The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (2 Viewers)

[-fish-]

So, how many open records requests would it take to make a case that someone is abusing the statute?

Tired of dealing with an attorney with a long history of antagonizing the district fishing for anything they can use to bash the district on social media or file suits that never go anywhere. Consuming a lot of time and that are supposed to be spent on educating kids.

I feel it is an “everybody knows the truth but the payoff isn’t worth the effort of proving it” situation, especially when this person feeds off negative attention, so just dropping a lawyer-related vent here while I wait for the karma train to catch up.

Records requests? Unlimited. Filing frivolous lawsuits? May be able to get him declared a "vexatious litigant" and barred from filing and/or sanctioned. Since this is a lawyer start with bar complaint. Office of the Disciplinary Committee will send a letter and investigate. Ironically, there is no limit to the amount of bar complaints you can make, and they're a pain to respond to.

 

[BeTheMatch]

Dealing with something similar. Our firm represents a city that is being buried alive by an old codger and his incessant public records requests about the most trivial stuff you could imagine. And he only has to pay if he takes any copies. If he just reviews the documents and doesn't take them, no cost to him. I wish he would die.

 

[NajehHejan]

My FIL recently passed. My MIL is still alive, she is the other half of an irrevocable grantor trust that was set up some years ago in Delaware, before they moved to Pennsylvania. In light of my FIL passing, we reached out to the Delaware law firm with some questions, and they referred us to a lawyer who is licensed in both DE and PA. We really just have some general questions like do we need to do anything, does anything change, what are we allowed and not allowed to do, etc. Can anyone here be helpful so we don’t have to engage a new law firm? Please reply here or PM if you can help. Thanks!

 

[CletiusMaximus]

My FIL recently passed. My MIL is still alive, she is the other half of an irrevocable grantor trust that was set up some years ago in Delaware, before they moved to Pennsylvania. In light of my FIL passing, we reached out to the Delaware law firm with some questions, and they referred us to a lawyer who is licensed in both DE and PA. We really just have some general questions like do we need to do anything, does anything change, what are we allowed and not allowed to do, etc. Can anyone here be helpful so we don’t have to engage a new law firm? Please reply here or PM if you can help. Thanks!

Unfortunately, no one here will be able to meaningfully answer your question absent reading the trust document and putting a couple of hours into it. Answers may depend on whether a probate proceeding was opened, what his will says, or if they had other forms of estate planning such as a marital property agreement. There could be a present obligation to file a tax return. Some of these questions are state-law dependent. If your MIL is the named Trustee, she could retain a lawyer on behalf of the Trust meaning the legal fees could perhaps/likely be paid by the Trust. If she's not the Trustee, you should reach out to the Trustee for such questions. If that's not an option for any reason, I strongly recommend she scrape up a few thousand clams and get a real legal opinion. I would check the online profile of the lawyer you were referred to and confirm his/her background as you want someone who regularly practices in Trusts and Estates.

 

[NajehHejan]

My FIL recently passed. My MIL is still alive, she is the other half of an irrevocable grantor trust that was set up some years ago in Delaware, before they moved to Pennsylvania. In light of my FIL passing, we reached out to the Delaware law firm with some questions, and they referred us to a lawyer who is licensed in both DE and PA. We really just have some general questions like do we need to do anything, does anything change, what are we allowed and not allowed to do, etc. Can anyone here be helpful so we don’t have to engage a new law firm? Please reply here or PM if you can help. Thanks!

Unfortunately, no one here will be able to meaningfully answer your question absent reading the trust document and putting a couple of hours into it. Answers may depend on whether a probate proceeding was opened, what his will says, or if they had other forms of estate planning such as a marital property agreement. There could be a present obligation to file a tax return. Some of these questions are state-law dependent. If your MIL is the named Trustee, she could retain a lawyer on behalf of the Trust meaning the legal fees could perhaps/likely be paid by the Trust. If she's not the Trustee, you should reach out to the Trustee for such questions. If that's not an option for any reason, I strongly recommend she scrape up a few thousand clams and get a real legal opinion. I would check the online profile of the lawyer you were referred to and confirm his/her background as you want someone who regularly practices in Trusts and Estates.

Thanks so much. My wife and BIL are the trustees. Those 2 and the other 3 siblings are the 5 beneficiaries. Our questions mainly revolve around how to make sure the MIL is properly cared for. Do you think the clams needed for a new attorney can be paid from the trust? Appreciate all your help.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

My FIL recently passed. My MIL is still alive, she is the other half of an irrevocable grantor trust that was set up some years ago in Delaware, before they moved to Pennsylvania. In light of my FIL passing, we reached out to the Delaware law firm with some questions, and they referred us to a lawyer who is licensed in both DE and PA. We really just have some general questions like do we need to do anything, does anything change, what are we allowed and not allowed to do, etc. Can anyone here be helpful so we don’t have to engage a new law firm? Please reply here or PM if you can help. Thanks!

Unfortunately, no one here will be able to meaningfully answer your question absent reading the trust document and putting a couple of hours into it. Answers may depend on whether a probate proceeding was opened, what his will says, or if they had other forms of estate planning such as a marital property agreement. There could be a present obligation to file a tax return. Some of these questions are state-law dependent. If your MIL is the named Trustee, she could retain a lawyer on behalf of the Trust meaning the legal fees could perhaps/likely be paid by the Trust. If she's not the Trustee, you should reach out to the Trustee for such questions. If that's not an option for any reason, I strongly recommend she scrape up a few thousand clams and get a real legal opinion. I would check the online profile of the lawyer you were referred to and confirm his/her background as you want someone who regularly practices in Trusts and Estates.

Thanks so much. My wife and BIL are the trustees. Those 2 and the other 3 siblings are the 5 beneficiaries. Our questions mainly revolve around how to make sure the MIL is properly cared for. Do you think the clams needed for a new attorney can be paid from the trust? Appreciate all your help.

In this situation I would likely advise the two co-trustees to seek some legal input. They are fiduciaries and have to understand what they can and can't do, and what they have to do. This is important even where all beneficiaries seem to be on the same page. I can't say for certain, but it is likely the terms of the Trust allow the Trustees to hire a lawyer to advise them. The lawyer's role is not to advise any one beneficiary what's in his/her personal interest, but to advise the Trustees in carrying out their legal duties.

 

[NajehHejan]

My FIL recently passed. My MIL is still alive, she is the other half of an irrevocable grantor trust that was set up some years ago in Delaware, before they moved to Pennsylvania. In light of my FIL passing, we reached out to the Delaware law firm with some questions, and they referred us to a lawyer who is licensed in both DE and PA. We really just have some general questions like do we need to do anything, does anything change, what are we allowed and not allowed to do, etc. Can anyone here be helpful so we don’t have to engage a new law firm? Please reply here or PM if you can help. Thanks!

