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)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
Zow
Footballguy
Eh, I still really haven't figured that out. We both agreed that equity partnership isn't what either side wants so it won't be that. I don't think I'm becoming a named partner either. So basically it's a raise (via fee sharing) and I'll get put on all letterheads and such. So, really, an ego stroke.Congrats, but what means "partner with a raise"?Zow said:My boss just brought in a bottle of Dom and offered to make me partner with a raise.
I'm mildly annoyed because I still have a bunch of work to do and he's killing my diet bet.
ETA: We are drawing up a new contract/partnership agreement so I'll know more then.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorn
Footballguy
Well congrats on whatever it is GB. I know you put your heart and soul into that work. You deserve it.Eh, I still really haven't figured that out. We both agreed that equity partnership isn't what either side wants so it won't be that. I don't think I'm becoming a named partner either. So basically it's a raise (via fee sharing) and I'll get put on all letterheads and such. So, really, an ego stroke.Congrats, but what means "partner with a raise"?Zow said:My boss just brought in a bottle of Dom and offered to make me partner with a raise.
I'm mildly annoyed because I still have a bunch of work to do and he's killing my diet bet.
El Floppo
Footballguy
make sure you have a lawyer review this.Eh, I still really haven't figured that out. We both agreed that equity partnership isn't what either side wants so it won't be that. I don't think I'm becoming a named partner either. So basically it's a raise (via fee sharing) and I'll get put on all letterheads and such. So, really, an ego stroke.Congrats, but what means "partner with a raise"?Zow said:My boss just brought in a bottle of Dom and offered to make me partner with a raise.
I'm mildly annoyed because I still have a bunch of work to do and he's killing my diet bet.
ETA: We are drawing up a new contract/partnership agreement so I'll know more then.
xulf
Footballguy
make sure you have a lawyer review this.Eh, I still really haven't figured that out. We both agreed that equity partnership isn't what either side wants so it won't be that. I don't think I'm becoming a named partner either. So basically it's a raise (via fee sharing) and I'll get put on all letterheads and such. So, really, an ego stroke.Congrats, but what means "partner with a raise"?My boss just brought in a bottle of Dom and offered to make me partner with a raise.
I'm mildly annoyed because I still have a bunch of work to do and he's killing my diet bet.
ETA: We are drawing up a new contract/partnership agreement so I'll know more then.
Zow
Footballguy
I'll make one of the lowly associates do it.make sure you have a lawyer review this.Eh, I still really haven't figured that out. We both agreed that equity partnership isn't what either side wants so it won't be that. I don't think I'm becoming a named partner either. So basically it's a raise (via fee sharing) and I'll get put on all letterheads and such. So, really, an ego stroke.Congrats, but what means "partner with a raise"?My boss just brought in a bottle of Dom and offered to make me partner with a raise.
I'm mildly annoyed because I still have a bunch of work to do and he's killing my diet bet.
ETA: We are drawing up a new contract/partnership agreement so I'll know more then.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
randall146
Footballguy
Anyone do med mal?
I've been looking to make a change in my practice. I've been a federal P.D. for some time and have grown a little tired of it. I've got 15-20 years of mostly criminal trial experience, with 5 years of private practice that was somewhat more varied, but really very little civil litigation. I'm short listed for some state court judgeships but you can't count on those until they happen. Up until today my options in terms of realism have been: 1) return to solo private practice; 2) do the political circuit, stay where I am, and wait for a judgeship; and 3) launch a lobbying firm with a couple other appropriately experienced guys.
This morning someone reached out to me about an opportunity to potentially join a well respected boutique med mal (plaintiff) practice. They currently have three partners and two associates. They are looking for "senior trial counsel" so I'd come in below the partners but above the associates. They also have heavy involvement in some of the more liberal public interest legal programs that I currently spend time on, including indigent criminal defense type stuff.
So I've focused on criminal thus far, but I've got a great rep as a well respected trial attorney in both fed and state court and this firm isn't concerned about the switch over to med mal.
My questions are - is this a doable switch? What kind of changes can I expect in work hours - what's the workload like for a med mal litigator? What kind of $ should I expect or ask for? What are some hidden nightmares of med mal practice?
Thanks
I've been looking to make a change in my practice. I've been a federal P.D. for some time and have grown a little tired of it. I've got 15-20 years of mostly criminal trial experience, with 5 years of private practice that was somewhat more varied, but really very little civil litigation. I'm short listed for some state court judgeships but you can't count on those until they happen. Up until today my options in terms of realism have been: 1) return to solo private practice; 2) do the political circuit, stay where I am, and wait for a judgeship; and 3) launch a lobbying firm with a couple other appropriately experienced guys.
