Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Henry Ford

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 3/24/2019 at 7:20 AM, Zow said:

Thanks.  Your thoughts are on plane with mine. My discussions with my wife have been solely based around compensation.  My wife really wants to move to this area (I can't say I blame her, it's one of the best areas to live in AZ and the cultural and educational improvements - along with not being on the surface of the sun - make it very appealing).  I'm trying to decide how to balance this against the current good will that I've developed in my current immediate jurisdiction. Because I've developed a good reputation there I do not have to worry about whether my next client will hire me (I've had to turn people away regularly now for two years) and, in my criminal practice, it's not a secret that the prosecutor's office is more willing to settle my cases more favorably and more quickly.  Also, since I've been in front of all the judges in my jurisdiction plenty and my reputation there is good too, the judges will give me the benefit of the doubt and some reasonable deference. These are big things that make an otherwise stressful practice easier. And they are positives about remaining with my current firm in my jurisdiction.  

I should note, because I don't think I did earlier, that my family law paralegal retired a month ago and, probably due to my area, I/my office have/has not been able to replace her.  She intentionally timed her retirement well because I have a surprisingly light March and early April (actually taking my first full week off in years) but come mid-April it's going to be near if not full crisis mode if I haven't been able to replace her with somebody competent. Further, while I cannot complain at all about my compensation with my current firm, I believe I have probably hit the financial ceiling of what I can make here. I think I could maybe squeeze out something like 10% more if we continue to grow (we now have several associates and they do both directly and indirectly help me make more) by increasing my rates on my criminal cases and being even more selective in family law but I also know that I cannot continue to work at the pace I did in 2017 and 2018 for much longer without the stress and long hours having too much of a negative impact on my personal life.  I do worry that long-term damage could be done to my health, my marriage, and my happiness. Finally, I should note that while I really do like the other two partners at my firm and I really appreciate the autonomy they let me have within my areas of practice they are a married couple.  As such, I have basically no real power and me being a "partner" is really just a hollow title/ego stroke in reality. I really don't mind this arrangement but just wanted to more aptly describe it. 

I did have a recent phone conversation with the partner at the firm I'm meeting with (the guy I referenced as my opposing counsel earlier) and he made a comment that I found promising. While we haven't talked about numbers he did say something along the lines of, "plenty of attorneys in our areas of practice can do a good job and make X pretty easily and be happy with that, but I believe at [insert name of firm] we are really set up in a way that, with good work ethic and hustle, somebody can make x + y."  X + y would be about a 20% increase from what I made this past year which would put me at exactly where I'd want to be (and it would make up the difference in the increased cost of living in the new area). So, I guess the discussion for the meeting, when it turns to numbers, is what's the path to getting to that number and how long would it take (recognizing some of that is on me). This is caused me to be cautiously optimistic.  The firm's hospitality (putting us up in the hotel, lunch and dinner are taken care off, and they set my wife up with appointments with a realtor, somebody from the schools, etc.) is all got me feeling pretty good. And, to your point, the attorney said that while I should send a resume/CV the day really is exactly about meeting the partners at the firm and seeing if it's a personality match. I do like Otis's and Krista's suggestions above about sending something detailing more my experience in certain areas of law so I want to take that up to. 

Significant update from this post. Taking the advice from people on here me preparing and sending a CV was huge.  I wound up being in interviews for about 7 hours when I went there for the "meet and greet" as I met with each partner in the firm and the CV was a starting point in nearly every one.  The day went very well as I heard from the managing partner the very next day who wanted to extend me an offer but I had a pending case with that firm so the potential move went on hold for a couple of months.

Well, today, I received an received an offer from the firm in the more desirable location to make about as much in the first year as I am now with the contractual guarantee of a partnership offer after one year provided I reach a goal that should be relatively easily attainable.  This is with a more established firm in a better place to live (granted, I have no good will there and we know only a handful of people who lives there).  My wife thinks it's a no-brainer.  It's financially a better option than running for the judge position that just opened or taking the head public defender position I mentioned previously. 

