|
xxEightxx posted:Lol what get an attorney. Seems like this gets said a lot in this thread, and for my money it's also the soundest advice you're going to get on the internet really. Speaking from my own experience, people are amazingly accomplished at loving themselves over before seeking advice, at which point it's usually an uphill battle or a lukewarm settlement at best. Obvious candidates are criminal cases (my country is pretty lax when it comes to Miranda warnings, and clients always talk to the police well before I'm involved), and in civil cases they've negotiated or even produced written proffers or corresponded in length before seeking advice, admitting all kinds of things that make them liable. Talking to a lawyer at the very first inkling of trouble and seeking advice is the very first thing to do, people. Anyway, here's my legal question: Is there any kind of thread where legal nerds nerd out about more theoretical/philosophical stuff or is this thread kind of for that kind of thing too?
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:SCOTUS threads have some of that. Good point, I guess, but it strikes me as pretty US-centric. I'm not in any position to offer criticism of the common law system as practiced in the US, but I was thinking in more general terms. I'm interested in discussing the differences between legal systems and the underlying philosophies they are built on, as well as specific approaches to specific yet common problems as they arise and their solutions, but maybe that's a tad specific (and boring) to most people in the profession? Maybe even attitudes towards the profession, I'm really interested to know just how much if anything I have in common with for instance american jurists (y'all call yourselves jurists, right?). Then again, I haven't really read the SCOTUS thread in full, so maybe I'll sit down and do some of that when I get bored.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I've never heard the word jurist used to refer to American lawyers outside of academic settings Alright. Thanks. Also that's a great tldr. Phil Moscowitz posted:Lawyer and Law School thread is where a bunch of lawyers hang out but we mostly talk about tacos and the day to day poo poo. Yeah tacos usually lead to that. Thanks, I'll check it out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:We used to do that but then people kept trying to subtly ask for legal advice under the cover of 'hypothetical' questions about their 'friend'. Ah. Should have seen that one coming. Maybe I'll just stick to nerding out with collegues then. I was offered a summer course in the US aimed at aquainting foreign attourneys with the US system, but I just can't justify it because it would be worthless to my day-to-day practice. I'll do it when you relieve Cheeto Benito of power, maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Legalthread, how do I get bloodstains out of carpet, towels, silk, and tile grout? Use a lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
LeschNyhan posted:Conflicts is basically when a case could be heard in one of several jurisdictions. One party asks the court in one place to hear the case, and the other might say gently caress you we need to have it heard in this other place before a different court. A party might want a thing heard in a different place because the law is better for their case there, but usually you have to show some kind of connection to the place where the court is if you want it heard there. This gets really fun, by the way, in the EU/EEA area. Unlike in the US, there's no common legal system. There's regulation (Regulation on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 593/2008 is most relevant) and many laws are somewhat harmonized through various mechanisms and treaties, but problems of ordre public still pop up among other massive assaches. Imagine you live in Switzerland, and you've bought a condominium in Spain (not unusual). However, the broker who made the sale has offices in Vienna, and the owner of the condo is a french company and the contract stipulates that any conflict should be tried in France, but is formulated in a way that violates spanish or swiss or even EU law. Then you lie down and weep manly tears. In actual real life though, you'll almost never be involved in a case where this matters, and if you are you're probably with a firm who has fifteen experts on the issue. Or an AI lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 10:22
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Lol if you think the US has a "common legal system." Common law legal system, of the dreaded English. The system and the legal tradition has strong commonalities across all states. Europe... doesn't have this. Some follow a germanic approach of strong positivism, some follow the retarded swedes and some kind of nordic model, some are common law though altered, some are napoleonic, Italy is... well, Italy, etc. etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 14:15
