The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (5 Viewers)

[Sweet J]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

 

[El Floppo]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

I may have omitted something else that defines "work days"- I just clipped in the two parts of a long document that seemed pertinent and relevant. IIRC,

either way- it says that days when workmen are not allowed in the building should be excluded from the 180 day aggregate (or "credited to"). then it says that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends. seems to me that weekends are part of the credit and not included in the 180 days. that seems clearer than the opposite.. at least to me.

 

[Sweet J]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

I may have omitted something else that defines "work days"- I just clipped in the two parts of a long document that seemed pertinent and relevant. IIRC,

either way- it says that days when workmen are not allowed in the building should be excluded from the 180 day aggregate (or "credited to"). then it says that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends. seems to me that weekends are part of the credit and not included in the 180 days. that seems clearer than the opposite.. at least to me.

Wait. Where in your quoted text does it say that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends? That would be an important piece of information, and a piece that I specifically looked for.

It says "Workday" is defined as Monday-Friday (but says nothing about whether workers are excluded on Weekends.

It says workers are excluded before 9:00 am and after 4:30 pm (but says nothing about whether workers are ALSO excluded on Weekends, regardless of time). Actually, the more I read it, the more I like the interpretation that a Weekends are included in the 180 calculation. If the drafters intended that workers were to be excluded from the premises on weekends, they could have easily said so. Which they didn't.

 

[El Floppo]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

I may have omitted something else that defines "work days"- I just clipped in the two parts of a long document that seemed pertinent and relevant. IIRC,

either way- it says that days when workmen are not allowed in the building should be excluded from the 180 day aggregate (or "credited to"). then it says that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends. seems to me that weekends are part of the credit and not included in the 180 days. that seems clearer than the opposite.. at least to me.

Wait. Where in your quoted text does it say that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends? That would be an important piece of information, and a piece that I specifically looked for.

It says "Workday" is defined as Monday-Friday (but says nothing about whether workers are excluded on Weekends.

It says workers are excluded before 9:00 am and after 4:30 pm (but says nothing about whether workers are ALSO excluded on Weekends, regardless of time). Actually, the more I read it, the more I like the interpretation that a Weekends are included in the 180 calculation. If the drafters intended that workers were to be excluded from the premises on weekends, they could have easily said so. Which they didn't.

I guess this is why I couldn't be a lawyer... "work days are monday through friday excluding weekends". reading that, I read that weekends are not work days.

as an aside, I can tell you definitively that workers are excluded from access to the building on weekends and holidays. I think it might be elsewhere in the AA- but it's definitely the law of the building... otherwise we'd be in there on weekends and holidays, much to the annoyance of the neighbors and staff. I had a shipment (including workers) coming from France that was scheduled for today- that was nixed by the building until tomorrow,

 

[Christo]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

I may have omitted something else that defines "work days"- I just clipped in the two parts of a long document that seemed pertinent and relevant. IIRC,

either way- it says that days when workmen are not allowed in the building should be excluded from the 180 day aggregate (or "credited to"). then it says that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends. seems to me that weekends are part of the credit and not included in the 180 days. that seems clearer than the opposite.. at least to me.

Wait. Where in your quoted text does it say that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends? That would be an important piece of information, and a piece that I specifically looked for.

It says "Workday" is defined as Monday-Friday (but says nothing about whether workers are excluded on Weekends.

It says workers are excluded before 9:00 am and after 4:30 pm (but says nothing about whether workers are ALSO excluded on Weekends, regardless of time). Actually, the more I read it, the more I like the interpretation that a Weekends are included in the 180 calculation. If the drafters intended that workers were to be excluded from the premises on weekends, they could have easily said so. Which they didn't.

I guess this is why I couldn't be a lawyer... "work days are monday through friday excluding weekends". reading that, I read that weekends are not work days.

as an aside, I can tell you definitively that workers are excluded from access to the building on weekends and holidays. I think it might be elsewhere in the AA- but it's definitely the law of the building... otherwise we'd be in there on weekends and holidays, much to the annoyance of the neighbors and staff. I had a shipment (including workers) coming from France that was scheduled for today- that was nixed by the building until tomorrow,

You brought in workers from France?

 

[Sweet J]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

I may have omitted something else that defines "work days"- I just clipped in the two parts of a long document that seemed pertinent and relevant. IIRC,

either way- it says that days when workmen are not allowed in the building should be excluded from the 180 day aggregate (or "credited to"). then it says that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends. seems to me that weekends are part of the credit and not included in the 180 days. that seems clearer than the opposite.. at least to me.

