The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (5 Viewers)

[Arizona Ron]

 

[crystal]

I assume you to be a very busy man so I will keep this brief.

Why would you write that? Your message was already way too long even before including that gratuitous lie.

 

[Eminence]

I assume you to be a very busy man so I will keep this brief.

Why would you write that? Your message was already way too long even before including that gratuitous lie.

I thought it was funny.

 

[xulf]

Em, they likely won't respond and will just kick you out when you don't sign the contract. Just sign it so they can't do it. Sometimes you have to take your lumps that aren't justified. Its life.

Though you shouldnt be cursing at school admin no matter the case. They aren't a friggin 7/11. An online 2yr school cares 0 about brand loyalty.

 

[mr roboto]

Em, they likely won't respond and will just kick you out when you don't sign the contract. Just sign it so they can't do it. Sometimes you have to take your lumps that aren't justified. Its life.

Though you shouldnt be cursing at school admin no matter the case. They aren't a friggin 7/11. An online 2yr school cares 0 about brand loyalty.

Don't waste your time.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

 

[Henry Ford]

I think this is a question for Zow.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

It's not a model of drafting clarity, but the message seems to be saying that the reviewing office has found the abuse charges unsubstantiated, and that there was no need for further involvement from CPS (i.e., the child will be returned to the mother). The letter says that the family can receive "case management" services going forward, whatever that mean considering there is no longer a case.

 

[Zow]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

Conflict check?

 

[Henry Ford]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

Conflict check?

If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.

 

[Zow]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA.

1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.

2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.

3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.

4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.

To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

Conflict check?

If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.

I am not in conflict with anyone. The child was taken and family court contacted me that I am a supposed father because there is nobody on the birth certificate.

Same thing as with the first child. They are trying to find someone to take custody

 

[Thorn]

From the original thread:

um, call the person that wrote the letter?

No number provided

It's from some department or person. Google them and figure it out.

Though I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why it's IMPOSSIBLE to do that.

Its a good idea but I think ill just ignore it. The kid isnt mine so its none of my business.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

Conflict check?

If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.

I am not in conflict with anyone. The child was taken and family court contacted me that I am a supposed father because there is nobody on the birth certificate.

Same thing as with the first child. They are trying to find someone to take custody

Sounds like they may want that someone to be you. And you would like them to not find that you're responsible financially if you refuse custody.

If they get a judgment, the truth doesn't matter.

 

[Zow]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

Conflict check?

As I indicated above, I cannot give you specific advice without knowing for sure that doing so doesn't disadvantage a current or past client. In your case, while I do not recognize the bare facts of your case and I believe I recall you indicating that your ex lives in an area outside my general jurisdiction and highly doubt I have a conflict, I can't give you direct advice on your case other than to strongly advise you to talk to your assigned attorney.

 

[Thorn]

He doesn't want advice anyway. He just wants interaction.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have so many stories from the past few weeks and apperances and consults that I could post but the collective vomit of these repsective things would drive me to drink an entire bottle of scotch.... and I need to drive.

Oh what the heck.

So I'm in court Friday. I file a phenominal motion. Yes, patting myself on the back. It was damn good. I've already sent the legal part of it to collegues for their use the argument was so good. One of those. The defendant in this family drama chose not to contest the motion because.... well, they couldn't. I will win with an average motion/brief, and I will rule the world with the motion/brief I wrote. I'm peacocking.

Day before the hearing I get a tenative decision. Of my 10 prayers for relief (I probably should have only gotten 8 of them as two were really out there but connectable) I only got 5. I was perplexed since there was no opposition and my motion/brief was outstanding. I can reread the thing and hear the angels singing from on high this thing was so good. So I tell the judge's clerk that I have to come in to argue the motion. I get there Friday morning. Full motion calendar. Every single person in there.... not an attorney. In fact I am the only attorney representing anyone. So, by rule, I should go first. And I do.

Thank you Judge. I have certain questions on 5 of the prayers as they were denied. Judge interrupts me, "Yes, I knew you would Mr. Yankee23fan." Thank you judge. Initially as to the first prayer, which I admit connects to the other 4 in question, there was no opposition and I have demonstrated by documentation and legal argument that the relief is valid given the circumstances..... got cut off.