Unfortunately, no one here will be able to meaningfully answer your question absent reading the trust document and putting a couple of hours into it. Answers may depend on whether a probate proceeding was opened, what his will says, or if they had other forms of estate planning such as a marital property agreement. There could be a present obligation to file a tax return. Some of these questions are state-law dependent. If your MIL is the named Trustee, she could retain a lawyer on behalf of the Trust meaning the legal fees could perhaps/likely be paid by the Trust. If she's not the Trustee, you should reach out to the Trustee for such questions. If that's not an option for any reason, I strongly recommend she scrape up a few thousand clams and get a real legal opinion. I would check the online profile of the lawyer you were referred to and confirm his/her background as you want someone who regularly practices in Trusts and Estates.

Thanks so much. My wife and BIL are the trustees. Those 2 and the other 3 siblings are the 5 beneficiaries. Our questions mainly revolve around how to make sure the MIL is properly cared for. Do you think the clams needed for a new attorney can be paid from the trust? Appreciate all your help.

In this situation I would likely advise the two co-trustees to seek some legal input. They are fiduciaries and have to understand what they can and can't do, and what they have to do. This is important even where all beneficiaries seem to be on the same page. I can't say for certain, but it is likely the terms of the Trust allow the Trustees to hire a lawyer to advise them. The lawyer's role is not to advise any one beneficiary what's in his/her personal interest, but to advise the Trustees in carrying out their legal duties.

Thank you!

 

[NajehHejan]

Sorry, one more question. My in-laws also had a living trust and they each had their own last will and testament. However, their living trust assets were minimal, a checking account and small savings account, both joint accounts. With my FIL passing, do we still need to go through a probate process and get an attorney etc? The MIL is the beneficiary but as I said, her name’s already on the minor assets.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

If you wanna take a gander at this settlement offer I got from WSSC for S&Gs

(Im not soliciting advice, just thought you guys might be mildly interested)

 

[CletiusMaximus]

A good qualified immunity case from the 5th Circuit.

For those who worry that qualified immunity can be invoked under absurd circumstances: Buckle up.

 

[Fredy888]

I went through a really rough time a while back when I was wrongfully convicted of tax fraud. It was a shock because I had always been diligent with our company's finances and taxes. It felt like my whole world was turned upside down.
Thank God for the appeal system in our country. I hired a law firm to appeal the conviction. They meticulously went through every aspect of my case, identified the errors, and presented a strong argument in court. The appeal process was long and stressful, but after what felt like an eternity, the court reversed my conviction.
The firm I hired was Oberheiden P.C. They work in almost every state and handle all sorts of white-collar crimes. They show hard work and dedication, so I recommend them to anyone facing such trials.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

 

[Zow]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

I’ve been in court all day but my intraoffice email has been blowing up about it.

 

[Instinctive]

Impeachment articles on two SCOTUS justices. That never really came up much in law school! I think the last Justice to be impeached was in the early 1800s?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

Impeachment articles on two SCOTUS justices. That never really came up much in law school! I think the last Justice to be impeached was in the early 1800s?

For better or worse, Joe has made clear that SCOTUS discussion went out with the elimination of the political forum. For me, under normal circumstances in a sane world, we could have an interesting non-political discussion of these two topics. However, under current circumstances on this board or any other, either discussion would certainly devolve into exactly what this board has eliminated. I miss the SCOTUS discussion but agree with the FFA management on this one.

The reddit SCOTUS board is a good illustration. As of 5 or so years ago, the politics trolls pretty much stayed away and it was a good place for in-depth discussion of the Court's opinions. These days its a wasteland of children bashing each other with no pretentions whatsoever regarding the substance of the opinions or any actual legal analysis.

 

[Zow]

Impeachment articles on two SCOTUS justices. That never really came up much in law school! I think the last Justice to be impeached was in the early 1800s?

Wow I didn't even know this was a thing. I mean, I suppose there has to be some mechanism for ousting a sitting justice due to either incompetence issues or extreme behaviors, but I never even gave it a thought.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Impeachment articles on two SCOTUS justices. That never really came up much in law school! I think the last Justice to be impeached was in the early 1800s?

In 1805, Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House.

The House accused Chase of refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding and limiting defense witnesses in political cases.

Nearly a year later, the Seante vote to acquit Chase on all counts. He remained on the Supreme Court until his death in 1811.

Seems he was shady but context matters. The Federalists were always a weak minority party (1-term President John Adams was their lone Chief Executive) and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans were strident in seeking to shape the new country.

They essentially ran a “tyranny of the majority” until Jacksonian Democrats evolved after the controversial 1824 Presidential Election.

Chase’s acquittal by the Senate did much to establish the tradition of judicial independence.

---

Step 2 after AOC introduced Articles of Impeachment would be a House vote. Republicans hold a majority. We know this is going nowhere.

/end

 

[Zow]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

Okay, so I recently attended a short CLE on this - even though it's way outside my practices areas. The presenter basically thought the ruling made legal sense but, in practice, is going to cause a ton of issues and set a bad precedent that really guts regulating agencies.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

Okay, so I recently attended a short CLE on this - even though it's way outside my practices areas. The presenter basically thought the ruling made legal sense but, in practice, is going to cause a ton of issues and set a bad precedence that really guts regulating agencies.

Seems that been the nature of the beast lately. Make just enough legal sense that it can be defended by cold hearted attorneys on some level, but logistics, practice and just looking at it make you go......ugh.

 

[thecatch]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

Okay, so I recently attended a short CLE on this - even though it's way outside my practices areas. The presenter basically thought the ruling made legal sense but, in practice, is going to cause a ton of issues and set a bad precedence that really guts regulating agencies.

Seems that been the nature of the beast lately. Make just enough legal sense that it can be defended by cold hearted attorneys on some level, but logistics, practice and just looking at it make you go......ugh.

I pretty strongly disagree with this and also strongly disagree with the notion that Chevron is, or should be, a political issue. (The impeachment thing is clearly a political issue and out of bounds here.)

For example, the notoriously conservative California Supreme Court has been applying the exact same standard of review of agency action as the US Supreme Court just applied for decades.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

Okay, so I recently attended a short CLE on this - even though it's way outside my practices areas. The presenter basically thought the ruling made legal sense but, in practice, is going to cause a ton of issues and set a bad precedence that really guts regulating agencies.

Seems that been the nature of the beast lately. Make just enough legal sense that it can be defended by cold hearted attorneys on some level, but logistics, practice and just looking at it make you go......ugh.

I pretty strongly disagree with this and also strongly disagree with the notion that Chevron is, or should be, a political issue. (The impeachment thing is clearly a political issue and out of bounds here.)