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:You didn't say "common law system" but we can run with that. Yeah, I was speaking pretty generally, which I usually try to do when I'm not an expert on some specific topic. This is pretty interesting, I would have expected more homogenization between states to be honest. So precedent between state superior courts isn't really a thing, then? I assume SCOTUS does comparative analysis of verdicts in some cases, or is that only in federal circuit decisions? How do you handle conflict with native/tribal laws, as a for instance? Or would that automatically be a federal issue? This does mske sense with the whole «licence for every state» thing though. nm posted:I'm so glad you replied to phil on this, who practices in the exception. I think you're right. Syncopated posted:As a swedish non-lawyer, what's retarded about our laws? Oh not the laws, just the people :iamafag: . I like making fun of swedes, but then again who doesn't. Please feel free to explain to these folks why the press is the third estate and not the fourth. It's something I love about sweden.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I don't mean to imply that the states are all wildly divergent. On many issues they are very similar if not identical, and many states have codified "model laws" promulgated for that purpose to ensure consistency in interstate commerce and other issues. Ah right, "compelling reasons". I guess some things are the same everywhere. I find it very interesting that high/superior court can be a persuasive auhority between states if states differ on the substance of law and civil or criminal procedure. Anyway, thanks for this, it's not really related to conflict of laws but it's nonetheless illuminating. Anyway, to put a point on it I'll still claim that the overall general difference between the legal systems of two random countries in Europe is more significant than the same general difference between two states in the US (given the common language, legal tradition, overarching federal system and similar court/tribunal structure not to mention constitution), but on some further reflection I'm going to go ahead and recant on implying private international law is somehow a worse issue in Europe than in the US, on the simple fact that I don't know just how big of a pain in the rear end it can be in the US. I do wonder though if it's a much more common issue in the US than Europe? My gut feeling is that it is. Does this stuff keep you busy? Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Apr 4, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:"Conflict of laws" is not a big deal in most cases. Most sophisticated business deals have forum selection and choice of law clauses anyway. But it does arise. Here is how Louisiana handles it: Thanks, makes sense and is to a lesser degree also sometimes done in Europe if statutory law is lacking in coverage or case law on an issue, though of course that opens up other cans of worms. No competent lawyer would ever draw up a contract between international parties without a choice of law clause, I'm fairly sure, but interesting issues still typically arise with oral contracts. That's probably quite the same thing in the US, though (Texaco v. Pennzoil is pretty famous?). It is both fact-intensive and probably very expensive, but I kind of love this wording: quote:"Except as otherwise provided in this Book" Those motherfuckers. I hate this, it's everywhere in so many laws. I get why, obviously, but it's very annoying. It's probably not as big a deal in conflict of laws type issues, but in some ancient more fragmentary laws it can be such a pain - for instance laws dating back to the 16th or 17th century. Discendo Vox posted:Let's keep this burning train rolling. What do you mean by "superior interest"? And where is that decided? I'm also interested in this actually.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Don't rely on lawyer advice from the internet It really boils down to this. Law is complicated, y'all, and there are a myriad of things that can make a big difference. The details really matter. You cannot get sufficient law advice over the internet (which is another reason I'm very sceptical of the new supposed tech trend of "AI lawyers", as in replacing legal advice from an actual person with a search engine). This besides, I sincerely doubt there would be a realistic case to be made for malpractice over the internet through advice given here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I've absolutely seen one before. Gotta love DIY lawyering. Had a guy walk in with a homemade pre-nup. Had to stop myself from laughing in his face.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Christ I hate lawyers. Same. Who needs 'em, it's mostly common sense and google right?