The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (4 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

Ok What the hell was that?

 

[Henry Ford]

Ok What the hell was that?

My rant about the common law? Liquid lunch with a nonprofit.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No... TBell and that story. It reads like a couple trying to trick someone into swinging.

 

[bigbottom]

No... TBell and that story. It reads like a couple trying to trick someone into swinging.

 

[Zow]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

 

[NCCommish]

And now you've made me agree with Zow. Damn you, NC!

My job here is done

 

[NCCommish]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

 

[NCCommish]

I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.

A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.

An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.

If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.

Then I guess it's good you're not putting together a contract in Louisiana.

I guess it is. Or maybe since I would hire a lawyer to do it in Louisiana they should know, I am not a lawyer after all. That's why I hire a professional right?

I you just illustrated Henry's original point.

No I think Henry's original point is corporations with locations in every state should know the vagaries of each states laws. At least that's what I was responding to. Including the kind of law practiced in La. My point was not being lawyers that ain't their job. It's your job. It's like me complaining when customers who aren't tech savvy want to do stupid things. I do complain but it's what keeps me in business.

 

[Henry Ford]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hard to answer on a message board. I see it as two distinct questions.

1) Could the boyfriend legally lease the property? I'm assuming from how you're described this, that the boyfriend executed the lease at a time when he had no ownership interest in the property. So, he has no independent legal authority to lease the property.

2) Did the boyfriend hold himself out as the agent of the owner? This is the best avenue of attack. If the girlfriend knew that the boyfriend was leasing the house, and allowed him to do so, you can argue apparent agency. And the girlfriend is bound by the actions of her agent. But that's much more a factual question than a legal question. Nobody can answer it by looking at the lease or the deed. It would all be about the testimony of the parties.

 

[Henry Ford]

I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.

A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.

An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.

If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.

Then I guess it's good you're not putting together a contract in Louisiana.

I guess it is. Or maybe since I would hire a lawyer to do it in Louisiana they should know, I am not a lawyer after all. That's why I hire a professional right?

I you just illustrated Henry's original point.

No I think Henry's original point is corporations with locations in every state should know the vagaries of each states laws. At least that's what I was responding to. Including the kind of law practiced in La. My point was not being lawyers that ain't their job. It's your job. It's like me complaining when customers who aren't tech savvy want to do stupid things. I do complain but it's what keeps me in business.

My only point is when a corporation moves into a new state - especially a state like Louisiana - it should have its contracts checked by a local lawyer before using them there. And when a nonprofit has a local lawyer tell it that it should change its contract and that he will do it for free, it should let him, especially when he is the one who's going to have to enforce the thing pro bono when things go wrong.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

 

[Henry Ford]

No... TBell and that story. It reads like a couple trying to trick someone into swinging.

All rise?

 

[Henry Ford]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

I don't worry as much about the "good" judges making law.

 

[NCCommish]

My only point is when a corporation moves into a new state - especially a state like Louisiana - it should have its contracts checked by a local lawyer before using them there. And when a nonprofit has a local lawyer tell it that it should change its contract and that he will do it for free, it should let him, especially when he is thr one who's going to have to enforce the thing pro bono when things go wrong.

I agree completely.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

I don't worry as much about the "good" judges making law.

There are good judges and crappy judges, but I probably have a higher opinion of the institutional competency of the judiciary than I do of the legislature. In any case, its a problem that legislatures can easily solve. Don't like the precedent surrounding your law? Amend the law.

 

[thecatch]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hard to answer on a message board. I see it as two distinct questions.

1) Could the boyfriend legally lease the property? I'm assuming from how you're described this, that the boyfriend executed the lease at a time when he had no ownership interest in the property. So, he has no independent legal authority to lease the property.

2) Did the boyfriend hold himself out as the agent of the owner? This is the best avenue of attack. If the girlfriend knew that the boyfriend was leasing the house, and allowed him to do so, you can argue apparent agency. And the girlfriend is bound by the actions of her agent. But that's much more a factual question than a legal question. Nobody can answer it by looking at the lease or the deed. It would all be about the testimony of the parties.

