I don't think there's any special trick to it. It should sound genuine and heartfelt. In person or video taped testimony is even better.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Henry Ford
- Start date
Rirruto
Footballguy
Concrete and specific examples of how your life is different than it was before generally play well. Nightmares, not being able to play catch with your son, waking up every day in an empty bed, etc. depending on what kind of crime you're dealing with and your relationship to it. If it were me, I'd tell a story using some of those examples and weave in whatever else I wanted to say about the case. I'd also try to make it as personal and emotional as I felt comfortable with.Walking Boot said:
The prosecutor that you're dealing with might have a staff member (or the ADA him/herself) that can guide you through what they've seen work and what you can not say.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
There is nothing like taking lead on a deposition for multiple plaintiffs in a case and having the main witness for the defense just roll over and let you scratch his belly for a few hours. Absolutely gutted several defendants today with one guy. So satisfying.
the rover
Footballguy
Have to go get a TRO because some dude is posting signs directing people to [myclient'sname]sucks.com and disparaging the living #### out of my client for refusing to approve unnecessary repairs to a condominium.
Oh, and his house is for sale and his claims will render his own home and everyone's in the community unmarketable.
Oh, and his house is for sale and his claims will render his own home and everyone's in the community unmarketable.
rail
Footballguy
I feel like I'm at a crossroads as it not only pertains to my legal career, but just career in general. I've primarily been a prosecutor for the past 16 years, with 1.5 years of private firm experience mixed in there. I have been working within a community prosecution model for the past 5 years - so I'm primarily out of the courtroom, which I have really needed. The threat still looms that I will be put back into a courtroom with a docket due to the office's general rotation policy. The thought of that makes me want to put a gun in my mouth. I think I've done enough trials, seen enough bad #### people do to each other, and am feeling really worn out of the adversarial/litigation process. Truly, I'm sick of it.
I don't know if I just want out of litigation in general, or am actually done being a lawyer. Some days, it feels like that being an attorney is just not right for me anymore - not interested in civil litigation and really don't feel like going to work every day and just fight, fight, fighting for a client / person / position / "justice". I don't know if I'm stressing my level of unhappiness enough here - I'm starting week 2 of a week 4 paternity leave and am already thinking three weeks ahead when I have to go back and feeling totally depressed about it. I'm on the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program (jumped on it way late) and am willing to forego that as well as take a pay cut.
As I'm in my mid-40s, it feels like I should be considering a pivot (either to a different area of law, or completely out of it). While the thought of starting all over again in a new career isn't entirely appealing, at this point another 20+ years of being miserable seems a hell of a lot worse. My questions for you other attorneys: Any resources print or online you are aware of that I should look at in considering a move to something else? (Tellingly, I bought the "What Can You Do With a Law Degree?" book right after law school . . . and never found the time to read it.)
Ever considered / gone into an alternative legal career (or jumped out of the legal field entirely)? Or know anyone that has? Experiences or advice?
TIA. Will try to answer yours as I've got a screaming baby on my lap.
I don't know if I just want out of litigation in general, or am actually done being a lawyer. Some days, it feels like that being an attorney is just not right for me anymore - not interested in civil litigation and really don't feel like going to work every day and just fight, fight, fighting for a client / person / position / "justice". I don't know if I'm stressing my level of unhappiness enough here - I'm starting week 2 of a week 4 paternity leave and am already thinking three weeks ahead when I have to go back and feeling totally depressed about it. I'm on the Public Student Loan Forgiveness program (jumped on it way late) and am willing to forego that as well as take a pay cut.
As I'm in my mid-40s, it feels like I should be considering a pivot (either to a different area of law, or completely out of it). While the thought of starting all over again in a new career isn't entirely appealing, at this point another 20+ years of being miserable seems a hell of a lot worse. My questions for you other attorneys: Any resources print or online you are aware of that I should look at in considering a move to something else? (Tellingly, I bought the "What Can You Do With a Law Degree?" book right after law school . . . and never found the time to read it.)
