The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (7 Viewers)

[Yankee23Fan]

IF this thread gets all politcs-y I'm out. So, you know, yeah.

Anyone ever sue or threaten to sue Sallie Mae? I'm pondering.

Have two divorce trials next month. Awesome sauce.

Another potential client comes to see me. Contract issue. They have been paid 40 grand. They are owed another 20 grand. Payment is being refused for a host of reasons - some at the end of the day probably are workable some that are the usual ridiculous stuff. But the damages are a hard number 20 grand. Client comes to me becuase the person who owes offered them 10. They want to take the 10 and then sue for the other 10. Wait for it......

.... on contingency.

Um no, unfortunately, for the type of action you are seeking here I would need a retainer deposit of about $8,000 and honestly if they are offering you a settlement you can't take it and then still sue them. Why not, they owe me 20? Then sue for 20. I need 8 up front. But if I give you 8 up front I'd be better just taking the 10. No shat Sherlock. He left because he has to think about it.

Calls 3 hours later with a slew of more questions and - wait for it again - wanting to know if he can come back in for another consult (in laymans terms, wants to talk to me again for free). Um no, the clock starts if you come back in. And to finish the story, the response I get to that is.... you attorney's are all the same, you only want to make money and not help people.

Yup, that's me. You mother******* a*****e. God I hate people like that. I mean, you want to sue someone because they didn't pay you for your services that you offered, but I am a schmuk because.... I want you to pay me for my services. Frankly, this is what's wrong with America. Socrates was close to being right. We don't need philosophers running the show so much as we need the ability in certain professions to just backhand certain people without criminal repurcussions.

Not Sallie Mae, but the FHA. Similar. Threatened, but ultimately didn't go after them.

I'm seriously debating for several reasons. One, they deserve it. In the arena of overall scum in certain fields they are at the top in the student loan business. Two, the client is a friend but who is also willing to pay me which is always a nice addition to helping a friend. Three, there is certainly a problem here. However, I know Sallie Mae crushed someone at the USSC level so of course I worried about. But it's an interesting thing to deal with.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm seriously debating for several reasons. One, they deserve it. In the arena of overall scum in certain fields they are at the top in the student loan business. Two, the client is a friend but who is also willing to pay me which is always a nice addition to helping a friend. Three, there is certainly a problem here. However, I know Sallie Mae crushed someone at the USSC level so of course I worried about. But it's an interesting thing to deal with.

Without getting into specifics, do you have a good cause of action?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm seriously debating for several reasons. One, they deserve it. In the arena of overall scum in certain fields they are at the top in the student loan business. Two, the client is a friend but who is also willing to pay me which is always a nice addition to helping a friend. Three, there is certainly a problem here. However, I know Sallie Mae crushed someone at the USSC level so of course I worried about. But it's an interesting thing to deal with.

Without getting into specifics, do you have a good cause of action?

Let's say, hypothetically that Sallie Mae has done the following to a person who is hypothetically talking to attorney to see if anything can be done:

1. Accepted payment but never provided any documentation where that payment has gone.

2. Agreed on the phone with a person to put them in a specific payment plan, take the money, and the day after taking the money have a different person call to say that the program doesn't exist and they can't do it and they owe more money immediately or yada yada collections.

3. A day or two after the call telling the hypo person that the program was wrong, yet another rep calls to tell them that the payment was received in the program and thank you for the payment.

4. Calling neighbors to collect who aren't family or friends.

5. Threatening on the phone as per usual.

6. Have refused to provide a documents showing the current balance of the loan(s) and where the payments have gone.

7. Some general other usual collection stuff

8. Being an overall assinine company that seriously deserves to be slapped in a courtroom with a big fricken paddle that resonates the sound througout the courthouse like a comedy sketch.

Hypothetically is any of that enough to at least begin the process of demanding, if nothing else, the proper documents on the history of the loan(s) and where the money has gone and just what payment plan is being used, is available, has been reviewed, is not correct, is correct, etc....

Small follow up - ever subpoena the phone records for the "this conversation is being recorded..." I never have which is odd, but never had to. It might be worth it here.

 

[Henry Ford]

I'm seriously debating for several reasons. One, they deserve it. In the arena of overall scum in certain fields they are at the top in the student loan business. Two, the client is a friend but who is also willing to pay me which is always a nice addition to helping a friend. Three, there is certainly a problem here. However, I know Sallie Mae crushed someone at the USSC level so of course I worried about. But it's an interesting thing to deal with.

