|
A new thread so soon? They grow up so fast.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Starbucks hasn't responded to my application yet Writ of mandamus.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 00:24
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:The MPC's stance on rape is the best. It's not illegal to rape your wife, it's not illegal to rape a man, and it's not illegal for women to rape anyone Well, that's the traditional common law approach, which is absurdly narrow. Has to involve penetration and nothing except the penis counts. Has to be by a man, on a woman not his wife. Has to involve force, so she has to fight back or it doesn't count. As an interesting bit of historical trivia, Thomas Aquinus argued that masturbation was worse than rape, because at least rape involved the chance of procreation. Glad we have our priorities straight, there, Tom.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
At my school, we had a dean in charge of honor code issues, and any exam... irregularities went to her, instead of to the professor. We also had mandatory reporting, though, and I don't know if other schools do. Ultimately, I don't consider law a profession where relying on "karma" to sort things out is appropriate. We have an affirmative duty to report substantial misconduct that reflects on honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. The real question isn't if the misconduct should be reported at all, the question is if it's substantial enough to require reporting. Whether or not the misconduct is more likely to get the person a good score is irrelevant, as I see it. He decided the rules didn't apply to him and cut a corner so he could get a perceived advantage. The profession has enough assholes like that, for my money, we can do without one more.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
Snitches earn riches.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 15:04
|
|
|
My torts 2 final was Buffy themed. She got sent to a boot camp for troubled teens and there was some agency law involved and I can't remember what else.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2010 05:38
|
|
|
I believe Daoloth, the Render of the Veils is perhaps the Mythos deity of choice for the ambitious lawgoon.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
J Miracle posted:Just had my clinic professor email me and say we "won" our first case, if by "won" you mean "get your application for leave to appeal denied but get the case remanded to correct a minor error in fines." My crim pro prof did criminal appellate work for a living. He said that very early in his practice, he had to learn to redefine "victory." If a client was serving three life sentences and now he's only serving two, you mark it in the win column and go home.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2010 23:55
|
|
|
nm posted:Public Defender chat: Other points of similarity between criminal law and horror movies: The fate of the sassy black character.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:also all of that poo poo about not talking, refusing consent etc. is good in theory, but say "officer I respectfully choose to exercise my rights, and I refuse to consent to a search" to a cop who wants to arrest you and you will be going to jail regardless. he'll call the K-9 unit. he'll trump up something to arrest you on and do an inventory search. don't matter one bit. So your advice to your clients is to consent to the search?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:my advice to clients is not to drive around with drugs in their car Move to strike, unresponsive.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:Grumblefish was a prosecutor The calls are coming from inside the courthouse!
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2010 17:34
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:I just had to orient myself. So we're all agreed she should stop and think before making a great leap forward?
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 23:12
|
|
|
Ainsley, do you put your JD on your resume when you submit it?
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2010 01:01
|
|
|
They also sued Game Genie! I was like "How will I make Mario jump over the flagpole now?"
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
deathdrive83 posted:Endlessly running through Level 1-1 with no end in sight is a good metaphor for my job hunt. As a fellow TTT-grad, let me assure you that this is not the case. The correct metaphor lies with the Minus World. We are endlessly repeating 2-2 while the clock counts down no matter how many times we complete the level. There's a moment of respite when the timer strikes zero and Mario dies, only to be reborn at the beginning of 2-2 once more. Our only release is the sweet embrace of the Game Over. Thank you, Mario. But your living wage is in another castle.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 06:31
|
|
|
stingray1381 posted:I don't know about at the trial court level, but I was a state appellate clerk. I read ever single brief, usually multiple times. If you had a good brief, you definitely increased your likelihood of success. Trial court level, here. We read everything well before it reaches the judge. He also reads everything, but he's pretty much the hardest working man in the universe. Grumblequote posted:I wanted to deal with law and government because that's the realm of english nobility and great figures of classical antiquity. A serf with pretensions to joining the landed gentry. Everything is so much more clear now. Reading your posts in Del Boy's voice almost makes them tolerable. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jun 4, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Wasn't my side who filed 200+ pages of it. I'm hoping most of that was exhibits. We have a court rule limiting the size of SD motions (Michigan, as a whole, I mean), but it doesn't address exhibits. Seems like every douche around loves to throw in every irrelevant piece of documentation and then NOT CITE IT in their brief. Thanks, guys. Just so you know? When I'm doing the workup for my judge, I make sure he knows that. "Defense counsel included 200+ pages of exhibits, only four of which were referenced in the brief."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
