Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

This thread is haters.

Go to law school.

Post about it here in real time.

I won't read your posts. But the thread regulars will. And I actually skim what they write. They'll give me the gist of your burning menagerie of bad decisions.

And then you'll eventually become a thread regular too. One of us.

Go to law school.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2018 00:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 23:26

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

So Phil effort posted to make a really good new thread. Made sure that the old thread would definitely be closed and archived.

Because he's going to try to become a judge?

That's my guess. Judgeship.

Phil let me be your law clerk.

# ¿ Aug 8, 2018 21:47

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Interests sections are the worst but are necessary when you're a law student because you

1) don't know jack poo poo about practicing law

2) will be worthless in everything you do for the summer, and

3) are being interviewed to see if you're a personality fit and really nothing else

If you are not a law student you should not have an interests section. Unless if you are literally Robert Muller and you're like

Interests
- loving with Presidents
- Reading Twitter.com

# ¿ Aug 9, 2018 03:57

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

GamingHyena posted:

Just got a Not Guilty on a felony drug case where my guy was looking at a possible life sentence.

Noice.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2018 03:48

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Arcturas posted:

Lexis Advance is so much worse than Westlaw Next. Leagues and leagues. I'm seriously sad my firm is cancelling its Westlaw subscription because it claims that Lexis is an adequate replacement. And that's just the primary research capabilities. The secondary sources on Lexis are also atrocious. (Why is Moore's noticeably worse than Wright & Miller? They've had like a million years to get it up to snuff....)

Only monsters choose Lexis Advance over Westlaw Next. The Lexis layout and interface is just horrendous. And I say this as someone who preferred old Lexis over old West!

I will say that Lexis does sometimes have cases that for whatever reason aren't on West. It's never a make-or-break case, but it's happened a handful of times in the past three years.

# ¿ Aug 12, 2018 21:21

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

nm posted:

Reminder that it is virtually impossible to prove malpractice in a criminal case. If you document, you're ironclad.

Lots of states require actual innocence to boot. So. Ya fine.

(Won't stop the bar complaint though.)

# ¿ Aug 20, 2018 02:41

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

GET MONEY posted:

Admiralty was considered but I figure it's too niche and also sometimes I get seasick.

This is a joke account and nobody can convince me otherwise.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2018 02:38

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

SlyFrog posted:

I am still on leave from my firm - it has been a year and a few months now. I've tried some different medications during that time - nothing seems to have helped (again, I followed psychiatrist's orders, did not discontinue anything until told, etc.). At this point, the psychiatrist has essentially given up on medication. He�s talked vaguely about LSD or psilocybin having promising research, but I�m not exactly sure what to do about that, as it�s not exactly like it�s legal, and I�m not exactly the sort to just go find them even if I wanted to take the risk.

I've seen a couple of different therapists (for a long while, at the same time) weekly. Have tried group therapy as well (again, weekly), though I am probably about to discontinue that as it seems to do nothing, and at some point I have to draw a line on expenditures. I'd happily pay if I thought it was helping me improve, but I don't see it.

I recently spoke with the in-house attorney at a client of mine (well, a client before I took leave), just to keep in touch and catch up with him. He's one of those guys where you could tell the conversations we had over the years became as much about being friends (if in different cities) as it was about just a business relationship. He asked how I was doing. At first, I gave him the standard "I'm just taking some time off to be with my kids, reassess what I want, etc." Frankly, it seemed pretty clear that he saw through that (most people aren't "taking some time" for over a year, with nothing definitive about when they're coming back). I made the decision to open up to him a little more, and explain my circumstances. Not a full, 100% blow by blow, but enough to let him know I also had some health issues, was not sleeping, and needed to step away for a bit, etc. He asked the obvious question that most people would have (how are you paying rent and eating), and pretty quickly deduced that I was on disability, presumably for anxiety/other mental health related reasons. A smart attorney who quickly cuts to the truth of things - what a surprise, huh?

My partner manages anxiety and chemical imbalance issues, and it took several different medical providers over several years to finally find a "good" prescription. And the good is in scare quotes because, as it is described to me, it doesn't actually get rid of the problem, it just allows her to compartmentalize and identify that she does not need to deal with the crushing, anxiety-laden mental loops that would otherwise consume her, thus lessening the impact on life.

I say this not to downplay your own efforts to explore various alternatives, but (a) to suggest talking to another medical provider regarding whether they would recommend alternative prescriptions (your post suggests you've only talked to one doc for drugs), and (b) to give an example of what treatment success might look like, for a point of comparison about whether your methods are helping or not.

# ¿ Aug 27, 2018 02:53

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

gvibes posted:

Secured transactions was my favorite law school class (ok, second favorite)

I know the conversation has moved on to marveling at the olds, but:

You're a monster.

# ¿ Sep 2, 2018 04:08

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Phil Moscowitz posted:

I like money, everything else is secondary

then you should've gotten an mba, you hippie

# ¿ Sep 13, 2018 06:23

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

uberkeyzer posted:

her family's gonna be kinda upset when he's released since they dont get to see grandma anymore. also his family is also probably going to be kinda upset since they don't want him living in their house after he stabbed an old lady to death. do you have any space on your couch?

A choose your own adventure? Stabbin' Joe Couches Cause Y'all Are Basic or Perfectly Fine System Where Nothing Is Systemically Bad?

Well golly! I love this game!