Without getting into specifics, do you have a good cause of action?

Let's say, hypothetically that Sallie Mae has done the following to a person who is hypothetically talking to attorney to see if anything can be done:

1. Accepted payment but never provided any documentation where that payment has gone.

2. Agreed on the phone with a person to put them in a specific payment plan, take the money, and the day after taking the money have a different person call to say that the program doesn't exist and they can't do it and they owe more money immediately or yada yada collections.

3. A day or two after the call telling the hypo person that the program was wrong, yet another rep calls to tell them that the payment was received in the program and thank you for the payment.

4. Calling neighbors to collect who aren't family or friends.

5. Threatening on the phone as per usual.

6. Have refused to provide a documents showing the current balance of the loan(s) and where the payments have gone.

7. Some general other usual collection stuff

8. Being an overall assinine company that seriously deserves to be slapped in a courtroom with a big fricken paddle that resonates the sound througout the courthouse like a comedy sketch.

Hypothetically is any of that enough to at least begin the process of demanding, if nothing else, the proper documents on the history of the loan(s) and where the money has gone and just what payment plan is being used, is available, has been reviewed, is not correct, is correct, etc....

Small follow up - ever subpoena the phone records for the "this conversation is being recorded..." I never have which is odd, but never had to. It might be worth it here.

I have done this, against banks/credit card companies. Sometimes they have it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they claim it's been "anonymized" - it's not stored based on the caller's profile or anything, just used to see how the call center's people are doing in general.

I'd ask if the loan originated with Sallie Mae. Best case scenario, they qualify as a 3rd party debt collector.

Hypothetically.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

IF this thread gets all politcs-y I'm out. So, you know, yeah.

The problem with this thread is that it is too lawyery.

 

[Henry Ford]

IF this thread gets all politcs-y I'm out. So, you know, yeah.

The problem with this thread is that it is too lawyery.

You really mean it's a little too Jewish, don't you?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Ha

 

[Henry Ford]

You know that tense moment where you wonder if your joke will be funny or offensive? That lasts forever on a message board.

 

[NCCommish]

You know that tense moment where you wonder if your joke will be funny or offensive? That lasts forever on a message board.

I chuckled

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

You know that tense moment where you wonder if your joke will be funny or offensive? That lasts forever on a message board.

Imagine spending 40 years in the desert!

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I like a lot of the posters in here so that's why I hang out despite the lack of actual lawyering credentials.

 

[Henry Ford]

BTW I like a lot of the posters in here so that's why I hang out despite the lack of actual lawyering credentials.

You're one of our favorite ANAL buddies.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know that tense moment where you wonder if your joke will be funny or offensive? That lasts forever on a message board.

Imagine spending 40 years in the desert!

Wow, was Moses waiting for God to laugh that whole time?

 

[NCCommish]

BTW I like a lot of the posters in here so that's why I hang out despite the lack of actual lawyering credentials.

You're one of our favorite ANAL buddies.

I am honored

 

[NCCommish]

You know that tense moment where you wonder if your joke will be funny or offensive? That lasts forever on a message board.

Imagine spending 40 years in the desert!

Wow, was Moses waiting for God to laugh that whole time?

God is a tough laugh I mean he knows the joke before you even start so it's all in the delivery.

 

[Henry Ford]

You know that tense moment where you wonder if your joke will be funny or offensive? That lasts forever on a message board.

Imagine spending 40 years in the desert!

Wow, was Moses waiting for God to laugh that whole time?

God is a tough laugh I mean he knows the joke before you even start so it's all in the delivery.

"When she said she wanted a manna from heaven, I thought she was Italian!"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Anyone who thinks that criminal defendants should not get a competent defense -- and that lawyers who represent them are therefore doing social harm -- is kind of stupid, IMO. And it's clear that the ad is encouraging that view. That makes the ad, at the very least, pretty lame.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Jonathan Adler's criticisms of the ad are appropriate, IMO.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Anyone who thinks that criminal defendants should not get a competent defense -- and that lawyers who represent them are therefore doing social harm -- is kind of stupid, IMO. And it's clear that the ad is encouraging that view. That makes the ad, at the very least, pretty lame.