Wait. Where in your quoted text does it say that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends? That would be an important piece of information, and a piece that I specifically looked for.

It says "Workday" is defined as Monday-Friday (but says nothing about whether workers are excluded on Weekends.

It says workers are excluded before 9:00 am and after 4:30 pm (but says nothing about whether workers are ALSO excluded on Weekends, regardless of time). Actually, the more I read it, the more I like the interpretation that a Weekends are included in the 180 calculation. If the drafters intended that workers were to be excluded from the premises on weekends, they could have easily said so. Which they didn't.

I guess this is why I couldn't be a lawyer... "work days are monday through friday excluding weekends". reading that, I read that weekends are not work days.

as an aside, I can tell you definitively that workers are excluded from access to the building on weekends and holidays. I think it might be elsewhere in the AA- but it's definitely the law of the building... otherwise we'd be in there on weekends and holidays, much to the annoyance of the neighbors and staff. I had a shipment (including workers) coming from France that was scheduled for today- that was nixed by the building until tomorrow,

That's the key to your question, then. As an aside, I'm sure that's what was intended; I was just kind of nitpicking based on wording. Sounds like you have the right handle on it, especially if fish agrees with you.

 

[El Floppo]

180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building

that's work days.

Why is that? I thought it means that the designated holidays and days they can't get in still count, implying that it is 180 calendar days.

Asking, not quarreling. Still learning all this crap.

I"m obviously not a lawyer, but here's how I read this... if they use the statement "AND when workmen aren't allowed in the building", and then explicitly state workmen aren't allowed in the building on weekends and holidays- it should be 180 work days NOT calendar. But I'm just a dumb architect. I'm not good at redefining the word "AND", or "IS" the way you people can.

The Shareholder shall use the Shareholders best efforts to ensure that the Work is completed expeditiously, but in any event all Work shall be completed within an aggregate of 180 days with credit for days that the building has designated as holidays and when workmen are not allowed in the Building; from the date of commencement of the Work, or such other period as the Corporation, in writing, designates (the “Completion Date”).

Later in the AA, this:

Work Days: Monday through Friday excluding Weekends and Holidays (see “No Apartment Work” Holiday Schedule)
Work Crews Entry: Building Opens for crew entry at 9:00 a.m.
Work Crews Exit: Crews must be out of the building by 4:30 p.m.
Project Timeline: 180 Days — start to finish

The problem is that "Work Day" is not defined in the first paragraph, but it is only defined in the later definitions. It said work must be completed in 180 days, not 180 "Work Days." If I'm interpreting this, I'm thinking that a lawyer knows how to draft, and if he intended to want work to be completed in 180 "Work Days," the could have EASILY said so. So the non-inclusion of this is very telling.

I don't see a statement anywhere that says workmen are only allowed in the building on "Work Days." That's the most important thing.

I may have omitted something else that defines "work days"- I just clipped in the two parts of a long document that seemed pertinent and relevant. IIRC,

either way- it says that days when workmen are not allowed in the building should be excluded from the 180 day aggregate (or "credited to"). then it says that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends. seems to me that weekends are part of the credit and not included in the 180 days. that seems clearer than the opposite.. at least to me.

Wait. Where in your quoted text does it say that workmen are excluded from access to the building on weekends? That would be an important piece of information, and a piece that I specifically looked for.

It says "Workday" is defined as Monday-Friday (but says nothing about whether workers are excluded on Weekends.

It says workers are excluded before 9:00 am and after 4:30 pm (but says nothing about whether workers are ALSO excluded on Weekends, regardless of time). Actually, the more I read it, the more I like the interpretation that a Weekends are included in the 180 calculation. If the drafters intended that workers were to be excluded from the premises on weekends, they could have easily said so. Which they didn't.

I guess this is why I couldn't be a lawyer... "work days are monday through friday excluding weekends". reading that, I read that weekends are not work days.

as an aside, I can tell you definitively that workers are excluded from access to the building on weekends and holidays. I think it might be elsewhere in the AA- but it's definitely the law of the building... otherwise we'd be in there on weekends and holidays, much to the annoyance of the neighbors and staff. I had a shipment (including workers) coming from France that was scheduled for today- that was nixed by the building until tomorrow,

You brought in workers from France?

bien sur

 

[El Floppo]

thanks again, guys. I appreciate the thought and non-billable time given.

yeah, sweet J- I don't know that I have a handle on anything... especially as the property manager is now telling us we're over our 180 time limit. just trying to get a sense (apparently for the second time) of where **official** lawyers might stand on this.