Ever considered / gone into an alternative legal career (or jumped out of the legal field entirely)? Or know anyone that has? Experiences or advice?
TIA. Will try to answer yours as I've got a screaming baby on my lap.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I've heard others in your situation benefited greatly from a move to being a mediator rather than an advocate.
The Indestructible
Footballguy
I haven't heard of anybody who regrets leaving the law. There is a coaching program called Leaving Law Behind. I am not affiliated with that and have never used it to recommend it, but I've always found it telling that there is a sub-industry within the profession dedicated to getting people out. I'd echo Henry Ford's comments about pivoting to being a mediator, as you can more easily do that because you have the background and training for it, and it is a natural pivot. With that having been said, don't resign yourself to feeling that you're stuck being a lawyer because you're in your mid-40s. Start slow. Identify your transferable skills and interests. What aspects of practicing law do you like and/or are good at? Is there anything outside the law that you could see yourself doing?
The Indestructible
Footballguy
Is anybody here barred in any of the following states, and if so, do you ever use online CLEs (not webinars) to fulfill your CLE requirements?
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Vermont
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Iowa
Kentucky
Missouri
Nevada
New Hampshire
Ohio
Vermont
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a conflict of interest question. I apologize for the lengthy set-up:
Our neighborhood is part of a larger group of neighborhoods involved in litigation with a local bank over a golf course/club that went bankrupt. At issue are some very grey areas regarding restrictive covenants as it relates to the golf course property. This is essentially one large neighborhood, but there are 8 different HOAs (little enclaves) who are parties to the law suit. The HOAs, collectively, intervened into an existing lawsuit, and have essentially taken on the role of the primary plaintiffs now. At some point, one of the HOAs withdrew from the coalition, and retained their own counsel, and filed their own intervening complaint. (The reason is dissatisfaction with the coalition attorney (and honestly, I can't blame them here)).
Now, fast forward a few weeks, the HOA coalition attorney is pushing for a settlement where the HOAs will collectively buy the course foot print, lease it out to a golf management company to run, while allowing bank to sell the club-house, pool, and driving range for development. For reasons that are not really important here - this is a terrible settlement, a terrible idea in general, and the attorney is so far over his head in this case, but I digress. Breakaway HOA wants no part of this settlement and intend to fight the bank on the restrictions. To that end, they have reached out to others in the neighborhoods to collect both affidavits, and a general petition regarding the reliance on the golf course to the home purchase. The HOA management company - same company manages most of the other HOAs - immediately sent out an email, warning people not to sign the petition, nor provide the affidavits. HOA coalition attorney is also the attorney for the management company, but its not clear if this came from the attorney.
Now, the breakaway HOA has sent a letter to the Coalition Attorney, claiming a conflict of interest in his continued representation of the HOAs and management company in this case, as they now have a materially adverse position to Breakaway HOA, a former client of the attorney.
At first blush, my thought is you cannot withdraw from joint representation, and then claim conflict of interest. I also wonder how they get to a "materially adverse position" - albeit, the claim is that the attorney is involved with efforts to thwart their continued pursuit of the case. It does have to be more than Party A wants to settle, and Party B does not want to settle though, doesn't it?
For the record - I think our attorney (coalition attorney) is a bad lawyer, and has flubbed this case from the beginning. Unfortunately I am not on our HOA Board, and have had virtually no input into the strategy (or lack thereof). I am barely aware of any of the internal workings here, and only get tidbits from time-to-time. So, I would not mind seeing him replaced - this just does not feel like the way to do that. But, could it work??
Our neighborhood is part of a larger group of neighborhoods involved in litigation with a local bank over a golf course/club that went bankrupt. At issue are some very grey areas regarding restrictive covenants as it relates to the golf course property. This is essentially one large neighborhood, but there are 8 different HOAs (little enclaves) who are parties to the law suit. The HOAs, collectively, intervened into an existing lawsuit, and have essentially taken on the role of the primary plaintiffs now. At some point, one of the HOAs withdrew from the coalition, and retained their own counsel, and filed their own intervening complaint. (The reason is dissatisfaction with the coalition attorney (and honestly, I can't blame them here)).
