Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Funny.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Green and Gold
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Eh. Seems like a reasonable way to settle a partnership dispute. At least they didn't end up in litigation.
-fish-
Footballguy
I've always said that everyone should have the same right to make themselves miserable.
njherdfan
Footballguy
The Indestructible
Footballguy
Need some career advice.
I worked for a litigation firm for about 5 years out of law school. Hated every second of litigating and wanted to do corp/ transactional work, which the firm didn't do. Everybody is expected to try cases, and I have no desire to do that. So I switched firms and have been doing corp/ transactional work for almost 2 years.
I had an excellent reputation at the old firm and considered partnership a shoe-in. The culture was also unparalleled. Higher billable hours, but less emphasis on business development. I hated litigating, so I left, but on very good terms.
I like the work at the new firm, but miss my old firm, especially the culture. Career advancement definitely won't be as easy at the new firm, and the money and benefits will never be as good as the old firm. Fewer hours but more emphasis on business development.
I know the old firm would welcome me back, so I wouldn't have fears of job hopping. I don't think I have the expertise and business development skills to do corp work at the old firm, although that'd be nice. I always thought that I'd be happy doing anything but litigating, but now I'm wondering if that is a worthwhile trade off.
Any thoughts?
I worked for a litigation firm for about 5 years out of law school. Hated every second of litigating and wanted to do corp/ transactional work, which the firm didn't do. Everybody is expected to try cases, and I have no desire to do that. So I switched firms and have been doing corp/ transactional work for almost 2 years.
I had an excellent reputation at the old firm and considered partnership a shoe-in. The culture was also unparalleled. Higher billable hours, but less emphasis on business development. I hated litigating, so I left, but on very good terms.
I like the work at the new firm, but miss my old firm, especially the culture. Career advancement definitely won't be as easy at the new firm, and the money and benefits will never be as good as the old firm. Fewer hours but more emphasis on business development.
I know the old firm would welcome me back, so I wouldn't have fears of job hopping. I don't think I have the expertise and business development skills to do corp work at the old firm, although that'd be nice. I always thought that I'd be happy doing anything but litigating, but now I'm wondering if that is a worthwhile trade off.
Any thoughts?
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
You seem to be somewhat averse to business development and note the old firm has less emphasis on business development. Knowing nothing about the firm, I would still say this - it's great being a young superstar litigator at a litigation firm. You're in demand for a reason. Your billing rate is low, you work long hours and you're not a threat. However, it can get very tricky as you get older if you've not developed a client base.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Indestructible
Footballguy
Not adverse to it, but I objectively, the old firm will promote you to partner even if you do not do substantial business development, whereas the new firm (as is the case with most firms) will not promote you without business development. I think that is an attractive proposition for a lot of associates.
The issue is really that I hate litigation and that is really all that the old firm does. It'd be nice to carve out a niche corp/transactional practice at the old firm, but I'm not sure I have the expertise or business development skills to really pull this off. I think the firm would support an effort like this, at least for a while, because they'be been talking about doing it some time, but just haven't been able to grow the practice. But after a while, if my hours are lagging, I would fear that I would be asked to litigate, which as I noted, I don't really want to do.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Taking the California bar next year
njherdfan
Footballguy
So does the old firm have a corporate/transactional practice, or would you have to create it from scratch if you went back there? If the practice already exists it seems like attempting to be a part of it, and pitching yourself as someone who can really help it grow, would make sense.
The Indestructible
Footballguy
No, the old firm does not have a corp/transactional practice. See bolded from original post.
Zow
Footballguy
Kicking myself in the balls repeatedly next year.
Instinctive
Footballguy
Meh, let the new graduates sweat it. One of my old bosses went to Cali the Friday before the test, locked himself in a hotel room to read through BarBri books, and had no problem passing.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I just had a lawyer who regularly represents an insurance company I hate tell me her client wouldn't waive service on a federal court summons. I explained that was fine - but that her client would be receiving a bill for the service fees we incur.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
Zow
Footballguy
I got this far and concluded she was ridiculous.I just had a lawyer who regularly represents an insurance company I hate tell me her client wouldn't waive service on a federal court summons. I explained that was fine - but that her client would be receiving a bill for the service fees we incur.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yes.I got this far and concluded she was ridiculous.I just had a lawyer who regularly represents an insurance company I hate tell me her client wouldn't waive service on a federal court summons. I explained that was fine - but that her client would be receiving a bill for the service fees we incur.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
Zow
Footballguy
On a positive note, I spent a large chunk of my memorial day friday and weekend prepping for and doing a Franks hearing. If you're unfamiliar, that's the type of hearing where, after some preliminary showing that the claim that an officer lied on a search warrant has some merit, testimony is taken from that officer to see if in fact the officer did lie (or at least showed a reckless disregard for the truth). If the court makes such a finding, the officer also winds up on the "Brady list" which could be potentially career-ending. In short, they're one of the most contentious hearings in criminal law and super stressful for all sides.