The problem is though the offer has me stressed out more than I anticipated. I say this because the thought of telling the current named partner with my firm that I'm leaving actually makes me feel nauseous and tense up.  Trying to say this in the most humble way possible, I am the biggest earner for my firm and since I joined it 7 years ago I have played a major role in making it the most notable and largest firm in the county. I have been fairly compensated for the hard work and, probably more importantly, the named partners have had my back the entire way -- even when it meant challenging certain judges and refusing to take certain borderline positions in court.  We are a good team. So, leaving the firm, and especially the thought of telling the one named partner I'm most close to and work numerous cases together with, makes me feel like I'm about to dump an incredibly loyal, solid girlfriend (who may have some annoying idiosyncrasies but they are easily overlooked) for a shot with the super hot chick. To compound this the prospective new firm wants to me join them in 30 or so days - and the thought of dealing with figuring out my current caseload is overwhelming.  In other words, not only would I have to tell my firm I'm joining another but I'd have to offer my current clients the chance to take their business elsewhere if they stayed with me (which I think many would). Figuring out billing/fee sharing on that will not be fun. 

I've barely slept the last couple of nights. I don't know why this has me so stressed - but it's getting to the point where I had to tell my wife tonight when I got home from a long day that I just couldn't discuss it. The move is what my family wants.  The prospective firm is incredibly reputable and the managing partner seems very reasonable.  But I feel guilty. 

Edited by Zow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 5:19 AM, Sinn Fein said:

This is a legal/political question - though, I don't think the political aspect is divisive enough to belong in the PSF.  (i.e. think about this as a lawyer)

 

So, by now, we all know that Barr has concluded that the evidence of obstruction against Trump is insufficient to warrant charges - i.e. DOJ does not think they could prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  Without seeing the underlying evidence, I still think Barr is probably correct here, and from a legal standpoint is on solid ground.

 

My question for the bright legal minds here, is:  "Should Barr have issued his opinion?"

 

The relevant Special Counsel Regulations:

(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action

(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;

(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and

(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.

 

My read of the Regulations is that Barr was not required to issue his opinion on the validity of an Obstruction of Justice charge.  The regulations state that the report has to explain each action taken by the SC - and, in this case the "action" taken by the SC was to not decide on the Obstruction of Justice charge - and that should have been, and was, reported by Barr.

 

In addition to the above regulations, there is long-standing policy at DOJ to not indict a sitting president, rather deferring to the constitutional process of impeachment.  In his letter, Barr said he reached his decision, notwithstanding that long-standing policy.  But, I think, that by issuing his opinion, he was stepping over that policy, and into the authority of congress.  

In this instance - Barr was reaching a conclusion, that he was not required to make.  Much like a court should not decide an issue that is not before it - I think it was improper for Barr to issue his opinion on the underlying crime.  DOJ was not going to indict the president, even if Barr reached a contrary conclusion.  The question of Obstruction of Justice (and even the conspiracy charges related specifically to Trump), is a question that the constitution says should be answered by Congress. 

Now, from a legal standpoint, Congress is still free to make these determinations once they get the underlying reports/evidence.  But, has Barr impermissibly injected his own opinion into the public discourse here - thereby influencing public opinion on a political question?

I think the answer is Yes - Barr has overstepped his bounds here, and ethically he should have remained on the sidelines (in terms of offering his legal opinion to a political question), unless Congress asked for his opinion.

But there are instances where a court - that is, at least a trial court - can issue an order sua sponte

My opinion is that I cannot say with certainty that Barr acted unethically. However, I found his issuance of his opinion to be foolish (why give an opinion if you don't have to?) and surmise that he's lost the respect of many in the legal community. Of course, he's practicing in a world entirely foreign to me, and the benefit of appeasing the President may outweigh any negatives. As a criminal attorney, I found his legal position, while not frivolous, to be about as close to crossing that line as reasonably possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, -fish- said:

if you still count as faculty even though you're volunteering, you can get your kids free or reduced tuition.   

Perhaps you didn't read the fine print: 

* Adjunct positions do not qualify for family tuition discounts or any other benefits.

** Also, you have to mop the floors and empty trashcans in all faculty offices and classrooms daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys ever struggle to let things go?  I hate this job sometimes.