 

[FUBAR]

I haven't spent any time in here. Who knew lawyers would write or discuss so much?

It looks like I might retire (first retirement) in 18 months. I'll be looking for another career and a buddy suggested mediation. From what I can tell, I think I'd like helping people solve their problems before it gets to court, but how does one best go about getting a good job as a mediator? Is it mostly getting certified and being self employed?

Does anyone here work consistently in mediation?

18 months to plan ahead seems a long time but I haven't been on the job market since my 2nd year in college. Somehow I think it's a little different now than applying to be a lifeguard.

 

[Thorn]

I haven't spent any time in here. Who knew lawyers would write or discuss so much?

It looks like I might retire (first retirement) in 18 months. I'll be looking for another career and a buddy suggested mediation. From what I can tell, I think I'd like helping people solve their problems before it gets to court, but how does one best go about getting a good job as a mediator? Is it mostly getting certified and being self employed?

Does anyone here work consistently in mediation?

18 months to plan ahead seems a long time but I haven't been on the job market since my 2nd year in college. Somehow I think it's a little different now than applying to be a lifeguard.

What are you retiring from?

In my state, 95% of the mediators are practicing attorneys who have built a reputation of being reasonable to work with.

 

[-fish-]

I haven't spent any time in here. Who knew lawyers would write or discuss so much?

It looks like I might retire (first retirement) in 18 months. I'll be looking for another career and a buddy suggested mediation. From what I can tell, I think I'd like helping people solve their problems before it gets to court, but how does one best go about getting a good job as a mediator? Is it mostly getting certified and being self employed?

Does anyone here work consistently in mediation?

18 months to plan ahead seems a long time but I haven't been on the job market since my 2nd year in college. Somehow I think it's a little different now than applying to be a lifeguard.

What are you retiring from?

In my state, 95% of the mediators are practicing attorneys who have built a reputation of being reasonable to work with.

guessing this is true just about everywhere. I've only mediated with one non-lawyer ever, and that was a waste of time.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I've heard of construction mediations being done by non-lawyers in some cases. That makes sense when the dispute is about how to complete a construction project with the least delay/and liability. Experience in construction in more important than experience in the law.

 

[Otis]

I haven't spent any time in here. Who knew lawyers would write or discuss so much?

It looks like I might retire (first retirement) in 18 months. I'll be looking for another career and a buddy suggested mediation. From what I can tell, I think I'd like helping people solve their problems before it gets to court, but how does one best go about getting a good job as a mediator? Is it mostly getting certified and being self employed?

Does anyone here work consistently in mediation?

18 months to plan ahead seems a long time but I haven't been on the job market since my 2nd year in college. Somehow I think it's a little different now than applying to be a lifeguard.

What are you retiring from?In my state, 95% of the mediators are practicing attorneys who have built a reputation of being reasonable to work with.

This. Most also have many years of experience and proven expertise in the relevant practice area. I met a guy recently who spent his whole career in house and "retired" to join a startup mediation outfit; was handing out business cards at a family event. Seems to me he is working it hard to get some matters in from law firms. It got me to thinking that mediation seems like a respite that decent people seek out later in their careers when they are just so tired of fighting about nonsense.

Seems like fun. Good luck with it.

 

[Otis]

I finally got work from a client in Asia I had been pursuing for 5 years. Sent a draft engagement letter today with my and my team's billing rates, which keep escalating to more and more seemingly outrageous numbers, and realized the guy is going to choke on his miso as he reads it over breakfast. I almost sent a follow up email along the lines of "by the way, never mind those rates in that engagement letter, they are negotiable."

Then again, lately I've been learning "ask and he shall receive." He sees enough bills from enough expensive lawyers, maybe he won't even flinch. And at least this gives me room to negotiate down and give him a discount while still remaining sufficiently profitable from my firm's perspective.

But Christ, none of this stuff is easy.

 

[Henry Ford]

Three days ago I reached a seven figure settlement in a contingency fee case, and I'm holding the check in my hands already.

Belize, anyone?

 

[mr roboto]

What does a contingency fee % look like usually?

 

[Henry Ford]

What does a contingency fee % look like usually?

Between 25 and 40%, depending on the case. For a maritime personal injury action, my firm gets 40%.

 

[Ray Karpis]

Currently in day 24 of a CBA negotiation with a steel union. Quite an experience.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Currently in day 24 of a CBA negotiation with a steel union. Quite an experience.