For example, the notoriously conservative California Supreme Court has been applying the exact same standard of review of agency action as the US Supreme Court just applied for decades.

I was being a bit pithy with the topic of the Supreme Court. Obviously, I did it poorly.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Impeachment articles on two SCOTUS justices. That never really came up much in law school! I think the last Justice to be impeached was in the early 1800s?

Wow I didn't even know this was a thing. I mean, I suppose there has to be some mechanism for ousting a sitting justice due to either incompetence issues or extreme behaviors, but I never even gave it a thought.

I'm just barely old enough to remember the "Impeach Earl Warren" movement. That was before my time, but close enough that I became aware of it in college, or maybe high school.

 

[Runkle]

cold hearted attorneys

Is there any other kind? :rimshot:

 

[Instinctive]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Any reaction to Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo?

Overturning Chevron seems like kind of a big deal.

Okay, so I recently attended a short CLE on this - even though it's way outside my practices areas. The presenter basically thought the ruling made legal sense but, in practice, is going to cause a ton of issues and set a bad precedence that really guts regulating agencies.

Seems that been the nature of the beast lately. Make just enough legal sense that it can be defended by cold hearted attorneys on some level, but logistics, practice and just looking at it make you go......ugh.

I take the Supreme Court CLEs through PLI all the time, they are my favorite.

 

[bigbottom]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

 

[Instinctive]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

It's easier to sell/transfer interest in an S Corp through stock, at the cost of some formalities like having bylaws. As I understand it, an LLC run by members faces self-employment taxes, whereas an S corp I could pay myself, FICA that, and additional earnings would be a distribution, no FICA?

If I were to add other members, S corp interest is freely transferable, vs LLC other members have to approve I thought?

 

[bigbottom]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

It's easier to sell/transfer interest in an S Corp through stock, at the cost of some formalities like having bylaws. As I understand it, an LLC run by members faces self-employment taxes, whereas an S corp I could pay myself, FICA that, and additional earnings would be a distribution, no FICA?

If I were to add other members, S corp interest is freely transferable, vs LLC other members have to approve I thought?

You can make interests in LLCs freely transferable through your operating agreement. It’s just that you can alternatively put limits on transfers in your LLC agreement. LLC’s are very flexible that way. You can also have different classes of stock with an LLC and more easily provide for preferred returns and distributions through a waterfall. That said, it sounds like you want to be both an employee and an owner and there are tax obstacles with receiving both a W-2 and a K-1 from the same entity. The S-Corp may provide more options for you in that regard.

 

[Instinctive]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

It's easier to sell/transfer interest in an S Corp through stock, at the cost of some formalities like having bylaws. As I understand it, an LLC run by members faces self-employment taxes, whereas an S corp I could pay myself, FICA that, and additional earnings would be a distribution, no FICA?

If I were to add other members, S corp interest is freely transferable, vs LLC other members have to approve I thought?

You can make interests in LLCs freely transferable through your operating agreement. It’s just that you can alternatively put limits on transfers in your LLC agreement. LLC’s are very flexible that way. You can also have different classes of stock with an LLC and more easily provide for preferred returns and distributions through a waterfall. That said, it sounds like you want to be both an employee and an owner and there are tax obstacles with receiving both a W-2 and a K-1 from the same entity. The S-Corp may provide more options for you in that regard.

This is helpful - yes I would want to have the corp do things like retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Corporate card for hotels and purchases, all that jazz.

 

[bigbottom]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

It's easier to sell/transfer interest in an S Corp through stock, at the cost of some formalities like having bylaws. As I understand it, an LLC run by members faces self-employment taxes, whereas an S corp I could pay myself, FICA that, and additional earnings would be a distribution, no FICA?

If I were to add other members, S corp interest is freely transferable, vs LLC other members have to approve I thought?

You can make interests in LLCs freely transferable through your operating agreement. It’s just that you can alternatively put limits on transfers in your LLC agreement. LLC’s are very flexible that way. You can also have different classes of stock with an LLC and more easily provide for preferred returns and distributions through a waterfall. That said, it sounds like you want to be both an employee and an owner and there are tax obstacles with receiving both a W-2 and a K-1 from the same entity. The S-Corp may provide more options for you in that regard.

This is helpful - yes I would want to have the corp do things like retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Corporate card for hotels and purchases, all that jazz.

You can do all that with an LLC. The problem is you wanting to be both a W-2 employee of the entity and a member/partner with pass through tax treatment.

 

[Instinctive]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

It's easier to sell/transfer interest in an S Corp through stock, at the cost of some formalities like having bylaws. As I understand it, an LLC run by members faces self-employment taxes, whereas an S corp I could pay myself, FICA that, and additional earnings would be a distribution, no FICA?

If I were to add other members, S corp interest is freely transferable, vs LLC other members have to approve I thought?

You can make interests in LLCs freely transferable through your operating agreement. It’s just that you can alternatively put limits on transfers in your LLC agreement. LLC’s are very flexible that way. You can also have different classes of stock with an LLC and more easily provide for preferred returns and distributions through a waterfall. That said, it sounds like you want to be both an employee and an owner and there are tax obstacles with receiving both a W-2 and a K-1 from the same entity. The S-Corp may provide more options for you in that regard.

This is helpful - yes I would want to have the corp do things like retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Corporate card for hotels and purchases, all that jazz.

You can do all that with an LLC. The problem is you wanting to be both an W-2 employee of the entity and a member/partner with pass through tax treatment.

That does seem more tax efficient, right?

Or can you have an LLC with no employees? How would employment taxes work?

 

[bigbottom]

Questions for you others as I think about leaving my role and doing something more entrepreneurial:

First: My strong instinct is that an S-corp is significantly advantaged over an LLC or a C-Corp or a Partnership for it's mix of corporation qualities and partnership-like tax advantages (i.e., pass through). It has obviously been quite some time since I had corps or the little practice I did do. Any thoughts from our corporate-side folks?

Second: if one was to plan to file all their own permitting and file articles of incorporation and all that jazz, for their own company, because those things do not in and of themselves constitute the practice of law, and I'm not providing any advice or counsel to anyone other than me, am I good to stay inactive? If I weren't a lawyer at all, I could do all those things, so i think I am clear, but want to see if there's a more experienced opinion in here.

For your first question, LLCs can be pass-through, so what other qualities have you favoring an S-Corp?

It's easier to sell/transfer interest in an S Corp through stock, at the cost of some formalities like having bylaws. As I understand it, an LLC run by members faces self-employment taxes, whereas an S corp I could pay myself, FICA that, and additional earnings would be a distribution, no FICA?

If I were to add other members, S corp interest is freely transferable, vs LLC other members have to approve I thought?