Even if the lease is valid, the owner may have certain rights under federal and/or state law to come in and evict under certain circumstances if the owner wants to use the house for a personal residence. I don't remember what those circumstances are exactly, but there are special provisions for owners wanting to use the property as a primary residence. It'd be worth checking out the statutory language. As I recall NC isn't a particularly tenant friendly state.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hard to answer on a message board. I see it as two distinct questions.

1) Could the boyfriend legally lease the property? I'm assuming from how you're described this, that the boyfriend executed the lease at a time when he had no ownership interest in the property. So, he has no independent legal authority to lease the property.

2) Did the boyfriend hold himself out as the agent of the owner? This is the best avenue of attack. If the girlfriend knew that the boyfriend was leasing the house, and allowed him to do so, you can argue apparent agency. And the girlfriend is bound by the actions of her agent. But that's much more a factual question than a legal question. Nobody can answer it by looking at the lease or the deed. It would all be about the testimony of the parties.

Even if the lease is valid, the owner may have certain rights under federal and/or state law to come in and evict under certain circumstances if the owner wants to use the house for a personal residence. I don't remember what those circumstances are exactly, but there are special provisions for owners wanting to use the property as a primary residence. It'd be worth checking out the statutory language. As I recall NC isn't a particularly tenant friendly state.

Right. I wasn't considering eviction (and I haven't done much landlord / tenant stuff). I was cabining the analysis to whether the lease would be held valid. I have lost an arbitration in a similar case where a guy's father negotiated a sale of a property, despite the fact that he wasn't an officer of the corporation that owned the property. He hadn't been an officer for a decade, but the arbitrator decided that he had "lingering authority" under Virginia law. Which was kind of neat because I couldn't find the phrase "lingering authority" in any precedential decision in Virginia. Yeah, arbitration!

 

[Henry Ford]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

I don't worry as much about the "good" judges making law.

There are good judges and crappy judges, but I probably have a higher opinion of the institutional competency of the judiciary than I do of the legislature. In any case, its a problem that legislatures can easily solve. Don't like the precedent surrounding your law? Amend the law.

That's lovely, but it takes time - and during that time, all cases that come up are getting screwed by the existing structure. And then you have to believe that the legislature - which you don't trust to craft a good law in the first place - will narrowly-enough craft it to make it impossible for the judge to get around and do what he/she wanted to do in the first place.

 

[Henry Ford]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hard to answer on a message board. I see it as two distinct questions.

1) Could the boyfriend legally lease the property? I'm assuming from how you're described this, that the boyfriend executed the lease at a time when he had no ownership interest in the property. So, he has no independent legal authority to lease the property.

2) Did the boyfriend hold himself out as the agent of the owner? This is the best avenue of attack. If the girlfriend knew that the boyfriend was leasing the house, and allowed him to do so, you can argue apparent agency. And the girlfriend is bound by the actions of her agent. But that's much more a factual question than a legal question. Nobody can answer it by looking at the lease or the deed. It would all be about the testimony of the parties.

Even if the lease is valid, the owner may have certain rights under federal and/or state law to come in and evict under certain circumstances if the owner wants to use the house for a personal residence. I don't remember what those circumstances are exactly, but there are special provisions for owners wanting to use the property as a primary residence. It'd be worth checking out the statutory language. As I recall NC isn't a particularly tenant friendly state.

Right. I wasn't considering eviction (and I haven't done much landlord / tenant stuff). I was cabining the analysis to whether the lease would be held valid. I have lost an arbitration in a similar case where a guy's father negotiated a sale of a property, despite the fact that he wasn't an officer of the corporation that owned the property. He hadn't been an officer for a decade, but the arbitrator decided that he had "lingering authority" under Virginia law. Which was kind of neat because I couldn't find the phrase "lingering authority" in any precedential decision in Virginia. Yeah, arbitration!

Think of it like "crop dusting" a room.

 

[NCCommish]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hard to answer on a message board. I see it as two distinct questions.

1) Could the boyfriend legally lease the property? I'm assuming from how you're described this, that the boyfriend executed the lease at a time when he had no ownership interest in the property. So, he has no independent legal authority to lease the property.

