Last edited by a moderator:
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 (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
-fish-
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
McJose
Footballguy
johnnycakes
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I have a question for the lawyer crowd. The question is "What specific type of lawyer do I need to see" . This is what a friend asked me after an incident that could potentially threaten his job.
This question was posed to me by a fellow Nurse friend of mine. I mentioned to him I had a place to ask this. He then asked me to not state any specifics about the incident, though I probably don't need to in order to get a good answer. Anyway, here is his situation, and sorry if things do sound too vague.
An incident occurred on the inpatient hospital unit he was working on, an incident with a very bad outcome for a patient. He firmly feels that he was not negligent in any way shape or form, and that it was not his assigned responsibility to have possibly prevented this incident at that time. However, he also feels that "heads need to roll" could be a reaction by his employer. After talking to him we could see a few possible outcomes:
1- No longer allowed to work on that unit. Not necessarily fired, but given a transfer to a different unit within the hospital system. I don't really think there would be anything he could do about that though, lawyer or not. Not really a horrible outcome, but certainly would be a huge huge bummer.
2- He could be terminated from his position and also not allowed to work anywhere in the hospital system (it's a big hospital with other smaller branches). This would mean "get the resume ready", and even though getting another job as a nurse shouldn't be super hard, it still takes several months for the process in most cases, and this would be a big financial kick in the nuts for a while. He would definitely want a lawyer for this since he does not think this should happen, and would be a wrongful termination.
3- He could be terminated and also get sued. What can happen here is the hospital can be sued, and the hospital can turn around and sue the nurse. He does NOT have any extra "malpractice" insurance for things like this. He would definitely need a lawyer for this. Even though this is a small small small probability, would still be good to know who to see.
So if any of these situations should arise, which specific type of lawyer should he call?
This question was posed to me by a fellow Nurse friend of mine. I mentioned to him I had a place to ask this. He then asked me to not state any specifics about the incident, though I probably don't need to in order to get a good answer. Anyway, here is his situation, and sorry if things do sound too vague.
An incident occurred on the inpatient hospital unit he was working on, an incident with a very bad outcome for a patient. He firmly feels that he was not negligent in any way shape or form, and that it was not his assigned responsibility to have possibly prevented this incident at that time. However, he also feels that "heads need to roll" could be a reaction by his employer. After talking to him we could see a few possible outcomes:
1- No longer allowed to work on that unit. Not necessarily fired, but given a transfer to a different unit within the hospital system. I don't really think there would be anything he could do about that though, lawyer or not. Not really a horrible outcome, but certainly would be a huge huge bummer.
2- He could be terminated from his position and also not allowed to work anywhere in the hospital system (it's a big hospital with other smaller branches). This would mean "get the resume ready", and even though getting another job as a nurse shouldn't be super hard, it still takes several months for the process in most cases, and this would be a big financial kick in the nuts for a while. He would definitely want a lawyer for this since he does not think this should happen, and would be a wrongful termination.
3- He could be terminated and also get sued. What can happen here is the hospital can be sued, and the hospital can turn around and sue the nurse. He does NOT have any extra "malpractice" insurance for things like this. He would definitely need a lawyer for this. Even though this is a small small small probability, would still be good to know who to see.
So if any of these situations should arise, which specific type of lawyer should he call?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Someone who deals with employment and/or malpractice law if he really wants to talk to a lawyer. But in all likelihood, the hospital will circle the wagons if sued, he's probably an employee. It has malpractice insurance.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
Yes the hospital has malpractice insurance but he does not.
It does happen. The hospital can sue the employee. Again, that is pretty unlikely here, just wanted to ask.
It does happen. The hospital can sue the employee. Again, that is pretty unlikely here, just wanted to ask.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It can, but it is very unlikely. Nurses don't want to work for a hospital that may sue them. Hospitals are usually recruiting nurses. Better to eat the loss than have to up compensation across the board.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If he knows someone screwed up and wants to do the right thing, he should talk to someone who does whistleblower protection work for employees. But that will cost him his career, I'd expect.
ghostguy123
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Footballguy
I would have to agree here. Barring some obvious ridiculous thing that the employee purposely did i cant see them suing the employee, so in this case i do not see that happening.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
A client of my firm's in a long-standing personal injury action we settled a couple of months ago just committed suicide two days before we got his very sizeable settlement check in. Just don't know where to go with this one.