Yes, Mr. Yankee23fan, your motion and brief were very well put together and the legal analysis was spot on. (At this point I'm smiling. All these unrepresented people in the room. They will flock to me to be their attorney after I pull this off and no one else in my profession is here to take them from me.) However. (at this point I always swallowed my gum that I forgot to take out of my mouth) after reviewing all the facts of the case and the timeline the court is denying your application on this prayer for (goes on to list 3 or 4 decent but to me unpersuasive points - though he is the judge and I'm not). Thank you Your Honor, however if I may... cut off again.

Judge leans forward in his chair so that his arms are on the end of the bench/desk and though I am tall, towering over me. In that split second before he spoke I knew I was getting my #### handed to me. Mr. Yankee23fan, the court just informed you of why the decision is the way it is. The decision will not be changed, understood.

Crap. Ok, time to regroup. Respectfully Your Honor, if I may continue then on the other points in the proposed order.... cut off again. No, counsel, you may not. The remaining 4 points that were denied must be if the first is denied.

Ok, I'm a little pissed now. I was adonis - the good one not the one that posted here about Obama - divorcees were going to flock to me. I was going to be flocked. Instead I was getting B-slapped. I start, Your Honor, the facts as laid out in the motion which are unopposed are clear. And the court rules are extremely clear... cut off again.

Counsel, I don't need you to tell me the court rules. Do you have anything else?

Damn.

No Your Honor. I thank the court for its time and attention. I respectfully request a conforming order.

WTF? I walked around to his office so the secretary could give me paper and she was laughing. I asked her what I did. She tells me, nothing. He is in a bad mood today and took it out on you. It really was a good motion.

Really?

 

[MC Gas Money]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.

2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.

3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.

4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.

To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).

The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?

I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrow

 

[Zow]

I think this is a question for Zow.

It definitely is since this is a pretty significant portion of my practice, but it scares me to death to be in the position to give this guy actual advice without running a conflict check.

Conflict check?

If he represents someone you may be involved in litigation with, he's not allowed to advise you.

I am not in conflict with anyone. The child was taken and family court contacted me that I am a supposed father because there is nobody on the birth certificate.

Same thing as with the first child. They are trying to find someone to take custody

1. Conflict is not to be taken literally. Whenever there are multiple parties involved in a civil or criminal case/lawsuit, legal "conflicts" arise. For example, in your case it is very likely that the interests of you, your ex, the baby, the state, and any potential fathers do not match up. Accordingly, each needs his own representation. It would be a "conflict" for your ex's lawyer to then give you advice because doing so may disadvantage her position. In this case, since I have current and past clients who are mothers in this very type of action, while incredibly unlikely, it is possible I represent her. Therefore, I cannot give you specific advice on what to do here EXCEPT TO TELL YOU TO TALK TO THE LAWYER YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO.

2. This isn't in the family court. This is in the juvenile court. In the juvenile court the state is required to make reasonable efforts to locate a parent. In Arizona the legal presumption is that a wife's husband is the father of the child. Accordingly, the state must contact you because they look to place in foster care or, eventually, adopt the kid out.

 

[Zow]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.

2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.

3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.

4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.

To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).

The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?

I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrow

Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.

 

[Zow]

From the original thread:

um, call the person that wrote the letter?

No number provided

It's from some department or person. Google them and figure it out.

Though I'm sure you'll come up with some reason why it's IMPOSSIBLE to do that.

Its a good idea but I think ill just ignore it. The kid isnt mine so its none of my business.

:bigredx: x1000

 

[MC Gas Money]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.

2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.

3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.

4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.

To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).

The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrow

Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.

How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Pro bono clinic I run for low income persons. A local community center runs the program and is supposed to screen the clients for me.

Client: I need (X) do you do that?

Me: Sure I'd be happy to help

Client: Great, what do you need from me to get started?

Me: document 1,2,3,4,5

Client: What if I don't have that?

Me: Then I can't help, but these are fairly straightforward things. Are you sure you don't have them?

Client: Not on me no. But they are probably in my house.

Me: Ok, where do you live. If it's close I have other appointments. You can get it and come back.

