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)

Just had an awesome property law consult straight out of the law school text books and had awful flashbacks to such glorious topics as the Table of Consanguinity, the rule of perpetuities, which is the point in which I wanted to shove my pen in my eye and twist, some old fashioned estate bequest charts, and a whole ton of who in their right mind writes a deed like this after getting a degree in law.... all for a sweet octogenarian (another property word that popped in - remember the fertile octogenarian - that guy gets it on a lot in law school) who basically doesn't own her house that she has lived in for the better part of 65 years.

I know someone here practices in Texas - what the rules there for serving an absent litigant? "We" "know" that one of the people in the chain of title that probably owns a share of this property if you say their name in themirro three times might be somewhere in the great state of Texas, but we don't know the current last name, county, city, town, address, favorite food, anything. Can you publish a notice to "Girl we think we know something about but not really, yeah you, you might own a piece of property in New Jersey so call me xthanxbye." Because that is literally (Andy D nod) all I have to work with if I take this case.

 
Bump for Yankee's Texas question and to lament the fact that my pro bono work is always the most ####ing complicated work I do.

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

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.

 
When disclosing rule 26 computation of damages, how do you guys prefer to compute pain and suffering damages?
:lmao: :lmao:Plaintiffs' attorneys "calculating" alleged pain and suffering damages. There may be no aspect of law that is more full of utter bull####.
People "calculating" what the home is worth that they intend to reside in.

You "calculating" what you're willing to spend on lunch.

It's all madness, I say. MADNESS!

 
The appropriate Shakespeare reference would be to call him Dogberry.

But that's pretty awesome.
He's not a moron. He does these things on purpose.
You not only need to be a "country lawyer", you need to be a man of a certain age to get away with that. Matlock can do that and be endearing; so can Detective Columbo. With a younger guy it starts having you question whether they've got a screw loose.

 
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
Here's a hypothetical - Let's say there's a lawsuit pending and the parties want to take depositions of several of my company's employees. We're not a party to the lawsuit, just a non-party witness. The employees are located in two different states, neither of which is in the state where the lawsuit is pending, nor within 100 miles of the courthouse. They are fine travelling to take the deps at our convenience. My assumption is that, if I don't voluntarily produce the witnesses, they'd have to get commissions (or "letters rogatory") in the jurisdictions where the witnesses are subject to personal service and take the deps in those locations. But what if my company is registered in the state where the lawsuit is pending and is subject to service of process there via our agent - CT Corp? Could they use some state law equivalent of 30(b)(6) to serve our local agent with a deposition notice and force someone to come there and give a dep? In other words, if I call their bluff and refuse to produce my guys voluntarily, what is my risk?
What position do these witnesses hold? Dock workers or something, or high-level executives? Somewhere in between? I mean, they can have a subpoena issued to force the person to give a deposition, but forcing them to go to another state may be a whole different issue.

Is there a reason you don't want them to testify?
My practice is normally to be cooperative and not make litigants jump through hoops. We've got nothing to hide. We already produced a ton of docs and ESI under a doc subpoena without objection and I agreed to produce the main guy with knowledge for a dep. Now they've expanded the request pretty significantly and its becoming a cost issue, and there are a few different interests internally that I've got to balance. Personally, I think they're overreaching due to my cooperative approach and am tempted to just tell them to serve us with subpoenas for the witnesses they want. So if one of my execs says "tell them to #### off", as execs are prone to do, I want to be able to advise him on the different possible or likely outcomes. I've always thought that our registered agent presence in various states most likely can't be used to compel us to travel there to give testimony as a non-party, so that's really my question.
In Washington, I'd be able to serve a 30(b)(6) subpoena on you and you'd have to produce responsive witnesses in this state. The court wouldn't have jurisdiction to force any out-of-state individuals to comply with a subpoena, but because you're required to register in the state as a foreign corporation, the corporation is subjected to the court's jurisdiction over the corporation itself...so I can compel the corporation to produce designated 30(b)(6) witnesses in Washington, but I'd have to go chasing everyone else.