After the hearing the officer I accused of fabricating info came up to me and shook my hand and said anything that happened in the courtroom stays in the courtroom. I was greatly relieved because said officer owns a taproom I frequent. I also play contact sports against him and he's about 6'5" and in better shape than me.
After the hearing the officer I accused of fabricating info came up to me and shook my hand and said anything that happened in the courtroom stays in the courtroom. I was greatly relieved because said officer owns a taproom I frequent. I also play contact sports against him and he's about 6'5" and in better shape than me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorn
Footballguy
Or her client isYes.I got this far and concluded she was ridiculous.I just had a lawyer who regularly represents an insurance company I hate tell me her client wouldn't waive service on a federal court summons. I explained that was fine - but that her client would be receiving a bill for the service fees we incur.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
There isn't enough bourbon in New Jersey to get through the rest of this week.
I think that's been the rule since before I went to law school.I just had a lawyer who regularly represents an insurance company I hate tell me her client wouldn't waive service on a federal court summons. I explained that was fine - but that her client would be receiving a bill for the service fees we incur.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
krista4
Footballguy
Dumb question: my mom and stepfather had wills/living wills put together (thanks to some excellent advice here) while living in IN. They are about to move to WA. Do they need to get new ones or update the existing ones to reflect WA law, or are they fine with the existing ones? TIA; will not answer yours.
Depends. IN and WA laws may be exactly the same and require no changes. They can probably toss a few bucks at a WA lawyer to give them the once-over.
krista4
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Long ago it used to be permissive cost shifting, now it's mandatory. i don't remember when it changed.I think that's been the rule since before I went to law school.I just had a lawyer who regularly represents an insurance company I hate tell me her client wouldn't waive service on a federal court summons. I explained that was fine - but that her client would be receiving a bill for the service fees we incur.
"What? Why would we pay that?"
This is why we read amendments to the FRCP, people.
Sweet J
Footballguy
This is a super-stupid question. But whatever. An in-law living in Chicago has cancer and asked me to be his executor. He sent me a copy of his will/trust/etc., but he can't find the original. I called the lawyer who drafted the will. The lawyer told me "I don't do that kind of work anymore," and told me that he does not have the original.
In order to make my life easier if/when he dies:
(1) Do I need to get this in-law to draft and sign a new will?
(2) In the alternative, could he just add a new signature page (and a notary page), slap it on a copy of his existing will, and sign and date it (along with the necessary Witness signatures and notarization). Will that make his "old copy" of his will a "new original" of his will (dated today)?
In order to make my life easier if/when he dies:
(1) Do I need to get this in-law to draft and sign a new will?
(2) In the alternative, could he just add a new signature page (and a notary page), slap it on a copy of his existing will, and sign and date it (along with the necessary Witness signatures and notarization). Will that make his "old copy" of his will a "new original" of his will (dated today)?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
New will would be best. The second option is pretty much assuring you that you will deal with a contest of some kind. I would assume. IF this was NJ I would absolutely do a new one to be safe.
Thorn
Footballguy
If in-law still has capacity, why not sign a new one? The "slap a new page on it" just invites someone to challenge IMO.
Sweet J
Footballguy
I guess that's my question, in a weird kind of way. Let's say there are two scenarios:
(1) I type up a new will, but it is word-for-word the same as the old will, but then have new signatures and notaries etc etc.
(2) I photocopy the old will, but have new signature and notaries etc etc.
Is there a difference in the two things here? (I'm not trying to be difficult, just curious on a theoretical level). Another way to ask: By attaching a new signature page to a copy of the old will, doesn't that make this document the "new will"??
It's been 15 years since law school. I'm rusty.
-fish-
Footballguy
All I know about Washington estate stuff is that the probate laws here suck and are a nightmare.
I know a decent estate attorney if you want a number. She would probably answer this question for free.
krista4
Footballguy
Thorn
Footballguy
Tecumseh
Footballguy
Question for the law-type people; a little background first:
Last Summer my house was struck by lightning and burned down. I hired a GC to do the repairs. After several months of delays, lies, and bull####, he flat out quit, after taking a significant portion of the insurance claim. It's been determined that many of the items that he billed for were not performed, and he has ignored my requests for receipts to support the supplements that he claims he performed.
I do have an attorney ready to roll, but in the interest of saving time, I would like to avoid suing him if possible. I would like to send him a certified letter detailing what I feel that he owes me (including additional incurred cost since our insurance provided living expenses run out next month and our house won't be liveable by then).