A gay steel union?

 

[mr roboto]

What does a contingency fee % look like usually?

Between 25 and 40%, depending on the case. For a maritime personal injury action, my firm gets 40%.

Mazel tov!

 

[Otis]

Three days ago I reached a seven figure settlement in a contingency fee case, and I'm holding the check in my hands already.

Belize, anyone?

Boom

 

[Otis]

I finally got work from a client in Asia I had been pursuing for 5 years. Sent a draft engagement letter today with my and my team's billing rates, which keep escalating to more and more seemingly outrageous numbers, and realized the guy is going to choke on his miso as he reads it over breakfast. I almost sent a follow up email along the lines of "by the way, never mind those rates in that engagement letter, they are negotiable."

Then again, lately I've been learning "ask and he shall receive." He sees enough bills from enough expensive lawyers, maybe he won't even flinch. And at least this gives me room to negotiate down and give him a discount while still remaining sufficiently profitable from my firm's perspective.

But Christ, none of this stuff is easy.

This kept me up all last night. Client got back today and said the engagement letter looked great, and signed it. No discount, no haggling, no BS.

Ask and ye shall receive.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

WOOHOO! Just got a Fully Favorable decision from Social Security for a sweet fully disabled pro bono client. Top of the world ma!

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Question:

My lawyer submitted an objection to the court with an error in it. In the the line, "attorneys for da raiders". The paralegal ####ed up and it has some one else's name there. Everything else is correct. Should a revised objection be filed? My lawyer doesn't seem to think its a big deal.

 

[Ray Karpis]

Question:

My lawyer submitted an objection to the court with an error in it. In the the line, "attorneys for da raiders". The paralegal ####ed up and it has some one else's name there. Everything else is correct. Should a revised objection be filed? My lawyer doesn't seem to think its a big deal.

Not a big deal....at all.

At all.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Question:

My lawyer submitted an objection to the court with an error in it. In the the line, "attorneys for da raiders". The paralegal ####ed up and it has some one else's name there. Everything else is correct. Should a revised objection be filed? My lawyer doesn't seem to think its a big deal.

I'd probably file a Notice of Errata. He's probably right that it isn't a big deal, but you're the client.

 

[Zow]

Clerical errors happen. That's a pretty obvious one but not crazy. Assuming the cause number in the caption is right it should be fine.

 

[Zow]

Was prepping my clients for a trial yesterday in a conference room just before it was about to start. We are gathering up our stuff to head in and my client tells me I'm looking like I'm getting too round in the stomach. Cool start to a four hour trial. And probably the most honest thing he said all day.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

Was prepping my clients for a trial yesterday in a conference room just before it was about to start. We are gathering up our stuff to head in and my client tells me I'm looking like I'm getting too round in the stomach. Cool start to a four hour trial. And probably the most honest thing he said all day.

That's funny! More popcorn!

 

[Christo]

Question:

My lawyer submitted an objection to the court with an error in it. In the the line, "attorneys for da raiders". The paralegal ####ed up and it has some one else's name there. Everything else is correct. Should a revised objection be filed? My lawyer doesn't seem to think its a big deal.

meh

 

[whoknew]

Any small firm guys who really like their timekeeping/billing software? Any recommendations? We currently use Abacus and its fine, but I'm thinking of upgrading. Any recommendations are appreciated.

 

[Zow]

Any small firm guys who really like their timekeeping/billing software? Any recommendations? We currently use Abacus and its fine, but I'm thinking of upgrading. Any

recommendations are appreciated.

We use "mycase". I like it for both case management and timekeeping/billing.

 

[gianmarco]

Alright lawyerguys, quick question:

I called an attorney that handled something for me earlier about a separate issue to see if it's something that he can also help with. He informed that it was not under his expertise but that he'd be happy to call around and find someone that can help. In that kind of situation, can he charge me for his time to make those calls? Should he? Or is that just part of doing business in your profession and understand others give you the same time when they refer clients to you and it's not on the client to pay?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Alright lawyerguys, quick question:

I called an attorney that handled something for me earlier about a separate issue to see if it's something that he can also help with. He informed that it was not under his expertise but that he'd be happy to call around and find someone that can help. In that kind of situation, can he charge me for his time to make those calls? Should he? Or is that just part of doing business in your profession and understand others give you the same time when they refer clients to you and it's not on the client to pay?

I would never bill for a referral, and I'm not sure I know of anyone who would. That's just standard client-development stuff.