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:I am legit involved in a pi case in federal court where opposing counsel used bolded and underline text throughout the brief, and I should point out not at the same time, he alternated his use. Also multiple exclamation points and in one instance a double exclamation point. See, I never try to humiliate opposing counsel no matter how big a dick or how useless they are: A: It doesn't score me any points with the judge, who will get pissed at my clownery in his court. The judge is a jurist too. They know already. B: It is uncollegial and will make me less popular in the field, because even bad lawyers have friends in the business. C: It doesn't score me any points with the client, who doesn't know his rear end from his elbow legally speaking. So as far as I'm concerned, I stick to my points and ignore that bullshit. Although I did once receive a motion that was so poorly written, I actually literally couldn't understand the contents, which I pointed out to the judge. I feel that was kind of a different situation though, and I also felt like a real dick later when it turned out the opposing counsel had fired their secretary (this was way out in the boonies) and so they'd probably written it themselves.... and they only had one arm. Yikes. Still settled heavily in my favour though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
nm posted:Pay attention to the sex crimes section and you'll be fine.  So, a pedophile, a rapist and a catholic priest walk into a courtroom. He is convicted.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Zauper posted:
 JFC are you people serious? 500$ equivalent is extortionate for anyone not a big-name biglaw corporate tax law specialist. And the median income in the US is way lower than in mine, even if it proportionately levels out a bit with cost-of-living ajustments.How the hell are people willing to pay that rate?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Unload My Head posted:You're looking at it backwards. People aren't "worth" a hard amount of money, they're worth the value that they bring to the operation. Say you have a three year non-compete and you make 350K a year. You pay a lawyer 10K to weasel you out of it. Net gain to you is over a million dollars. All of a sudden that law firm's bill is looking like some spare change in the ashtray. No, no I understand that. What I'm saying is I would love for that to be a reasonable and normal amount to pay a lawyer for what amounts to doc review, heck I would love to have that hourly rate myself. But where I live, 400-500$ is pretty much the absolute ceiling in reasonable rates for big law experts even when being paid by big corps and even this much is having politicians and media going "you know, we need a crackdown, these lawyers are charging too much". EwokEntourage posted:I'm not him, I don't know all the facts, and please keep paying lawyers. Paying a lawyer $500 an hour isn't outrageous, it might be towards the high end in average but it's not close to the high end of some lawyers out there. It sounds kinda odd from the facts and dollar amounts he gave us, but he (presumably) made an educated choice about it Yes, please pay the lawyerman. Also, I assume what we're really talking about here as "high end of average" is business law rates that businesses are charged. Not, you know, rates for joe schmoe who wants to create a trust fund for his favourite goat.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 07:17
|
|
|
Javid posted:My legal advice to you is to get better friends. This is good general legal advice. Another would be: Make sure you pay your lawyer. Do it. Pay the gently caress up.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Do you accept guns as payment? If you mean the royal You, then no. If you mean just me, then also no.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Guys is this pretty accurate at how lawyers interact with clients? Fairly accurate. Also in terms of client stupidity.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Ur Getting Fatter posted:What courses should I take to become an expert in NULL? I'm actually qualified to certify you as an expert in NULL for a very low fee! Inquire within for details. I accept cash or Western Union.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Please tell me this guy practices Rail Law. Hopefully criminal law because I'm about to call the fashion police over that tie. How wrong can you be
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I was watching "Lockup" last night and they said that almost everybody who goes to prison goes to jail first. They said it three times during the episode and all three times they said "almost". What kind of scenario would result in a person going to prison without having to go to jail first? It's not a prerequisite, after all. I imagine a lot of white collar, tax evasion stuff they don't see any reason to hold someone before trial. I mean, unless there's flight risk, which there usually is. Honestly, I suppose it varies. I can think of a lot of cases where the police don't hold before trial, but then I'm in a non-US jurisdiction.