You can make interests in LLCs freely transferable through your operating agreement. It’s just that you can alternatively put limits on transfers in your LLC agreement. LLC’s are very flexible that way. You can also have different classes of stock with an LLC and more easily provide for preferred returns and distributions through a waterfall. That said, it sounds like you want to be both an employee and an owner and there are tax obstacles with receiving both a W-2 and a K-1 from the same entity. The S-Corp may provide more options for you in that regard.

This is helpful - yes I would want to have the corp do things like retirement plan, health insurance, etc. Corporate card for hotels and purchases, all that jazz.

You can do all that with an LLC. The problem is you wanting to be both an W-2 employee of the entity and a member/partner with pass through tax treatment.

That does seem more tax efficient, right?

Or can you have an LLC with no employees? How would employment taxes work?

You can have an LLC with no employees, but it sounds like you want there to be a retirement plan, medical insurance, etc., which generally requires employees. And an employee of an LLC can’t simultaneously receive a K-1 as an owner of the LLC. In many instances LLC’s are the most flexible and efficient, but I don’t think it will be optimal for what you are wanting to do.

 

[Max Power]

Hoping to get a legal take on a situation I find myself in. I went through a divorce in 2017. I was overseas at the time and a lot of the process was being done through email. My ex and I worked up a separation agreement that went back and forth between us and our lawyers. The process was amicable. Once we had agreed to all terms, my lawyer looked it over and everything seemed fine and we gave it the thumbs up to proceed.

Once I returned home from deployment, the actual document was mailed to me and I had to sign, notarize and return, which I did. I gave it a once over and all the numbers were what we agreed to. I got my copy back from the county and threw it in the safe and have only pulled it out a couple times for reference.

My oldest son recently turned 18, graduated high school and is off to college next week. From our emails in 2017 and back and forth, the plan was always that I would give my oldest his share (1/3) of the total child support to pay for his college expenses. My ex came back and said "no" that's not how the agreement reads. She believes I still owe the same total child support for the other 2 children and now also owe an additional 1/3rd to my oldest for his school.

I read through the separation agreement and its poorly worded in that section, but there is nothing in there about recalculating after the oldest child drops off. I remember speaking with my lawyer specifically about this.

I pull up all of my emails from that timeframe and I have one very specifically saying my college educational support will be in the place of child support payments made directly to that child. Which was acknowledged via email. I also pulled up the last separation agreement I sent to my lawyer prior to us giving the thumbs up. Turns out, they altered some wording after we said the terms were agreeable. The original read... after the first minor child becomes 18 the support would be recalculated.

Bad on me for missing that when the hardcopy came, however this is an agreement between two parties that was altered at the end and wasn't what I thought I was agreeing too. There are also a couple other poorly worded areas of the contract that I would like to revisit if possible. In the past when the poorly worded issues have come up we've operated in the spirit of the agreement.

Lately my relationship with the ex has soured mostly due to her new husband and money seems to be a big issue with them. I plan to reach out to a local family attorney but I'm curious what I'm looking at... Am I SOL or do I have a reasonable case to get the whole document reviewed?

The crazy part is that I did a new calculator for what my expected payments would be and It goes up quite a bit for the 2 remaining minor children. It just isn't as bad for me currently. My bigger fear is once the middle child goes to school. Under the current formula I couldn't afford that.

 

[bigbottom]

Hoping to get a legal take on a situation I find myself in. I went through a divorce in 2017. I was overseas at the time and a lot of the process was being done through email. My ex and I worked up a separation agreement that went back and forth between us and our lawyers. The process was amicable. Once we had agreed to all terms, my lawyer looked it over and everything seemed fine and we gave it the thumbs up to proceed.

Once I returned home from deployment, the actual document was mailed to me and I had to sign, notarize and return, which I did. I gave it a once over and all the numbers were what we agreed to. I got my copy back from the county and threw it in the safe and have only pulled it out a couple times for reference.

My oldest son recently turned 18, graduated high school and is off to college next week. From our emails in 2017 and back and forth, the plan was always that I would give my oldest his share (1/3) of the total child support to pay for his college expenses. My ex came back and said "no" that's not how the agreement reads. She believes I still owe the same total child support for the other 2 children and now also owe an additional 1/3rd to my oldest for his school.

I read through the separation agreement and its poorly worded in that section, but there is nothing in there about recalculating after the oldest child drops off. I remember speaking with my lawyer specifically about this.

I pull up all of my emails from that timeframe and I have one very specifically saying my college educational support will be in the place of child support payments made directly to that child. Which was acknowledged via email. I also pulled up the last separation agreement I sent to my lawyer prior to us giving the thumbs up. Turns out, they altered some wording after we said the terms were agreeable. The original read... after the first minor child becomes 18 the support would be recalculated.

Bad on me for missing that when the hardcopy came, however this is an agreement between two parties that was altered at the end and wasn't what I thought I was agreeing too. There are also a couple other poorly worded areas of the contract that I would like to revisit if possible. In the past when the poorly worded issues have come up we've operated in the spirit of the agreement.

Lately my relationship with the ex has soured mostly due to her new husband and money seems to be a big issue with them. I plan to reach out to a local family attorney but I'm curious what I'm looking at... Am I SOL or do I have a reasonable case to get the whole document reviewed?

The crazy part is that I did a new calculator for what my expected payments would be and It goes up quite a bit for the 2 remaining minor children. It just isn't as bad for me currently. My bigger fear is once the middle child goes to school. Under the current formula I couldn't afford that.

You should contact your lawyer and determine whether those final changes were made with or without his/her knowledge.

 

[Max Power]

Hoping to get a legal take on a situation I find myself in. I went through a divorce in 2017. I was overseas at the time and a lot of the process was being done through email. My ex and I worked up a separation agreement that went back and forth between us and our lawyers. The process was amicable. Once we had agreed to all terms, my lawyer looked it over and everything seemed fine and we gave it the thumbs up to proceed.

Once I returned home from deployment, the actual document was mailed to me and I had to sign, notarize and return, which I did. I gave it a once over and all the numbers were what we agreed to. I got my copy back from the county and threw it in the safe and have only pulled it out a couple times for reference.

My oldest son recently turned 18, graduated high school and is off to college next week. From our emails in 2017 and back and forth, the plan was always that I would give my oldest his share (1/3) of the total child support to pay for his college expenses. My ex came back and said "no" that's not how the agreement reads. She believes I still owe the same total child support for the other 2 children and now also owe an additional 1/3rd to my oldest for his school.

I read through the separation agreement and its poorly worded in that section, but there is nothing in there about recalculating after the oldest child drops off. I remember speaking with my lawyer specifically about this.