Client: Well, I am staying at my house in [richest part of the area by far - talking Bill Gates level rich for the area] but my personal documents are in my house in Oregon. I only come here once or twice a month to relax and enjoy the boat or plane we have stored here.

WTF?!

Gotta love rich people that lie to a community center to get free legal advice when they can pay for it without even feeling the fee. GRRRRRRRR.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Really trying to get this thread back on track here people.

 

[Henry Ford]

Pro bono clinic I run for low income persons. A local community center runs the program and is supposed to screen the clients for me.

Client: I need (X) do you do that?

Me: Sure I'd be happy to help

Client: Great, what do you need from me to get started?

Me: document 1,2,3,4,5

Client: What if I don't have that?

Me: Then I can't help, but these are fairly straightforward things. Are you sure you don't have them?

Client: Not on me no. But they are probably in my house.

Me: Ok, where do you live. If it's close I have other appointments. You can get it and come back.

Client: Well, I am staying at my house in [richest part of the area by far - talking Bill Gates level rich for the area] but my personal documents are in my house in Oregon. I only come here once or twice a month to relax and enjoy the boat or plane we have stored here.

WTF?!

Gotta love rich people that lie to a community center to get free legal advice when they can pay for it without even feeling the fee. GRRRRRRRR.

Makes me so angry

 

[NCCommish]

Really trying to get this thread back on track here people.

And doing a splendid job of it.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

I wish woz could represent DSP.

 

[krista4]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

 

[MC Gas Money]

I wish woz could represent DSP.

Me too.

 

[McGarnicle]

Pathetic and laughable. Also tiresome. Son, I would not hire you to pick up my dog's ####. Hell, I wouldn't even allow you to do it for free.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

Your job sounds so exciting.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

http://www.foxrothschild.com/uploadedfiles/practiceareas/securitiesfinancialinstitution/survey_nationalSurveyRestrictiveCovenants.pdf

http://www.fenwick.com/fenwickdocuments/rs_summary-of-covenants.pdf

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 542.331 (Covenants executed on or after July 1, 1996)

Fla. Stat. Ann. §§ 542.33 (Covenants executed prior to July 1, 1996)

Pursuant to statute, covenants that restrict or prohibit competition when they are limited in time, area and line of business are permissible, but must be in writing and party seeking to enforce a covenant must show “legitimate business interest” justifying a restraint.55 Such legitimate business interests include, (1) trade secrets as defined by statute in §§ 688.002(4); (2) valuable confidential business or professional information that otherwise does not rise to the level of a trade secret; (3) substantial relationships with specific prospective or existing customers; (4) customer goodwill; and (5) extraordinary training.56 In determining the validity of the covenant, the individualized economic or other hardship that
might be caused to the person against whom enforcement is sought is not a factor to consider.57

For post-1996 covenants, a court shall modify the restraint and grant only the relief reasonably necessary to protect such interest if a restraint is overbroad or otherwise unreasonable...

 

[McGarnicle]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

Being a lawyer seems like a lot of fun.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Crap - you said non hiring. I don't think that fits then. Oh well.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

Being a lawyer seems like a lot of fun.

Lesion beyond moiety, my friend. Lesion beyond moiety.

 

[krista4]

Crap - you said non hiring. I don't think that fits then. Oh well.

Yeah, it's hard to find the information relating to the acquisition context. I found that in employment >two years is presumed in FL to be unreasonable, but that doesn't help me. I just can't figure out where this seven-year thing came from. I think it's an urban legend within the company, and people just keep repeating it to each other but no one knows the source.

Given that I never, ever do legal research, I wouldn't even know where to start outside of googling.

Oh well, it's a blue pencil state so I'll go with ten.

 

[krista4]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Crap - you said non hiring. I don't think that fits then. Oh well.

Yeah, it's hard to find the information relating to the acquisition context. I found that in employment >two years is presumed in FL to be unreasonable, but that doesn't help me. I just can't figure out where this seven-year thing came from. I think it's an urban legend within the company, and people just keep repeating it to each other but no one knows the source.

Given that I never, ever do legal research, I wouldn't even know where to start outside of googling.

Oh well, it's a blue pencil state so I'll go with ten.

