NCCommish
Footballguy
Not sure that post rose to that level but I'll give you that one, metaphorically of course.
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 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
Henry Ford
Footballguy
He requested that it be deleted after someone correctly guessed that he was just doing research for a screenplay idea.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
NCCommish
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's possible.No wayAlso, I may have called him a jerk.Henry Ford said:
mr roboto
Footballguy
I think that was his out - that it was all a ruse. I really think he was serious and saw an exit lane.
Probably a buddy was actually spinning a tale about why he got fired and Ham bought it. Then he throws it in a thread and egg on his face. Someone suggested he was just testing out an idea for a screenplay and he quickly agreed with that assertion.
Probably a buddy was actually spinning a tale about why he got fired and Ham bought it. Then he throws it in a thread and egg on his face. Someone suggested he was just testing out an idea for a screenplay and he quickly agreed with that assertion.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
krista4
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don't have sound on this computer, but what's Crispin Glover got to do with this?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
At a CLE about ethics and professionalism. Speaker is making a lot of jokes about the lawyer suicide rate. Extremely uncomfortable.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
You don't believe that the GC of a large public corporation would think atty-client prohibits him from disclosing securities fraud, and he'd lose "millions" relying on that belief?
mr roboto
Footballguy
My belief (I'm no lawyer but HF nominated me bailiff of this thread) is Ham has a friend who was an attorney in house. Maybe not GC. He told Ham a slightly true story of shady a accounting and Ham (as he is known to do) believed, ran with and becme outraged at the story. He brings it here. K4 and other attorneys call BS. Hell, I have an undergrad finance degree and remember enough of SOX from my junior year 8 years ago that his story sounded fishy. Anyway, he takes an out some poster have him about the whole thing being a test run of a plot for something he's working on.
% chance the following is true (IMO)
Ham has a friend - 99.5%
At least one of his friends is a lawyer - 90%
One of his lawyer friends worked for a large company owned partially by a billionaire - 80%
The above mentioned friend in fact suspected the board of cooking the books - 75%
The friend told Ham he couldn't do anything about it without violating privilege - 60%
The friend was GC and had to certify - 10%
The friend told Ham specifically he was GC (as opposed to just an attorney) - ???
The friend was fired or had to resign due to incompetence or poor performance and concocted a story to tell Ham - 50%
In conclusion I care way too much apparently.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Looks like I may have been right
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=720418&page=6entry17499651
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=720418&page=6entry17499651
Instinctive
Footballguy
Finish first quarter/semester of 1L actual classes. Next week off, one week reading period, then an exam every other day.
The whole "professor gives inspiring speech about life and law" at the end of the last sitting of each class was pretty cool.
The whole "professor gives inspiring speech about life and law" at the end of the last sitting of each class was pretty cool.
Instinctive
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
Instinctive
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Win or go home. It's the only thing that matters. Watch the kids who are happy to be there party during your time off and shake your head.Yes, I'm a big basketball guy. Thanks for the good thoughts
njherdfan
Footballguy
Good luck. One thing that helped me a lot was to look at old exams and practice issue spotting and writing out answers.
You can only cross-examine on subjects brought up in direct. If the prosecution only used the witness for a very specific line of questioning the defense might be required to recall him as a rebuttal witness if he wanted to elicit testimony to rebut the testimony of another witness. But it makes no sense in the situation you describe.Walking Boot said:
Ray Karpis
Footballguy
I'm working on a committee within our firm to update internal policies. Do any of you private firm guys have a document retention/destruction policy that you could share? Just trying to put together a proposed policy and am curious what other firms are doing. We currently use offsite storage for physical retention of files but are looking to start thinning that site for cost savings purposes. Trying to balance the need for some of the fogeys to keep paper files versus the strong push by the majority to go paperless.
I'll take a PM if anyone has a written policy/procedures they would be comfortable sharing.
TIA.
I'll take a PM if anyone has a written policy/procedures they would be comfortable sharing.
TIA.
Zow
Footballguy
Only thing I can thing of is if the witness could only appear at that specific date and time, and the judge had previously granted the defense the opportunity to just do rebuttal then for purely scheduling reasons.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Asked this in the Feeguson thread but it'll get buried...
Serious question - would this have gone to a grand jury with the same facts but let's say it wasn't a national story? Seems like grand jury's almost always return whatever the prosecutor wants.
Were the grand jury proceedings just a show so that people could feel that this wasn't totally swept under the rug? This 'case' sounded like it would be impossible to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt anyway.
Serious question - would this have gone to a grand jury with the same facts but let's say it wasn't a national story? Seems like grand jury's almost always return whatever the prosecutor wants.
Were the grand jury proceedings just a show so that people could feel that this wasn't totally swept under the rug? This 'case' sounded like it would be impossible to get a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt anyway.