Had a big hearing in a case last week, I took the lead against a couple of more senior lawyers on the other side (recently I’m lead counsel in more and more cases, but it’s still a relatively new role for in my career).  I prepared hard for it. You can always use more time—another week would have been nice—but I felt I went in prepared.  Was a packed courtroom and first impressions are so important; clients and investors all in the courtroom. It went just “OK.”  We won’t have a decision for a few months, but the judge was mixed and it’s very unclear which way he’ll go (some folks on our side previously thought it would be a slam dunk for us). I can’t help but agonize — still over a week later — about things I should have said or done differently, some missed opportunities, and a couple things I just plain flubbed. I’m supposed to be this fantastic courtroom lawyer, and I delivered maybe a 6-7 performance. On the bright side everyone seems to think the leads on the other side weren’t that impressive, so maybe I showed better than they did. (You never know whether people are just trying to be nice to your face and then tearing you up behind your back). But after all the prep and buildup to this, I’m struggling hard to let it go.  Even things as stupid as when local counsel introduced me, I forgot to stand up.  I have no idea why, I was just in my own head and looking at my notes and distracted.  And little things I could have done differently in argument; a point I should have made on rebuttal but just plain forgot to make.  Etc.

This isn’t totally new to me — I’ve often found that I come up with the best questions and arguments while in bed the night AFTER a hearing or deposition or trial. But for some reason I can’t seem to let this one go, been up at night thinking about it, constantly thinking about it...

Ugh. 

Anyway, I’m guessing I’m not the only lawyer in here who experiences this.  Combine it with a frustrating week at work, the pressures of billables and business generation in a big law firm, and I just keep telling myself I need to start saving like crazy and pay off our mortgage, so that I don’t have to do this forever.  

Thanks for listening. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still play through my mind a summary judgment motion I lost....

...10 years ago.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the courts I practice in has this nifty feature where they post video of your argument to the internet, so you and members of the public can enjoy rewatching your flubs over and over again in vivid detail in perpetuity. Pretty neat. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yankee23Fan said:

I still play through my mind a summary judgment motion I lost....

...10 years ago.

Same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thecatch said:

One of the courts I practice in has this nifty feature where they post video of your argument to the internet, so you and members of the public can enjoy rewatching your flubs over and over again in vivid detail in perpetuity. Pretty neat. 

Jesus Christ. I would quit the practice of law and become a monk. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Otis liked a post of mine from one of the first pages of this thread so I read through the early pages again.  Man, we used to be funny when Obama was President.  

Not eminence, but the rest of us. 

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Jesus Christ. I would quit the practice of law and become a monk. 

Don’t be so sure this would avoid the issue.  Less than 30 seconds googling to find livestreams of monks:

https://www.buckfast.org.uk/live

Privacy is well and truly dead.

Edited by Arodin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thecatch said:

One of the courts I practice in has this nifty feature where they post video of your argument to the internet, so you and members of the public can enjoy rewatching your flubs over and over again in vivid detail in perpetuity. Pretty neat. 

I just got a transcript from an oral argument I did a couple weeks ago and am cringing.  We won everything we asked for, and it felt great walking out of the courtroom that day with the happy client, but I'm going to bury this transcript. So many missed arguments and poorly-phrased statements ...

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 AM, Henry Ford said:

Jesus Christ. I would quit the practice of law and become a monk. 

Get a motorcycle and become a Zen Monk who rides from town to town and solves crimes with a sidekick in his sidecar.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 5:49 AM, thecatch said:

One of the courts I practice in has this nifty feature where they post video of your argument to the internet, so you and members of the public can enjoy rewatching your flubs over and over again in vivid detail in perpetuity. Pretty neat. 

We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread. 

I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this: 

Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights? 

Officer: Yes. 

Woz: Okay. And he complied? 

Officer: He did. 

Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?

Officer: No. 

Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer? 

Officer: He did, I appreciated that. 

Woz: Okayyyy.....

:bag:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zow said:

We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread. 

I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this: 

Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights? 

Officer: Yes. 

Woz: Okay. And he complied? 

Officer: He did. 

Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?

Officer: No. 

Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer? 

Officer: He did, I appreciated that. 

Woz: Okayyyy.....