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Javid posted:I'd love to know the legal status of a business just straight up not accepting a form of payment that's posted on their door. (assuming they have the mastercard/etc stickers on the door like most places) Well, dining and dashing is illegal most places, just to get that out there. It's possible for it to be legal for the restaurant to forbid a person from leaving in that specific situation, though actually physically restraining the person most likely isn't. The situation is obviously different when it's a problem on the restaurant's end. I believe both Visa and Mastercard have a backup payment system on most modern card terminals, allowing you to pay if there's simply no connection to backend systems or servers, which is something I'd expect to be part of the agreement between the payment service provider and the restaurant. Some also carried old-timey physical card processors, but that's probably not a thing anymore. If it's simply that the system is down and nothing can get through, I suppose the intelligent thing to do would be for the restaurant to take down the person's details and try and bill them? Anyway, the legal status for a business refusing payment through Visa or Mastercard or somehow abusing the system in other ways is usually termination from the payment service, but that's not really what the bullshit story is about. As for what actually happens or is supposed to happen if the restaurant can't accept payment, that probably varies from country to country.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Pleaded or pled. That avatar is technicalli correct.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 07:26
|
|
|
nm posted:Congrats. I will tell you what I tell all my DUI clients win or lose: You know what, this is pretty good. I'm going to start doing exactly the same. E: Err. Giving the same advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
The Darlok posted:Oh yeah I'm sure functionally it'd be fine I was just wondering if for a contract like that to be enforceable if Person 3 would have to have agreed somehow with the contract, or if there might be an assumption that because it's a benefit to Person 3 that their agreement is unnecessary. IANAL so I wasn't sure if there was some simple contracts law answer, and I didn't find much with google. When's the paper due?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 10:32
|
|
|
Vargatron posted:Hypothetical question: Depends. Is he paying you with counterfeit money? E: The answer is you go to prison for money laundering.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2017 11:01
|
|
|
Xequecal posted:Why are, "You should file a RICO lawsuit" and similar RICO references such memes amongst lawyers? The lawyer i just asked said it would take too long to explain it. That just means that he wants money and/or is sick of giving away free legal explanations. Gumbel2Gumbel posted:How do you guys feel about that fivehead girl getting time for convincing her boyfriend to kill himself? I think blarzgh had some interesting stuff to say about that in the terrible gbs thread. Worth a read I think. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3823941&pagenumber=19&perpage=40#post473694356 blarzgh posted:This isn't a "Freedom of Speech" issue, it's a causation issue. It's precedent because now 'words' have been raised to the level of physical violence or weapons in their legal ability to cause death. I'm not in a position to criticize american criminal law on principle, so I won't. Blarzgh does raise, to my mind, an interesting question though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
loving glad it wouldn't even be a debate in my country, over here it's statutory law that encouraging suicide (successfully) carries at maximum the longest available sentence by law. Accessory to suicide.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Maybe if you were actually responding to dumb poo poo it would be more obvious. Hello! My legal advice to you is that he was responding to dumb poo poo. Hth! Mr. Nice! posted:I know that bad poo poo can happen. Our lack of a social safety net is tragic and needlessly destroys lives. However people aren't posting legit situations to show a flaw in the lien scheme. Hell, even with a social safety net I've experienced myself the problems with a lien system (and I live in a very socialist country). For one, it's entirely possible to avoid due process against typically bad creditors, such as insane people under guardianship (concrete example), by simply never notifiying the legal guardian of a process to establish a lien (the insane person is obviously going to be a no show in court). It's technically an invalid lien, but it may still beyond the ability/cost effectiveness of that insane person to contest it in court later, even if they understood that they could (didn't wanna). Obviously, that's a non-US and a rare case, but it happens even in a society with very significant social safety nets. Just like pretty much everywhere in the system, a bad thing can happen. Is this reason to abolish the entire system of liens which is a really old and really integral part of a functioning society (aka. property law), which allows critical work to be done now and the details sorted out later? I don't see a single reason why that should happen. It's also not going to happen. So in the case of liens, it's a good idea to accept the reality we live in because that's the one that y'all have to deal with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 10:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Hmm, I took this bag of cheetos, but by the time I got to the counter I realized I couldn't afford them so I walked out with them. YOU CAN'T SEND ME TO DEBTOR'S PRISON. Does the bag have a gold fringe? In that case they can't put you in debtor's prison you unless you consent to create cloister.