Zow
Footballguy
1. Obtaining an indictment through the grand jury is the standard way the prosecutor's office in my jurisdiction establish the probable cause necessary to move forward with felony charges (they could also go through with a preliminary hearing). So, if the prosecutor's office in my jurisdiction had this case and wanted to proceed, they would very likely go to the grand jury.
2. Statistically speaking you're very much right that prosecutor's obtain an indictment more often than not. I'd say >95%. The reason for this is that "probable cause" is a very minimum burden of proof compared to our other legal burdens of proof.
3. If this case occurred in my jurisdiction I would hope the state would explore whether charges were warranted and go to the GJ if they believed they had probable cause. Admittedly, I don't know near enough about the facts of this case to give a reasonably educated guess as to whether my jurisdiction would go forward.
4. I will say this is the longest grand jury proceeding I've ever seen. Generally they're like 30 minutes. Heck, the few murder GJ transcripts I've seen were only a few hours.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Sorry to drag the Brown case into this thread but I'm not gonna try to ask honest questions in that other trainwreck of a thread (although I'm enjoying YF23, HF, even Todd Andrews in there).
So according to some sources it's well over 99% of grand juries return verdicts of probable cause. Prosecutor doesn't have to present all evidence, controls the narrative etc. It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a grand jury proceeding is simply meant to rubberstamp what the prosecutor already intends to do.
Yet it also seems like a prosecutor can bring charges against a suspect and there can be a criminal trial without a grand jury. Is this the case? I understand why they convened a grand jury for the Brown case in this context, but if the prosecutor has the power to indict a suspect and bring them to trial then why would they ever use a grand jury?
Tangentially, was this grand jury process extraordinary in its scope, length, and level of detail of evidence presentation?
So according to some sources it's well over 99% of grand juries return verdicts of probable cause. Prosecutor doesn't have to present all evidence, controls the narrative etc. It seems (and correct me if I'm wrong) that a grand jury proceeding is simply meant to rubberstamp what the prosecutor already intends to do.
Yet it also seems like a prosecutor can bring charges against a suspect and there can be a criminal trial without a grand jury. Is this the case? I understand why they convened a grand jury for the Brown case in this context, but if the prosecutor has the power to indict a suspect and bring them to trial then why would they ever use a grand jury?
Tangentially, was this grand jury process extraordinary in its scope, length, and level of detail of evidence presentation?
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
This probably answers a bunch of your questions: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/11/ferguson_grand_jury_announcement_prosecutor_robert_mcculloch_influenced.html
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Grand Jury shouldn't be a rubber stamp but given its design it can certainly be considered one. In order for a police officer to act in most instances there needs to be some kind of probable cause. In order for the state to bring criminal charges against someone there needs to be probable cause. There are some states that don't use the grand jury process and instead have adversarial preliminary hearings where the judge makes the call if there is enough PC to proceed with charges and thereafter a trial.
The prosecutor him/herself does not have any power to bring an "indictment" without the oversight of a judge or grand jury that I know of. I know there was no indictment in the Zimmerman case but I assume that the prosecutors office had to have the preliminary hearing setup to show enough PC to get to a trial schedule but I don't practice in Florida.
Was this grand jury out of the norm? Yes. Everything in my experience says yes and I don't practice criminal with any regularity. The ham sandwich line is one of those true stereotypes most of the time. I'm sure Woz could answer this better.
The prosecutor him/herself does not have any power to bring an "indictment" without the oversight of a judge or grand jury that I know of. I know there was no indictment in the Zimmerman case but I assume that the prosecutors office had to have the preliminary hearing setup to show enough PC to get to a trial schedule but I don't practice in Florida.
Was this grand jury out of the norm? Yes. Everything in my experience says yes and I don't practice criminal with any regularity. The ham sandwich line is one of those true stereotypes most of the time. I'm sure Woz could answer this better.
Zow
Footballguy
1. Read my posted above yours. I think I answered some of your questions that you asked again. Nonetheless, never mind, I'll just answer them again.
2. Yes, it is incredibly rare for a prosecutor to not obtain at least one charge amounting to a true bill when a case is presented to a grand jury.
3. While the prosecutor definitely controls the narrative (in fact, in some jurisdictions, the defendant or the defendant's attorney may not even be permitted to be present) and in doing so can ask leading questions or witnesses (a distinct advantage), generally a prosecutor must present all relevant evidence - whether inculpatory or exculpatory. Essentially, a GJ is really supposed to hear everything the state's got whether good, bad, or ugly.
4. All that said, it's not intended to be a rubber stamp. A GJ is supposed to be a check by the populace against the executive as it permits random community members to act as a sort of gatekeeper to the state's cases. However, the burden of proof (probable cause) is a low standard. Additionally, good prosecutorial discretion means that a prosecutor is likely only taking "good" cases to the GJ where the prosecutor believes he already has PC.