:bag:

 

Sounds OK to me. :shrug:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Otis A little over a month ago I filed a motion - that is, I decided it was best for my client to raise a particular issue that wasn't even a worry to the state or the judge at the time - which resulted in my client spending nearly a month in jail. That is to say, that if I had just let the status quo go and/or foreseen this potential result and focused instead solely on his trial prep case, my client would not have had to spend any of that time.  I went back to the office and nearly threw up. After trying to notify everybody I could for the guy I went home for the weekend and didn't sleep at all because I, when I went to bed that night and was reliving it all, realized that the next day was his kid's birthday. 

I'll conclude this all by relaying that I special actioned the judge's decision to the court of appeals and succeeded in getting them to issue injunctive relief overturning the judge's particular decision.  We're now set for oral argument in August and the issue is likely to turn into a published opinion.  Nonetheless, regardless of whether my analysis of the issue is correct, if I had just let it go and looked for the forest through the trees and foresaw how this particular judge would have reacted my client would have never done any of that time and would not have missed his kid's birthday.  And I cannot give it back to him no matter what other good work I do going forwarded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I took that job I mentioned above.  Telling my partners at my current firm was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. Felt like how I imagine it'd feel telling my wife if I had cheated on her or something. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Zow said:

We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread. 

I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this: 

Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights? 

Officer: Yes. 

Woz: Okay. And he complied? 

Officer: He did. 

Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?

Officer: No. 

Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer? 

Officer: He did, I appreciated that. 

Woz: Okayyyy.....

:bag:

 

I'm also a serial "Okay" abuser.  I'd like to bribe the court reporter to remove all my vocalized pauses, uhms, ok's, etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/23/2019 at 10:59 AM, Henry Ford said:

 

On 3/16/2019 at 9:26 AM, krista4 said:

Not sure I could be much help on the rest, but yes to the resume and some sort of bulletpoint list of the other items you’ve described.  Offer to send it to the guy in advance.  No on fee numbers and pay.

Not sure if I said this before but this was hugely helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Zow said:

Oh, I took that job I mentioned above.  Telling my partners at my current firm was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. Felt like how I imagine it'd feel telling my wife if I had cheated on her or something. 

Congrats.  They'll get over it.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Zow said:

We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread. 

I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this: 

Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights? 

Officer: Yes. 

Woz: Okay. And he complied? 

Officer: He did. 

Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?

Officer: No. 

Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer? 

Officer: He did, I appreciated that. 

Woz: Okayyyy.....

:bag:

 

My arguments all get punctuated by "right?"  

"Well, judge, that's why the legislature in its wisdom made very specific rules for Offers of Judgment, right? If you'll look at the second paragraph, what it says is that the defendant doesn't get to use it to enforce costs unless we win - in fact, it's sanctionable for him to even provide it to the court unless we do, right?"

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Zow said:

Oh, I took that job I mentioned above.  Telling my partners at my current firm was probably the hardest thing I've ever done. Felt like how I imagine it'd feel telling my wife if I had cheated on her or something. 

Best wishes with the super hot chick. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

My arguments all get punctuated by "right?"  

"Well, judge, that's why the legislature in its wisdom made very specific rules for Offers of Judgment, right? If you'll look at page the second paragraph, what it says is that the defendant doesn't get to use it to enforce costs unless we win - in fact, it's sanctionable for him to even provide it to the court unless we do, right?"

Can you get him to nod in agreement after every "right?"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Man of Constant Sorrow said:

Can you get him to nod in agreement after every "right?"?

Sometimes.  When things are going well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the judges on the appellate court that covers New Orleans used to wink at me rather than nod.  That was unnerving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

My arguments all get punctuated by "right?"  

"Well, judge, that's why the legislature in its wisdom made very specific rules for Offers of Judgment, right? If you'll look at the second paragraph, what it says is that the defendant doesn't get to use it to enforce costs unless we win - in fact, it's sanctionable for him to even provide it to the court unless we do, right?"

One of my favorite prosecutors I do a bunch of trials with/against does this too. I always want to scream, "No! No!" 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Zow said:

@Otis A little over a month ago I filed a motion - that is, I decided it was best for my client to raise a particular issue that wasn't even a worry to the state or the judge at the time - which resulted in my client spending nearly a month in jail. That is to say, that if I had just let the status quo go and/or foreseen this potential result and focused instead solely on his trial prep case, my client would not have had to spend any of that time.  I went back to the office and nearly threw up. After trying to notify everybody I could for the guy I went home for the weekend and didn't sleep at all because I, when I went to bed that night and was reliving it all, realized that the next day was his kid's birthday. 