Now, fast forward a few weeks, the HOA coalition attorney is pushing for a settlement where the HOAs will collectively buy the course foot print, lease it out to a golf management company to run, while allowing bank to sell the club-house, pool, and driving range for development. For reasons that are not really important here - this is a terrible settlement, a terrible idea in general, and the attorney is so far over his head in this case, but I digress. Breakaway HOA wants no part of this settlement and intend to fight the bank on the restrictions. To that end, they have reached out to others in the neighborhoods to collect both affidavits, and a general petition regarding the reliance on the golf course to the home purchase. The HOA management company - same company manages most of the other HOAs - immediately sent out an email, warning people not to sign the petition, nor provide the affidavits. HOA coalition attorney is also the attorney for the management company, but its not clear if this came from the attorney.
Now, the breakaway HOA has sent a letter to the Coalition Attorney, claiming a conflict of interest in his continued representation of the HOAs and management company in this case, as they now have a materially adverse position to Breakaway HOA, a former client of the attorney.
At first blush, my thought is you cannot withdraw from joint representation, and then claim conflict of interest. I also wonder how they get to a "materially adverse position" - albeit, the claim is that the attorney is involved with efforts to thwart their continued pursuit of the case. It does have to be more than Party A wants to settle, and Party B does not want to settle though, doesn't it?
For the record - I think our attorney (coalition attorney) is a bad lawyer, and has flubbed this case from the beginning. Unfortunately I am not on our HOA Board, and have had virtually no input into the strategy (or lack thereof). I am barely aware of any of the internal workings here, and only get tidbits from time-to-time. So, I would not mind seeing him replaced - this just does not feel like the way to do that. But, could it work??
El Floppo
Footballguy
Hi lawying friends...
I posted a video on youtube of my kid playing a zeppelin song with his bandmates in NYC's chapter of school of rock.
They blocked the video on copyright grounds. Here's the email I received:
I've posted pretty much every song he's done there- ac/dc, black sabbath, foo fighters, nirvana- without any issue.
I figured that kids playing covers of other bands' songs wasn't a copyright infringement thing. Is it?
I posted a video on youtube of my kid playing a zeppelin song with his bandmates in NYC's chapter of school of rock.
They blocked the video on copyright grounds. Here's the email I received:
and the link included leads to this:
I've posted pretty much every song he's done there- ac/dc, black sabbath, foo fighters, nirvana- without any issue.
I figured that kids playing covers of other bands' songs wasn't a copyright infringement thing. Is it?
ericttspikes
Footballguy
not a lawyer, but find it amusing that Led Zeppelin's publisher is so aggressive on copyright infringement when Zep are the kings of ripping off other artists.
Zow
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
I am, but as one who isn't one in PA, I'm not comfortable answering even a generic question.
Zow
Footballguy
Yes, if for some reason I can't squeeze in my normally preferred 3-day event and am scrambling near the deadline.
Zow
Footballguy
I'm teaching one tomorrow. I think it took me like two minute to sign some document the bar sent me. Er, wait, that was provided by the local bar association.
Zow
Footballguy
So I had an interesting meeting recently. My local jurisdiction just did the first bench reassignments in like 20 years. One of the judges who was assigned for like 15 years to mainly a dependency/juvenile caseload (which he likes), got switched to adult felony criminal and is unhappy. He's up for re-election next year. His JA reached out to me to set up a meeting. At the meeting I learned that 1) the judge would like to step down if he's happy with his replacement; and 2) I have the entire backing of the county prosecutor's office and am their "pick" (which, admittedly, felt great). I expressed an interest. Since this meeting, though, I've discovered the judge has/had approached others as well and word is getting out that he's likely stepping down, meaning I'd need to run an actual campaign and I've heard that things are getting "political."