The second link I gave you has information based on the purchase of a business - that would be what you are looking for, no?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Here:

Generally, covenants not-to-compete that are made in connection with the sale of a business follow the same provisions and guidelines as covenants not-to-compete in the employer/employee context. FLA. STAT. § 542.335. Such covenants made on or after July 1, 1996, are presumed reasonable if they are three years or less in duration and presumed unreasonable if they are more than seven years in duration. Id. at § 542.335(1)(d)(3). Nevertheless, covenants not-to-compete must not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business conveyed. Id. at § 542.335(1)©.

 

[Henry Ford]

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.

You misspelled "Thank you, I've been looking for that book for 20 years."

 

[Yankee23Fan]

lol

 

[krista4]

Here:

Generally, covenants not-to-compete that are made in connection with the sale of a business follow the same provisions and guidelines as covenants not-to-compete in the employer/employee context. FLA. STAT. § 542.335. Such covenants made on or after July 1, 1996, are presumed reasonable if they are three years or less in duration and presumed unreasonable if they are more than seven years in duration. Id. at § 542.335(1)(d)(3). Nevertheless, covenants not-to-compete must not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business conveyed. Id. at § 542.335(1)©.

That's it! Thanks! Sorry, didn't click your links after you had said they weren't applicable.

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.

You misspelled "Thank you, I've been looking for that book for 20 years."

I might have engaged in a bit of hyperbole initially. I need to find out something like this perhaps once every 5-7 years, so really I haven't given a #### about that book until I just remembered it. But you are right--thank you for finding this.

 

[Henry Ford]

Here:

Generally, covenants not-to-compete that are made in connection with the sale of a business follow the same provisions and guidelines as covenants not-to-compete in the employer/employee context. FLA. STAT. § 542.335. Such covenants made on or after July 1, 1996, are presumed reasonable if they are three years or less in duration and presumed unreasonable if they are more than seven years in duration. Id. at § 542.335(1)(d)(3). Nevertheless, covenants not-to-compete must not impose a greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to protect the business conveyed. Id. at § 542.335(1)©.

That's it! Thanks! Sorry, didn't click your links after you had said they weren't applicable.

Does anyone have access to, or know where I can access, a 50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context? When I was at Skadden we had this glorious book that was constantly updated, and since leaving Skadden over 20 years ago I have never been able to find or replicate that.

Specifically, right now I'm trying to figure out if a 10-year non-compete (again, acquisition context, not employment) is allowable in Florida. I'm getting conflicting information, some of it indicating that it must be limited to seven years.

I think the book you want is this.

I don't really want it; just wish for this one time I could point to something to get people on the same page here.

You misspelled "Thank you, I've been looking for that book for 20 years."

I might have engaged in a bit of hyperbole initially. I need to find out something like this perhaps once every 5-7 years, so really I haven't given a #### about that book until I just remembered it. But you are right--thank you for finding this.

I might have found it by pasting "50-state survey on non-competes in an acquisition context" into google and clicking the first link.

 

[Zow]

Pro bono clinic I run for low income persons. A local community center runs the program and is supposed to screen the clients for me.

Client: I need (X) do you do that?

Me: Sure I'd be happy to help

Client: Great, what do you need from me to get started?

Me: document 1,2,3,4,5

Client: What if I don't have that?

Me: Then I can't help, but these are fairly straightforward things. Are you sure you don't have them?

Client: Not on me no. But they are probably in my house.

Me: Ok, where do you live. If it's close I have other appointments. You can get it and come back.

Client: Well, I am staying at my house in [richest part of the area by far - talking Bill Gates level rich for the area] but my personal documents are in my house in Oregon. I only come here once or twice a month to relax and enjoy the boat or plane we have stored here.

WTF?!

Gotta love rich people that lie to a community center to get free legal advice when they can pay for it without even feeling the fee. GRRRRRRRR.

I've been in this position a few times as court appointed indigent counsel* and, ethically, it's tough. Big split amongst the indigent defense bar on how to weigh one's duty of confidentiality to the client versus duty of candor to the tribunal. I've always taken the position that the Court has made the determination and I don't know with 100 percent certainty that my client lied about his income or that the court didn't find him indigent anyway, so I keep my mouth shut despite the Armani suit and roll of 100s in my client's pocket.

