What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (3 Viewers)

Oh great lawyer thread, a little advice please.

My college attending son got cited for underage consumption by city police; misdemeanor citation/summons.

Wife wants to get lawyer. Is it worth it for misdemeanor charge? He has three scholarships, kick butt GPA, a part time job, a leadership position in the band, and a leadership position in honor society.

We have received two different rep agreements and are shopping. The rep agreements are for $1500 and $2000 plus court costs, of course.

Is it worth it?

 
Oh great lawyer thread, a little advice please.

My college attending son got cited for underage consumption by city police; misdemeanor citation/summons.

Wife wants to get lawyer. Is it worth it for misdemeanor charge? He has three scholarships, kick butt GPA, a part time job, a leadership position in the band, and a leadership position in honor society.

We have received two different rep agreements and are shopping. The rep agreements are for $1500 and $2000 plus court costs, of course.

Is it worth it?
Very tough question. Conservatively, it's always worth getting a lawyer. However, if it's a straightforward case and he's just looking to get the best deal, has he tried to get court appointed counsel? Generally, offers on this charge are usually pretty standard and a public defender will know what's good and what isn't. If he cannot get court appointed counsel, I'd give my conservative advice. My less conservative advice would be to have him show up to his first court appearance on his own and see what kind of offer they give him. If it's something he can live with, then that's fine. But please understand that plea offers vary wildly by jurisdiction and even specific prosecutor. What is a "good deal" in jurisdiction "A" may be crap in jurisdiction "B". Only a local attorney who practices in that specific court would know what is attainable, what is crap, etc.

Got a jurisdiction at least?

 
Oh great lawyer thread, a little advice please.

My college attending son got cited for underage consumption by city police; misdemeanor citation/summons.

Wife wants to get lawyer. Is it worth it for misdemeanor charge? He has three scholarships, kick butt GPA, a part time job, a leadership position in the band, and a leadership position in honor society.

We have received two different rep agreements and are shopping. The rep agreements are for $1500 and $2000 plus court costs, of course.

Is it worth it?
Very tough question. Conservatively, it's always worth getting a lawyer. However, if it's a straightforward case and he's just looking to get the best deal, has he tried to get court appointed counsel? Generally, offers on this charge are usually pretty standard and a public defender will know what's good and what isn't. If he cannot get court appointed counsel, I'd give my conservative advice. My less conservative advice would be to have him show up to his first court appearance on his own and see what kind of offer they give him. If it's something he can live with, then that's fine. But please understand that plea offers vary wildly by jurisdiction and even specific prosecutor. What is a "good deal" in jurisdiction "A" may be crap in jurisdiction "B". Only a local attorney who practices in that specific court would know what is attainable, what is crap, etc.

Got a jurisdiction at least?
Thanks for your input. We aren't going to hire a lawyer. Son will plead no contest, pay the fine and court costs. The municipal court (of city hosting university) isn't big on diversion programs. However...

Student Legal Services on campus and a friend of the family that practices law in the area both recommended that he attend an alcohol awareness program sponsored by the university, volunteer through the university's outreach center, and keep his nose clean. When his birthday approaches next year (turns 21), SLS will help him petition the court to have the misdemeanor remove from his record.

Thanks again.

 
Oh great lawyer thread, a little advice please.

My college attending son got cited for underage consumption by city police; misdemeanor citation/summons.

Wife wants to get lawyer. Is it worth it for misdemeanor charge? He has three scholarships, kick butt GPA, a part time job, a leadership position in the band, and a leadership position in honor society.

We have received two different rep agreements and are shopping. The rep agreements are for $1500 and $2000 plus court costs, of course.

Is it worth it?
Very tough question. Conservatively, it's always worth getting a lawyer. However, if it's a straightforward case and he's just looking to get the best deal, has he tried to get court appointed counsel? Generally, offers on this charge are usually pretty standard and a public defender will know what's good and what isn't. If he cannot get court appointed counsel, I'd give my conservative advice. My less conservative advice would be to have him show up to his first court appearance on his own and see what kind of offer they give him. If it's something he can live with, then that's fine. But please understand that plea offers vary wildly by jurisdiction and even specific prosecutor. What is a "good deal" in jurisdiction "A" may be crap in jurisdiction "B". Only a local attorney who practices in that specific court would know what is attainable, what is crap, etc.