I'll conclude this all by relaying that I special actioned the judge's decision to the court of appeals and succeeded in getting them to issue injunctive relief overturning the judge's particular decision.  We're now set for oral argument in August and the issue is likely to turn into a published opinion.  Nonetheless, regardless of whether my analysis of the issue is correct, if I had just let it go and looked for the forest through the trees and foresaw how this particular judge would have reacted my client would have never done any of that time and would not have missed his kid's birthday.  And I cannot give it back to him no matter what other good work I do going forwarded. 

Helpful perspective GB. Worst that happens in my case is I have a pissed off client who doesn’t send us work anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Otis said:

Helpful perspective GB. Worst that happens in my case is I have a pissed off client who doesn’t send us work anymore. 

But that's a really big deal in your world and could mean a significant amount of money. 

It's really apples to oranges. I imagine the bulk of us routinely deal with legitimately stressful things and, whether those things are thousands of dollars, custodial rights to a child, property possession, etc., one thing is not necessarily more stressful than the rest and our clients' lives are effected. Heck, the "easiest" thing I do is evictions and even there it's at least unsettling to help boot somebody out of his or her home before Christmas (even if they weren't paying rent for no good reason).  

It's probably why making time for counseling isn't a bad idea. :bag:  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in a pointless deposition all day where a witness has spent 5 hours speculating on things on which he has no personal knowledge.   The attorney taking his deposition is a complete mess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear woz just switched to a new firm. Details pls GB. And congrats and good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on the new gig, Woz.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More pointless witness depositions.   Want to pound my head on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all the sympathies to you people complaining about stress, sleepless nights and payment.

- every architect that's ever lived

 

but mostly- congrats to @Zow .. good luck with the new job, town, life- exciting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Otis said:

I hear woz just switched to a new firm. Details pls GB. And congrats and good luck!

There's some information above.  You (along with Krista and a few others) actually provided some helpful and good insight while I was exploring the option back in May. Wound up taking the job when the numbers and benefits came back right. Moved to another county where the schools and cultural events are lightyears better than where I was. Was really, really hard breaking it to the partners at my old firm. Tears were shed by me and one other partner. I described it as breaking up with a girl who hadn't done anything wrong. 

As for the description of the new firm I have basically joined the real life version of HHM from Better Call Saul.  About 20 lawyers, really great community reputation, very solvent and established. I'm typing this on day two. Going to have to grunt it a bit, assist one of the partners on his cases (while I wrap up the ~15 or so that came over with me), but I'm being told I can set free to take on what I'd like here in a couple of months. Pretty happy so far. Definitely going to be a change where I got used to being the top guy in the sense that I could come and go as I chose, take on cases I wanted, and assign coverage to associates. I went from being the top of a smaller totem pole to sorting mid-way up a much bigger pole. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shots fired by the ninth circuit. 

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/17-56025/17-56025-2019-07-05.html

 Northern would like us to read Dabit without considering its clarification in Troice. But we will not render Troice meaningless the way that Game of Thrones rendered the entire Night King storyline meaningless in its final season.

  • Like 2
  • Laughing 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another wonderful qualified immunity case.

Summary:

Police pursue a suspect into a yard where some kids are playing. Suspect has no connection with the kids.

Police order kids on the ground at gunpoint, and cuff one adult.  It is agreed none of these people ever posed any threat.

Family dog emerges from the home, posing no threat, officer shoots at dog but misses.  Dog retreats under porch.

Suspect at this time is apprehended and is "visibly unarmed and compliant with officers."

Dog emerges from under porch and approaches family, officer shoots again and again misses dog, but hits kid in the knee.  the kid is on the ground about 18 inches from officer.

Importantly, says the majority, "the parties do not dispute that [the cop] intended to shoot the dog and not [the kid].

Held: "Because Vickers’s actions did not violate any clearly established rights, we conclude that he is entitled to qualified immunity and that the district court should have granted his motion to dismiss."