5. In many jurisdictions, it is possible to bring a case forward without going to the GJ. For example, at least in my jurisdiction, any misdemeanor charge can be brought by a simple complaint. Additionally, in lieu of going to a GJ on a felony, a prosecutor can have the case heard by a judge/Justice of the Peace in the form of a mini-trial whereby the judge plays the role of GJ. However, a Defendant MUST be present at this hearing and will have counsel who has the right to cross-examine witnesses (making this generally not the preferred method by the state). Additionally a Defendant can waive the right to have the issue of PC heard. This is usually done for some benefit like a reduction in bond or a guaranteed offer to be taken later.
6. Yes, this GJ proceeding was very long and drawn out compared to the norm.
Zow
Footballguy
Eh, I don't necessarily disagree with that article, but I don't necessarily agree with it, either. A GJ really is supposed to be an independent body and prosecutors are never supposed to try to influence the GJ's decision.
Zow
Footballguy
Hypothetical:
Potential client comes into your office without an appointment one day when you are pretty busy. Says he just got released from jail and needs a lawyer immediately. You meet with him regardless of your schedule and discuss his case. After providing the standard "no guarantees," "can't make any real guesses as to potential outcomes without viewing disclosure," etc., you acknowledge that if what your client is telling you is accurate he may have some legitimate defenses to his charges. You quote client X and accept 1/2 X as a down payment.
Next, knowing that some prosecutors can be very reasonable if a resolution can struck quickly saving that prosecutor from some work, you make a quick call over to the office to see if it's been assigned and is someone you can work quickly with. Sure enough it is. You speak to that prosecutor, who is a very reasonable guy, and he indicates he's actually considering "non filing" (dismissing without prejudice to gather more evidence) the case. You give him your take and some additional facts and evidence. This pushes him to decide to dismiss and not re-file unless the officers get more evidence (something you think is unlikely). You call your client with the good news. Client is very happy and exclaims that it's even better because he can come down and get his money back. You look at the guy and realize that you only spent about 60 minutes on his case from him coming through the door to you telling him you got it dismissed.
Your move?
Potential client comes into your office without an appointment one day when you are pretty busy. Says he just got released from jail and needs a lawyer immediately. You meet with him regardless of your schedule and discuss his case. After providing the standard "no guarantees," "can't make any real guesses as to potential outcomes without viewing disclosure," etc., you acknowledge that if what your client is telling you is accurate he may have some legitimate defenses to his charges. You quote client X and accept 1/2 X as a down payment.
Next, knowing that some prosecutors can be very reasonable if a resolution can struck quickly saving that prosecutor from some work, you make a quick call over to the office to see if it's been assigned and is someone you can work quickly with. Sure enough it is. You speak to that prosecutor, who is a very reasonable guy, and he indicates he's actually considering "non filing" (dismissing without prejudice to gather more evidence) the case. You give him your take and some additional facts and evidence. This pushes him to decide to dismiss and not re-file unless the officers get more evidence (something you think is unlikely). You call your client with the good news. Client is very happy and exclaims that it's even better because he can come down and get his money back. You look at the guy and realize that you only spent about 60 minutes on his case from him coming through the door to you telling him you got it dismissed.
Your move?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It is a violation of the rules of professional conduct to accept an unearned fee. If it took you an hour to help convince the prosecutor not to prosecute, charge an hour at your usual hourly rate and refund the rest.
Don Quixote
Footballguy
Was the "quote" a fixed fee or an estimate?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If it's grossly disproportionate to the amount of work involved, it doesn't really matter.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Its not unearned if its a fixed fee. I think Woz could also say to the client, "Hey, I'm in a good mood today, so I'll write off the other half you owe me."
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I've testified at disciplinary hearings on these facts. It doesn't end well for the attorney.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
So Woz gets all the downside of a fixed fee (if the matter dragged on to trial, reducing his effective hourly rate), but none of the upside of a quick resolution?
-fish-
Footballguy
this is all state-dependent and will vary on whether you call it a retainer, deposit, flat rate/fixed fee, etc.
with this little work done, having a minimum charge for setting up and closing the file would solve the problem.
Zow
Footballguy
Flat fee.
ETA: In my jurisdiction the state bar strongly encourages criminal defense fee agreements to be a flat rate. However, the flat rate will usually include a case fee then an additional trial fee.
Our firm generally charges X as a flat case fee (and won't take less than half up front) and then about 1/2X as the trial fee.
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Agreed and agreed.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Some of the upside - but not half the potential fee.
Zow
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Oh, and in the future call him the next day.
Zow
Footballguy
His release conditions were such that he was required to go check in with a pre-trial release agency. Unfortunately it was in his best interests to get this info quickly.