Got a jurisdiction at least?
Thanks for your input. We aren't going to hire a lawyer. Son will plead no contest, pay the fine and court costs. The municipal court (of city hosting university) isn't big on diversion programs. However...

Student Legal Services on campus and a friend of the family that practices law in the area both recommended that he attend an alcohol awareness program sponsored by the university, volunteer through the university's outreach center, and keep his nose clean. When his birthday approaches next year (turns 21), SLS will help him petition the court to have the misdemeanor remove from his record.

Thanks again.
This is a good idea. I did some work with the record-sealing service in DC, and while it could deal with more serious stuff than what your son was charged with, getting the misdemeanor removed can't hurt.

 
If there was ever a day I could just quit today would have been that day.

I haven't just led this particular horse to the water. I got the water cooled to the perfect temperature got the right background noise of animals the perfect amount of sunlight and cool breeze. I walked it to the water like a loving mother helps her baby learn to walk covered the ground in rose petals and congratulated the thing after every Step.

I made every other animal in the area say clear of the water so it was perfect in every way and told any passer by that he is the best horse on the planet and deserves to be treated so well. And when we finally get to the water and place pillows at his feet made of the finest hay with baskets of apples to devour after the drink ..... the Damn thing still won't take an effing sip.

:wall:

 
If there was ever a day I could just quit today would have been that day.

I haven't just led this particular horse to the water. I got the water cooled to the perfect temperature got the right background noise of animals the perfect amount of sunlight and cool breeze. I walked it to the water like a loving mother helps her baby learn to walk covered the ground in rose petals and congratulated the thing after every Step.

I made every other animal in the area say clear of the water so it was perfect in every way and told any passer by that he is the best horse on the planet and deserves to be treated so well. And when we finally get to the water and place pillows at his feet made of the finest hay with baskets of apples to devour after the drink ..... the Damn thing still won't take an effing sip.

:wall:
I got torched cross-examining a seven year old today. I'd trade you.

 
If there was ever a day I could just quit today would have been that day.

I haven't just led this particular horse to the water. I got the water cooled to the perfect temperature got the right background noise of animals the perfect amount of sunlight and cool breeze. I walked it to the water like a loving mother helps her baby learn to walk covered the ground in rose petals and congratulated the thing after every Step.

I made every other animal in the area say clear of the water so it was perfect in every way and told any passer by that he is the best horse on the planet and deserves to be treated so well. And when we finally get to the water and place pillows at his feet made of the finest hay with baskets of apples to devour after the drink ..... the Damn thing still won't take an effing sip.

:wall:
I got torched cross-examining a seven year old today. I'd trade you.
Like you didn't know that was going to happen

 
general question about JP or small claims court. yes, i understand that it varies widely from state to state, county to county, etc. But is this type of court used to handling cases where people represent themselves? If so, are the judges typically understanding of that fact?

And finally, what are the typical costs to litigate a small claim (<$15k) for a real estate transaction gone wrong where damages are being sought (ie not return of the RE)?

 
[vent]

I'm working on an acquisition that has become the biggest PITA ever in the history of acquisitions, and every week we are having multi-hour negotiation calls and just spinning our damn wheels. This acquisition is tiny (<$10 million) and does not warrant the amount of time, effort and angst it has generated for all of us for over 11 months and counting.

Anyway, I think everyone on our end is so worn down by this process that they're not even trying anymore, so for tomorrow's scheduled 3-1/2 call, there has been no prep, no discussion, no strategy. I'm just going in blind and don't even know if I'm supposed to be "getting to yes" or badass, and since we are all located remotely from one another I can't read body language or pick up on facial expressions, or even have a damn side conversation except by quickly-typed email.

I miss the days where negotiations consisted of everyone being put in a room and not being fed until you got it done. :oldschool:

[/vent]

 
We still really doing this lawyerin' thing in here?

Congrats Christo and all.