In California I'd need to go chasing after your witnesses.
:yes:

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.
Let's keep Louisiana but try to slip Alabama and Mississippi over to them instead. They might not notice.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.
I'm sure France would be glad to be gifted 10% of U.S. oil reserves, 25% of U.S. natural gas production, the third leading petroleum refinery state, 25 percent of all seafood landed in the country, and the only port in the U.S. capable of taking deep-draw ships.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.
Let's keep Louisiana but try to slip Alabama and Mississippi over to them instead. They might not notice.
Exactly.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.
I'm sure France would be glad to be gifted 10% of U.S. oil reserves, 25% of U.S. natural gas production, the third leading petroleum refinery state, 25 percent of all seafood landed in the country, and the only port in the U.S. capable of taking deep-draw ships.
Oh, so you're saying that it's an economically important area? THEN UPDATE YOUR ####### CODE, YOU COONASS!

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.
I'm sure France would be glad to be gifted 10% of U.S. oil reserves, 25% of U.S. natural gas production, the third leading petroleum refinery state, 25 percent of all seafood landed in the country, and the only port in the U.S. capable of taking deep-draw ships.
Oh, so you're saying that it's an economically important area? THEN UPDATE YOUR ####### CODE, YOU COONASS!
The only sources of law are legislation and custom, #####! Update your own code!

 
Seriously, I can't understand why everywhere else in this country is just ecstatic to have common law B.S. pop up in judicial decisions. "Well, we know this is what the legislature said, but because of the common law..."

 
So a few weeks ago, the partner I'm working with told me he didn't need any help at an oral argument I was preparing him for.

Today, I got the transcript.

Here's a particularly galling exchange.

Judge: Why didn't you make an offer of judgment?

Partner: I don't know.
The correct answer would have been, "Because [this State] does not recognize offers of judgment." I must have told the partner that five times.

 
So a few weeks ago, the partner I'm working with told me he didn't need any help at an oral argument I was preparing him for.

Today, I got the transcript.

Here's a particularly galling exchange.

Judge: Why didn't you make an offer of judgment?

Partner: I don't know.
The correct answer would have been, "Because [this State] does not recognize offers of judgment." I must have told the partner that five times.
Why would the judge ask about them if they aren't recognized?

 
So a few weeks ago, the partner I'm working with told me he didn't need any help at an oral argument I was preparing him for.

Today, I got the transcript.

Here's a particularly galling exchange.

Judge: Why didn't you make an offer of judgment?

Partner: I don't know.
The correct answer would have been, "Because [this State] does not recognize offers of judgment." I must have told the partner that five times.
Why would the judge ask about them if they aren't recognized?
I'm guessing this case crosses jurisdictional lines and there's a choice of law or some similar issue.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
At this point I think we should just give it back to France.
I'm sure France would be glad to be gifted 10% of U.S. oil reserves, 25% of U.S. natural gas production, the third leading petroleum refinery state, 25 percent of all seafood landed in the country, and the only port in the U.S. capable of taking deep-draw ships.
I'd say the cajun style cooking would be a much greater loss.

Oh, and crunk. Whatever the hell that is.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.

 
So a few weeks ago, the partner I'm working with told me he didn't need any help at an oral argument I was preparing him for.

Today, I got the transcript.

Here's a particularly galling exchange.

Judge: Why didn't you make an offer of judgment?

Partner: I don't know.
The correct answer would have been, "Because [this State] does not recognize offers of judgment." I must have told the partner that five times.
Why would the judge ask about them if they aren't recognized?
I'm guessing this case crosses jurisdictional lines and there's a choice of law or some similar issue.
No complex choice of law issue. Just a stupid judge.

 
So a few weeks ago, the partner I'm working with told me he didn't need any help at an oral argument I was preparing him for.

Today, I got the transcript.

Here's a particularly galling exchange.

Judge: Why didn't you make an offer of judgment?

Partner: I don't know.
The correct answer would have been, "Because [this State] does not recognize offers of judgment." I must have told the partner that five times.
Why would the judge ask about them if they aren't recognized?
I'm guessing this case crosses jurisdictional lines and there's a choice of law or some similar issue.
No complex choice of law issue. Just a stupid judge.
The stupid judge was no doubt formerly a stupid partner.

 
So a few weeks ago, the partner I'm working with told me he didn't need any help at an oral argument I was preparing him for.

Today, I got the transcript.

Here's a particularly galling exchange.

Judge: Why didn't you make an offer of judgment?