I have given significant thought about becoming a judge in the future, but never thought an opportunity would present itself this soon in my career (I'm 34, practicing for 9 years). Admittedly, one of the biggest hesitations I have is the likely personal isolation that would come with it. I regularly socialize with other attorneys (mostly recreationally like golf, softball, poker nights, etc.) and my understanding is that such future behavior would be frowned upon as judge. My second hesitation is that, philosophically, I despise the notion of judges running in a partisan general election and, since I'd be running as a Republican, the thought of networking with the Tea-Party/alt-right/Trump segment of the party makes me shudder. So, I'm on the fence whether to seriously consider it.
Other factors to consider:
1. I really like my current firm, can pretty much do as I please there, receive a lot of collateral benefits (I have no limits on vacation time, get to expense lunches, have the seniority to have associates cover my stuff, genuinely enjoy my co-workers, etc.) and I don't want to jeopardize the positive relationship and working environment I have there. I fear the impact that running but losing would have.
2. There wouldn't be much of a pay increase although the benefits (insurance, retirement, etc.) would be a significant improvement.
3. A campaign would probably cost me like 20k out of pocket.
4. Could result in a daily hour commute (depending on judicial assignment).
5. I'm not "burned out" yet, although something is likely going to have to give in the next couple of years because my work enjoyment has decreased since I've taken on a higher family law caseload (and have become accustomed to the rise in income that came along with that).
6. I don't know when a similar opportunity would arise, as most judgeships in my jurisdiction come via judicial appointment where a judge steps down mid-term and then the appointee wins the next election unopposed.
7. I really do think I'd do well as a judge as I find myself to be, at least compared to direct colleagues, pretty objective about things. Despite the isolation, I think the position would make me pretty happy. I also cannot deny the personal pride and satisfaction I'd have in becoming a judge at my age. In short, I do see this as a career goal and my next progression/step and there's a pride factor to it for me.
8. My wife is torn as she loves the idea of government benefits and the job security but doesn't like the idea of me campaigning and, while she hasn't come right out and said it, I think she's worried that the job would lock us into this area whereas her ideal is us moving back to the metro area closer to family in five or so years.
Any general input or personal experience would be great. Probably need to make a decision in the next week or two.
I have given significant thought about becoming a judge in the future, but never thought an opportunity would present itself this soon in my career (I'm 34, practicing for 9 years). Admittedly, one of the biggest hesitations I have is the likely personal isolation that would come with it. I regularly socialize with other attorneys (mostly recreationally like golf, softball, poker nights, etc.) and my understanding is that such future behavior would be frowned upon as judge. My second hesitation is that, philosophically, I despise the notion of judges running in a partisan general election and, since I'd be running as a Republican, the thought of networking with the Tea-Party/alt-right/Trump segment of the party makes me shudder. So, I'm on the fence whether to seriously consider it.
Other factors to consider:
1. I really like my current firm, can pretty much do as I please there, receive a lot of collateral benefits (I have no limits on vacation time, get to expense lunches, have the seniority to have associates cover my stuff, genuinely enjoy my co-workers, etc.) and I don't want to jeopardize the positive relationship and working environment I have there. I fear the impact that running but losing would have.
2. There wouldn't be much of a pay increase although the benefits (insurance, retirement, etc.) would be a significant improvement.
3. A campaign would probably cost me like 20k out of pocket.
4. Could result in a daily hour commute (depending on judicial assignment).
5. I'm not "burned out" yet, although something is likely going to have to give in the next couple of years because my work enjoyment has decreased since I've taken on a higher family law caseload (and have become accustomed to the rise in income that came along with that).
6. I don't know when a similar opportunity would arise, as most judgeships in my jurisdiction come via judicial appointment where a judge steps down mid-term and then the appointee wins the next election unopposed.
