed to potential or actual customers of the company. Nice language though. "The TCPA's commercial speech exemption is no model of clarity, but we conclude that it is not ambiguous, at least on the issue presented here." Judge-speak for "this statute sucks rear end, looks like we're going to have to spend 5 pages explaining why we are interpreting it correctly." Bonus points for the Oxford comma argument hahaha
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:01
|
|