What's new
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 (8 Viewers)

chet said:
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.
Click to expand...
So it's pretty easy to identify your case.  If there's one district where I'd bet the judge's thumb is on the scale its there (because attracting patent cases is a huge part of that area's economy).  But while the Defendant is certainly a large company, your counsel is probably the biggest patent plaintiff's firm in the District (and a firm that in my experience, does often play fast and loose).  And the bias in that District has traditionally been toward the plaintiff's   

Reading the order and the motion for reconsideration, I think the judge got it wrong. But I also think it's essentially an ambiguous contract provision (although then the discovery responses should be compelling evidence of how the parties each interpreted the ambiguous provision).  It's not SO wrong that I would expect some nefarious motive.  I also think the blog's distinction between "appeal" and "cert" isn't very compelling (and to be fair, your counsel didn't even make that argument).  The Federal Circuit will likely reverse in any case.  

 
Ramsay Hunt Experience said:
So it's pretty easy to identify your case.  If there's one district where I'd bet the judge's thumb is on the scale its there (because attracting patent cases is a huge part of that area's economy).  But while the Defendant is certainly a large company, your counsel is probably the biggest patent plaintiff's firm in the District (and a firm that in my experience, does often play fast and loose).  And the bias in that District has traditionally been toward the plaintiff's   

Reading the order and the motion for reconsideration, I think the judge got it wrong. But I also think it's essentially an ambiguous contract provision (although then the discovery responses should be compelling evidence of how the parties each interpreted the ambiguous provision).  It's not SO wrong that I would expect some nefarious motive.  I also think the blog's distinction between "appeal" and "cert" isn't very compelling (and to be fair, your counsel didn't even make that argument).  The Federal Circuit will likely reverse in any case.  
Click to expand...
Thanks for the response.  I'm not surprised that it's easy for someone in the business to figure out the players but I'd like to respectfully request that we continue to keep the names out of the thread.  

Is the new district plaintiff friendly?  Perhaps, but I was told the judge has never let a patent case get to trial for the local defendant.

 
As some of you may have seen in my other thread, I'm working on getting custody of a 12 year old girl. Today our attorney sent over the paperwork for us to sign and have notarized, and there are a ton of errors. For example, they got the minor's birthday wrong in a couple places, they got her legal last name wrong throughout the entire document. 

So, I've been going through the paperwork with a red pen, correcting what needs corrected and I'll scan and send to the attorney. 

My question to you LawyerGuys is this - should I also correct punctuation? The reason I ask is that in multiple instances they incorrectly use apostrophes to denote plurality. For example, The Smith's instead of The Smiths. Does that matter, in a legal document? It drove me bonkers. Even in one sentence, they wrote "The [Smiths]  will relinquish custody to the [Bork's] ."  So she got it right for one plural, but not the other plural in the same sentence. 

Does me being a grammar nazi have any affect  effect? Does proper punctuation matter in a legal document? Or should I just let it go? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MikeIke said:
As some of you may have seen in my other thread, I'm working on getting custody of a 12 year old girl. Today our attorney sent over the paperwork for us to sign and have notarized, and there are a ton of errors. For example, they got the minor's birthday wrong in a couple places, they got her legal last name wrong throughout the entire document. 

So, I've been going through the paperwork with a red pen, correcting what needs corrected and I'll scan and send to the attorney. 

My question to you LawyerGuys is this - should I also correct punctuation? The reason I ask is that in multiple instances they incorrectly use apostrophes to denote plurality. For example, The Smith's instead of The Smiths. Does that matter, in a legal document? It drove me bonkers. Even in one sentence, they wrote "The [Smiths]  will relinquish custody to the [Bork's] ."  So she got it right for one plural, but not the other plural in the same sentence. 

Does me being a grammar nazi have any affect? Does proper punctuation matter in a legal document? Or should I just let it go? 
Click to expand...
I would not let it go. You are paying real money for it to be done right. Also although unlikely, there are instances where Smiths/Smiths' could change the meaning. 

 
MikeIke said:
As some of you may have seen in my other thread, I'm working on getting custody of a 12 year old girl. Today our attorney sent over the paperwork for us to sign and have notarized, and there are a ton of errors. For example, they got the minor's birthday wrong in a couple places, they got her legal last name wrong throughout the entire document. 

So, I've been going through the paperwork with a red pen, correcting what needs corrected and I'll scan and send to the attorney. 

My question to you LawyerGuys is this - should I also correct punctuation? The reason I ask is that in multiple instances they incorrectly use apostrophes to denote plurality. For example, The Smith's instead of The Smiths. Does that matter, in a legal document? It drove me bonkers. Even in one sentence, they wrote "The [Smiths]  will relinquish custody to the [Bork's] ."  So she got it right for one plural, but not the other plural in the same sentence. 