2) Did the boyfriend hold himself out as the agent of the owner? This is the best avenue of attack. If the girlfriend knew that the boyfriend was leasing the house, and allowed him to do so, you can argue apparent agency. And the girlfriend is bound by the actions of her agent. But that's much more a factual question than a legal question. Nobody can answer it by looking at the lease or the deed. It would all be about the testimony of the parties.

Even if the lease is valid, the owner may have certain rights under federal and/or state law to come in and evict under certain circumstances if the owner wants to use the house for a personal residence. I don't remember what those circumstances are exactly, but there are special provisions for owners wanting to use the property as a primary residence. It'd be worth checking out the statutory language. As I recall NC isn't a particularly tenant friendly state.

Apparently he has a 30 minute free consult today. Hopefully whoever it is with knows what he is doing.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

I don't worry as much about the "good" judges making law.

There are good judges and crappy judges, but I probably have a higher opinion of the institutional competency of the judiciary than I do of the legislature. In any case, its a problem that legislatures can easily solve. Don't like the precedent surrounding your law? Amend the law.

That's lovely, but it takes time - and during that time, all cases that come up are getting screwed by the existing structure. And then you have to believe that the legislature - which you don't trust to craft a good law in the first place - will narrowly-enough craft it to make it impossible for the judge to get around and do what he/she wanted to do in the first place.

It's the worst system except all the others.

What happens is the legislature doesn't amend its laws often because its members are perfectly happy having judges filling in the gaps. Again, I think it works about as well as we could expect it to. I don't see a better alternative. I don't believe a legislature has a uniform intention. It's a body of hundreds of individuals with their own understanding of what the law they've passed means. That doesn't mean I won't look to committee reports or anything else, but I recognize the limitations, particularly when applying the law to facts the legislature never considered.

The NLRA never defines "employee." And now we have to decide whether scholarship athletes at colleges are employees? I think legislative intent is irrelevant to that question. I'd have to be a time traveling mind reader to know how Congress would have answered that question at the time the law was drafted. Everything we have about who qualifies as an "employee" is from the common law. And if Congress doesn't like it when that precedent makes Northwestern football players "employees", they have a clear remedy.

 

[Henry Ford]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

I don't worry as much about the "good" judges making law.

There are good judges and crappy judges, but I probably have a higher opinion of the institutional competency of the judiciary than I do of the legislature. In any case, its a problem that legislatures can easily solve. Don't like the precedent surrounding your law? Amend the law.

That's lovely, but it takes time - and during that time, all cases that come up are getting screwed by the existing structure. And then you have to believe that the legislature - which you don't trust to craft a good law in the first place - will narrowly-enough craft it to make it impossible for the judge to get around and do what he/she wanted to do in the first place.

It's the worst system except all the others.

What happens is the legislature doesn't amend its laws often because its members are perfectly happy having judges filling in the gaps. Again, I think it works about as well as we could expect it to. I don't see a better alternative. I don't believe a legislature has a uniform intention. It's a body of hundreds of individuals with their own understanding of what the law they've passed means. That doesn't mean I won't look to committee reports or anything else, but I recognize the limitations, particularly when applying the law to facts the legislature never considered.

The NLRA never defines "employee." And now we have to decide whether scholarship athletes at colleges are employees? I think legislative intent is irrelevant to that question. I'd have to be a time traveling mind reader to know how Congress would have answered that question at the time the law was drafted. Everything we have about who qualifies as an "employee" is from the common law. And if Congress doesn't like it when that precedent makes Northwestern football players "employees", they have a clear remedy.

And I'm saying that Civil Law is significantly better.

And we still have employees in Louisiana.

 

[Thorn]

Just gonna leave this here.

"I refuse to believe these people are real...These guys dress the way 6 year olds think important people dress."

 

[T Bell]

No... TBell and that story. It reads like a couple trying to trick someone into swinging.

This is a closely held corp, and I really don't know anything about the case.

What I found out later, when I talked to that other attorney, was that she until January 2014 was an employee of the corp and was indeed handling the lawsuit for it (so much for the conflict of interest in the general counsel's office, I guess) but handed in her resignation and has run her own private practice since then.