Partner: I don't know.
The correct answer would have been, "Because [this State] does not recognize offers of judgment." I must have told the partner that five times.
Why would the judge ask about them if they aren't recognized?
I'm guessing this case crosses jurisdictional lines and there's a choice of law or some similar issue.
No complex choice of law issue. Just a stupid judge.
The stupid judge was no doubt formerly a stupid partner.
I'm sure he litigated in federal court often and just never checked.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.
Then I guess it's good you're not putting together a contract in Louisiana.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.
Then I guess it's good you're not putting together a contract in Louisiana.
I guess it is. Or maybe since I would hire a lawyer to do it in Louisiana they should know, I am not a lawyer after all. That's why I hire a professional right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.
Then I guess it's good you're not putting together a contract in Louisiana.
I guess it is. Or maybe since I would hire a lawyer to do it in Louisiana they should know, I am not a lawyer after all. That's why I hire a professional right?
I you just illustrated Henry's original point.

 
I realize non-profits aren't exactly running out to hire lawyers, but when you have a presence in a state like Louisiana, it would be nice to be able to put a contract together for them that works in this state, instead of them having to use the national version which is fraught with difficulty in this state.
A lot of people have no idea just how unique the law there can be.
An entity putting together a legal agreement should have some idea that it's an entirely different legal system.
If I didn't read this forum I wouldn't know. And really expecting the laws of the country and the way things are done to be pretty homogeneous does't seem like it makes the people who think that stupid or anything.
Then I guess it's good you're not putting together a contract in Louisiana.
I guess it is. Or maybe since I would hire a lawyer to do it in Louisiana they should know, I am not a lawyer after all. That's why I hire a professional right?
I feel like you're now making my original point.

 
T Bell said:
Christo said:
Seriously, I can't understand why everywhere else in this country is just ecstatic to have common law B.S. pop up in judicial decisions. "Well, we know this is what the legislature said, but because of the common law..."
:confused:
As opposed to... "custom". :mellow:
Custom is seldom used and means something different than you think it does.

It doesn't mean precedent. There isn't any.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Christo said:
Seriously, I can't understand why everywhere else in this country is just ecstatic to have common law B.S. pop up in judicial decisions. "Well, we know this is what the legislature said, but because of the common law..."
:confused:
Henry is a lawyer in Louisiana, a non-common law/civil law-civil code jurisdiction, where you have to know the Code of Justinian and the Napoleonic Code for the bar exam.

 
Seriously, I can't understand why everywhere else in this country is just ecstatic to have common law B.S. pop up in judicial decisions. "Well, we know this is what the legislature said, but because of the common law..."
:confused:
Henry is a lawyer in Louisiana, a non-common law/civil law-civil code jurisdiction, where you have to know the Code of Justinian and the Napoleonic Code for the bar exam.
Longest bar exam in the country.

 
Thanks for the info/recommendations on wills and such here. My mom and stepfather went a lawyer and got wills, living wills and POAs for both of them for $450. More important than the $$, my mom said it was a huge relief just to give it to someone else to handle. :thumbup:

 
Thanks for the info/recommendations on wills and such here. My mom and stepfather went a lawyer and got wills, living wills and POAs for both of them for $450. More important than the $$, my mom said it was a huge relief just to give it to someone else to handle. :thumbup:
More and more convinced that's our actual job.

 
Seriously, I can't understand why everywhere else in this country is just ecstatic to have common law B.S. pop up in judicial decisions. "Well, we know this is what the legislature said, but because of the common law..."
:confused:
As opposed to... "custom". :mellow:
I'm not 100% fluent in ChristoSpeak, but I think he meant that appellate courts outside of LA do the exact opposite of what Henry implied, that is, where the legislature has spoken, they trump common law.

 
Seriously, I can't understand why everywhere else in this country is just ecstatic to have common law B.S. pop up in judicial decisions. "Well, we know this is what the legislature said, but because of the common law..."
:confused:
As opposed to... "custom". :mellow:
I'm not 100% fluent in ChristoSpeak, but I think he meant that appellate courts outside of LA do the exact opposite of what Henry implied, that is, where the legislature has spoken, they trump common law.
Depends. Legislative intent and legislation vary greatly, and legislation deviating from the common law is still strictly construed as far as I know.

 
Any good stories lately?
Sure: here's a report that I wrote up yesterday for an appearance I covered for another attorney through an office that sets up such things (essentially an appearance counsel broker) - the names were changed to protect the pathetic:

"I was contacted by [barbara] on Friday, April 4, about appearing in Dept 20 for a trial matter on behalf of the plaintiff. The instructions with the assignment were to seek a 60-day continuance of the trial because the attorney of record (AOR), who we at the time thought was [Kenneth Garvey], was having some unspecified health problems.