"We hold that Vickers’s action of intentionally firing at the dog and unintentionally shooting SDC did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights."

""No other efforts were made to restrain or subdue the dog, and no one appeared threatened by him. Eight or ten seconds after Vickers fired the first shot, the dog reappeared and was “approaching his owners,” when Vickers fired a second shot at the dog..."

The dissent begins:

WILSON, Circuit Judge, dissenting: The majority accurately points out that qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent.” Maj. Op. at 10 (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). Because no competent officer would fire his weapon in the direction of a nonthreatening pet while that pet was surrounded by children, qualified immunity should not protect Officer Vickers. Therefore, I dissent.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2019 at 4:43 AM, Otis said:

You guys ever struggle to let things go?  I hate this job sometimes.

Had a big hearing in a case last week, I took the lead against a couple of more senior lawyers on the other side (recently I’m lead counsel in more and more cases, but it’s still a relatively new role for in my career).  I prepared hard for it. You can always use more time—another week would have been nice—but I felt I went in prepared.  Was a packed courtroom and first impressions are so important; clients and investors all in the courtroom. It went just “OK.”  We won’t have a decision for a few months, but the judge was mixed and it’s very unclear which way he’ll go (some folks on our side previously thought it would be a slam dunk for us). I can’t help but agonize — still over a week later — about things I should have said or done differently, some missed opportunities, and a couple things I just plain flubbed. I’m supposed to be this fantastic courtroom lawyer, and I delivered maybe a 6-7 performance. On the bright side everyone seems to think the leads on the other side weren’t that impressive, so maybe I showed better than they did. (You never know whether people are just trying to be nice to your face and then tearing you up behind your back). But after all the prep and buildup to this, I’m struggling hard to let it go.  Even things as stupid as when local counsel introduced me, I forgot to stand up.  I have no idea why, I was just in my own head and looking at my notes and distracted.  And little things I could have done differently in argument; a point I should have made on rebuttal but just plain forgot to make.  Etc.

This isn’t totally new to me — I’ve often found that I come up with the best questions and arguments while in bed the night AFTER a hearing or deposition or trial. But for some reason I can’t seem to let this one go, been up at night thinking about it, constantly thinking about it...

Ugh. 

Anyway, I’m guessing I’m not the only lawyer in here who experiences this.  Combine it with a frustrating week at work, the pressures of billables and business generation in a big law firm, and I just keep telling myself I need to start saving like crazy and pay off our mortgage, so that I don’t have to do this forever.  

Thanks for listening. 

Not a lawyer but lurk here sometimes.  But do lots of big presentations. Can’t be perfect. Some days I’m just more on than others. The only thing I beat myself up over is less than great preparation. On to the next one. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have not posted here in almost a decade (I gave up fantasy football but wandered back through here when I was flogging the internet).  I find myself strangely compelled to join this thread ... must be all the law talkin' stuff.  Love that we lawyers have our own thread.

Hope everyone is doing well!

 

ETA: 7 years.  Lawyers love to overreach.

Edited by Beaumont
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:

Another wonderful qualified immunity case.

Summary:

Police pursue a suspect into a yard where some kids are playing. Suspect has no connection with the kids.

Police order kids on the ground at gunpoint, and cuff one adult.  It is agreed none of these people ever posed any threat.

Family dog emerges from the home, posing no threat, officer shoots at dog but misses.  Dog retreats under porch.

Suspect at this time is apprehended and is "visibly unarmed and compliant with officers."

Dog emerges from under porch and approaches family, officer shoots again and again misses dog, but hits kid in the knee.  the kid is on the ground about 18 inches from officer.

Importantly, says the majority, "the parties do not dispute that [the cop] intended to shoot the dog and not [the kid].

Held: "Because Vickers’s actions did not violate any clearly established rights, we conclude that he is entitled to qualified immunity and that the district court should have granted his motion to dismiss."

"We hold that Vickers’s action of intentionally firing at the dog and unintentionally shooting SDC did not violate any clearly established Fourth Amendment rights."

""No other efforts were made to restrain or subdue the dog, and no one appeared threatened by him. Eight or ten seconds after Vickers fired the first shot, the dog reappeared and was “approaching his owners,” when Vickers fired a second shot at the dog..."