I pull up all of my emails from that timeframe and I have one very specifically saying my college educational support will be in the place of child support payments made directly to that child. Which was acknowledged via email. I also pulled up the last separation agreement I sent to my lawyer prior to us giving the thumbs up. Turns out, they altered some wording after we said the terms were agreeable. The original read... after the first minor child becomes 18 the support would be recalculated.

Bad on me for missing that when the hardcopy came, however this is an agreement between two parties that was altered at the end and wasn't what I thought I was agreeing too. There are also a couple other poorly worded areas of the contract that I would like to revisit if possible. In the past when the poorly worded issues have come up we've operated in the spirit of the agreement.

Lately my relationship with the ex has soured mostly due to her new husband and money seems to be a big issue with them. I plan to reach out to a local family attorney but I'm curious what I'm looking at... Am I SOL or do I have a reasonable case to get the whole document reviewed?

The crazy part is that I did a new calculator for what my expected payments would be and It goes up quite a bit for the 2 remaining minor children. It just isn't as bad for me currently. My bigger fear is once the middle child goes to school. Under the current formula I couldn't afford that.

You should contact your lawyer and determine whether those final changes were made with or without his/her knowledge.

My "lawyer" was on a per consultation/use basis. I paid $250 for the initial consult and $100 for each follow up email. Once I thought everything was good, I didn't go back to my lawyer with the final paper copy as that would have been another $100 for me.

Im frustrated because her lawyer changed terms after we both slapped the table that everything was agreeable. I missed the rewording of a clause when I signed it and feel duped by a process that I viewed as being above board. I read through it again last night and even found a part in that clause where they forgot to remove extra words when they altered the terms. Ultimately I feel like its a poorly drafted legal document and isn't in the spirit of what I agreed to.

Ex wife doesn't want to be civil in discussing the matter. I set up a consultation with a new lawyer for next week. I'm not sure anything can or will change, but hopefully he can offer some advice on this part of the contract and the other vague terms within.

 

[bigbottom]

Hoping to get a legal take on a situation I find myself in. I went through a divorce in 2017. I was overseas at the time and a lot of the process was being done through email. My ex and I worked up a separation agreement that went back and forth between us and our lawyers. The process was amicable. Once we had agreed to all terms, my lawyer looked it over and everything seemed fine and we gave it the thumbs up to proceed.

Once I returned home from deployment, the actual document was mailed to me and I had to sign, notarize and return, which I did. I gave it a once over and all the numbers were what we agreed to. I got my copy back from the county and threw it in the safe and have only pulled it out a couple times for reference.

My oldest son recently turned 18, graduated high school and is off to college next week. From our emails in 2017 and back and forth, the plan was always that I would give my oldest his share (1/3) of the total child support to pay for his college expenses. My ex came back and said "no" that's not how the agreement reads. She believes I still owe the same total child support for the other 2 children and now also owe an additional 1/3rd to my oldest for his school.

I read through the separation agreement and its poorly worded in that section, but there is nothing in there about recalculating after the oldest child drops off. I remember speaking with my lawyer specifically about this.

I pull up all of my emails from that timeframe and I have one very specifically saying my college educational support will be in the place of child support payments made directly to that child. Which was acknowledged via email. I also pulled up the last separation agreement I sent to my lawyer prior to us giving the thumbs up. Turns out, they altered some wording after we said the terms were agreeable. The original read... after the first minor child becomes 18 the support would be recalculated.

Bad on me for missing that when the hardcopy came, however this is an agreement between two parties that was altered at the end and wasn't what I thought I was agreeing too. There are also a couple other poorly worded areas of the contract that I would like to revisit if possible. In the past when the poorly worded issues have come up we've operated in the spirit of the agreement.

Lately my relationship with the ex has soured mostly due to her new husband and money seems to be a big issue with them. I plan to reach out to a local family attorney but I'm curious what I'm looking at... Am I SOL or do I have a reasonable case to get the whole document reviewed?

The crazy part is that I did a new calculator for what my expected payments would be and It goes up quite a bit for the 2 remaining minor children. It just isn't as bad for me currently. My bigger fear is once the middle child goes to school. Under the current formula I couldn't afford that.

You should contact your lawyer and determine whether those final changes were made with or without his/her knowledge.

My "lawyer" was on a per consultation/use basis. I paid $250 for the initial consult and $100 for each follow up email. Once I thought everything was good, I didn't go back to my lawyer with the final paper copy as that would have been another $100 for me.

Im frustrated because her lawyer changed terms after we both slapped the table that everything was agreeable. I missed the rewording of a clause when I signed it and feel duped by a process that I viewed as being above board. I read through it again last night and even found a part in that clause where they forgot to remove extra words when they altered the terms. Ultimately I feel like its a poorly drafted legal document and isn't in the spirit of what I agreed to.

Ex wife doesn't want to be civil in discussing the matter. I set up a consultation with a new lawyer for next week. I'm not sure anything can or will change, but hopefully he can offer some advice on this part of the contract and the other vague terms within.

Not sure what state you are in or the rules of professional conduct for lawyers in that state, but there’s a general expectation (if not a rule depending on the jurisdiction) that lawyers are supposed to call out revisions that have been made when exchanging drafts. That’s why you often see redlines when revised docs are sent. I would ask the lawyer about this when you have your consult.

As a lawyer acting for my client, I always ensure that no surreptitious changes have been made to the execution version of a draft document before my client signs. That’s part of a lawyer’s job.

 

[Max Power]

Hoping to get a legal take on a situation I find myself in. I went through a divorce in 2017. I was overseas at the time and a lot of the process was being done through email. My ex and I worked up a separation agreement that went back and forth between us and our lawyers. The process was amicable. Once we had agreed to all terms, my lawyer looked it over and everything seemed fine and we gave it the thumbs up to proceed.

Once I returned home from deployment, the actual document was mailed to me and I had to sign, notarize and return, which I did. I gave it a once over and all the numbers were what we agreed to. I got my copy back from the county and threw it in the safe and have only pulled it out a couple times for reference.

My oldest son recently turned 18, graduated high school and is off to college next week. From our emails in 2017 and back and forth, the plan was always that I would give my oldest his share (1/3) of the total child support to pay for his college expenses. My ex came back and said "no" that's not how the agreement reads. She believes I still owe the same total child support for the other 2 children and now also owe an additional 1/3rd to my oldest for his school.

I read through the separation agreement and its poorly worded in that section, but there is nothing in there about recalculating after the oldest child drops off. I remember speaking with my lawyer specifically about this.

I pull up all of my emails from that timeframe and I have one very specifically saying my college educational support will be in the place of child support payments made directly to that child. Which was acknowledged via email. I also pulled up the last separation agreement I sent to my lawyer prior to us giving the thumbs up. Turns out, they altered some wording after we said the terms were agreeable. The original read... after the first minor child becomes 18 the support would be recalculated.