This idiot didn't mention that to me, which is yet another thing that he was cryptic about. The whole thing was weird.

My sense is that this was an under-litigated case and they now realize they're not ready to proceed to trial and they need counsel who can handle it for them. Funny thing is, I'd have been fine trying to get them a continuance by spinning the story about how the attorney who left the corp was handling everything and they need to get new counsel. I wouldn't have a good explanation about their delay since January in doing this, but seeing as how a corp can't be in pro per and NEEDS as a matter of law to be represented by counsel (AND the court won't force the general counsel to handle it if there's a conflict of interest), they couldn't go to trial anyway, and I feel confident the court wouldn't summarily dismiss the case for that.

Under different circumstances and depending upon the subject matter of the case, I might have even been willing to take over and do the trial, but I'll be damned if I'm going to work for people who lie like this bunch. I wasn't even offended by it because of how inept it all was; it was just amusing.

And I still think there was some other weird dynamic at work here too, just not sure what.

 

[Henry Ford]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

 

[T Bell]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hugely subject to your state's law, but in CA in all likelihood the court would deem the landlord's ex-boyfriend to be a "partner" in the "partnership" that owned (owns?) the property, and therefore acting with the authority of a partner in binding that partnership with the lease. In other words, the lease would be enforceable. And of course the fact that the landlady has presumably accepted rents under this lease agreement for all these months and years further works against her in denying the lease is binding.

Said another way, the court won't be happy to let the whims of the landlady's heart determine whether or not a contract continues to be enforceable.

 

[Henry Ford]

Whereas Louisiana would ask if the tenant filed the lease into the mortgage and conveyance office. And might give the tenant five days to get out, if the answer is no.

 

[T Bell]

I primarily hate "precedent" which I'm aware makes me look insane to lawyers in other jurisdictions.

Why? Seems like an odd thing to hate.

Because when I have a better argument or better research on legislative intent than the last person to argue an interpretation of the law, I'd like it to be taken completely on its own merit unless there's a longstanding run of uncontroverted cases saying the same thing.

I've got nothing against using legislative intent. I'm not Scalia. But legislators draft crappy vague laws in part because they know courts will gap fill. And because (good) judges generally try to explain their reasoning and cabin the scope of their decisions, I'm perfectly happy to have a "common law" develop around a statute. That's how we've done it with the Sherman Act, and I think it works pretty well.

I don't worry as much about the "good" judges making law.

There are good judges and crappy judges, but I probably have a higher opinion of the institutional competency of the judiciary than I do of the legislature. In any case, its a problem that legislatures can easily solve. Don't like the precedent surrounding your law? Amend the law.

 

[T Bell]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

Do you carry professional négligée insurance?

 

[NCCommish]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hugely subject to your state's law, but in CA in all likelihood the court would deem the landlord's ex-boyfriend to be a "partner" in the "partnership" that owned (owns?) the property, and therefore acting with the authority of a partner in binding that partnership with the lease. In other words, the lease would be enforceable. And of course the fact that the landlady has presumably accepted rents under this lease agreement for all these months and years further works against her in denying the lease is binding.

Said another way, the court won't be happy to let the whims of the landlady's heart determine whether or not a contract continues to be enforceable.

So the guy had his consultation. The lawyer said his lease was going to stand up. He basically went with the agent deal. But he still told him he should start looking for somewhere else to live because of all the other entanglements and the possibility of still having to leave if she wants to live there as her primary residence.

 

[Henry Ford]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

Do you carry professional négligée insurance?

They had Barney on them.

 

[NCCommish]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

Do you carry professional négligée insurance?

They had Barney on them.

That should garner some kind of extra billing.

 

[Henry Ford]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

Do you carry professional négligée insurance?

They had Barney on them.

That should garner some kind of extra billing.

Contingency, I'm afraid. I forgot to add a 5% bump for showing up in purple pajamas.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No... TBell and that story. It reads like a couple trying to trick someone into swinging.

This is a closely held corp, and I really don't know anything about the case.