I've had some nice professional developments in recent months and some not-so-great ones, but the best thing that has happened in the past 3 years of my career is the tyrant in-house lawyer who I have reported to on cases for one of our largest firm clients rotated out of his responsibility area, which means he will no longer handle the cases in my practice area, and I no longer will be berated and belittled on a weekly basis (at least by him). My life is infinitely better. I almost quit over this guy, more than once. Glad I stuck it out.

 
[vent]

I'm working on an acquisition that has become the biggest PITA ever in the history of acquisitions, and every week we are having multi-hour negotiation calls and just spinning our damn wheels. This acquisition is tiny (<$10 million) and does not warrant the amount of time, effort and angst it has generated for all of us for over 11 months and counting.

Anyway, I think everyone on our end is so worn down by this process that they're not even trying anymore, so for tomorrow's scheduled 3-1/2 call, there has been no prep, no discussion, no strategy. I'm just going in blind and don't even know if I'm supposed to be "getting to yes" or badass, and since we are all located remotely from one another I can't read body language or pick up on facial expressions, or even have a damn side conversation except by quickly-typed email.

I miss the days where negotiations consisted of everyone being put in a room and not being fed until you got it done. :oldschool:

[/vent]
my almost exact scenario. i really want to punch everyone. Twice.
 
Did someone post this? If so sorry.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Bursch responded that he believed the government can legally draw lines based on sex if it’s related to biology, such as the ability to procreate. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with his interpretation, interrupting his rebuttal.

The argument quickly moved on to other questions, but the point Roberts raised hung in the air, suggesting a way for the chief justice to strike down state bans on gay marriage on relatively narrow grounds, without finding a fundamental right to marriage for LGBT people.

What are people's thoughts? This seems to me to be a very solid line of logic, but it seems to have been rejected and/or abandoned for the most part.

 
Did someone post this? If so sorry.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Bursch responded that he believed the government can legally draw lines based on sex if it’s related to biology, such as the ability to procreate. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with his interpretation, interrupting his rebuttal.

The argument quickly moved on to other questions, but the point Roberts raised hung in the air, suggesting a way for the chief justice to strike down state bans on gay marriage on relatively narrow grounds, without finding a fundamental right to marriage for LGBT people.

What are people's thoughts? This seems to me to be a very solid line of logic, but it seems to have been rejected and/or abandoned for the most part.
Every since my marriage started to go south (sadly, ten years now), I've been a HUGE proponent of what I call "asexual same-sex marriage."

The way it works is this: I could marry my best friend, a guy I've known since college. We would have all the commitments of marriage: lifelong partnership, commitment, duty, care, etc. We'd nurse eachother back to health when we are sick, be there for them when lonely, wipe eachother's rear when we are old and incontinent. In short: every single commitment I'd give to my wife and she'd give to me. Someone to grow old with, raise kids with, etc.

Every single commitment, that is, EXCEPT sexual intercourse. We would be free to date and screw any women we want to our hearts' desire. We'd screw young, lithe flight attendants while we are still attractive, and screw old fatties when we are old and fat. And everything in between. And neither of us would be jealous that we are out screwing around.

Anyway, it sounds like Justice Roberts is FINALLY catching up to Sweet J's Genius. I like to think that I must have been running my mouth in a bar sometime recently about my "asexual same-sex marriage" revolution, and one of Robert's clerks much have overheard it and STOLE my idea!! I want credit, dammit.

 
Did someone post this? If so sorry.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Bursch responded that he believed the government can legally draw lines based on sex if it’s related to biology, such as the ability to procreate. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with his interpretation, interrupting his rebuttal.

The argument quickly moved on to other questions, but the point Roberts raised hung in the air, suggesting a way for the chief justice to strike down state bans on gay marriage on relatively narrow grounds, without finding a fundamental right to marriage for LGBT people.

What are people's thoughts? This seems to me to be a very solid line of logic, but it seems to have been rejected and/or abandoned for the most part.
Every since my marriage started to go south (sadly, ten years now), I've been a HUGE proponent of what I call "asexual same-sex marriage."