 

[Zow]

Alright lawyerguys, quick question:

I called an attorney that handled something for me earlier about a separate issue to see if it's something that he can also help with. He informed that it was not under his expertise but that he'd be happy to call around and find someone that can help. In that kind of situation, can he charge me for his time to make those calls? Should he? Or is that just part of doing business in your profession and understand others give you the same time when they refer clients to you and it's not on the client to pay?

I do this quite a bit and never charge. Just seems worth it to keep up good client relations as well as the networking benefits.

I suppose he could charge you. Although I'd really hope that's covered under your fee agreement or he told you ahead of time and got your consent to.

 

[whoknew]

Alright lawyerguys, quick question:

I called an attorney that handled something for me earlier about a separate issue to see if it's something that he can also help with. He informed that it was not under his expertise but that he'd be happy to call around and find someone that can help. In that kind of situation, can he charge me for his time to make those calls? Should he? Or is that just part of doing business in your profession and understand others give you the same time when they refer clients to you and it's not on the client to pay?

I would never bill for a referral, and I'm not sure I know of anyone who would. That's just standard client-development stuff.

It would be highly unusual (and terrible business) to charge for that.

 

[FUBAR]

I haven't spent any time in here. Who knew lawyers would write or discuss so much?

It looks like I might retire (first retirement) in 18 months. I'll be looking for another career and a buddy suggested mediation. From what I can tell, I think I'd like helping people solve their problems before it gets to court, but how does one best go about getting a good job as a mediator? Is it mostly getting certified and being self employed?

Does anyone here work consistently in mediation?

18 months to plan ahead seems a long time but I haven't been on the job market since my 2nd year in college. Somehow I think it's a little different now than applying to be a lifeguard.

What are you retiring from?

In my state, 95% of the mediators are practicing attorneys who have built a reputation of being reasonable to work with.

Army, JAG (lawyer). Could be 18 months or 42 months, not really sure right now. Maybe more I guess but that's extremely unlikely and might lead to my own need for a mediator (divorce).

Couldn't speak to my reputation but I think I'm reasonable.

 

[gianmarco]

Cool, thanks. I just didn't know if I would get a surprise bill or if I should consider it a favor or if it's just standard so those responses helped.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

My drunk outside counsel case settled for a very reasonable amount with my company coming $0 out of pocket.

 

[Zow]

My drunk outside counsel case settled for a very reasonable amount with my company coming $0 out of pocket.

:confetti:

 

[Christo]

Cool, thanks. I just didn't know if I would get a surprise bill or if I should consider it a favor or if it's just standard so those responses helped.

Whether he gets paid should be between the attorneys.

 

[-fish-]

Got a bench verdict in my crazy person case. Just filed the presentation of judgment and the ####### attorney opposed it and made some ridiculous argument how my client isn't entitled to attorney's fees under the American rule...even though it's in his complaint and his trial brief that two relevant statutes award mandatory attorney's fees to the prevailing party in this case.

So now I'm asking for judgment, attorney's fees and for him to be personally sanctioned.

 

[whoknew]

Got a bench verdict in my crazy person case. Just filed the presentation of judgment and the ####### attorney opposed it and made some ridiculous argument how my client isn't entitled to attorney's fees under the American rule...even though it's in his complaint and his trial brief that two relevant statutes award mandatory attorney's fees to the prevailing party in this case.

So now I'm asking for judgment, attorney's fees and for him to be personally sanctioned.

Kind of quick to jump to sanctions, no?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Got a bench verdict in my crazy person case. Just filed the presentation of judgment and the ####### attorney opposed it and made some ridiculous argument how my client isn't entitled to attorney's fees under the American rule...even though it's in his complaint and his trial brief that two relevant statutes award mandatory attorney's fees to the prevailing party in this case.

So now I'm asking for judgment, attorney's fees and for him to be personally sanctioned.

Kind of quick to jump to sanctions, no?

If there's one time it would be appropriate it would be when an attorney is disregarding authority that he has already briefed. Particularly at the end of the case like this, when I doubt the judge wants to wait for an exchange of letters.

 

[-fish-]

Got a bench verdict in my crazy person case. Just filed the presentation of judgment and the ####### attorney opposed it and made some ridiculous argument how my client isn't entitled to attorney's fees under the American rule...even though it's in his complaint and his trial brief that two relevant statutes award mandatory attorney's fees to the prevailing party in this case.

So now I'm asking for judgment, attorney's fees and for him to be personally sanctioned.

Kind of quick to jump to sanctions, no?