7. I really do think I'd do well as a judge as I find myself to be, at least compared to direct colleagues, pretty objective about things. Despite the isolation, I think the position would make me pretty happy. I also cannot deny the personal pride and satisfaction I'd have in becoming a judge at my age. In short, I do see this as a career goal and my next progression/step and there's a pride factor to it for me.
8. My wife is torn as she loves the idea of government benefits and the job security but doesn't like the idea of me campaigning and, while she hasn't come right out and said it, I think she's worried that the job would lock us into this area whereas her ideal is us moving back to the metro area closer to family in five or so years.
Any general input or personal experience would be great. Probably need to make a decision in the next week or two.
McJose
Footballguy
Heard a great story the other day that I thought you shysters might like. (Just realized how long this is...damn)
Keep in mind that this story is at least 35 years old and I got it second hand from the main character’s son (but most of it was verified by another guy I know that is still a criminal defense lawyer). I am, as you know, also not a lawyer so if screw up any procedural stuff forgive me.
A good friend of our family’s was a PD for a few years before going into private practice (hi, @Zow). We’ll call him PD. Very early in his career he gets a client that was on trial for attempted murder or ADW or whatever.
The story is that the victim and defendant were at a bar one night and exchanged words. Defendant says he and his girlfriend decided to leave the bar. Vic follows them out and assaults defendant. Defendant grabs a piece of rebar (or pipe) from the back of his truck and brains the Vic in the name of self-defense.
Victim claims he went outside to apologize for the earlier confrontation and the defendant clobbers him out of nowhere.
It should be noted that the defendant was a Mexican guy and the Vic was white. Around here (back then) that was almost enough for our DA’s office to prosecute with vigor.
As far as witnesses go, it was kind of a wash. Defendant’s GF backed up his side. A friend of the victim walked outside too and confirmed the vic’s story. Bartender said that victim was being belligerent and looking for a fight. There were also a couple of bar patrons that claimed the defendant was the one who started everything but didn’t see either man leave the bar and IIRC knew the Vic personally.
Then there was prosecution’s key witness. We’ll call him Bubba.
Bubba was walking through the parking lot on his way to the bar...after leaving another nearby bar. He claimed to have seen the whole thing and that the defendant was guilty as sin. Bubba stated in the police report and deposition that not only was the victim’s version true but added that the defendant yelled out something like “I’ll kill you, you white MFer!”
So it goes to trial. Bubba is at the courthouse waiting to testify. There were a few witnesses ahead of him. Things go a little long and they break for lunch. Bubba, thinking that the 2 witnesses ahead of him are going to take up the rest of the afternoon decides to have a few drinks with his lunch.
Unfortunately, for Bubba, the other two witnesses are on and off the stand very quickly.
The prosecution calls Bubba Q. Public to the stand.
According to PD, Bubba seemed, at first, just slightly off. Nothing obvious but slurring his words a bit, asking the prosecutor to repeat questions that were perfectly clear, and rambling a little. Then, the more Bubba was required to focus, it was somewhat obvious that he wasn’t there 100% but not glaring.
According to PD the DA noticed as well. He tried to hurry up the testimony all the while trying to keep the Q&A short and easy.
Then it is PD’s turn. The first thing he does is ask Bubba to read part of either his statement to the police or deposition. Bubba has a little trouble there. Then he asks Bubba to stand up and demonstrate how the defendant struck the victim. Bubba doesn’t really have his sea-legs.
At this point PD asks to approach the bench (aside? ex parte? whatever)
Keep in mind that PD is still pretty green.
”Uh, your honor...I think this witness is drunk.”
The judge says “Well...he does seem a little out of sorts”. And then, being judicious, removes the jury (this is one of those lawyer type things that I’m not sure about...maybe it happened in chambers?)
Judge: Mr. Bubba, are you feeling OK?
Bubba: How so?
Judge: You seem a little incapacitated.
Bubba: Oh..well...I’m getting over a cold (right from the functioning alcoholic playbook).