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Want to ruin your goddamn day? Jesus. Reminds me of a couple of similar cases over here, where the "bully" was the father. 8-year old kid boy, authorities were involved, grandmother knew the kid was being beaten at home because he drat near outright told her, was found beaten to death 8 years old with paper jammed into his nose and mouth to stop the bleeding. Cause of death was cerebral hemmorage following cranial fracture. Literally beat the kid until his skull fractured, then let him die over the course of a few hours without medical attention. Tried to claim it was a suicide, which didn't work. That was 2005, I think. Second case was an 8 year old girl, lithuanian immigrant. Found hanged with a leather belt, this was 2011 I think. Ruled a suicide until new dna-evidence pointed the finger at the mother's ex-boyfriend, clusterfuck of an investigation. Obviously, it wasn't a suicide turns out (who knew that suicides in 8 year olds are incredibly uncommon?). Criminal law is the most poo poo when you're dealing with underage victims. I'm sure it fucks people up permanently that worked on it, that's the impression I got at the prosecutor's office. I had to go through an old murder case for a motion of early release for a loving whackjob that stabbed his common-law girlfriend a good 50-60 times, autopsy pictures and everything. There's something loving wrong about looking at a murder victim, I can't put my finger on it but it's probably the strongest indication that I'm a normal after all. Had some nightmares from that for a few days. Obviously, we won and there was no early release. The visceral realities of criminal law are really weird when you contrast it to dry clinical-esque theory in a fairly positivist criminal law system. I could work as a prosecutor, I know, but I don't really know if I'd want to.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
nm posted:The only knife cases I had were either that or minorities who were claimed to be gang members or some bullshit. Oh and I got a machete case one or twice, but that's more of a *Australian accent* "that's not a knife" case. Why not? Seems such rules should apply to everything, guns and things that look like guns that you can threaten with, knives, things that look like knives or function like knives and any and all sharp pieces of metal, axes, garden shears etc. What's the point of legislation if it doesn't apply as much as possible as a general principle to be followed?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
nm posted:Because they're loving knitting needles? Hey, don't you bring your common sense into this. Grandma may be a Crip, you don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2017 09:06
|
|
|
therobit posted:Didn't all you lawyers get inked into a Faustian deal when you signed the papers for your student loans? The devil will get his due. Devil is an idiot. I reserved choice of forum in my contract back in law school. Good luck suing me in the Court of Heaven, dipshit!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Prepaid legal is garbage and a sham. In my professional opinion and from every example I've ever seen, this is 100% true.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Just a reminder to new posters in the thread: euphronius is our landlord/tenant specialist, blarzgh is great with any traffic related questions, and Nice Piece of Fish probably decapitated a journalist on his homemade boat. So he's great at maritime law. U-boat. Allegedly. E: Also, and by the way, that danish gently caress not only decapitated the poor woman, also dismembered her, punctured her torso to prevent gases from rising the corpse, attached metal to her and loving sunk the blood-filled u-boat to get rid of the evidence. The he proceeded to lie about every single conceivable checkable and provable fact, only admitting to things after he'd been completely exposed. Completely impossible to even suggest mitigating circumstances within danish criminal law, at least that I can see. Two people go out, only one comes back, "I dinn do nuffin" isn't going to cut it. Dude is going away for a long time, and I don't mean on any more sea voyages. Nice piece of fish fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
In fact, I'm probably more of an expert on fish law.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
Baron Fuzzlewhack posted:A friend of mine is in serious debt and looking for a way out. The cause of the debt was essentially a failed relationship. This is one of the most bread-and-butter questions I've seen itt. If this was in my jurisdiction, I could tell you exactly how little of a chance she has and how the economic risk wouldtn't be worth it with pinpoint Supreme Court rulings. Since it isn't, I'll let the others tell you exactly how dumb your friend is.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2017 21:35
|
|