I don't agree that's the only way to interpret the ad. Just because all criminal defendants deserve competent representation doesn't mean that this guy has to be the one to do it. Some professions are more honorable than others. People can draw their own conclusions about whether this guy's choice of vocation says something favorable or unfavorable about him.

For what it's worth, I don't personally find being a criminal defense attorney to be that bad. There are a lot of other areas of the law that I find to be more objectionable. I don't think the subject should be considered out of bounds.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Jonathan Adler's criticisms of the ad are appropriate, IMO.

I'm still not convinced. "We need somebody to do this" is not the same as "this guy should be immune from criticism for doing this."

 

[-fish-]

Friday: Received four page letter from second year attorney complaining about discovery responses (which essentially pointed him to documents for the answers to all of his questions). He asked no less than seven times in his letter if he could review the documents today.

Monday: Had my paralegal read this letter. Asked her to prepare the documents for review. Reminded her I would be out this Friday.

Tuesday: Sent a letter to requesting counsel confirming Friday review. Had my paralegal prepare it. Asked her to confirm that documents would be ready to review.

Thursday: Reminded paralegal and another attorney in my office that counsel would be coming in at 9 am today to review documents, and that I would not be in the office.

Today, 9 a.m.: call from paralegal and attorney in my office, asking me what documents we were supposed to be making available, and yelling at me for leaving them unprepared to deal with counsel.

Today: noon, alcoholic milkshake and burger at Lunchbox Laboratory.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Friday: Received four page letter from second year attorney complaining about discovery responses (which essentially pointed him to documents for the answers to all of his questions). He asked no less than seven times in his letter if he could review the documents today.

Monday: Had my paralegal read this letter. Asked her to prepare the documents for review. Reminded her I would be out this Friday.

Tuesday: Sent a letter to requesting counsel confirming Friday review. Had my paralegal prepare it. Asked her to confirm that documents would be ready to review.

Thursday: Reminded paralegal and another attorney in my office that counsel would be coming in at 9 am today to review documents, and that I would not be in the office.

Today, 9 a.m.: call from paralegal and attorney in my office, asking me what documents we were supposed to be making available, and yelling at me for leaving them unprepared to deal with counsel.

Today: noon, alcoholic milkshake and burger at Lunchbox Laboratory.

Nice.

 

[Henry Ford]

Friday: Received four page letter from second year attorney complaining about discovery responses (which essentially pointed him to documents for the answers to all of his questions). He asked no less than seven times in his letter if he could review the documents today.

Monday: Had my paralegal read this letter. Asked her to prepare the documents for review. Reminded her I would be out this Friday.

Tuesday: Sent a letter to requesting counsel confirming Friday review. Had my paralegal prepare it. Asked her to confirm that documents would be ready to review.

Thursday: Reminded paralegal and another attorney in my office that counsel would be coming in at 9 am today to review documents, and that I would not be in the office.

Today, 9 a.m.: call from paralegal and attorney in my office, asking me what documents we were supposed to be making available, and yelling at me for leaving them unprepared to deal with counsel.

Today: noon, alcoholic milkshake and burger at Lunchbox Laboratory.

Do they have chimneys in their homes? I find #####ing down someone's chimney to be very liberating.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Ok, time to start a divorce trial brief. Yipee! There are no worse trial briefs in all of law. In fact some are actually fun, like prerogative writ trials - those briefs are actually legal work and fun to write. Divorce?

Ah, the nature of the action is that the people hate each other; the legal contentions? Yeah, they want a fricken divorce; Damages? This is a divorce judge, murder is cheaper and easier on all parties so what exactly are you going to do for my client on damages? Oh, that's right, nothing. But here is 10 pages of law on that point just to be clear. List of exhibits? Sure. I have three boxes. None of it matters. Yet I have to label all of it. Oh, that's right at the end you are just going to most likely split the baby in some way because you have too many other cases to look through all this stuff. Ok, I will still label away. Witnesses? This is a divorce. I need my client and God, and God is at the beach the day of trial and out of my jurisdiction for service. Proposed findings of fact? Sure, here's one - it's a divorce why the hell do I have to write a brief?

Ok. done venting. Back to work. "Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate criteria as it pertains to the case at hand......"

Seriously..... if anyone ever comes to you and says, can you do my divorce for me.... run. Just run. In fact, before you run pay them to leave and not come back. Do not do this to yourself. I just threw this printed draft against the fricken wall because of some recent unpublished cases that I know I have to deal with because the Judge is one of the unpublished opinions. Ugggghghghghghghghg.

Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate critera as it pertains to the case at hand including the recent case of Effme v. Benderover recently decided by this court which is on point as to numbers 4-7 and 9.....

:slamsheadonkeyboard:

 

[Henry Ford]

Ok, time to start a divorce trial brief. Yipee! There are no worse trial briefs in all of law. In fact some are actually fun, like prerogative writ trials - those briefs are actually legal work and fun to write. Divorce?

Ah, the nature of the action is that the people hate each other; the legal contentions? Yeah, they want a fricken divorce; Damages? This is a divorce judge, murder is cheaper and easier on all parties so what exactly are you going to do for my client on damages? Oh, that's right, nothing. But here is 10 pages of law on that point just to be clear. List of exhibits? Sure. I have three boxes. None of it matters. Yet I have to label all of it. Oh, that's right at the end you are just going to most likely split the baby in some way because you have too many other cases to look through all this stuff. Ok, I will still label away. Witnesses? This is a divorce. I need my client and God, and God is at the beach the day of trial and out of my jurisdiction for service. Proposed findings of fact? Sure, here's one - it's a divorce why the hell do I have to write a brief?

Ok. done venting. Back to work. "Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate criteria as it pertains to the case at hand......"

Seriously..... if anyone ever comes to you and says, can you do my divorce for me.... run. Just run. In fact, before you run pay them to leave and not come back. Do not do this to yourself. I just threw this printed draft against the fricken wall because of some recent unpublished cases that I know I have to deal with because the Judge is one of the unpublished opinions. Ugggghghghghghghghg.

Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate critera as it pertains to the case at hand including the recent case of Effme v. Benderover recently decided by this court which is on point as to numbers 4-7 and 9.....

:slamsheadonkeyboard:

I also parsed that weirdly. Slam Shea Donkey Board

 

[Yankee23Fan]

 

[Zow]

Ok, time to start a divorce trial brief. Yipee! There are no worse trial briefs in all of law. In fact some are actually fun, like prerogative writ trials - those briefs are actually legal work and fun to write. Divorce?

Ah, the nature of the action is that the people hate each other; the legal contentions? Yeah, they want a fricken divorce; Damages? This is a divorce judge, murder is cheaper and easier on all parties so what exactly are you going to do for my client on damages? Oh, that's right, nothing. But here is 10 pages of law on that point just to be clear. List of exhibits? Sure. I have three boxes. None of it matters. Yet I have to label all of it. Oh, that's right at the end you are just going to most likely split the baby in some way because you have too many other cases to look through all this stuff. Ok, I will still label away. Witnesses? This is a divorce. I need my client and God, and God is at the beach the day of trial and out of my jurisdiction for service. Proposed findings of fact? Sure, here's one - it's a divorce why the hell do I have to write a brief?

Ok. done venting. Back to work. "Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate criteria as it pertains to the case at hand......"

Seriously..... if anyone ever comes to you and says, can you do my divorce for me.... run. Just run. In fact, before you run pay them to leave and not come back. Do not do this to yourself. I just threw this printed draft against the fricken wall because of some recent unpublished cases that I know I have to deal with because the Judge is one of the unpublished opinions. Ugggghghghghghghghg.

Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate critera as it pertains to the case at hand including the recent case of Effme v. Benderover recently decided by this court which is on point as to numbers 4-7 and 9.....

:slamsheadonkeyboard:

Working on one right now where me and opposing counsel have to battle out the ####ty default decree the parties did exactly one year ago, with the assistance of a doc preparer, which is a gigantic legal disaster and, under contract law, likely royally screws my client.

eta:

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Ok, time to start a divorce trial brief. Yipee! There are no worse trial briefs in all of law. In fact some are actually fun, like prerogative writ trials - those briefs are actually legal work and fun to write. Divorce?

Ah, the nature of the action is that the people hate each other; the legal contentions? Yeah, they want a fricken divorce; Damages? This is a divorce judge, murder is cheaper and easier on all parties so what exactly are you going to do for my client on damages? Oh, that's right, nothing. But here is 10 pages of law on that point just to be clear. List of exhibits? Sure. I have three boxes. None of it matters. Yet I have to label all of it. Oh, that's right at the end you are just going to most likely split the baby in some way because you have too many other cases to look through all this stuff. Ok, I will still label away. Witnesses? This is a divorce. I need my client and God, and God is at the beach the day of trial and out of my jurisdiction for service. Proposed findings of fact? Sure, here's one - it's a divorce why the hell do I have to write a brief?