Going to be a heavy drinking night.
Going to be a heavy drinking night.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Sure. Every prosecutor's office will be inundated with "new evidence" from people trying to get old convictions overturned, and the office will spend half its time investigating evidence on closed cases for convicted felons to determine if they have to turn over the evidence to the convicted, and have a new lawyer appointed for them.
It's just really broad and requires a lot from the prosecutor as stated there.
NCCommish
Footballguy
Seems a small.price to.pay when we hear story after story of people being wrongfully jailed for decades. And prosecutors fighting tooth and nail to keep them there. It isn't right and it isn't just.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Yeah, seems like a lot of extra stuff to put on prosecutors, but it's a tough balancing act for sure. Certainly I don't agree with the fight against evidence that's credible, I just don't know about the apparent burden to investigate to determine if something is credible post-conviction.
NCCommish
Footballguy
I get that it's a burden. But for the system to work people have to believe it is credible and just. Evidence is piling up to suggest it isn't. Prosecutors and cops get to lie. Prosecutors withhold evidence or just disregard what doesn't fit their theory. I don't trust the legal system personally. I got a couple things going for me if I encounter it. I'm white is the big one. And I am smart enough with just enough resources to hire a lawyer from the jump.
As a taxpayer I have no problem fully funding the prosecutors office to ensure we put the right people away. That needs to be done and there are some good folks out there working tirelessly to make sure it is and that it's done right. But there are too many worried about win/loss and quick closes so if that funding includes extra people to make sure we got it right then that seems like money well spent.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Prosecutors are overworked to begin with and I'm assuming that their worried that their system won't be able to handle all the "new evidence" that gets given to them by everyone under the sun. Making it an absolute requirement boxes them in to reviewing every case for eternity and never closing files no matter how incredible the new evidence is.
ETA - or what Henry said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
NCCommish
Footballguy
If the state hadn't been found playing fast and loose too many times I might be more sympathetic to that. If you get to put someone away and take years from them you have taken on quite a burden. Some of this will lead to silly.claims. But some of it won't. Wheat/chaff.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Thanks. Guy's been in horrible pain for many years, defendants never believed him and took a hard line... we finally get him enough money to set him up for life, and he eats a gun. Rough day at the office.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I don't disagree. But you also have to be careful with the position that the "state" is plaing fast and loose too many times.
Roughly every 3 months in the New Jersey Superior Court system there are about 3,200 indictable cases filed, 5000 disorderly persons offenses, about 2500 restraining order / domestic violence cases. So the State's criminal system here deals with over 10,000 new cases every three month period or 40,000 a year. That doesn't also account for the cases that are backlogged, pending trial that carry over and appeals.
On the municipal court level, the total last year for all the counties together is well over 45,000 cases. So the New Jersey criminal system deals with more than 85,000 new cases every year. The majority of those cases do not need extensive prosecutorial discretion or even work - they are paid on service tickets, many plea for good and obvious reasons, and whatnot. But we have 320 Superior Court judges in New Jersey roughly at any one time. And that is in all departments, not just criminal. In a viciniage where there are 20 judges, 5 might be for criminal. The system cannot treat every single criminal case, in any vicinage or level, like each case is the most important case in the history of the country. And with that, there are administrative policies and procedures - some official, some not - that help run that system or its own weight would crush it.
But I agree that a person's constitutional rights are more important than all of that. Still, though, claiming that the state plays fast a loose too many times isn't quantifiable very easily when there are over 85,000 cases a year and there is maybe a small percentage of those where your description applies. In fact, in my experience, with my judges and prosecutors, they bend over backwards to adjourn hearings, extend discovery, and everything else to make sure that when the trial is getting called everything that can be done within the system is done. That isn't to say that mistakes aren't made or that any of my judges and prosecutors aren't cutting corners somewhere. I'm sure it happens. But I am not ready to condemn them all because of a few high profile media cases almost all of which are always taken out of context and mis-reported by the media, and then use that condemnation to put more pressure on the state after a conviction to keep going every time no matter what. And i'm a civil libertarian.