In the letter, I would detail the steps that I will take if he doesn't comply, up to and including reporting him to the state insurance commissioner. He also tried to get me to commit fraud by lying on a police report to inflate the value of some items that were stolen.
My question- what is the line between a legitimate threat of the actions that I will pursue and blackmail/extortion?
Last Summer my house was struck by lightning and burned down. I hired a GC to do the repairs. After several months of delays, lies, and bull####, he flat out quit, after taking a significant portion of the insurance claim. It's been determined that many of the items that he billed for were not performed, and he has ignored my requests for receipts to support the supplements that he claims he performed.
I do have an attorney ready to roll, but in the interest of saving time, I would like to avoid suing him if possible. I would like to send him a certified letter detailing what I feel that he owes me (including additional incurred cost since our insurance provided living expenses run out next month and our house won't be liveable by then).
In the letter, I would detail the steps that I will take if he doesn't comply, up to and including reporting him to the state insurance commissioner. He also tried to get me to commit fraud by lying on a police report to inflate the value of some items that were stolen.
My question- what is the line between a legitimate threat of the actions that I will pursue and blackmail/extortion?
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Yup.
Todd Andrews
Footballguy
Also look into whether your state requires builder/home improvement licensing and if so, go after his license. I did that to a home improvement guy who ripped off my former partner to the tune of $50K, and the guy has never been able to work in the state again.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
There's a whole line of cases on that in California. Generally, making a threat to sue is not extortion, but threatening to do something else if the recipient doesn't settle up may be.
Better idea: keep your demand letter focused on the relief yo would be asking for in the action that you're threatening to bring and avoid extracurriculars.
Best idea: just skip demand letters entirely in situations like yours (where litigation seems pretty inevitable), as Christo and Yankee said. When I put on my plaintiff's attorney hat, I typically find them utterly and totally useless, and indeed, they can even harm your case by making you look eager to compromise. Just my two cents as to this paragraph, though; I know loads of practitioners who think demand letters before suing are indispensable.
Tecumseh
Footballguy
Going after his license is definitely on the agenda.
Interesting. I'll be speaking with my attorney on Monday, so I'll see what he says.
Thanks to all who responded.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/greedy_associates/2015/06/lawyer-sues-for-overtime-claims-doc-review-isnt-legal-practice.html?DCMP=CCX-FBLP
Document review is damned good billing time.
TheAristocrat
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Ok, stupid lawyer question time.
Is there a statute of limitations when a person is demanding reimbursement(s) for costs or fees during a partition action?
For example. Partition complaint filed because 4 people owned a house for well over a decade. One of the parties brings forth a check for a significant amount of money that is at least 10 years old and probably witten when they all took title. Never anything in writing as to an agreement for reimbursement for that. But of course, now that there is a partition, the person wants 3/4 of the check back. Of all the partitions I've dealt with this has never come up.
Is there a statute of limitations when a person is demanding reimbursement(s) for costs or fees during a partition action?
For example. Partition complaint filed because 4 people owned a house for well over a decade. One of the parties brings forth a check for a significant amount of money that is at least 10 years old and probably witten when they all took title. Never anything in writing as to an agreement for reimbursement for that. But of course, now that there is a partition, the person wants 3/4 of the check back. Of all the partitions I've dealt with this has never come up.
I'm apparently paying waaay too much for document review, even when using contract attorneys.
Zow
Footballguy
So a couple years ago this up and coming, gung-ho prosecutor in my jurisdiction got put in charge of the drug prosecution division. Prior to her being there that practice area was smooth: prosecutors were reasonable, plea offers with incentives were made, and some nod towards rehabilitation was considered. However, she changed all that and instituted cross the board policies where all plea offers were essentially "trial offers" and has turned that area of criminal law practice into an essential nightmare. She's also not incredibly nice about it and she'll openly laugh at plea offers and scoff at particular trial defenses. She did so in this case. So we had trial this week.
Jury was out for twenty minutes. Not guilty.
Jury was out for twenty minutes. Not guilty.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Congrats and it seems like it's a good thing she doesn't like to deal. In fact given what keeps coming to light about the "justice" system perhaps a few less deals are in order. I wonder if as many innocents would have records if a jury decided instead.Zow said:So a couple years ago this up and coming, gung-ho prosecutor in my jurisdiction got put in charge of the drug prosecution division. Prior to her being there that practice area was smooth: prosecutors were reasonable, plea offers with incentives were made, and some nod towards rehabilitation was considered. However, she changed all that and instituted cross the board policies where all plea offers were essentially "trial offers" and has turned that area of criminal law practice into an essential nightmare. She's also not incredibly nice about it and she'll openly laugh at plea offers and scoff at particular trial defenses. She did so in this case. So we had trial this week.
Jury was out for twenty minutes. Not guilty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