It's an absolute violation of the civil rules and the rules of professional conduct. I should actually report him to the bar.

 

[El Floppo]

Got a bench verdict in my crazy person case. Just filed the presentation of judgment and the ####### attorney opposed it and made some ridiculous argument how my client isn't entitled to attorney's fees under the American rule...even though it's in his complaint and his trial brief that two relevant statutes award mandatory attorney's fees to the prevailing party in this case.

So now I'm asking for judgment, attorney's fees and for him to be personally sanctioned.

Kind of quick to jump to sanctions, no?

It's an absolute violation of the civil rules and the rules of professional conduct. I should actually report him to the bar.

I say you let him go.

 

[Christo]

Got a bench verdict in my crazy person case. Just filed the presentation of judgment and the ####### attorney opposed it and made some ridiculous argument how my client isn't entitled to attorney's fees under the American rule...even though it's in his complaint and his trial brief that two relevant statutes award mandatory attorney's fees to the prevailing party in this case.

So now I'm asking for judgment, attorney's fees and for him to be personally sanctioned.

Kind of quick to jump to sanctions, no?

Every argument a lawyer makes is supposed to be well-grounded in fact and warranted by existing law. If you've already cited law that supports your opponent's position but you argue against it, you might as well have just hung out a big sign that says SANCTION ME!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

If I get any sleep or work done before trial tomorrow it will be a miracle.

 

[Sweet J]

Does anyone know anything about probate in Illinois?  I've been named executor for an in-law (uncle-in-law) who lived in Chicago.  I live in Virginia.  And I need to probate this thing, I think.  I need to take another look at the will when I get home, but I'm pretty sure it was drafted on a "form will" and leaves the bulk (if not all) of his estate to a Trust in the name of my mother-in-law.  It's REAL simple.  Money goes to her in trust, a couple of paintings go to a couple of people, I'm the executor, maybe a couple other things.

Anyone feel like giving just a brief overview of steps?

My inclination was to hire a cook county estate lawyer to handle filing the will. I told my father-in-law who is an 80 yo old-school-do-it-yourself engineer, is as cheep as they come, and went ballistic at the thought of hiring a lawyer to do something "we" could do ourselves.  He said if I didn't want to do it, I could name him executor and he'd do it.  (the quote was something along the lines of "I'm not going to pay 15% of the estate to a lawyer just to file some papers").  The estate is worth somewhere between $500,000 and $1M I would guess.

FML.  I've dealt with it by letting this old ******* run around the cook country courthouse trying to get the paperwork filed on his own.  But he's a bit of a social dipsht, and NOBODY is helping him.  They message that he seems to be getting is "why don't you hire a lawyer to take care of this."

So now that he's lost a lot of his steam, I'm ready to try and tackle this.  Any advice on starting points?

 

[Thorn]

Does anyone know anything about probate in Illinois?  I've been named executor for an in-law (uncle-in-law) who lived in Chicago.  I live in Virginia.  And I need to probate this thing, I think.  I need to take another look at the will when I get home, but I'm pretty sure it was drafted on a "form will" and leaves the bulk (if not all) of his estate to a Trust in the name of my mother-in-law.  It's REAL simple.  Money goes to her in trust, a couple of paintings go to a couple of people, I'm the executor, maybe a couple other things.

Anyone feel like giving just a brief overview of steps?

My inclination was to hire a cook county estate lawyer to handle filing the will. I told my father-in-law who is an 80 yo old-school-do-it-yourself engineer, is as cheep as they come, and went ballistic at the thought of hiring a lawyer to do something "we" could do ourselves.  He said if I didn't want to do it, I could name him executor and he'd do it.  (the quote was something along the lines of "I'm not going to pay 15% of the estate to a lawyer just to file some papers").  The estate is worth somewhere between $500,000 and $1M I would guess.

FML.  I've dealt with it by letting this old ******* run around the cook country courthouse trying to get the paperwork filed on his own.  But he's a bit of a social dipsht, and NOBODY is helping him.  They message that he seems to be getting is "why don't you hire a lawyer to take care of this."

So now that he's lost a lot of his steam, I'm ready to try and tackle this.  Any advice on starting points?

Well first off, you wouldn't be able to name the executor, only Probate court can name one, and they give first preference to the person named in the will.  Is Illinois on the Uniform Probate Code?  I would think about putting 3 or 4 feelers out to Illinois lawyers with an eye towards price.  If no one contests the will or what is supposed to happen to the assets, it is largely a ministerial process.