*Arizona, despite being ridiculously conservative and generally unsympathetic towards the financial impact that being charged with a crime has on someone, has a judiciary which hand out indigent appointments like candy.

 

[Zow]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.

2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.

3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.

4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.

To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).

The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrow

Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.

How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.

 

[McGarnicle]

I had mentioned in the past that my ex wife had a second child that was taken away by child services a few months back. Since the child was concieved while we were married I was sent court documents naming me and her live in boyfriend as possible fathers.

Btw I am not the father because we live on opposite sides of the country and have not had any contact outside of court august of last year.During the case about the first child 2 years ago I was assigned a lawyer from the arizona courts that contacted me. I was not contacted by any lawyer this time. The initial hearing is scheduled for tomorrow anf I have not been able to reach the CPS case worker because he is on vacation and I havent been able to ask him how I am supposed to appear at the hearing by phone.Then yesterday I recieved mail from the Arizona Deptartment of Economic Security that said this....

Dear Mr. Money:This is to inform you that the DES has unsubstantiated the finding for CPS. The finding will not be entered in to the central registry and no further action will be taken by the Protective Services Review Team.

Services offered or provided to the family include: case management.

Does this mean the case was dropped and I no longer have to worry about this nuisance?

Here are some general pieces of information regarding Arizona dependency law. You have been assigned an attorney and should direct any specific questions to him or her (it is, however, possible that he or she may have withdrawn if you did not maintain contact). Even though there is a minute possibility that person is me, I cannot give you specific advice without running a conflict check and I think it's best for both of us that any specifics be kept out of the FFA. 1. In Arizona there is a legal presumption that any child conceived by a wife during wedlock is biologically the husband's. While is may seem silly given that there are situations where the husband is clearly not the father, CPS (actually now called DCS) must make efforts to contact the husband and give him the opportunity to be present and assert due process rights regarding removal or severance. That husband could theoretically assert all rights and try to get custody of the kid or the father could simply consent to adoption. The husband could do a paternity test for possible exclusion, but it's possible that absent any other positive paternity tests for bio dad that the best interests of the child keep the husband as the legal father.

2. ADES is the attorney general's office for the state. They are technically the "law firm" which represents CPS/DCS. They have the power to file dependency actions in court and motion for dismissals.

3. Not being placed on the central registry is a very good thing. Being placed on the central registry means that there has been a finding of abuse or neglect. It carries significant collateral consequences.

4. A dependency action (i.e. a CPS removal case) begins by the courts holding a mediation session followed by a preliminary protective hearing. At that hearing the parents have the option to submit to the dependency and work a case plan to satisfy CPS/DCS or they could request a sort of mini-trial whereby the judge would make a finding of whether the state could show that abuse or neglect was more likely than not. If an alleged parent fails to appear for this hearing the judge may find his absence as an admission and enter a default dependency finding. At or before this hearing the State (CPS through ADES), after further investigation, will sometimes (but not often) move to either outright dismiss the action or move instead to an "in-home dependency" where parent(s) still work the case plan and get services but there is not formal court proceeding. In such scenario it is possible a letter similar to the one you received may be sent.

To answer your specific question indirectly, I would point out two things: 1) these cases are, statistically, not dropped so quickly. It's very possible the case may be proceeding out of court but still active with CPS/DCS; and 2) I'd encourage you to not consider this a "nuisance". I recognize you are not the father of the child, but Arizona law doesn't necessarily agree or care. I strongly encourage you to reach out to your assigned attorney as you may have assertable rights to this child or you may want to take the necessary steps to ensure that paternity is established elsewhere so that you do not become legally responsible for this child (i.e. on the hook for child support).

The hearing for tomorrow may still be happening even though the case was found unsubstantiated?I havent been assigned a lawyer so ill just call the court tomorrow

Ah, I may have misread. Looks like you were assigned one to you two years ago but he never called (hint: it's on you to contact him). I think calling the court is a safe bet tomorrow.

How did you know I was assigned one two years ago?

Bolded in your initial post above.

JFC