NCCommish
Footballguy
As I said in my original.post the majority of prosecutors and judges are doing the best they can. But we aren't talking one or two cases. It happens to regularly to dismiss. Prosecutors hiding evidence is one of the biggest issues we keep seeing. Again most try to do it right. But that's cold.comfort to those who have been wronged and are losing years they can't get back.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Define too regularly. Because nationwide, I think we are talking about 1 or 2 cases, relatively speaking to the overall use of the system.
NCCommish
Footballguy
On my phone.so I'll have to research and get links later but in some cases we have been seeing this across multiple cases in a single office. Plus it's like an iceberg, most of it is hidden. So the cases that come to light represent the serious probability that these kind of things are more widespread.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Maybe. Again, I'm not saying there aren't problems. I'm talking globally for the entire criminal justice system in the country. There aren't ever going to be any stories about the great job a prosecutor did in making sure every i was dotted and t crossed for the thousands of cases they deal with every month. You are assuming there is a tip in the iceberg instead of just a few bad apples. I'm not there with your assumption.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
A case for a friend of a friend that I've been bleeding money on and about to lose on summary judgment due to lack of an expert just had a ridiculous turn of fortune. An expert I've been waiting on an opinion from for two months signed an affidavit that may save my case against one defendant less than 48 hours before I have to file my opposition.
It ain't a TD yet, but a good stiff wind pushed the ball an extra 10 yards and the WR has it in his hands on the 1. If I survive summary judgment this case goes from worth pennies to being worth a potential half million dollars.
Haven't slept in days over this case. Panic attacks all day every day. Hoping I sleep like a baby tonight after about ten gallons of sake.
It ain't a TD yet, but a good stiff wind pushed the ball an extra 10 yards and the WR has it in his hands on the 1. If I survive summary judgment this case goes from worth pennies to being worth a potential half million dollars.
Haven't slept in days over this case. Panic attacks all day every day. Hoping I sleep like a baby tonight after about ten gallons of sake.
Zow
Footballguy
I sure as hell hope so, because, without getting in to too much detail, I had a case incredibly similar to what Eminence is describing a couple of years ago. Only difference is that my client seemed to understand why the bar didn't want him there since we were, you know, suing them.
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
The defense bar (meaning me and my nerdy colleagues) always joke about this case and suggest the stunt may work in our jurisdiction where minorities are few and far between. However, I can completely see it as unethical (breaching the duty of candor to the tribunal) because courtroom policy (at least in the jurisdictions I've worked in) always has the defendant identify himself for the record. I don't see any way around that except via a false representation.
A few potential solutions that have been suggested are:
1. Hire an investigator who looks just like the defendant sit at the table with the defendant to see if that trips up the witness.
2. Have the defendant opt to sit in the back of the courtroom surrounded by his buddies and not at defense table (truth be told, I actually considered this on a DUI trial I did several years ago where my client was one of four hispanic males that spilled out of a truck in the middle of the night and the victim indicated in an interview that she struggles to "tell wetbacks apart."). However, while awaiting trial all the others in the vehicle became unavailable.
3. Notify the judge ahead of time that you intend to pull the stunt.
The problems with 1 and 2 are that, at least in AZ, the victim and investigating officer have the right to be present at all hearings and would presumably just go with whoever told the judge at the very start of the hearing that he was present. 3 is definitely the most ethical route but I can't imagine too many judges wanting to see this happen and the prosecutor would be aware of the trick and I don't see why he or she couldn't simply tell the witness what was going on.
mrip541
Footballguy
Anyone familiar with family law? A friend of mine is getting divorced in NY. Things were going as well as a divorce could be expected to go. They agreed on money, the apt, furniture, etc., and my friend believed they had agreed to a 50/50 custody split. He relied on that supposed agreement to buy an apt near his ex's with a full br for his son, bought all new kid stuff and whatnot.