Judge: So are you taking medication?
Bubba: No. I mean I took some NyQuil last night so maybe that’s it.
Judge: (reminds him he’s under oath)
Bubba: ok
Judge: where did you go for lunch?
(Bubba asks Judge to repeat the question and then answers) I went to Frank’s (a nearby bar and grill).
Judge: what did you have for lunch? And did you have anything to drink?
Bubba: I had a burger and...uh...well...I did have a beer.
Judge: You had just one beer? That’s it? So if I call Frank’s right now and ask them they will tell me you had ONE beer?
Bubba: Well, yeah, I guess. Oh and a burger.
Judge: So a burger and one drink, is that correct?
Bubba: Yes. A burger and one boilermaker.
Judge: So a beer and a shot? You said it was ‘a beer’.
Bubba: (PD says Bubba was losing interest and a bit peeved now) Well, if you want to get picky.
Judge: Tell the truth, Mr. Bubba.
Bubba: Fine. Maybe two beers and two shots.
So now the judge tells the bailiff to go find Bailiff Bob. Most of the bailiffs were either reserves or lifers. Bob had spent 15 years on patrol before transferring to the courts.
Bob comes in after a few minutes thinking there’s some commotion. Then the judge tells him to perform a field sobriety test on Bubba right there in the courtroom.
Bubba fails the FST with flying colors. Bob tells the judge “your honor, this man is intoxicated beyond question.
Of course, Bubba starts #####ing about how he’s being treated. He’s a taxpaying citizen after all.
There are some conflicting stories here as to the ultimate end of the story...
Some say that the judge had the bailiff put Bubba in the drunk tank for the night. Others say he had a deputy drive him home. Whatever.
But..as to what happened right after the FST...both of my sources agree on the following:
Judge: Get this man out of my courtroom (see above)
DA: Uh...your honor? Can I recall the witness tomorrow or at a later date when he is ‘feeling better’? He’s a key witness.”
The judge, PD, and DA start to discuss this.
Bubba is either being led to the tank or escorted out and he laughs and says (to no one in particular)
“I was sure as #### drunker than this when I saw that fight and talked to the cops. Why you gotta be all uptight now?”
Sadly...I cannot tell you for certain the final outcome. Both sources say that the trial continued without Bubba’s testimony. One says the Defendant was found guilty of a lesser charge. The other says he was exonerated totally.
Fin.
Keep in mind that this story is at least 35 years old and I got it second hand from the main character’s son (but most of it was verified by another guy I know that is still a criminal defense lawyer). I am, as you know, also not a lawyer so if screw up any procedural stuff forgive me.
A good friend of our family’s was a PD for a few years before going into private practice (hi, @Zow). We’ll call him PD. Very early in his career he gets a client that was on trial for attempted murder or ADW or whatever.
The story is that the victim and defendant were at a bar one night and exchanged words. Defendant says he and his girlfriend decided to leave the bar. Vic follows them out and assaults defendant. Defendant grabs a piece of rebar (or pipe) from the back of his truck and brains the Vic in the name of self-defense.
Victim claims he went outside to apologize for the earlier confrontation and the defendant clobbers him out of nowhere.
It should be noted that the defendant was a Mexican guy and the Vic was white. Around here (back then) that was almost enough for our DA’s office to prosecute with vigor.
As far as witnesses go, it was kind of a wash. Defendant’s GF backed up his side. A friend of the victim walked outside too and confirmed the vic’s story. Bartender said that victim was being belligerent and looking for a fight. There were also a couple of bar patrons that claimed the defendant was the one who started everything but didn’t see either man leave the bar and IIRC knew the Vic personally.
Then there was prosecution’s key witness. We’ll call him Bubba.
Bubba was walking through the parking lot on his way to the bar...after leaving another nearby bar. He claimed to have seen the whole thing and that the defendant was guilty as sin. Bubba stated in the police report and deposition that not only was the victim’s version true but added that the defendant yelled out something like “I’ll kill you, you white MFer!”