Mr. Fictitious posted:Hello I have missed the past 500 posts. What tragedies have befallen you all Law school.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
We finished a three week med mal trial today. The jury got the case well after 4:00 pm -- I want to say quarter or even half past. And yet, somehow, at 4:58? VERDICT TIME. I know I'm not supposed to say things that undermine confidence in the judicial process, but... really, guys? Three weeks of trial, countless experts and video deps, and you can sort through it in like 28 minutes? Or could it just be that you wanted to go home, and if you tick the box finding "no breach of standard of care" you don't have to answer any of the other questions? I've always considered myself a True Believer when it comes to the legal system. But some days... Some days I come home after work and watch Chicago, because anything less cynical seems inappropriate. Today was one such day.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 07:16
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:What's your arching serialized plot then if not "the case"? Act 1 (first season) starts off with Big John thinking he was downsized. First few episodes are "case of the week stuff," to get us grounded in his world. Midway through the first season, he takes a case on behalf of someone who worked at his old firm -- senior partner's assistant or something of the sort. At the end of the episode, the assistant gets out of the country/into witness protection/whatever but not before dropping an enigmatic hint: Assistant: I never thought it was fair what the senior partners did to you. John: Lousy downsizing! Assistant: Not the downsizing. I mean that business with <Bad Wolf/Save the Cheerleader/All Along the Watchtower/Dharma Initiative/One-Armed Man>. John: Wait, what? <click> And the assistant is gone, wholly unreachable (or dead or...). So now John has his arc words for him to pursue. Now the story arc starts in earnest. John has to do a string of jobs taking him back across the country in the other direction. End of act 1 is the job where he goes home. It ends with him receiving definite confirmation -- he was fired for some sinister reason, the downsizing was just the convenient cover story. Act 2 is a little more sedentary -- focused around John's home city and old firm. Occasional jobs take him out of town, but he always manages to find himself orbiting his old firm. His old partner throws him some scraps. A loyal client leaves the firm and comes to him personally. At the end of act 2, he corners one of the middle-management types who confirms his growing suspicions, but adds an extra wrinkle. What the senior partners did, they did at the behest of some government types. Act 3 is federal court. How high does the conspiracy go? Has John properly preserved his issues for appellate rear end-kicking?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 00:37
|
|
|
TyChan posted:That sounds like a lot of trouble just for the protagonist to find out that the partners, facing lower revenues from government-related work due to budget cuts mandated by the economic downturn, were faced with the choice of firing their 1st and 2nd favorite associates versus their 3rd and 4th favorites associates and he lost out. That's because the fourth season is his wrongful termination case against the senior partners. In the final episode, he and the firm reach a settlement, the contents of which remain undisclosed to the viewer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
What gets written at this time is wholly irrelevant. By the time the network gets done with it, the title will be Who Wants to Marry America's Next Top Litigator?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
Elotana posted:pennoyer's enduring place in civ pro courses remains a total mystery to me Increasingly, I am convinced that the central tenet of legal education is "Well, I had to read it, so you have to read it." Pennoyer, Rule Against Perpetuities, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
JohnnyTreachery posted:anything written by cardozo because hey here's some purple prose to go with your caselaw Cardozo is the Harlequin Romance novel of jurisprudence.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
JudicialRestraints posted:Counterpoint: I love myself and my coworkers - the work is intellectually stimulating and fun if a little boring. Counterpoint: also in the government. Love coworkers and work is generally stimulating and fun. However also spent most of this week doing attorneys' jobs for them because they couldn't be bothered to write a decent SD motion or comply with the court rules. Rage level: Sith marauder.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Adar posted:Serious question: are you the only Cooley graduate from your year with a job right now? You must be pretty close, right? Congratulations. Couldn't tell you. Didn't have much contact with my classmates before graduation, same holds true now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
ManiacClown posted:lipstick thespian, would it be theoretically possible for someone with an American JD to come to Sweden and practice there? If so, how would that work? Sweden is the New Guam?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2010 04:59
|
|
|
Another day, another "lawyers are immoral scum-sucking demons" thread in GBS. Right on schedule!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
That's the one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2010 02:20
|
|
|