The way it works is this: I could marry my best friend, a guy I've known since college. We would have all the commitments of marriage: lifelong partnership, commitment, duty, care, etc. We'd nurse eachother back to health when we are sick, be there for them when lonely, wipe eachother's rear when we are old and incontinent. In short: every single commitment I'd give to my wife and she'd give to me. Someone to grow old with, raise kids with, etc.

Every single commitment, that is, EXCEPT sexual intercourse. We would be free to date and screw any women we want to our hearts' desire. We'd screw young, lithe flight attendants while we are still attractive, and screw old fatties when we are old and fat. And everything in between. And neither of us would be jealous that we are out screwing around.

Anyway, it sounds like Justice Roberts is FINALLY catching up to Sweet J's Genius. I like to think that I must have been running my mouth in a bar sometime recently about my "asexual same-sex marriage" revolution, and one of Robert's clerks much have overheard it and STOLE my idea!! I want credit, dammit.
:lol: To the idea, not your marriage in general. I know it's the wrong thread but what's going on there?

 
Did someone post this? If so sorry.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Bursch responded that he believed the government can legally draw lines based on sex if it’s related to biology, such as the ability to procreate. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with his interpretation, interrupting his rebuttal.

The argument quickly moved on to other questions, but the point Roberts raised hung in the air, suggesting a way for the chief justice to strike down state bans on gay marriage on relatively narrow grounds, without finding a fundamental right to marriage for LGBT people.

What are people's thoughts? This seems to me to be a very solid line of logic, but it seems to have been rejected and/or abandoned for the most part.
Every since my marriage started to go south (sadly, ten years now), I've been a HUGE proponent of what I call "asexual same-sex marriage."

The way it works is this: I could marry my best friend, a guy I've known since college. We would have all the commitments of marriage: lifelong partnership, commitment, duty, care, etc. We'd nurse eachother back to health when we are sick, be there for them when lonely, wipe eachother's rear when we are old and incontinent. In short: every single commitment I'd give to my wife and she'd give to me. Someone to grow old with, raise kids with, etc.

Every single commitment, that is, EXCEPT sexual intercourse. We would be free to date and screw any women we want to our hearts' desire. We'd screw young, lithe flight attendants while we are still attractive, and screw old fatties when we are old and fat. And everything in between. And neither of us would be jealous that we are out screwing around.

Anyway, it sounds like Justice Roberts is FINALLY catching up to Sweet J's Genius. I like to think that I must have been running my mouth in a bar sometime recently about my "asexual same-sex marriage" revolution, and one of Robert's clerks much have overheard it and STOLE my idea!! I want credit, dammit.
:lol: To the idea, not your marriage in general. I know it's the wrong thread but what's going on there?
I owe an update in another thread, that's really a year and a half late. I've been waiting to update until . . . well, I don't know yet. Until something significant changed. Anyway, when I do, I'll send a bat-signal.

In another tangent: Going to be in Chicago Saturday night. Any Chicago-area people in this thread?

 
Building off of Sweet J's tangent, I'll be in NYC all summer. I know Otis is local/suburbia out there, but wondered:

I'm working right by Grand Central. Where would you choose to live (keeping in mind that I am not at a firm making big money, but hope to simply cover rent and not lose money on the summer)?

Also, if anyone out there wants to get together, I think I ought to buy a round or two for the help yall have given me over the past year or two.

 
Building off of Sweet J's tangent, I'll be in NYC all summer. I know Otis is local/suburbia out there, but wondered:

I'm working right by Grand Central. Where would you choose to live (keeping in mind that I am not at a firm making big money, but hope to simply cover rent and not lose money on the summer)?

Also, if anyone out there wants to get together, I think I ought to buy a round or two for the help yall have given me over the past year or two.
you should live in the city just to experience living here, especially since you'll likely be working long hours.

check in the NYC thread for ideas.

 
[vent]

I'm working on an acquisition that has become the biggest PITA ever in the history of acquisitions, and every week we are having multi-hour negotiation calls and just spinning our damn wheels. This acquisition is tiny (<$10 million) and does not warrant the amount of time, effort and angst it has generated for all of us for over 11 months and counting.