So it goes to trial. Bubba is at the courthouse waiting to testify. There were a few witnesses ahead of him. Things go a little long and they break for lunch. Bubba, thinking that the 2 witnesses ahead of him are going to take up the rest of the afternoon decides to have a few drinks with his lunch.
Unfortunately, for Bubba, the other two witnesses are on and off the stand very quickly.
The prosecution calls Bubba Q. Public to the stand.
According to PD, Bubba seemed, at first, just slightly off. Nothing obvious but slurring his words a bit, asking the prosecutor to repeat questions that were perfectly clear, and rambling a little. Then, the more Bubba was required to focus, it was somewhat obvious that he wasn’t there 100% but not glaring.
According to PD the DA noticed as well. He tried to hurry up the testimony all the while trying to keep the Q&A short and easy.
Then it is PD’s turn. The first thing he does is ask Bubba to read part of either his statement to the police or deposition. Bubba has a little trouble there. Then he asks Bubba to stand up and demonstrate how the defendant struck the victim. Bubba doesn’t really have his sea-legs.
At this point PD asks to approach the bench (aside? ex parte? whatever)
Keep in mind that PD is still pretty green.
”Uh, your honor...I think this witness is drunk.”
The judge says “Well...he does seem a little out of sorts”. And then, being judicious, removes the jury (this is one of those lawyer type things that I’m not sure about...maybe it happened in chambers?)
Judge: Mr. Bubba, are you feeling OK?
Bubba: How so?
Judge: You seem a little incapacitated.
Bubba: Oh..well...I’m getting over a cold (right from the functioning alcoholic playbook).
Judge: So are you taking medication?
Bubba: No. I mean I took some NyQuil last night so maybe that’s it.
Judge: (reminds him he’s under oath)
Bubba: ok
Judge: where did you go for lunch?
(Bubba asks Judge to repeat the question and then answers) I went to Frank’s (a nearby bar and grill).
Judge: what did you have for lunch? And did you have anything to drink?
Bubba: I had a burger and...uh...well...I did have a beer.
Judge: You had just one beer? That’s it? So if I call Frank’s right now and ask them they will tell me you had ONE beer?
Bubba: Well, yeah, I guess. Oh and a burger.
Judge: So a burger and one drink, is that correct?
Bubba: Yes. A burger and one boilermaker.
Judge: So a beer and a shot? You said it was ‘a beer’.
Bubba: (PD says Bubba was losing interest and a bit peeved now) Well, if you want to get picky.
Judge: Tell the truth, Mr. Bubba.
Bubba: Fine. Maybe two beers and two shots.
So now the judge tells the bailiff to go find Bailiff Bob. Most of the bailiffs were either reserves or lifers. Bob had spent 15 years on patrol before transferring to the courts.
Bob comes in after a few minutes thinking there’s some commotion. Then the judge tells him to perform a field sobriety test on Bubba right there in the courtroom.
Bubba fails the FST with flying colors. Bob tells the judge “your honor, this man is intoxicated beyond question.
Of course, Bubba starts #####ing about how he’s being treated. He’s a taxpaying citizen after all.
There are some conflicting stories here as to the ultimate end of the story...
Some say that the judge had the bailiff put Bubba in the drunk tank for the night. Others say he had a deputy drive him home. Whatever.
But..as to what happened right after the FST...both of my sources agree on the following:
Judge: Get this man out of my courtroom (see above)
DA: Uh...your honor? Can I recall the witness tomorrow or at a later date when he is ‘feeling better’? He’s a key witness.”
The judge, PD, and DA start to discuss this.
Bubba is either being led to the tank or escorted out and he laughs and says (to no one in particular)
“I was sure as #### drunker than this when I saw that fight and talked to the cops. Why you gotta be all uptight now?”