Ok. done venting. Back to work. "Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate criteria as it pertains to the case at hand......"

Seriously..... if anyone ever comes to you and says, can you do my divorce for me.... run. Just run. In fact, before you run pay them to leave and not come back. Do not do this to yourself. I just threw this printed draft against the fricken wall because of some recent unpublished cases that I know I have to deal with because the Judge is one of the unpublished opinions. Ugggghghghghghghghg.

Alimony is based on these 16 criteria and the Plaintiff will brief each separate critera as it pertains to the case at hand including the recent case of Effme v. Benderover recently decided by this court which is on point as to numbers 4-7 and 9.....

:slamsheadonkeyboard:

Working on one right now where me and opposing counsel have to battle out the ####ty default decree the parties did exactly one year ago, with the assistance of a doc preparer, which is a gigantic legal disaster and, under contract law, likely royally screws my client.

eta:

Yeah I've done that. I love do it yourself divorce kits from Staples or whever it is those people go to get screwed with them.. They should call them, Lawyer Fee Generators, because they always screw up something big time.

Sure, this national company that is incorporated in Illinois, has a main business office in New York, a main warehouse director in Seattle and most of their employees in India has made this perfectly acceptable New Jersey divorce law kit for you. Won't have any problems at all. Chaching.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

My only experience with divorce stuff came when I got dragged into a matter that was ancillary to the criminal defense work that I was doing for this company in New Jersey.

The CEO's secretary is going through a divorce and the husband is subpoened all the CEO's bank account records (at a time he is under indictment in Ohio). So obviously, I want to shut it down. So I ask the CEO, "can I say that there is no relationship between you and the secretary?" He says, "Yes." I ask him, "have you ever given her gifts or anything under the table?" "No." I ask the secretary, "are you romantically involved with [Jack?]" She says, "no."

So I draft the motion to quash. I have the client and the secretary review the pleading. I note that this is the CEO's personal account, that it's strictly a business relationship (albeit a kind of sketchy independent contractor relationship, she's not an employee of the company). Yadda yadda yadda.

So the husband files his reply and he had just oodles of evidence that the CEO is boinking the secretary. Pictures of them all over each other in Vegas, he's bought her son a car, you name it. I call the CEO and say, "let me ask you again, are you sleeping with [sheila]?" "Yes." "Did you buy a car for he son?" "Yes." "How did you buy it?" "I paid cash."

I still won on the motion to quash, but it was highly, highly embarrassing.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Why is it legal for a person to lie to their lawyer when they know he/she is going to misrepresent the truth to the court? Why isn't that perjury? Or something similar?

 

[Henry Ford]

Why is it legal for a person to lie to their lawyer when they know he/she is going to misrepresent the truth to the court? Why isn't that perjury? Or something similar?

Because they aren't under oath.

 

[Henry Ford]

Why is it legal for a person to lie to their lawyer when they know he/she is going to misrepresent the truth to the court? Why isn't that perjury? Or something similar?

Because they aren't under oath.

But isn't the lawyer "under oath" (or the equivalent -- prevented from lying somehow) when they address the court?

He/she isn't lying.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Why is it legal for a person to lie to their lawyer when they know he/she is going to misrepresent the truth to the court? Why isn't that perjury? Or something similar?

Because they aren't under oath.

I was actually somewhat lucky that I was a bit sloppy. I drafted a declarations that the CEO and secretary signed, but I didn't have anything in them about there being no relationship.

So the motion just said something to the effect that "there was no suggestion of anything other than a business relationship." Of course, there wouldn't be, it was just a subpoena served on the banks.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I cannot count how many times I've been the revealer of cheating or the attorney-victim of a client who swore to me that they weren't until the other side nailed them in court somehow or in a deposition. The reaction is always the same:

You either see them thinking or they actually say, "How in the hell did they find out?" It's like a confused puppy look mixed with that feeling of fear that you get when you speed past the cop in the speedtrap that you saw too late to slow down so you look behind you for three miles on the highway.