A week after he moves out she calls him up and says she wants 80% custody, and she's basically willing to fight to the death over it. She also said this was her plan all along, has been building her argument for months, and will "destroy" him if he tries to fight her. They have emails and texts that obviously evidence a 50/50 split, but apparently custody agreements aren't enforceable without a signed, witnessed, notarized agreement (or something like that) which they don't have. She said she went along before because she knew their casual agreement wasn't enforceable, she was waiting until he moved out to drop the bomb, and she "can't believe" he didn't see this coming.
There's nothing technically "wrong" with the father, although it IS true that the mom was generally responsible for more than 50% of parenting, the kid (3 years old) prefers his mom, and she has a lot more money. Can general arguments like that be used to demand more custody? Can she be punished for bad faith? She refuses all offers of mediation or expert consultation. My friend is absolutely devastated and since I know nothing about family law I can offer no help. Yes, he has an atty, that he can't afford. He put the retainer on his credit card. She has essentially unlimited money and threatened to draw out the process for at least a year to bankrupt him.
A week after he moves out she calls him up and says she wants 80% custody, and she's basically willing to fight to the death over it. She also said this was her plan all along, has been building her argument for months, and will "destroy" him if he tries to fight her. They have emails and texts that obviously evidence a 50/50 split, but apparently custody agreements aren't enforceable without a signed, witnessed, notarized agreement (or something like that) which they don't have. She said she went along before because she knew their casual agreement wasn't enforceable, she was waiting until he moved out to drop the bomb, and she "can't believe" he didn't see this coming.
There's nothing technically "wrong" with the father, although it IS true that the mom was generally responsible for more than 50% of parenting, the kid (3 years old) prefers his mom, and she has a lot more money. Can general arguments like that be used to demand more custody? Can she be punished for bad faith? She refuses all offers of mediation or expert consultation. My friend is absolutely devastated and since I know nothing about family law I can offer no help. Yes, he has an atty, that he can't afford. He put the retainer on his credit card. She has essentially unlimited money and threatened to draw out the process for at least a year to bankrupt him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Sweet J
Footballguy
TL;DR version: human beings are horrible, and will use whatever means at hand to be horrible. Including the courts. GL to your buddy.
Zow
Footballguy
Generally, no. I'm interpreting "taking away from" to mean rights and a reasonable amount of parenting time. Usually, absent some factual finding to the contrary,* such is not in the child's best interests. However, this doesn't mean that one parent may get more time with the child than the other parent while the parties still share "joint custody". Again though, your buddy's lawyer should be able to guide him through the process and give the most accurate advice and predictions on how NY law likely applies to the facts of his case. I'd say though, generally, that the majority of divorce/custody cases are ugly and most people walk away thinking they've been screwed over. Frankly, if you have a case where each party walks away unhappy, then the court properly did a pretty good job.
*Of course it's not unheard of for parties in a messy custody case to falsify allegations against the opposing party and do so well enough that I judge believes them.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Henry or any other lawyers in tow: question on Hillary in aisle 9.
Issue is here.
Basically if lawyer tells client to do something illegal, are they protected from talking about it in FBI interview, or really anywhere in a criminal investigation or through trial?
Thanks.
Issue is here.
Basically if lawyer tells client to do something illegal, are they protected from talking about it in FBI interview, or really anywhere in a criminal investigation or through trial?
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Family law in new York is worse than new jersey. Just be there for him.
Not in Ohio so no idea but at that bal she is in a world of hurt.
Attorneys cannot advise a client to do something illegal. Attorneys also cannot waive their clients attorney client relationship so easily.
I stayed at a holiday Inn express last night.
Not in Ohio so no idea but at that bal she is in a world of hurt.
Attorneys cannot advise a client to do something illegal. Attorneys also cannot waive their clients attorney client relationship so easily.