Does me being a grammar nazi have any affect? Does proper punctuation matter in a legal document? Or should I just let it go? 
Click to expand...
It might matter.  And if it does, you will probably wish you had taken the short time to correct it rather than deal with any negative consequences.  There's really no downside to correcting errors.  

And, uh, "any effect."   ;)   

 
Aerial Assault said:
It might matter.  And if it does, you will probably wish you had taken the short time to correct it rather than deal with any negative consequences.  There's really no downside to correcting errors.  

And, uh, "any effect."     ;)   
Click to expand...
Dammit, I had it that way at first but then I changed it. :grammar nazi hifive:

 
@rockaction please explain what standard of due process you’d like to use for school discipline that is not the standard laid out in the 5th and 14th amendments.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, I do. 

If it meets the arbitrary standard, and doesn't deprive life, liberty or property arbitrarily, then it satisfies. 

I'd like to see the level of procedural guarantees increased for people accused of rape on campus.  I'd like to see due process satisfied only if basic procedural norms are granted. As was pointed out in the other thread, students got procedural guarantees more closely aligned with military tribunals and military justice. 

That doesn't seem fair.

Just did a little digging and this seems like a good place to start: 

Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

1) An unbiased tribunal.

2) Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

3) Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.

4) The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

5) The right to know opposing evidence.

6) The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

7) A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

8) Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

9) Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.

10) Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance.

 
rockaction said:
Yeah, I do. 

If it meets the arbitrary standard, and doesn't deprive life, liberty or property arbitrarily, then it satisfies. 

I'd like to see the level of procedural guarantees increased for people accused of rape on campus.  I'd like to see due process satisfied only if basic procedural norms are granted. As was pointed out in the other thread, students got procedural guarantees more closely aligned with military tribunals and military justice. 

That doesn't seem fair.

Just did a little digging and this seems like a good place to start: 

Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

1) An unbiased tribunal.

2) Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

3) Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.

4) The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

5) The right to know opposing evidence.

6) The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

7) A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

8) Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

9) Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.

10) Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance.
Click to expand...
So what would be required to prove due process?

Edit: and are you suggesting we change that for military tribunals, too? Or that Service members don’t deserve the level of due process that students being disciplined do?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because it seems like you just disagree with what “due process” means in the courts.  And I think that’s just a losing argument if you want to argue it’s unfair just to students. 

 
I would also like to point out that some of your representations of the Obama administrations’ memo are pretty serious misrepresentations, particularly with respect to its stance on “cross examination.”

 
That, at a bare minimum, the accused was not arbitrarily denied life, liberty, and property. 

I'm not sure what standard you'd use. I'd use criminal standards. 

Most people would use Mathews vs. Eldridge standards, I guess, as was cited in the other thread

Mathews v. Eldridge Test

A three-part test that determines whether an individual has received due process under the Constitution. The test balances(1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's (in this case the institution's) interest.

 
rockaction said:
That, at a bare minimum, the accused was not arbitrarily denied life, liberty, and property. 

I'm not sure what standard you'd use. I'd use criminal standards. 

Most people would use Mathews vs. Eldridge standards, I guess, as was cited in the other thread

Mathews v. Eldridge Test

A three-part test that determines whether an individual has received due process under the Constitution. The test balances(1) the importance of the interest at stake; (2) the risk of an erroneous deprivation of the interest because of the procedures used, and the probable value of additional procedural safeguards; and (3) the government's (in this case the institution's) interest.
Click to expand...
Yeah.  It’s already been ruled that the issues you point out in response to Title IX guidance don’t deprive one of due process. So I’m asking what you’re arguing when you say people are deprived of due process.  Because I can’t tell.  You specifically stated you don’t mean the 14th Amendment. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah.  It’s already been ruled that the issues you point out in response to Title IX guidance don’t deprive one of due process. So I’m asking what you’re arguing when you say people are deprived of due process.  Because I can’t tell.  You specifically stated you don’t mean the 14th Amendment. 
Click to expand...
I'm saying they're deprived of the procedural guarantees that normally satisfy due process requirements when such a serious interest is at stake. If my language gets sloppy, then that's on me. I'll keep it real simple, though you don't need simple, I do. I need to be very clear and methodical in what I type and not be colloquial.  

 
rockaction said:
I'm saying they're deprived of the procedural guarantees that normally satisfy due process requirements when such a serious interest is at stake. If my language gets sloppy, then that's on me. I'll keep it real simple, though you don't need simple, I do. I need to be very clear and methodical in what I type and not be colloquial.  
Click to expand...
Getting expelled from school is not remotely the same as going to prison for rape.  And due process for going to prison for rape can include the way military servicemen are sentenced in a court of military justice. Which you seem to have an issue with for expulsions.  