I've throw my briefcase/satchel whatever the hell you call it at a client in a conference room for lying to me and making me look like the schmuk in open court.

My favorite was the chick that sworn up and down no affair and that she had no money and needed every type of support imaginable only to find out by way of subpoena for my guy that she (1) bought a house for her boyfriend during the divorce and (2) paid cash.

That was a fun phone call to opposing counsel. So, Dave, how are things. Good good, yeah, I need a new set of clubs too. Yeah, aren't we all. Listen, I don't want you to be surprised in court, but I just found out your girl bought a house cash for her boyfriend so I'll be filing a motion. Yeah, if you want to talk to her. Sure, if you send a settlement offer I'll have him consider it before I file. Tomorrow? Yeah I'll be in. Thanks.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Can you quit the case if your client lies to you about something they know you'll be representing to the court?

(I'd suck so bad at being a lawyer.)

"Quiting a case," isn't as easy as some might think. Once I hit a certain date in a divorce proceeding a request to be relieved as counsel will almost always be denied.

 

[Henry Ford]

I cannot count how many times I've been the revealer of cheating or the attorney-victim of a client who swore to me that they weren't until the other side nailed them in court somehow or in a deposition. The reaction is always the same:

You either see them thinking or they actually say, "How in the hell did they find out?" It's like a confused puppy look mixed with that feeling of fear that you get when you speed past the cop in the speedtrap that you saw too late to slow down so you look behind you for three miles on the highway.

I've throw my briefcase/satchel whatever the hell you call it at a client in a conference room for lying to me and making me look like the schmuk in open court.

My favorite was the chick that sworn up and down no affair and that she had no money and needed every type of support imaginable only to find out by way of subpoena for my guy that she (1) bought a house for her boyfriend during the divorce and (2) paid cash.

That was a fun phone call to opposing counsel. So, Dave, how are things. Good good, yeah, I need a new set of clubs too. Yeah, aren't we all. Listen, I don't want you to be surprised in court, but I just found out your girl bought a house cash for her boyfriend so I'll be filing a motion. Yeah, if you want to talk to her. Sure, if you send a settlement offer I'll have him consider it before I file. Tomorrow? Yeah I'll be in. Thanks.

Big fan of those phone calls. Mine are usually about experts.

Jim, glad I caught you. Been awhile. How are your daughter's piano lessons going? Nice. They're so cute at that age. Look, I just wanted to let you know I'm filing a Daubert motion on the only person your guys ever had look at this house to determine how much his homeowners should pay. Yeah, I guess he got hit for spoliation of evidence and perjury a few years ago. Uh huh. Yeah, should be weird going to trial without an expert. I also wanted to let you know I'm rescinding our settlement offer the minute I file this. Have a good weekend.

 

[bigbottom]

Jonathan Adler's criticisms of the ad are appropriate, IMO.

I'm still not convinced. "We need somebody to do this" is not the same as "this guy should be immune from criticism for doing this."

And the ad seems to imply that the candidate is out there talking about protecting women (not sure of the context). If he is in fact trying to position himself as a champion against domestic abuse, it is somewhat relevant that he has pursued a career in which he defends domestic abusers (even conceding that they deserve a defense).

 

[Zow]

Can you quit the case if your client lies to you about something they know you'll be representing to the court?

(I'd suck so bad at being a lawyer.)

"Quiting a case," isn't as easy as some might think. Once I hit a certain date in a divorce proceeding a request to be relieved as counsel will almost always be denied.

In criminal there is likely a pretty decent bit of leeway to motion to withdraw from a case because you've discovered that your client has lied to you about something huge or intends to insist on testifying and lying.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Do you guys think that people should really have to take 3 years of law school and have a law degree to take the bar exam?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

No. Law school is a scam and waste of money.

 

[Henry Ford]

Do you guys think that people should really have to take 3 years of law school and have a law degree to take the bar exam?

No

 

[Henry Ford]

Speaking of which, Louisiana spring bar results suuuck.

 

[krista4]

No. Law school is a scam and waste of money.

Almost no relation to what a lawyer actually does, even a litigator.

 

[Henry Ford]

No. Law school is a scam and waste of money.

Almost no relation to what a lawyer actually does, even a litigator.

Well, you do cram useless crap into your head for two weeks of briefing and then forget it all. Kinda like litigating.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Wait I can't use my beer pong and disc golf skills in litigation? Law school is also where I learned to binge watch a television series.