deathdrive83 posted:Angry pro se prisoners write the best briefs, especially when they are long and hand-written. I don't necessarily need them to be in one form or the other, but I agree that insane, angry prisoners make for the best pro pers. Regular pro pers are just sort of disheartening -- we received a motion the other day from a (presumably) sane woman that had no proof of service, no notice of hearing, no hearing date scheduled, and no motion fee paid.* And for her "legal argument" section, she'd just photocopied a page of statute and stuck it in there. But insane prisoners? Endlessly entertaining. When I was doing Innocence Project, I had a guy who had sent us some crazy letter, so I wrote him back and sent him a questionnaire -- all very standard. He decided that we were his attorneys (we weren't) and immediately began sending us... "motions" for immediate filing. One of his motions was for 8th Amendment relief -- he claimed to have a stomach condition that wouldn't let him eat citrus and, GET THIS, one of his meals came with a SLICE OF ORANGE on the side! Now you or I might think, "Hey, I just won't eat the orange," but to the insane inmate, this is basically a war crime. He also mailed me a wadded-up piece of Saran Wrap with crumbs inside that was further "proof" of the dietary discrimination to which he was subjected. ("Enclosed, please find the package you sent us, returned to you in its original condition. In the future, do not send us any items unless we request them.") He sent me probably ten or twelve different motions before I convinced my supervisors to drop him. We couldn't ever figure out the nature of the charges (beyond the limited info offered by the Corrections website) against him or if there was even any DNA involved. This guy's brain was fried, so he wasn't quite as vexatious as the "Motion to Kiss My rear end" guy, but he was close. *Our clerk's office basically refuses to check ANYTHING for compliance with the court rules -- their policy seems to be "if you submit it, we file it." Even so, you'd think they could manage to notice lack of filing fee. Alaemon fucked around with this message at 06:01 on Jun 29, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2010 05:58
|
|
|
Spent every day this week doing research for an SD motion my judge is hearing on Friday. Medical malpractice, and it's not this doctor's first time down that particular road, either -- he has a fair few and from a cursory glance some of the others may not have been unfounded. Then I figured out I have a family member that goes to this particular doctor. Awkward!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
SWATJester posted:Yes, and apparently she'd actually met me several times and had known me since I was like 5. I think life would be much better if moments like this were accompanied by the "failure" music from the Price is Right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A
|
|
#
¿
Jul 1, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
Abnormally hazardous!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2010 04:16
|
|
|
On the scale of "high class" vs "low class" behaviors, I wonder where constantly informing everyone else that they're low class and you're not falls.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2010 01:51
|
|
|
5. Explain to the grader how the question is immoral and they are immoral for propagating a corrupt system and how Socrates would have imbibed all sorts of hemlock before he answered even ONE negligence question.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
entris posted:Since this is the law goons thread, I suspect that most people here would agree that people shouldn't unilaterally break a law they disagree with. I'm attacking piracy on rule of law grounds, rather than economic grounds (although I don't concede economic criticisms). I saw a headline somewhere that suggested piracy was this generation's possession of marijuana -- yes, it's a crime, but one that isn't perceived as particularly malevolent. There may be truth to that. I think there's a point, though, where even those of us who are risk-averse have to enter into a balancing act between things that are a crime and behaviors we're going to do regardless of criminality. Under Michigan law, seduction of an unmarried woman is a felony. While I understand "it is a crime, therefore I will not" as a philosophy, an examination of any given jurisdiction's penal code is likely to turn up some absurd results for the legal absolutist.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2010 00:22
|
|
|
As noted, your state should have pattern jury instructions. What most of our local attorneys do is go through those instructions and come up with a list of them by number (1.1, 1.2, 1.4, etc.). This list represents whatever they THINK they might need -- the object being to be inclusive at this stage and narrow it down based on how the trial unfolds. They put all those on a list and both sides submit their lists to our office (the judge's research staff). We go through and combine the lists into a master list with every proposed instruction by both sides. This becomes a packet with the full text of every one of those proposed instructions. Judge and counsel are then free to discuss which instructions need to be given as the trial progresses. ("I thought we were going to need 4.1, but this person didn't testify to that, so we can just strike it.") Then we do the final packet that Judge reads to the jury. If you're truly in the woods, call your judge's people and ask them what standard procedure is. (Equivocation protip: "I've never had to do this for this judge before" is just as true as "this is my first jury trial.") Odds are someone has a draft or final version saved on their computer that they can email you so you can at least see what stuff looks like for this particular court.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2010 20:36
|
|
|
So today my judge receives a motion for reconsideration in the case of Someguy v Jerk Co..quote:Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration If that were the only time P's attorney had substituted "Defendant" where she meant "Plaintiff," it would have been bad enough, but I'd be a little more sympathetic. Sadly, that wasn't the case.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2010 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 11:54 |
|
|
Strictly speaking, I don't know that it would be covered as Brady/Giglio exculpatory material. The fact that she died is not exculpatory as such. I think a valid inquiry is "Has defense counsel already had a chance to cross-examine her? If so, I'd like to get her prior testimony admitted around the hearsay exception because the declarant is unavailable." That said, I'd disclose. I believe, whenever possible, that you don't need to be a dick to opposing counsel. There are worse things in life than having a reputation as a straight shooter.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2010 01:09
|
|