Anyway, I think everyone on our end is so worn down by this process that they're not even trying anymore, so for tomorrow's scheduled 3-1/2 call, there has been no prep, no discussion, no strategy. I'm just going in blind and don't even know if I'm supposed to be "getting to yes" or badass, and since we are all located remotely from one another I can't read body language or pick up on facial expressions, or even have a damn side conversation except by quickly-typed email.

I miss the days where negotiations consisted of everyone being put in a room and not being fed until you got it done. :oldschool:

[/vent]
Oops, it was a 4-1/2 call, from which I've just emerged. I need lunch and some booze, not in that order. OFFICIAL REQUEST: Could we please get a smiley on here that indicates blowing one's brains out? Thanks.

 
[vent]

I'm working on an acquisition that has become the biggest PITA ever in the history of acquisitions, and every week we are having multi-hour negotiation calls and just spinning our damn wheels. This acquisition is tiny (<$10 million) and does not warrant the amount of time, effort and angst it has generated for all of us for over 11 months and counting.

Anyway, I think everyone on our end is so worn down by this process that they're not even trying anymore, so for tomorrow's scheduled 3-1/2 call, there has been no prep, no discussion, no strategy. I'm just going in blind and don't even know if I'm supposed to be "getting to yes" or badass, and since we are all located remotely from one another I can't read body language or pick up on facial expressions, or even have a damn side conversation except by quickly-typed email.

I miss the days where negotiations consisted of everyone being put in a room and not being fed until you got it done. :oldschool:

[/vent]
Oops, it was a 4-1/2 call, from which I've just emerged. I need lunch and some booze, not in that order. OFFICIAL REQUEST: Could we please get a smiley on here that indicates blowing one's brains out? Thanks.
:lmao:

 
Waiting for a jury to deliberate and come back with news that your client either can remain free or go to prison for the rest of his life is perhaps the most helpless feeling in the world.

 
Waiting for a jury to deliberate and come back with news that your client either can remain free or go to prison for the rest of his life is perhaps the most helpless feeling in the world.
not sure why I keep reading your guys' thread...

but-

do you think he did it?

 
Guys that showed up at mediation with no authority just got caught not disclosing 500 boxes of potentially relevant documents for a year, even after I got a motion to compel and then an order sanctioning them for not complying.

Could be a rare case where discovery abuses are so bad that the court strikes their answer and I get a default judgment.
Huh. So I subpoenaed the document storage company as part of this motion. Turns out the reason the defendant didn't disclose over 500 boxes of relevant documents is that...wait for it...they put in an order for the storage company to destroy them four months after being served with the complaint, but their controller quit after issuing the destruction order but before signing the 30 day notice that the storage company requires before destroying documents, so the storage company never destroyed them.

So their excuse? "We didn't disclose the documents because we had a good faith belief that they had been destroyed."

Oh, and they also have four servers, three PCs and an external hard drive full of relevant documents that they "forgot" about until we deposed the controller.

I can't wait for this hearing.

 
Waiting for a jury to deliberate and come back with news that your client either can remain free or go to prison for the rest of his life is perhaps the most helpless feeling in the world.
I can't even imagine. I know you realize this, but take solace in whatever the outcome that he had solid representation and that you did everything a lawyer could do.

 
Waiting for a jury to deliberate and come back with news that your client either can remain free or go to prison for the rest of his life is perhaps the most helpless feeling in the world.
I can't even imagine. I know you realize this, but take solace in whatever the outcome that he had solid representation and that you did everything a lawyer could do.
or just go drink.

 
What's the longest you guys have had to wait for a jury to deliberate? In a previous life, I waited with our trial team for 6 days before the jury returned. Which would have been cool at home or near home or anywhere else in the world other than Billings, Montana.

 
So my client walked in to court today with the very real possibility it'd be the less breath of free air he'd ever take.

After the jury's verdict he walked out, took a deep breath, and smiled.*

*Technically he's not out of the woods yet. He was found not guilty of the first count, but the jury hung 6-6 on the second count. That far from a conviction, I suspect the prosecutor will dismiss but he has about a month to decide whether to do that.

 
What's the longest you guys have had to wait for a jury to deliberate? In a previous life, I waited with our trial team for 6 days before the jury returned. Which would have been cool at home or near home or anywhere else in the world other than Billings, Montana.
2.5 days on a stolen car case. The trial itself didn't even take that long. Eventually they found my client guilty.