I stayed at a holiday Inn express last night.
Otis
Footballguy
Immigration law question for a friend:
Roberto is from South America. He is an undocumented immigrant who arrived here 20 years ago. Several years ago he married the love of his life, also an undocumented immigrant. They just had their first child, born here, and thus a US citizen. Roberto has been a law abiding citizen, no criminal record, pays taxes through a construction company that employs him. He works 7 days a week to feed his wife and son. He's just a regular hard working guy (harder than most citizens) trying to make a living and support a family.
Any legal path to him acquiring a green card/permanent legal status here? Best I could come up with is that if he is ever picked up and put into removal proceedings, he may be able to seek cancellation based on his child being here. And possibly when his son turns 21 he could sponsor him, but even then I believe there are some obstacles, like he would have to spend some years outside the country (i.e. away from his son) and then seek to come back in legally.
Any immigration lawyers in here with thoughts on this? TIA
Roberto is from South America. He is an undocumented immigrant who arrived here 20 years ago. Several years ago he married the love of his life, also an undocumented immigrant. They just had their first child, born here, and thus a US citizen. Roberto has been a law abiding citizen, no criminal record, pays taxes through a construction company that employs him. He works 7 days a week to feed his wife and son. He's just a regular hard working guy (harder than most citizens) trying to make a living and support a family.
Any legal path to him acquiring a green card/permanent legal status here? Best I could come up with is that if he is ever picked up and put into removal proceedings, he may be able to seek cancellation based on his child being here. And possibly when his son turns 21 he could sponsor him, but even then I believe there are some obstacles, like he would have to spend some years outside the country (i.e. away from his son) and then seek to come back in legally.
Any immigration lawyers in here with thoughts on this? TIA
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I have a rather complicated and downright weird bankruptcy question - any practitioners around?
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
rSlip and fall on a stairway. Stairway likely was wet. Wetness may be from fellow employees tracking in snow. Wetness may be from victim tacking in snow. Wetness may be from routine mopping.
Ankle is turned. Victim in boot and released to light duty after outpatient visit. Workman's comp initiated. Turns out injury was more severe than initially thought. Four surgeries later amputation is on the table.
Plaintiff's lawyer is suing maintenance and cleaning company which, among other duties does mop once a day. Defense lawyer is clearly exploring contributions to the whole thing from slippery stairwell paint to bad doctoring. If mopping, which is not a foregone conclusion, he wants others contributors as well. My minor interest as a non-party is following for subrogation issues.
Today receive notice that defense has hired an expert to say the stairway is defectively designed. Not from out of standard tread heights, or unusual angles of ascent/descent, or from handrail heights, landing frequency and size, or friction of flooring or lighting. Nope, it is defectively designed because it has "complex geometry".
I'm wondering what is complex about stairs leading from one floor directly to the next. Maybe we put an up set of up stairs in a down stairwell. I don't know. Fascinating.
Ankle is turned. Victim in boot and released to light duty after outpatient visit. Workman's comp initiated. Turns out injury was more severe than initially thought. Four surgeries later amputation is on the table.
Plaintiff's lawyer is suing maintenance and cleaning company which, among other duties does mop once a day. Defense lawyer is clearly exploring contributions to the whole thing from slippery stairwell paint to bad doctoring. If mopping, which is not a foregone conclusion, he wants others contributors as well. My minor interest as a non-party is following for subrogation issues.
Today receive notice that defense has hired an expert to say the stairway is defectively designed. Not from out of standard tread heights, or unusual angles of ascent/descent, or from handrail heights, landing frequency and size, or friction of flooring or lighting. Nope, it is defectively designed because it has "complex geometry".
I'm wondering what is complex about stairs leading from one floor directly to the next. Maybe we put an up set of up stairs in a down stairwell. I don't know. Fascinating.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
Which person is the "they"?
Generally, absent a finding by a job that privilege has been waived or a situation where a client may actually be about to commit a murder, a lawyer probably cannot ever break attorney-client privilege.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Serves the building right for hiring M.C. Escher as the architect.