Bad on me for missing that when the hardcopy came, however this is an agreement between two parties that was altered at the end and wasn't what I thought I was agreeing too. There are also a couple other poorly worded areas of the contract that I would like to revisit if possible. In the past when the poorly worded issues have come up we've operated in the spirit of the agreement.

Lately my relationship with the ex has soured mostly due to her new husband and money seems to be a big issue with them. I plan to reach out to a local family attorney but I'm curious what I'm looking at... Am I SOL or do I have a reasonable case to get the whole document reviewed?

The crazy part is that I did a new calculator for what my expected payments would be and It goes up quite a bit for the 2 remaining minor children. It just isn't as bad for me currently. My bigger fear is once the middle child goes to school. Under the current formula I couldn't afford that.

You should contact your lawyer and determine whether those final changes were made with or without his/her knowledge.

My "lawyer" was on a per consultation/use basis. I paid $250 for the initial consult and $100 for each follow up email. Once I thought everything was good, I didn't go back to my lawyer with the final paper copy as that would have been another $100 for me.

Im frustrated because her lawyer changed terms after we both slapped the table that everything was agreeable. I missed the rewording of a clause when I signed it and feel duped by a process that I viewed as being above board. I read through it again last night and even found a part in that clause where they forgot to remove extra words when they altered the terms. Ultimately I feel like its a poorly drafted legal document and isn't in the spirit of what I agreed to.

Ex wife doesn't want to be civil in discussing the matter. I set up a consultation with a new lawyer for next week. I'm not sure anything can or will change, but hopefully he can offer some advice on this part of the contract and the other vague terms within.

Not sure what state you are in or the rules of professional conduct for lawyers in that state, but there’s a general expectation (if not a rule depending on the jurisdiction) that lawyers are supposed to call out revisions that have been made when exchanging drafts. That’s why you often see redlines when revised docs are sent. I would ask the lawyer about this when you have your consult.

As a lawyer acting for my client, I always ensure that no surreptitious changes have been made to the execution version of a draft document before my client signs. That’s part of a lawyer’s job.

I appreciate the feedback! Definitely a lesson learned here.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Trying this here first in case anyone is in bankruptcy or maybe business law of some kind:

Wife and I are owed 7,000 from a company that has shut down. I doubt they have much in the way of assets, but maybe they do have some cash. No bankruptcy has been filed.

We are leaning toward filing a small claims case (in San Francisco which goes up to 12,500) which will cost about $90 assuming we can get service. Questions if anyone knows:

-if they never file bankruptcy, does having a judgment against the corporation have any affect on anything the principals might want to do in the future? My inclination is no, but maybe it could impact the way future investors would look at them.

-does securing the small claims judgment improve our position if they ever did file bankruptcy?

-does securing the judgment put any kind of other pressure on the principals to pay anything just to settle the claim?

-is there any way to find out the assets that a corporation actually has?

TIA

 

[thecatch]

Trying this here first in case anyone is in bankruptcy or maybe business law of some kind:

Wife and I are owed 7,000 from a company that has shut down. I doubt they have much in the way of assets, but maybe they do have some cash. No bankruptcy has been filed.

We are leaning toward filing a small claims case (in San Francisco which goes up to 12,500) which will cost about $90 assuming we can get service. Questions if anyone knows:

-if they never file bankruptcy, does having a judgment against the corporation have any affect on anything the principals might want to do in the future? My inclination is no, but maybe it could impact the way future investors would look at them.

-does securing the small claims judgment improve our position if they ever did file bankruptcy?

-does securing the judgment put any kind of other pressure on the principals to pay anything just to settle the claim?

-is there any way to find out the assets that a corporation actually has?

TIA

Getting a judgment allows you to put liens on property the company has (you'll have to take the additional step of recording the judgment). If they have any assets, that'd give you a secured claim if they file bankruptcy. I'm guessing the company will have senior secured lenders with mortgages on any real property and recorded security interests on the personal property, in amounts that dwarf the amount of the collateral, so as a practical matter all this likely won't do you any good. There's not a great way for you to do an asset search on your own. You can hire firms that do that but it won't be cost effective for you.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

Trying this here first in case anyone is in bankruptcy or maybe business law of some kind:

Wife and I are owed 7,000 from a company that has shut down. I doubt they have much in the way of assets, but maybe they do have some cash. No bankruptcy has been filed.

We are leaning toward filing a small claims case (in San Francisco which goes up to 12,500) which will cost about $90 assuming we can get service. Questions if anyone knows:

-if they never file bankruptcy, does having a judgment against the corporation have any affect on anything the principals might want to do in the future? My inclination is no, but maybe it could impact the way future investors would look at them. I'm not in finance- I'm guessing probably not but maybe

-does securing the small claims judgment improve our position if they ever did file bankruptcy?

-does securing the judgment put any kind of other pressure on the principals to pay anything just to settle the claim?

-is there any way to find out the assets that a corporation actually has?

TIA

Getting a judgment allows you to put liens on property the company has (you'll have to take the additional step of recording the judgment). If they have any assets, that'd give you a secured claim if they file bankruptcy. I'm guessing the company will have senior secured lenders with mortgages on any real property and recorded security interests on the personal property, in amounts that dwarf the amount of the collateral, so as a practical matter all this likely won't do you any good. There's not a great way for you to do an asset search on your own. You can hire firms that do that but it won't be cost effective for you.

Thanks. That’s what i figured about the asset search.

I kind of doubt that this company owns much personal property, if any. Seems like the main benefit of getting the judgment is just to get higher priority in the event that they do actually file bankruptcy.

what incentive is there for a business to file bankruptcy if they don’t care about continuing to do business (which I think is probably the case here)?

 

[CletiusMaximus]

Trying this here first in case anyone is in bankruptcy or maybe business law of some kind:

Wife and I are owed 7,000 from a company that has shut down. I doubt they have much in the way of assets, but maybe they do have some cash. No bankruptcy has been filed.

We are leaning toward filing a small claims case (in San Francisco which goes up to 12,500) which will cost about $90 assuming we can get service. Questions if anyone knows:

-if they never file bankruptcy, does having a judgment against the corporation have any affect on anything the principals might want to do in the future? My inclination is no, but maybe it could impact the way future investors would look at them. I'm not in finance- I'm guessing probably not but maybe

-does securing the small claims judgment improve our position if they ever did file bankruptcy?

-does securing the judgment put any kind of other pressure on the principals to pay anything just to settle the claim?

-is there any way to find out the assets that a corporation actually has?