This morning someone reached out to me about an opportunity to potentially join a well respected boutique med mal (plaintiff) practice. They currently have three partners and two associates. They are looking for "senior trial counsel" so I'd come in below the partners but above the associates. They also have heavy involvement in some of the more liberal public interest legal programs that I currently spend time on, including indigent criminal defense type stuff.
So I've focused on criminal thus far, but I've got a great rep as a well respected trial attorney in both fed and state court and this firm isn't concerned about the switch over to med mal.
My questions are - is this a doable switch? What kind of changes can I expect in work hours - what's the workload like for a med mal litigator? What kind of $ should I expect or ask for? What are some hidden nightmares of med mal practice?
Thanks
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I can tell you about my experience with med mal, though it's only a part of my practice.
Med mal is hard. Crazy hard. And it's the first area of tort reform in every state, so the rules are very different by location. But it isn't as hour intensive as criminal work, and can be lucrative. It's almost entirely contingency fee, because the plaintiffs can't afford legal fees, experts, etc. The best advice I can give you is to start learning medical information - as much as possible. Drugs, anatomy, treatment protocols, etc.
It can be very rewarding, both financially and emotionally. People really appreciate help in this area.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Appeals and page limits drive me bat#### insane. Have a brief due in the morning, in which I have to compress a 2500-page trial record into a 30-page appellate brief with ten clear, obvious errors of fact and four very obvious errors of law resulting from errors of fact.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Can't you request additional space? We can. I think. Haven't had to go over the limit to worry about it.
Either way, that sucks.
Either way, that sucks.
Good Posting Judge
Footballguy
Living trust: Spring for an attorney or DIY via Nolo, Legalzoom, etc? Think my wife and I's situation would be fairly straight-forward. TIA.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Not really. I mean, I can request it, but the court seldom grants it. A particular circuit in Louisiana has judges that don't like reading.
On a side note, called a judge's clerk today to ask whether he'd like a full version or a condensed version (4 pages to a sheet of paper) of a transcript.
"Oh, the condensed. Anything that will make it less reading will help."
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Haha.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
It's not the first time it's happened.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Just got a letter from an adversary accusing me of physical harrassment at a deposition and approaching her in a manner that was threatening several times.
Of course, what the letter doesn't state is that we did the dep in the witnesses office that was smaller than a needle and I had to sit on one side, she sat in the middle and the court reporter sat on the opposite side so every time I needed something marked I had to get up and reach over her to get to the court reporter. FML.
Of course, what the letter doesn't state is that we did the dep in the witnesses office that was smaller than a needle and I had to sit on one side, she sat in the middle and the court reporter sat on the opposite side so every time I needed something marked I had to get up and reach over her to get to the court reporter. FML.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I think the appropriate response is to send her a reply letter, right?
Dear sugart###:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
You know, I had a good day Monday. You know those days, you leave the office and you stand a little taller, sing along to happy fun music in the car on the way home and then are a boss at home with family wife and everything in between. Just a perfect guy/lawyer/father/husband day. I liked that feeling. Then I had court on Tuesday in a knock down drag out if everyone, including the judge and lawyers, could just shoot each other they would type of divorce hearing where the talking above each other had to be heard in the hallways. Of the next building over. And then yesterday I find out that a client I have in one thing has never told me that they are litigants in another matter that just royally screws me and my case in every way imaginable and then this today.
I'm calling this week a 3 bottle of bourbon week starting Friday night. I should hit the third bottle by kickoff sunday. And that assumes that tomorrow doesn't lend itself to a 4th bottle.
I'm calling this week a 3 bottle of bourbon week starting Friday night. I should hit the third bottle by kickoff sunday. And that assumes that tomorrow doesn't lend itself to a 4th bottle.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Sorry, man. They happen way too often.
I got a very favorable ruling on a very dicey motion to dismiss my case two days ago, and I'm just waiting for the bad that always happens to go along with such a thing.
I got a very favorable ruling on a very dicey motion to dismiss my case two days ago, and I'm just waiting for the bad that always happens to go along with such a thing.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
On hold with Social Security with regards to a case that is now 3 years old.
[bravaeheart]
FFFFRRRRRRREEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
[/braveheart]
[bravaeheart]
FFFFRRRRRRREEEEEEEDDDDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
[/braveheart]
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Question for you criminal defense/DA type folks:
We're studying the Bill of Rights this week. Double Jeopardy is being discussed. One kid brought up a hypothetical that I thought I answered correctly but not sure (since I'm not a lawyer).
Joe Blow is put on trial for robbing a store. He is found not guilty. A week after the trial new evidence is discovered (a security tape from a nearby business) that clearly shows Joe Blow really did commit the robbery.
Obviously Joe cannot be tried again for the armed robbery.
But could he be arrested/put on trial for something related to the robbery such as possession of a unregistered firearm (or whatever) etc?
We're studying the Bill of Rights this week. Double Jeopardy is being discussed. One kid brought up a hypothetical that I thought I answered correctly but not sure (since I'm not a lawyer).