Prosecutor and my co-counsel and I talked to the jury afterwards. Surprisingly they all wanted to stay and speak with us. They provided us with an incredibly well-reasoned explanation that they all started with not guilty (as instructed), legitimately all thought the defendant was not guilty, but went through a thorough review of the evidence (there was a video) and compared it to the testimony. While it didn't go my way in the end, they provided an incredibly well-reasoned narrative as to how they got to guilty. Best jury I've ever seen by far.

 
What's the longest you guys have had to wait for a jury to deliberate? In a previous life, I waited with our trial team for 6 days before the jury returned. Which would have been cool at home or near home or anywhere else in the world other than Billings, Montana.
Never had to wait more than a day.

 
Building off of Sweet J's tangent, I'll be in NYC all summer. I know Otis is local/suburbia out there, but wondered:

I'm working right by Grand Central. Where would you choose to live (keeping in mind that I am not at a firm making big money, but hope to simply cover rent and not lose money on the summer)?

Also, if anyone out there wants to get together, I think I ought to buy a round or two for the help yall have given me over the past year or two.
I would live in Brooklyn. Williamsburg maybe, Park Slope maybe.

If in Manhattan, I would love downtown, in the village or LES.

 
TheAristocrat said:
What's the longest you guys have had to wait for a jury to deliberate? In a previous life, I waited with our trial team for 6 days before the jury returned. Which would have been cool at home or near home or anywhere else in the world other than Billings, Montana.
About 3 weeks.

 
Building off of Sweet J's tangent, I'll be in NYC all summer. I know Otis is local/suburbia out there, but wondered:

I'm working right by Grand Central. Where would you choose to live (keeping in mind that I am not at a firm making big money, but hope to simply cover rent and not lose money on the summer)?

Also, if anyone out there wants to get together, I think I ought to buy a round or two for the help yall have given me over the past year or two.
I would live in Brooklyn. Williamsburg maybe, Park Slope maybe.

If in Manhattan, I would love downtown, in the village or LES.
didn't he say not lose any money on the summer?

 
Did someone post this? If so sorry.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/justice-roberts-revives-an-old-argument-that-could-117640176486.html

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case,” Roberts said. “I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

Bursch responded that he believed the government can legally draw lines based on sex if it’s related to biology, such as the ability to procreate. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with his interpretation, interrupting his rebuttal.

The argument quickly moved on to other questions, but the point Roberts raised hung in the air, suggesting a way for the chief justice to strike down state bans on gay marriage on relatively narrow grounds, without finding a fundamental right to marriage for LGBT people.

What are people's thoughts? This seems to me to be a very solid line of logic, but it seems to have been rejected and/or abandoned for the most part.
It's an argument that's been mostly completely abandoned because lower court judges basically dismiss it out of hand, but I agree with the basic premise of it. If you're telling one person he/she can't do something that someone of another gender/sex can do solely because of the gender/sex, I think it should be considered per se discrimination based on gender/sex.

 
I filed a mechanic's lien case last November. It's been assigned to a courtroom. But the courtroom doesn't have a judge. We've had 2 "status" hearings but no one to give the status to. At the last status the other attorney and I decided we might as well just get started without the judge. Neither of us have done anything yet. The next status is on 5/21. I'll report back.

 
I had a non-jury verdict take four months once.
I'm involved in a case that was tried in 2009 (bench trial) and we still haven't had a ruling. Yay state courts!
WTF
I had a non-jury verdict take four months once.
I'm involved in a case that was tried in 2009 (bench trial) and we still haven't had a ruling. Yay state courts!
WTF
The Judge has had a variety of personal excuses as to why he couldn't address the case (e.g., he was in poor health for a time) and opposing counsel's sole motive is basically to prolong the case as long as possible. Client didn't want to seek the equivalent of a mandamus or ask for a new judge because they didn't want to spend a few hundred thousand $ retrying the case. It's insanity.

 
You know when you lose your motion for partial summary judgment, argue with the judge, and she reverses on the spot? Good day.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top