TIA

Getting a judgment allows you to put liens on property the company has (you'll have to take the additional step of recording the judgment). If they have any assets, that'd give you a secured claim if they file bankruptcy. I'm guessing the company will have senior secured lenders with mortgages on any real property and recorded security interests on the personal property, in amounts that dwarf the amount of the collateral, so as a practical matter all this likely won't do you any good. There's not a great way for you to do an asset search on your own. You can hire firms that do that but it won't be cost effective for you.

Thanks. That’s what i figured about the asset search.

I kind of doubt that this company owns much personal property, if any. Seems like the main benefit of getting the judgment is just to get higher priority in the event that they do actually file bankruptcy.

what incentive is there for a business to file bankruptcy if they don’t care about continuing to do business (which I think is probably the case here)?

A judgment lien isn't going to improve your chances for recovery in 90% of the cases of business insolvency. That said, if its small claims and you have the time, I can't say its not worth it. There are cases where the squeaky wheel gets greased. Its likely you don't have all the important information about the company's situation and it is possible some noisy creditors are getting paid a portion of their debt in consideration of a waiver. If they are trying to sell the company for example, they may want to clear out pesky smallish lawsuits and judgments.

Regarding your question as to incentive, the answer is somewhat different for large companies and smaller, closely-held companies. For large companies, the great majority of chapter 11 cases over the past 20 years were filed to sell the company. Selling a company in bankruptcy gives the buyer protections they can't get outside of bankruptcy which in some cases are extremely valuable (although the US Supreme Court blocked one of the most valuable protections buyers often seek in the Purdue Pharma case earlier this year.)

Smaller companies rarely file chapter 11 (reorg). When a small company is insolvent, it is typically the bank making the call as to how it is liquidated. In some cases, they will just shut the doors and tell creditors to #### off. In some states there are state-law-based receivership or liquidation procedures that are often much cheaper than a bankruptcy filing and can bring some calm and comfort to the lender to maximize recovery from their collateral and otherwise wash their hands of it. In some rarer cases, the company or bank will have reasons to pay to run the company through chapter 7 and get a federal judge blessing everything so there is truly no risk of legacy claims haunting them in the future.

 

[dgreen]

I was walking my dog and an old lady stopped me to tell me she's scared. Her neighbor put up a sign that says "Trespassers will be shot and survivors will be shot again" and she said it is intended for her. I think she said he has said to her multiple times that he will shoot her if she does certain things (seems like mostly things related to his property - these are townhouses and he claims stuff she has done has damaged his house). Communication was difficult because her English isn't great, but I'm pretty sure the police have shown up...although it sounded like it was because he called them about her? I suggested she involve the police and said she might even want to talk to a lawyer.

While we were talking, the neighbor came home. As he walked into his house, he said, "Don't listen to her. She's a ****ing liar and a crazy old *****." I ignored him. I will say I do get a sense that she may not be quite right. She's fairly old (I think she said 80), but seems mostly "there". However, I've talked to her multiple times and every time she tells me that her husband was in prison camp with John McCain in Vietnam (I'm pretty sure she's Vietnamese) and he escaped 10 years after McCain was freed. She tells me that in a way that makes me think she thinks she's never told me that before. She also then said her husband died three weeks ago, but I've never seen anyone other than her there. She then also told a story about another neighbor who she said called the police on her because of how she was parking her car. So, I'm not sure she's quite right, like I said, and it does seem multiple neighbors have a problem with her.

The only things I directly observed are the sign in her neighbor's yard, her neighbor's words mentioned above that he said to me when came home, and her story to me (told in broken English).

 

[thecatch]

Ted Olson passed away this morning. I never had the privilege of working on a case he was involved with directly, but everyone I know that has says he was an awesome guy.

 

[The_Man]

Hi, folks

Hoping to get some careerguidance that I can relay to my son from guys like @Instinctive @bigbottom @thecatch or anyone else I've missed who might have relevant insight

He's currently doing a federal appellate clerkship through the end of the summer. Doesn't have a permanent job lined up yet - but has decided he probably wants to be in Chicago and will go BigLaw (Kirkland & Ellis, Latham, Sidley) if he can't land something at a boutique litigation firm. But yesterday he got an offer from the DOJ Honors Program in the Commercial Litigation section

He kind of doesn't want to take it. Doesn't want to be in DC, doesn't want to work for Trump DOJ, the salary is like $100K. He doesn't have any passion to be a Dept of Justice or government lawyer, just wants to do some interesting work. He also doesn't have any student loan debt (thanks to his full ride scholarship) so it's not like he HAS to make big money. But it's kind of hard to walk away from what would presumably be a clerkship bonus of like $50K plus coming in as a second-year associate at like $225K or whatever the scale will be next year

Any thoughts on what he should do and/or who he should talk to in figuring out whether or not to take the job (he has like 2 weeks to answer, and he doesn't have a BigLaw offer yet but he seems reasonably likely to get one based on grades, clerkship, etc)? Is the work he would do for the next 2 years and/or the credential of working for DOJ be something that gives him a boost on his later legal career? Or if - as he views it now - all work is kind of the same, should he just go for the money in the city where he wants to be?

I've told him to contact Career Services at his school to see if they can connect him with an alum who did DOJ Honors in Commercial Litigation but other than that, I don't have any insight as to what declining or accepting it might mean for his later career

 

[thecatch]

Hi, folks

Hoping to get some careerguidance that I can relay to my son from guys like @Instinctive @bigbottom @thecatch or anyone else I've missed who might have relevant insight

He's currently doing a federal appellate clerkship through the end of the summer. Doesn't have a permanent job lined up yet - but has decided he probably wants to be in Chicago and will go BigLaw (Kirkland & Ellis, Latham, Sidley) if he can't land something at a boutique litigation firm. But yesterday he got an offer from the DOJ Honors Program in the Commercial Litigation section

He kind of doesn't want to take it. Doesn't want to be in DC, doesn't want to work for Trump DOJ, the salary is like $100K. He doesn't have any passion to be a Dept of Justice or government lawyer, just wants to do some interesting work. He also doesn't have any student loan debt (thanks to his full ride scholarship) so it's not like he HAS to make big money. But it's kind of hard to walk away from what would presumably be a clerkship bonus of like $50K plus coming in as a second-year associate at like $225K or whatever the scale will be next year

Any thoughts on what he should do and/or who he should talk to in figuring out whether or not to take the job (he has like 2 weeks to answer, and he doesn't have a BigLaw offer yet but he seems reasonably likely to get one based on grades, clerkship, etc)? Is the work he would do for the next 2 years and/or the credential of working for DOJ be something that gives him a boost on his later legal career? Or if - as he views it now - all work is kind of the same, should he just go for the money in the city where he wants to be?