What I found out later, when I talked to that other attorney, was that she until January 2014 was an employee of the corp and was indeed handling the lawsuit for it (so much for the conflict of interest in the general counsel's office, I guess) but handed in her resignation and has run her own private practice since then.

This idiot didn't mention that to me, which is yet another thing that he was cryptic about. The whole thing was weird.

My sense is that this was an under-litigated case and they now realize they're not ready to proceed to trial and they need counsel who can handle it for them. Funny thing is, I'd have been fine trying to get them a continuance by spinning the story about how the attorney who left the corp was handling everything and they need to get new counsel. I wouldn't have a good explanation about their delay since January in doing this, but seeing as how a corp can't be in pro per and NEEDS as a matter of law to be represented by counsel (AND the court won't force the general counsel to handle it if there's a conflict of interest), they couldn't go to trial anyway, and I feel confident the court wouldn't summarily dismiss the case for that.

Under different circumstances and depending upon the subject matter of the case, I might have even been willing to take over and do the trial, but I'll be damned if I'm going to work for people who lie like this bunch. I wasn't even offended by it because of how inept it all was; it was just amusing.

And I still think there was some other weird dynamic at work here too, just not sure what.

Weird dynamic is an understatement.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

I had one show up for municipal (traffic) court like that once.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hugely subject to your state's law, but in CA in all likelihood the court would deem the landlord's ex-boyfriend to be a "partner" in the "partnership" that owned (owns?) the property, and therefore acting with the authority of a partner in binding that partnership with the lease. In other words, the lease would be enforceable. And of course the fact that the landlady has presumably accepted rents under this lease agreement for all these months and years further works against her in denying the lease is binding.

Said another way, the court won't be happy to let the whims of the landlady's heart determine whether or not a contract continues to be enforceable.

So the guy had his consultation. The lawyer said his lease was going to stand up. He basically went with the agent deal. But he still told him he should start looking for somewhere else to live because of all the other entanglements and the possibility of still having to leave if she wants to live there as her primary residence.

In NJ the court would let the tenant get away with a long long fight. Our landlord tenant stuff is so heavily tenant oriented that I advise every client to never rent property.

 

[T Bell]

Client showed up for a meeting today in pajamas.

Do you carry professional négligée insurance?

They had Barney on them.

Kinky!

 

[Henry Ford]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hugely subject to your state's law, but in CA in all likelihood the court would deem the landlord's ex-boyfriend to be a "partner" in the "partnership" that owned (owns?) the property, and therefore acting with the authority of a partner in binding that partnership with the lease. In other words, the lease would be enforceable. And of course the fact that the landlady has presumably accepted rents under this lease agreement for all these months and years further works against her in denying the lease is binding.

Said another way, the court won't be happy to let the whims of the landlady's heart determine whether or not a contract continues to be enforceable.

So the guy had his consultation. The lawyer said his lease was going to stand up. He basically went with the agent deal. But he still told him he should start looking for somewhere else to live because of all the other entanglements and the possibility of still having to leave if she wants to live there as her primary residence.

In NJ the court would let the tenant get away with a long long fight. Our landlord tenant stuff is so heavily tenant oriented that I advise every client to never rent property.

I would leave.

 

[T Bell]

California's pretty moderate IMHO regarding landlord-tenant issues, but you don't want to own rental property in the City of LA (code enforcement can be overly aggressive against landlords) and the reasonable processes that are in place for tenants rights can unfortunately get exploited all too easily by "professional tenants", who certainly aren't the majority but are common enough to be a problem.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So over the course of the past three days I have had sit down meetings with several clients. All of them women. All of them cried. All of them begged me to help them. All of them couldn't pay me nearly what their cases require in a normal and fair retainer. All of them had no where else to go. I now represent all of them.

I am slowly getting to the point of changing all my political ideals and demanding that when I bill a client hourly and they don't or can't pay me that I can just send the invoice to the government and have them pay me in full. I might actually vote for that at this point. Screw republican ideals and good government.

 

[T Bell]

So over the course of the past three days I have had sit down meetings with several clients. All of them women. All of them cried. All of them begged me to help them. All of them couldn't pay me nearly what their cases require in a normal and fair retainer. All of them had no where else to go. I now represent all of them.