Both [barbara] and I agreed that we should get some additional information about the AOR's circumstances to convey to the court, and [barbara] indicated that she would attempt to do so over the weekend. [barbara] also advised me that she was having trouble communicating with the representative from the attorney's office and was even having trouble finding a good telephone number. She and I agreed that in the absence of more information I'd attempt to make the appearance and do the best I could under the circumstances.

Over the weekend I received no further information. I spoke again with [barbara] before the scheduled hearing and she indicated that she would again try to get further information. In quick succession during the hour preceding the 9:30 hearing I received three voice mail messages from [barbara]: 1) confirming that she continued to be unable to reach the AOR to get further information and that I should appear and do the best I could; then 2) indicating that I should NOT appear per the AOR's representative; then finally 3) indicating that I SHOULD appear after all. The last message added that the AOR's rep, named [Lucy Gonzalez], would be appearing with me in court and would have medical documents with her to substantiate the AOR's medical incapacity.

Ms. [Gonzalez] immediately thereafter contacted me by telephone and I indicated to her that I would meet her in front of Dept [99], which I did at about 9:10. She is a Filipina woman who was seated on a bench outside the courtroom, and she was accompanied by an Anglo man wearing a t-shirt and blue jeans. I asked her if she was Ms. [Gonzalez] and she said she was. The man was standing right next to us and said nothing, so I asked him who he was, and he identified himself as [Kenneth Garvey].

I advised Mr. [Garvey] that it was my impression that he was medically unable as the AOR to appear at the trial and that I was therefore surprised at his presence. I asked why he could not make the appearance himself. He responded that he was the general counsel for the corporation (and apparently therefore a witness) and that representing the corporation would be a conflict of interest. At some point he mentioned to me (possibly as a way of explaining his informal dress) that he'd just returned from two months in the Philippines.

I asked if there was an AOR for the corporation and he said there was. I asked who that was and he told me her name was [Kelly Bennett], and she was located in San Jose and wouldn't be making the trip down. I asked why not and he said something to the effect that "she can't be making trips back and forth". He added that she hadn't made an appearance in the case for nine months. I indicated to him that that was all well and good but that the court would be expecting her to make the appearance as the AOR absent a valid reason, such as a health problem. I asked if she was the one who had health problems.

Mr. [Garvey] didn't answer my question directly and instead inquired what kind of law did I practice. I told him, "Civil litigation, but if you're wondering whether I'm going to just step into a trial matter cold without the benefit of the file [which they clearly did not have with them] the answer is 'No'." I added that I was "concerned" that I'd been told I was appearing for an ill attorney and yet was in fact being presented with another scenario entirely.

I indicated that I would need to speak with Ms. [bennett], and I asked if they had her number for me to call. Ms. [Gonzalez] fumbled around with her phone for a few minutes before I finally just Googled the number on my phone and called Ms. [bennett]. I left a voice mail message for her describing who I was and outlining the basics of the situation and my confusion over it.

I then called [barbara] and described the above situation to her. She (after checking in the office) and I both agreed that I should not make the appearance and that I should just walk away. [barbara] reiterated how bizarre this was given that her original contact person with Mr. [Garvey]'s office, [Denise], had repeated to her the story about a medical problem just this morning.

I returned to Mr. [Garvey] and Ms. [Gonzalez] and advised them that I'd been instructed by [the office] not to make the appearance and that if they had any questions they should call [the office]. I asked who [Denise] was and Mr. [Garvey] replied, "Secretary." I asked whose secretary she was (she could, after all, have worked for Ms. [bennett]) and both he and Ms. [Gonzalez] replied, "She works for us." I asked if they had any idea why [Denise] had been claiming that the attorney was unable to appear because of some form of medical problem and both Mr. [Garvey] and Ms. [Gonzalez] were silent, exchanged glances with each other and actually averted their eyes from me.

Mr. [Garvey] changed the subject and made a comment to the effect that they obviously needed to advise the court that Ms. [bennett] would no longer be the AOR, and that they'd need a 60-day continuance (this parallels the 60-day request articulated by [Denise] , which suggests that [Denise] was receiving instructions from Mr. [Garvey]). He then asked me (apparently as a further attempt to retain my services) how long it would take for an attorney to "get up to speed" on the case, and I told him that without seeing the file there was no way of knowing as some cases can be reviewed in minutes and others might require weeks or more.

I reiterated my intention to leave, and at that point departed. Ms. [Gonzalez] stated at the end that they would still pay the appearance fee to [the office].

I again called [barbara] to advise her of the above as I departed the courthouse. I never set foot in Dept [99]."

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top