Good god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Beaumont said:

I have not posted here in almost a decade (I gave up fantasy football but wandered back through here when I was flogging the internet).  I find myself strangely compelled to join this thread ... must be all the law talkin' stuff.  Love that we lawyers have our own thread.

Hope everyone is doing well!

 

ETA: 7 years.  Lawyers love to overreach.

Seeing how far my mental notebook goes back... were you the other W&L Law here, or am I thinking of someone else? Welcome back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/14/2019 at 7:43 AM, Otis said:

You guys ever struggle to let things go?  I hate this job sometimes.

Had a big hearing in a case last week, I took the lead against a couple of more senior lawyers on the other side (recently I’m lead counsel in more and more cases, but it’s still a relatively new role for in my career).  I prepared hard for it. You can always use more time—another week would have been nice—but I felt I went in prepared.  Was a packed courtroom and first impressions are so important; clients and investors all in the courtroom. It went just “OK.”  We won’t have a decision for a few months, but the judge was mixed and it’s very unclear which way he’ll go (some folks on our side previously thought it would be a slam dunk for us). I can’t help but agonize — still over a week later — about things I should have said or done differently, some missed opportunities, and a couple things I just plain flubbed. I’m supposed to be this fantastic courtroom lawyer, and I delivered maybe a 6-7 performance. On the bright side everyone seems to think the leads on the other side weren’t that impressive, so maybe I showed better than they did. (You never know whether people are just trying to be nice to your face and then tearing you up behind your back). But after all the prep and buildup to this, I’m struggling hard to let it go.  Even things as stupid as when local counsel introduced me, I forgot to stand up.  I have no idea why, I was just in my own head and looking at my notes and distracted.  And little things I could have done differently in argument; a point I should have made on rebuttal but just plain forgot to make.  Etc.

This isn’t totally new to me — I’ve often found that I come up with the best questions and arguments while in bed the night AFTER a hearing or deposition or trial. But for some reason I can’t seem to let this one go, been up at night thinking about it, constantly thinking about it...

Ugh. 

Anyway, I’m guessing I’m not the only lawyer in here who experiences this.  Combine it with a frustrating week at work, the pressures of billables and business generation in a big law firm, and I just keep telling myself I need to start saving like crazy and pay off our mortgage, so that I don’t have to do this forever.  

Thanks for listening. 

Well, we got the order. Way earlier than expected. Clean sweep in our favor. I’ll go esteeefu now. 

Edited by Otis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Don Quixote said:

Seeing how far my mental notebook goes back... were you the other W&L Law here, or am I thinking of someone else? Welcome back.

Yes (95L), and then maybe Fish also was a W&L Law grad?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2019 at 2:32 PM, Zow said:

There's some information above.  You (along with Krista and a few others) actually provided some helpful and good insight while I was exploring the option back in May. Wound up taking the job when the numbers and benefits came back right. Moved to another county where the schools and cultural events are lightyears better than where I was. Was really, really hard breaking it to the partners at my old firm. Tears were shed by me and one other partner. I described it as breaking up with a girl who hadn't done anything wrong. 

As for the description of the new firm I have basically joined the real life version of HHM from Better Call Saul.  About 20 lawyers, really great community reputation, very solvent and established. I'm typing this on day two. Going to have to grunt it a bit, assist one of the partners on his cases (while I wrap up the ~15 or so that came over with me), but I'm being told I can set free to take on what I'd like here in a couple of months. Pretty happy so far. Definitely going to be a change where I got used to being the top guy in the sense that I could come and go as I chose, take on cases I wanted, and assign coverage to associates. I went from being the top of a smaller totem pole to sorting mid-way up a much bigger pole. 

Awesome. And the top of that bigger totem pole is waiting for you GB. Go git em.  Good luck. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was in small claims court this morning. The judge was essentially telling pro se litigants that they'd better get a lawyer or they were going to lose. Flat out told them if they'd brought pictures or documents for him to look at he wouldn't do it unless they laid a proper foundation and that he wasn't going to help them. Absolute POS.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Beaumont said:

Yes (95L), and then maybe Fish also was a W&L Law grad?

Nah.  University of San Diego.   I chose my law school based on how hot the undergrads were.

Welcome back.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.