Joe Blow is put on trial for robbing a store. He is found not guilty. A week after the trial new evidence is discovered (a security tape from a nearby business) that clearly shows Joe Blow really did commit the robbery.
Obviously Joe cannot be tried again for the armed robbery.
But could he be arrested/put on trial for something related to the robbery such as possession of a unregistered firearm (or whatever) etc?
El Floppo
Footballguy
Don Quixote
Footballguy
I haven't thought about it since law school and the bar exam, so my memory might be way off -- I think you are close, but not quite right. An unregistered firearm is not quite subsumed in armed robbery. There is no prerequisite to armed robbery that the arm be unregistered. So, you would have different facts to be proven.
Someone who deals with crim law or considered double jeopardy more recently than me is welcome to correct me, as, like I said, I'm just going off my memories from 10 years ago.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Duuble Jeopardy in this context applies when the essential elements of the newly prosecuted crime are included in the previously-prosecuted crime. I'd think that the "unregistered" part of the unregistered firearm charge would be a new element. Woz probably has better thoughts.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Could they "Al Capone" the guy? He failed to report the $1000 he took from the store as income. Just spitballing here.
njherdfan
Footballguy
I just took the bar exam, so if I'm remembering correctly, the rule is that it's not Double Jeopardy if the new crime requires proving a different element than the old one. So an element of armed robbery is possession of a weapon, so I don't think the guy could then be charged w/ possession of a firearm.
EDIT: Actually, armed robbery is using force to take something; the weapon's legality is irrelevant. Illegal possession of a firearm requires proof that the weapon is not owned legally, so I don't think it would be DJ, and he could be charged.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rirruto
Footballguy
You should have just told the kid that the store ran a check-cashing operation as part of the business. And the owner had just gotten his application to be a s state-chartered credit union to go through, so the feds could just charge him for the armed robbery.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
What friend request?I'll answer your question when you accept my friend request.
The Indestructible
Footballguy
Recruiter question.
I worked with a recruiter to place me at my current form. I am looking to move and would like to work with this recruiter again. I suspect that the recruiter may decline to work with me to recruit me away from where the recruiter placed me. I know that this recruiter works with my firm a lot, so that may be an issue, but do recruiters typically agree on writing not to recruit previously placed candidates?
I worked with a recruiter to place me at my current form. I am looking to move and would like to work with this recruiter again. I suspect that the recruiter may decline to work with me to recruit me away from where the recruiter placed me. I know that this recruiter works with my firm a lot, so that may be an issue, but do recruiters typically agree on writing not to recruit previously placed candidates?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Online CLE to lower my insurance rates. Also known as unbelievably depressing day where I have to listen to obvious crap for three hours in my office.
I look at that as 3 hours to work on a motion/brief. Two birds, one stone, and all of that good stuff.
How happy would you be if you just found out that your opponent cited the wrong standard of review in his opening brief on appeal?
This nimrod cited two Illinois appellate court decisions that are not on point claiming it is de novo. In my brief I will be citing two Illinois Supreme Court decisions stating that it's actually abuse of discretion.
This nimrod cited two Illinois appellate court decisions that are not on point claiming it is de novo. In my brief I will be citing two Illinois Supreme Court decisions stating that it's actually abuse of discretion.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Very.How happy would you be if you just found out that your opponent cited the wrong standard of review in his opening brief on appeal?
This nimrod cited two Illinois appellate court decisions that are not on point claiming it is de novo. In my brief I will be citing two Illinois Supreme Court decisions stating that it's actually abuse of discretion.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Adversary: The witnesses deposition confirmed that my client is entitled to X. Please turn it over without need of motion immediately.
Me: Um, are we reading the same deposition? On page 30, line 26, the witness said that the account is specifically not an account that your client is entitled to. What am I missing?
Adversary: Um....
Me. It does say that, right? I'm not missing something?
Adversary: It does say that. The reporter must have recorded it wrong. I might have to demand the audio recording because the witness clearly said my client was entitled to it.
Me: Your call, but that wasn't the only spot you brought it up. It's referenced 4 more times in the deposistion. You can check the index for the name of the account. Each time the witness specifically said the opposite of what you are asking.
Adversary: Um..... I need to call you back.
Me: Ok. By the way, my summary judgment motion is just about done. You should be getting a copy in a week or so.
Adversary: You can't file summary judgment, the witness said that my client is entitled to the account.
Me:
Me: Um, are we reading the same deposition? On page 30, line 26, the witness said that the account is specifically not an account that your client is entitled to. What am I missing?
Adversary: Um....
Me. It does say that, right? I'm not missing something?
Adversary: It does say that. The reporter must have recorded it wrong. I might have to demand the audio recording because the witness clearly said my client was entitled to it.