I am slowly getting to the point of changing all my political ideals and demanding that when I bill a client hourly and they don't or can't pay me that I can just send the invoice to the government and have them pay me in full. I might actually vote for that at this point. Screw republican ideals and good government.

Pro boner?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So over the course of the past three days I have had sit down meetings with several clients. All of them women. All of them cried. All of them begged me to help them. All of them couldn't pay me nearly what their cases require in a normal and fair retainer. All of them had no where else to go. I now represent all of them.

I am slowly getting to the point of changing all my political ideals and demanding that when I bill a client hourly and they don't or can't pay me that I can just send the invoice to the government and have them pay me in full. I might actually vote for that at this point. Screw republican ideals and good government.

Pro boner?

I know someone had mentioned it in one thread since I deal with women in divorce, but I have never put myself in a position to be propositioned by a client and I never will. I don't meet women in my office unless there is at least one other person here. I never travel to court with a client of any stripe. I do my best to not put myself in a position where the offer can be made.

Having said that, none of the crop spoken of here are my type and offdee wouldn't score them well.

 

[NCCommish]

Seriously though I have a question. This is in NC. I have a friend whose boyfriend rents a house. Now the house is owned by a woman. At one point this woman had boyfriend and they refinanced the house she owned together. They of course split up. Never get into a house loan with a boy or girlfriend kids. Anyway recently the woman has decided she wants to live in the house. Now my friends boyfriend does have a lease. However it is from the ex who helped refinance the house. And the woman, whose name we believe to be the only one on the deed, is trying to evict him.

Now the question is despite him having a lease if the ex BFs name isn't on the deed can he make a legally binding lease without the ex GF being a party to it? He has a court date Friday over this. I have been advising him to retain an attorney but he is back and forth on that.

BTW I know that's kind of confusing but hopefully you can work it out.

This is hugely subject to your state's law, but in CA in all likelihood the court would deem the landlord's ex-boyfriend to be a "partner" in the "partnership" that owned (owns?) the property, and therefore acting with the authority of a partner in binding that partnership with the lease. In other words, the lease would be enforceable. And of course the fact that the landlady has presumably accepted rents under this lease agreement for all these months and years further works against her in denying the lease is binding.

Said another way, the court won't be happy to let the whims of the landlady's heart determine whether or not a contract continues to be enforceable.

So the guy had his consultation. The lawyer said his lease was going to stand up. He basically went with the agent deal. But he still told him he should start looking for somewhere else to live because of all the other entanglements and the possibility of still having to leave if she wants to live there as her primary residence.

In NJ the court would let the tenant get away with a long long fight. Our landlord tenant stuff is so heavily tenant oriented that I advise every client to never rent property.

NC is pretty much the opposite. They can kick you out pretty quickly in most circumstances is what I have been told. Now there are some protections but it's definitely a leasers state.

 

[Henry Ford]

So over the course of the past three days I have had sit down meetings with several clients. All of them women. All of them cried. All of them begged me to help them. All of them couldn't pay me nearly what their cases require in a normal and fair retainer. All of them had no where else to go. I now represent all of them.

I am slowly getting to the point of changing all my political ideals and demanding that when I bill a client hourly and they don't or can't pay me that I can just send the invoice to the government and have them pay me in full. I might actually vote for that at this point. Screw republican ideals and good government.

Pro boner?

I know someone had mentioned it in one thread since I deal with women in divorce, but I have never put myself in a position to be propositioned by a client and I never will. I don't meet women in my office unless there is at least one other person here. I never travel to court with a client of any stripe. I do my best to not put myself in a position where the offer can be made.

Having said that, none of the crop spoken of here are my type and offdee wouldn't score them well.

Yes, I also need to start getting hotter clients again. There was a time when every woman coming into my office was a relative knockout. This is no longer the case.

 

[T Bell]

I've never nailed a client, though I had one (a cute, bubbly real estate agent) who I feel sure I could have as we just clicked. Anyway, I can't imagine how much of a mess that would become. It's hard enough (ha!) managing clients as it is.