 

[Henry Ford]

Wait I can't use my beer pong and disc golf skills in litigation? Law school is also where I learned to binge watch a television series.

That actually helps.

 

[Christo]

IF this thread gets all politcs-y I'm out. So, you know, yeah.

Anyone ever sue or threaten to sue Sallie Mae? I'm pondering.

Have two divorce trials next month. Awesome sauce.

Another potential client comes to see me. Contract issue. They have been paid 40 grand. They are owed another 20 grand. Payment is being refused for a host of reasons - some at the end of the day probably are workable some that are the usual ridiculous stuff. But the damages are a hard number 20 grand. Client comes to me becuase the person who owes offered them 10. They want to take the 10 and then sue for the other 10. Wait for it......

.... on contingency.

Um no, unfortunately, for the type of action you are seeking here I would need a retainer deposit of about $8,000 and honestly if they are offering you a settlement you can't take it and then still sue them. Why not, they owe me 20? Then sue for 20. I need 8 up front. But if I give you 8 up front I'd be better just taking the 10. No shat Sherlock. He left because he has to think about it.

Calls 3 hours later with a slew of more questions and - wait for it again - wanting to know if he can come back in for another consult (in laymans terms, wants to talk to me again for free). Um no, the clock starts if you come back in. And to finish the story, the response I get to that is.... you attorney's are all the same, you only want to make money and not help people.

Yup, that's me. You mother******* a*****e. God I hate people like that. I mean, you want to sue someone because they didn't pay you for your services that you offered, but I am a schmuk because.... I want you to pay me for my services. Frankly, this is what's wrong with America. Socrates was close to being right. We don't need philosophers running the show so much as we need the ability in certain professions to just backhand certain people without criminal repurcussions.

I had a guy in today who I'd spoken with for about 20 minutes earlier in the week. I gave him my hourly and what I'd need for a retainer. He couldn't do the retainer but he still wanted to meet with me to tell him what I think his chances were and to point him in the right direction. So I tell him I'd give him an hour and to bring his documents and $300--cash or credit card. He shows up without any documents. I ask where his documents were and he says he wants to go over some things first. I ask for the $300 and he says he wants to talk first. I say no money, no meeting. He pulls out a checkbook. I say cash or credit card. Goes on a rant about trust. I tell him he agreed to do 2 things in order to speak with me and he did neither. I ask why I should trust that his check wasn't going to bounce? He said he was going to the ATM and he'd be back. Never saw him again.

 

[Christo]

Are the law firms / lawyers with the cheesy commercials chasing injury suits the scum of the profession? ie Cellino and Barnes,

I used to think so, but over the past say 4 years, I have come to the conclusion that the true scum of our profession are the large firms that do nothing but collection work for credit cards and banks and focus all their time and hours on credit card collections and foreclosures. They aren't real lawyers in my opinion most of the time. There are a few individual nice people and guys and gals that I would share a beer with and whom I can work with, but overall those firms are the very definition of why people hate lawyers.

Yep. They're not really lawyers, they just have the degree and do cookie cutter for the man my 7 year old niece could handle.

 

[-fish-]

From what I can tell, collections is where you end up when you've gone from being a lawyer that drinks a lot to being a drunk that still has a bar card.

 

[Christo]

Telephone conversation with a collections firm:

-Hi, I'd like to speak with the lawyer handling Case No. Z.

-I can help you with that.

-Are you a lawyer?

-No. But I can help you with that.

-Okay, my client would like to settle this.

-What's our file number?

-I don't know. I have the case number.

-I can't look it up by case number. I need our file number.

-Is this a law firm?

-Yes.

-But you can't look it up by case number?

-No. I need our file number.

-I don't know your file number. Maybe you can look it up by my client's name. It's Ms. A.

-I don't have that name in our system.

-This is law firm D, D & D, right?

-Yes.

-And you handle collections for Prime, right?

-Yes.

-In Cook County, Illinois, right?

-Yes.

-But you can't look up your cases by case number?

-No.

-Can I speak to an attorney?

-Okay, let me put you through to someone.

-

-

-

-V-mail-Hi, this is Christo. I represent Ms. A in Case No. Z in Cook County. You haven't served her yet but she'd like to settle. Please give me a call back.

This was at least three weeks ago and still haven't heard back from them.