Sadly...I cannot tell you for certain the final outcome. Both sources say that the trial continued without Bubba’s testimony. One says the Defendant was found guilty of a lesser charge. The other says he was exonerated totally.
Fin.
Ray Karpis
Footballguy
Barred in Arkansas...have never done online CLE. My first 12 years of practice was spent trying to leverage my firm's CLE stipend into a mini-vacation...I went to Chicago, Philly, NYC, San Francisco, and Puerto Vallarta.
Dan Lambskin
Footballguy
McJose
Footballguy
Instinctive
Footballguy
Not an immediate posting, since I got results the weekend before Thanksgiving, but saw this thread bumped and wanted to share:
I passed the California bar. Thank you all for advice and help along the way.
I passed the California bar. Thank you all for advice and help along the way.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Congrats! You know more about the law now than you ever will for the rest of your life!
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Hey, total mental block. How would you guys paraphrase “butt cheek” in a legal brief? Is there anything better than buttock I can use?
Last edited by a moderator:
Instinctive
Footballguy
Hindquarter?Henry Ford said:
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Gluteus Maximus?Henry Ford said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Went with buttock. Witness said "butt cheek" and I just didn't really want a Supreme Court brief with that quote in it.
Instinctive
Footballguy
HAHAHA. I can see that. Good luck with the court and also congrats on that. Got to work with Jeff Fisher a small bit regarding SCOTUS stuff, so know how tough it is to get a case in front of them. Must be putting in some serious hours.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Instinctive
Footballguy
Do you want it to be? Good luck if so. If you don't, fingers crossed for that as well!
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Thanks, I was giddy with hope when the justice musical chairs happened to re-assign the Fifth with the death of Scalia and Gorsuch on the Court. Unfortunately, Alito landed on the Fifth, so... yeah. Same as it ever was.
Jayrok
Footballguy
Legal/ethical question:
A person works full time (on salary) for company A and is approached by company B for some consultancy work near his home location. The company B work is not on site or near the location where work is performed for company A. Not the same client or agency. Intellectual property doesn't seem to be in play as a concern. The consultancy work is similar, at least in the same industry, but not for the same client/agency. Work for B would be on the side, a few hours per week or so.
Is this legal... is it ethical? confidentiality, NDA were signed with company A at hire.
A person works full time (on salary) for company A and is approached by company B for some consultancy work near his home location. The company B work is not on site or near the location where work is performed for company A. Not the same client or agency. Intellectual property doesn't seem to be in play as a concern. The consultancy work is similar, at least in the same industry, but not for the same client/agency. Work for B would be on the side, a few hours per week or so.
Is this legal... is it ethical? confidentiality, NDA were signed with company A at hire.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
You should read all agreements you signed with the company at hire. I don't know why it would be illegal, though that's partially because I can't tell at all what you're talking about by the question and partially because I'm not in your state. As for ethical... I think the more pertinent question is "if my bosses find out, will I be fired or sued." You're the only one in this thread who can answer that.
Jayrok
Footballguy
Thank you. Company A work (IT security via VPN) is done remotely to support a client several states away. B work would be at a local client facility but not in the same state as company A offices or A's client facilities. I would approach my CEO and discuss prior as we have a great relationship. Not trying to go behind him. Just wanted to see if it is something that's possible. Thanks again.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Posterior?Henry Ford said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Unfortunately I need more specificity. A particular body part was struck in an incident - one buttock.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I try not to include anything in a Supreme Court brief that's defined in urban dictionary.
Gawain
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Thorn
Footballguy
chet
Footballguy
High profile (for patent law) law professor wrote that the judge got it wrong and it's not close. So we got that going for us.
This person nails it here: https://www.popehat.com/2017/12/15/i-have-almost-nothing-bad-to-say-about-matthew-spencer-petersen/
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
@Woz @Christo @Henry Ford and whoever else...
... did you see the alimony provisions of this new tax bill?
... did you see the alimony provisions of this new tax bill?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Similar threads