I've told him to contact Career Services at his school to see if they can connect him with an alum who did DOJ Honors in Commercial Litigation but other than that, I don't have any insight as to what declining or accepting it might mean for his later career

It seems like his mind is pretty much made up! He'd have significantly more responsibility and probably more interesting work at the DOJ (depending on what he considers interesting), but the training will be worse. And while the US DOJ civil division has a ton of great people in it (and would not be affected by the new administration in any material way), it is not the same credential as working on the criminal side and getting the associated trial experience. It doesn't make much sense to pass up BigLaw clerkship bonuses for that position, IMO. Also, appellate clerkship bonuses are in the $100k range at top firms these days. Most people consider the first couple of years working as a junior associate at big firms to be pretty miserable, but if he can power through it he'll be in a great financial situation the rest of his life and gov't jobs will be there for him later if he wants them.

 

[The_Man]

Hi, folks

Hoping to get some careerguidance that I can relay to my son from guys like @Instinctive @bigbottom @thecatch or anyone else I've missed who might have relevant insight

He's currently doing a federal appellate clerkship through the end of the summer. Doesn't have a permanent job lined up yet - but has decided he probably wants to be in Chicago and will go BigLaw (Kirkland & Ellis, Latham, Sidley) if he can't land something at a boutique litigation firm. But yesterday he got an offer from the DOJ Honors Program in the Commercial Litigation section

He kind of doesn't want to take it. Doesn't want to be in DC, doesn't want to work for Trump DOJ, the salary is like $100K. He doesn't have any passion to be a Dept of Justice or government lawyer, just wants to do some interesting work. He also doesn't have any student loan debt (thanks to his full ride scholarship) so it's not like he HAS to make big money. But it's kind of hard to walk away from what would presumably be a clerkship bonus of like $50K plus coming in as a second-year associate at like $225K or whatever the scale will be next year

Any thoughts on what he should do and/or who he should talk to in figuring out whether or not to take the job (he has like 2 weeks to answer, and he doesn't have a BigLaw offer yet but he seems reasonably likely to get one based on grades, clerkship, etc)? Is the work he would do for the next 2 years and/or the credential of working for DOJ be something that gives him a boost on his later legal career? Or if - as he views it now - all work is kind of the same, should he just go for the money in the city where he wants to be?

I've told him to contact Career Services at his school to see if they can connect him with an alum who did DOJ Honors in Commercial Litigation but other than that, I don't have any insight as to what declining or accepting it might mean for his later career

It seems like his mind is pretty much made up! He'd have significantly more responsibility and probably more interesting work at the DOJ (depending on what he considers interesting), but the training will be worse. And while the US DOJ civil division has a ton of great people in it (and would not be affected by the new administration in any material way), it is not the same credential as working on the criminal side and getting the associated trial experience. It doesn't make much sense to pass up BigLaw clerkship bonuses for that position, IMO. Also, appellate clerkship bonuses are in the $100k range at top firms these days. Most people consider the first couple of years working as a junior associate at big firms to be pretty miserable, but if he can power through it he'll be in a great financial situation the rest of his life and gov't jobs will be there for him later if he wants them.

Thanks for the insight!

I am pretty fine with him not taking the offer, just wanted to make sure he wasn't walking away from some incredible long-term opportunity for short-term desires. Sounds like the criminal section would be much more along those lines, but declining civil litigation is no big loss. Although it would be a lot easier for me if he already had something else lined up before turning this down, that's not going to be how it works out

 

[Zow]

Hi, folks

Hoping to get some careerguidance that I can relay to my son from guys like @Instinctive @bigbottom @thecatch or anyone else I've missed who might have relevant insight

He's currently doing a federal appellate clerkship through the end of the summer. Doesn't have a permanent job lined up yet - but has decided he probably wants to be in Chicago and will go BigLaw (Kirkland & Ellis, Latham, Sidley) if he can't land something at a boutique litigation firm. But yesterday he got an offer from the DOJ Honors Program in the Commercial Litigation section

He kind of doesn't want to take it. Doesn't want to be in DC, doesn't want to work for Trump DOJ, the salary is like $100K. He doesn't have any passion to be a Dept of Justice or government lawyer, just wants to do some interesting work. He also doesn't have any student loan debt (thanks to his full ride scholarship) so it's not like he HAS to make big money. But it's kind of hard to walk away from what would presumably be a clerkship bonus of like $50K plus coming in as a second-year associate at like $225K or whatever the scale will be next year

Any thoughts on what he should do and/or who he should talk to in figuring out whether or not to take the job (he has like 2 weeks to answer, and he doesn't have a BigLaw offer yet but he seems reasonably likely to get one based on grades, clerkship, etc)? Is the work he would do for the next 2 years and/or the credential of working for DOJ be something that gives him a boost on his later legal career? Or if - as he views it now - all work is kind of the same, should he just go for the money in the city where he wants to be?

I've told him to contact Career Services at his school to see if they can connect him with an alum who did DOJ Honors in Commercial Litigation but other than that, I don't have any insight as to what declining or accepting it might mean for his later career

It seems like his mind is pretty much made up! He'd have significantly more responsibility and probably more interesting work at the DOJ (depending on what he considers interesting), but the training will be worse. And while the US DOJ civil division has a ton of great people in it (and would not be affected by the new administration in any material way), it is not the same credential as working on the criminal side and getting the associated trial experience. It doesn't make much sense to pass up BigLaw clerkship bonuses for that position, IMO. Also, appellate clerkship bonuses are in the $100k range at top firms these days. Most people consider the first couple of years working as a junior associate at big firms to be pretty miserable, but if he can power through it he'll be in a great financial situation the rest of his life and gov't jobs will be there for him later if he wants them.

I agree with this post. I'd just add as well that he shouldn't take a job somewhere he doesn't want to be if he has other viable options. As somebody who now makes hiring decisions within my firm we specifically look for whether a candidate has jumped ship from his or her first job within a year or two and treat that as a negative. So, if he's reluctant to accept the offer, he probably shouldn't take it.

 

[krista4]

Too bad there's no one on this board who worked at Skadden and Kirkland in Chicago. That person might have thoughts.

 

[The_Man]

Too bad there's no one on this board who worked at Skadden and Kirkland in Chicago. That person might have thoughts.

Is that person in the room with us right now?

Would love to hear your thoughts. Apparently K&E has a reputation as a particularly intense place to work, which I take it is really saying something

 

[bigbottom]

Is he wanting to do a civil litigation practice? Litigation seems to quickly be turning into an accessory practice at BigLaw. Sure, they’ll have litigators to service corporate clients but they won’t be the power brokers. If I were a litigator coming out, I’d be looking at high end litigation boutiques where I could possibly hit the long ball. But I would absolutely listen to @krista4 as she is way more dialed in than I am on pretty much every angle of this.