# ¿ Sep 13, 2018 06:30

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

blarzgh posted:

Yeah but if you think about it, everyone is going to die eventually so killing somebody is really just taking an indeterminate amount of their already limited existence away, so its NBD REALLY

Hey I found someone who has space on his couch.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2018 06:40

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Nice piece of fish posted:

Who the gently caress can stand listening to that poo poo? It's horrible. Even dubstep is less annoying.

Hey I found someone who hasn't hooked up with that 7 from the bar.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2018 06:45

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

homullus posted:

Judge Booty?

Shame on this thread for ignoring this post.

---

And I'm caught up. See y'all in four months.

# ¿ Sep 13, 2018 06:56

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Mr. Nice! posted:

So going back through the motion my boss forwarded to me, it was written back before Amendment 2 passed and geared towards low-thc varieties of weed that were legal then. Also it only cites one case outside of Florida, Commonwealth v. Cruz, from Massachusetts. It was only 45 pages total because they included the full MMJ statute and printouts of various caselaw. My actual motion is 3 pages with an attached 10 page memorandum of law discussing the various issues with the stop and then PC based upon smell with references to three different cases from other states (California, Colorado, and Mass). I may grab another few to toss in. All in all with exhibits and caselaw attached I'll have a ~40 page submission in total, myself.

Orin Kerr has an article about how the Fourth Amendment accepts or rejects state cops getting PC based on federal law (and vice versa). You might find it useful--as in, easily-stealable cites--for the prosecutor's obvious rejoinder that weed is still illegal as a matter of federal law. Depending on how your state courts treat the issue, this might be something to just hammer quick and clean in the opening brief, or, if it doesn't look good for you, get prepared for your reply brief.

Article is linked here.

Excerpt to give you an idea of what might be interesting for your purposes:

quote:

We first get our bearings by surveying existing Fourth Amendment caselaw on cross-enforcement. Although courts agree that cross-enforcement is permitted in at least some circumstances, they disagree on what those circumstances should be. The major dispute is about the role of authorization: Must the officer�s home jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction that enacted the criminal law, affirmatively bless the cross-enforcement? Courts are deeply divided on the answer.

Here�s an overview of the disagreement. First consider when state officers search and seize to enforce federal law, what I will call cross-enforcement up. In those circumstances, courts are divided five ways. Some courts require state law to first authorize the crossenforcement; others require federal law to authorize the crossenforcement; some say cross-enforcement is permitted unless state or federal law affirmatively ban the cross-enforcement; some that either state or federal law must approve of the cross enforcement; and some say cross-enforcement is lawful regardless of what federal or state law says.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2018 03:56

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

when in doubt,

the police win

# ¿ Oct 1, 2020 06:22

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

nm posted:

gently caress, this needs to happen in America again.
And I say again because I've heard of stories of the old days/

keep your chin up

plenty of state court judges can't be found in the courthouse after 12pm on Friday

# ¿ Sep 26, 2021 03:46

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Toona the Cat posted:

Question for those of us who are first-generation lawyers. Do you feel uncomfortable asking support staff for help? Like my firm has a litigation assistant who was worried I didn't like her because I haven't asked her to do anything for me. The answer is that I just feel weird asking someone to do something I could easily do myself.

yup. you'll probably get over it by year 5.

you're a boss now. not in a cool way, but in a poo poo, "am I the baddie?" kind a way.

the answer is yes, yes you are.

don't be an rear end in a top hat. but delegate according to staff's capabilities.

if you come across any staff who is above-average competent and gives a poo poo, do anything in your power to make them stay.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2021 06:55

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

Discendo Vox posted:

Here's the opinion materials so you don't have to spend time with traffic cone hat man

https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2022/2022abqb525/2022abqb525.html
https://albertacourts.ca/docs/defau...vrsn=65cd6c82_5

Here's some case background; the sovcit is a wealthy oil heiress.
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/judge-blasts-millionaire-calgary-heiress-for-using-fake-law-in-attempt-to-get-condo-for-free

"Ms. Anderson is thus not a destitute, desperate person, but, instead, a greedy scofflaw, who seeks a condo for free, with no legitimate legal basis."

right into my veins

# ¿ Oct 12, 2022 05:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 16, 2024 23:26

Green Crayons: Apr 2, 2009

The Dagda posted:

Thanks all, this is helpful!

Immigrants' rights and immigration defense work. Specifically, federal habeas litigation, mandamus/APA litigation, detainee conditions litigation under the Rehab Act, immigration appellate work, and also immigration defense in immigration court (that's admin, not an Art. III court, it's effectively a bench trial). All injunctive relief, no damages. The state court stuff is a very small part of my experience, it was post-conviction relief and some family court stuff both related to immigration relief - that's motion practice and short bench trials. I feel like I may know more than average about Chevron deference since it's extremely relevant for immigration appellate work, but it seems like SCOTUS is doing away with it soon anyway.

Your actual skills (drafting pleadings, managing other attorneys, doing the blocking and tackling of discovery , honest-to-god trial work) can be very attractive to a big law team even if your subject matter experience is not directly transferable. Especially if the group is hurting for mid-level associates.

Since your subject matter lane has been anti-government, I would say targeting white collar/government investigations defense makes sense in terms of what big law groups are a cousin to what you've been doing. You can get even more specific in those types of groups (specific industries that are subject to investigations, such as health care or retail) if you think there is a hook to what you've done before. Look up various big law websites "industries" or similar pages to see what's out there.

# ¿ Mar 23, 2024 13:03

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Business, Finance, and Careers > Law Megathread: the stunner off the top rope that everyone but the defense saw coming