Me: Your call, but that wasn't the only spot you brought it up. It's referenced 4 more times in the deposistion. You can check the index for the name of the account. Each time the witness specifically said the opposite of what you are asking.
Adversary: Um..... I need to call you back.
Me: Ok. By the way, my summary judgment motion is just about done. You should be getting a copy in a week or so.
Adversary: You can't file summary judgment, the witness said that my client is entitled to the account.
Me:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Wow. Sounds like a huge conspiracy. How did you convince the reporter to falsely report all of those instances of the guy saying what the adversary wanted?Adversary: The witnesses deposition confirmed that my client is entitled to X. Please turn it over without need of motion immediately.
Me: Um, are we reading the same deposition? On page 30, line 26, the witness said that the account is specifically not an account that your client is entitled to. What am I missing?
Adversary: Um....
Me. It does say that, right? I'm not missing something?
Adversary: It does say that. The reporter must have recorded it wrong. I might have to demand the audio recording because the witness clearly said my client was entitled to it.
Me: Your call, but that wasn't the only spot you brought it up. It's referenced 4 more times in the deposistion. You can check the index for the name of the account. Each time the witness specifically said the opposite of what you are asking.
Adversary: Um..... I need to call you back.
Me: Ok. By the way, my summary judgment motion is just about done. You should be getting a copy in a week or so.
Adversary: You can't file summary judgment, the witness said that my client is entitled to the account.
Me:
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I don't want to muddy the non lawyer being lawyer thread but that slip and fall strategy post is not something that would work here.
I have one going on right now. It's pretty much assumed already before discovery is even hot and heavy that liability is certain. The whole case is just damages and which insurance company is writing the bigger check.
I have one going on right now. It's pretty much assumed already before discovery is even hot and heavy that liability is certain. The whole case is just damages and which insurance company is writing the bigger check.
Aerial Assault
Footballguy
I like this answer. Hippling here, sorry.
The SCOTUS' Blockburger test from the 30s is still cited as the vehicle for determining whether successive prosecutions violate the Fifth Amendment and constitute DJ in federal prosecutions and njherdfan's answer summarizes that test well. The civil counterparts of res judicata and collateral estoppel work in much the same way. Basically, you can only prosecute someone for two or more offenses that arise from a single act or series of acts if each offense requires proof of some element that the other offense or offenses don't.
But state prosecutions use different tests because different constitutions are involved. The "same conduct" test gets a lot of play, and that's arguably even broader than the federal test.
There's also the concept of lesser included offenses that are "subsumed" by the charged conduct, and I'll let Woz speak about that since he's sure tried more criminal cases than I have.
My answer to your questions, Tanner, without writing a law review article out of it, is that most jurisdictions would find prosecuting him for the unregistered firearm in a successive prosecution to be DJ unless the police later found him in possession of the firearm, still unregistered, in completely different circumstances. (Which does happen.) Capone-ing him for the failure to report the robbery "proceeds" as income would almost certainly be DJ because that would be charged by any competent prosecutor or deemed a lesser included offense because restitution to the store owner would very likely be involved in the trial. But if they didn't charge him with that and it wasn't a lesser included for some reason, and he walked, then if he later failed to report the income his prosecution for tax evasion might just clear the DJ hurdle. With Capone it passed muster because the money involved was at what we would call RICO levels today; the more money that's involved, the more likely additional evidence is required, and that makes the attachment of jeopardy less likely.
I'm sure you moved on from discussing this topic since you asked two Fridays ago, but if not, perjury of a criminal defendant who testifies falsely on his own behalf at trial is a relatively frequent and interesting DJ topic, and plays into the Bill of Rights theme nicely since a criminal defendant taking the stand involves another clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
"Like cars.com?"Adversary: The witnesses deposition confirmed that my client is entitled to X. Please turn it over without need of motion immediately.
Me: Um, are we reading the same deposition? On page 30, line 26, the witness said that the account is specifically not an account that your client is entitled to. What am I missing?
Adversary: Um....
Me. It does say that, right? I'm not missing something?
Adversary: It does say that. The reporter must have recorded it wrong. I might have to demand the audio recording because the witness clearly said my client was entitled to it.
Me: Your call, but that wasn't the only spot you brought it up. It's referenced 4 more times in the deposistion. You can check the index for the name of the account. Each time the witness specifically said the opposite of what you are asking.
Adversary: Um..... I need to call you back.
Me: Ok. By the way, my summary judgment motion is just about done. You should be getting a copy in a week or so.
Adversary: You can't file summary judgment, the witness said that my client is entitled to the account.
Me:
"Cancel the IPO."
randall146
Footballguy
OK - more job negotiation advice needed. I'm negotiating with a small (2 partner, 2 associate) firm. I've never worked in an actual firm before. How much vacation time do lawyers who don't work for the government or themselves typically get?