 

[Henry Ford]

I've never nailed a client, though I had one (a cute, bubbly real estate agent) who I feel sure I could have as we just clicked. Anyway, I can't imagine how much of a mess that would become. It's hard enough (ha!) managing clients as it is.

Nor have I, just used to represent a lot of dancers.

 

[Zow]

I've never nailed a client, though I had one (a cute, bubbly real estate agent) who I feel sure I could have as we just clicked. Anyway, I can't imagine how much of a mess that would become. It's hard enough (ha!) managing clients as it is.

I had one client I represented on a DUI back when I was a student-attorney in Minnesota who, after chatting with her after her sentencing, seemed waiting for me to ask her out and I definitely wanted. She was a local college girl, totally cute and totally put together/normal (just made the dumb mistake of drinking and driving) and I frankly don't think there would have been anything unethical about it. However, in the moment I decided not to and had to somewhat awkwardly end the conversation. Definitely the one I remember looking back upon thinking maybe I should have pulled the trigger.

During my years as a public defender in my mid to late twenties I had the occasion to represent some exotic dancers and other morally lax girls. Was probably offered thank you sexual favors a half a dozen times (with one particular dancer inviting me to her club after hours so her and her colleagues could "show [me] the night of my life"). Never had much trouble turning those down though. However, I noticed that now I'm 30, married, and don't have time to stay in great shape those offers have stopped.

 

[T Bell]

I've never nailed a client, though I had one (a cute, bubbly real estate agent) who I feel sure I could have as we just clicked. Anyway, I can't imagine how much of a mess that would become. It's hard enough (ha!) managing clients as it is.

I had one client I represented on a DUI back when I was a student-attorney in Minnesota who, after chatting with her after her sentencing, seemed waiting for me to ask her out and I definitely wanted. She was a local college girl, totally cute and totally put together/normal (just made the dumb mistake of drinking and driving) and I frankly don't think there would have been anything unethical about it. However, in the moment I decided not to and had to somewhat awkwardly end the conversation. Definitely the one I remember looking back upon thinking maybe I should have pulled the trigger.

During my years as a public defender in my mid to late twenties I had the occasion to represent some exotic dancers and other morally lax girls. Was probably offered thank you sexual favors a half a dozen times (with one particular dancer inviting me to her club after hours so her and her colleagues could "show [me] the night of my life"). Never had much trouble turning those down though. However, I noticed that now I'm 30, married, and don't have time to stay in great shape those offers have stopped.

If you were done representing her, then no ethical problem.

As for the bolded... I'd have had some trouble turning that down in my 20's. Of course, my #### doesn't glow in the dark now, so maybe that's a good thing.

 

[Zow]

I've never nailed a client, though I had one (a cute, bubbly real estate agent) who I feel sure I could have as we just clicked. Anyway, I can't imagine how much of a mess that would become. It's hard enough (ha!) managing clients as it is.

I had one client I represented on a DUI back when I was a student-attorney in Minnesota who, after chatting with her after her sentencing, seemed waiting for me to ask her out and I definitely wanted. She was a local college girl, totally cute and totally put together/normal (just made the dumb mistake of drinking and driving) and I frankly don't think there would have been anything unethical about it. However, in the moment I decided not to and had to somewhat awkwardly end the conversation. Definitely the one I remember looking back upon thinking maybe I should have pulled the trigger.

During my years as a public defender in my mid to late twenties I had the occasion to represent some exotic dancers and other morally lax girls. Was probably offered thank you sexual favors a half a dozen times (with one particular dancer inviting me to her club after hours so her and her colleagues could "show [me] the night of my life"). Never had much trouble turning those down though. However, I noticed that now I'm 30, married, and don't have time to stay in great shape those offers have stopped.

If you were done representing her, then no ethical problem.

As ridiculous as this may sound, as a public defender I didn't want to mess with it in the event it could be construed as payment for services rendered.*

*I couldn't even accept de minimis gifts under my contract and if I did it was fireable. Had to turn down a box of Omaha Steaks once and run after people who thanked me with a 100 dollar handshake. That hurt.