Do you see why I think this position is indefensible? 

 
I think what you mean is “it’s not fair that some people get expelled when they didn’t do it and we could make it harder for that to happen.”  Which is what most people mean when they colloquially talk about due process,  but they say due process because those words carry weight.  But I don’t expect that from you because you know what due process means. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Getting expelled from school is not remotely the same as going to prison for rape.  And due process for going to prison for rape can include the way military servicemen are sentenced in a court of military justice. Which you seem to have an issue with for expulsions.  

Do you see why I think this position is indefensible? 
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, especially when you're talking about rape. But I gently disagree. You know more than I do, but isn't a board of inquiry simply to hear whether you're fit for service? Wouldn't a tribunal determine criminality? What the judge said is that the student had no more rights than a board of inquiry. You're saying that prison cases are determined by the standard that a board of inquiry would set. 

Do you see why I might be confused?  

I think that even in a court of military justice, you'd have the right, in some form, to directly confront your accuser if prison is at stake. Here's the thing: I do not know how military tribunals treat rape and the accused's rights -- I'm guessing when prison is at stake, the Confrontation Clause must come into play. 

I think expulsion, while not nearly as serious as prison, is very serious indeed. Apparently, the OCR takes this position on the ability to confront your accuser. 

"OCR strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross - examine each other during the hearing . Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidating , thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
rockaction said:
Yes, I do, especially when you're talking about rape. But I gently disagree. You know more than I do, but isn't a board of inquiry simply to hear whether you're fit for service? Wouldn't a tribunal determine criminality? What the judge said is that the student had no more rights than a board of inquiry. You're saying that prison cases are determined by the standard that a board of inquiry would set. 

Do you see why I might be confused?  

I think that even in a court of military justice, you'd have the right, in some form, to directly confront your accuser if prison is at stake. Here's the thing: I do not know how military tribunals treat rape and the accused's rights -- I'm guessing when prison is at stake, the Confrontation Clause must come into play. 

I think expulsion, while not nearly as serious as prison, is very serious indeed. Apparently, the OCR takes this position on the ability to confront your accuser. 

"OCR strongly discourages schools from allowing the parties personally to question or cross - examine each other during the hearing . Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim directly may be traumatic or intimidat ing , thereby possibly escalating or perpetuating a hostile environment."
Click to expand...
From allowing them “personally” to question.  

Almost all of these processes replace that with:

representative questioning

submission of questions to be asked by the impartial fact finder

or something similar. Which is absolutely adequate for cross examination purposes even if that were required for due process

 
Henry Ford said:
From allowing them “personally” to question.  

Almost all of these processes replace that with:

representative questioning

submission of questions to be asked by the impartial fact finder

or something similar. Which is absolutely adequate for cross examination purposes even if that were required for due process
Click to expand...
And that's problematic, in my opinion. So is the handling of evidence in these cases and their transparency. In the case you cited back in the other thread, the Sixth Circuit Court Judge was "unclear" whether the hearing board ever received the answers to the questioning. The case that didn't violate due process. So...she was "unclear" that the three-person panel that determined expulsion ever got the questions, but that it didn't matter anyway? 

That doesn't sound like justice. 

"In her opinion, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons observed that hearing that allowed an accuser to testify and then refuse cross-examination might seem problematic, but she reasoned that no due process violation occurred because in an earlier hearing in the case (which led to a finding that the university vacated because of yet other procedural problems), the accused student did submit cross-examination questions. Gibbons reached this conclusion despite conceding that it was “unclear” whether that earlier record played any role in the university panel’s deliberation."

And there's the rub. Preventing direct questioning allowed the cross-examination to potentially slip through the cracks, as it were, and not provide the panel with the opportunity to hear the witness ever answer the accused at the hearing that determined his future.  

 
rockaction said:
And that's problematic, in my opinion. So is the handling of evidence in these cases and their transparency. In the case you cited back in the other thread, the Sixth Circuit Court Judge was "unclear" whether the hearing board ever received the answers to the questioning. The case that didn't violate due process. So...she was "unclear" that the three-person panel that determined expulsion ever got the questions, but that it didn't matter anyway? 

That doesn't sound like justice. 

"In her opinion, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons observed that hearing that allowed an accuser to testify and then refuse cross-examination might seem problematic, but she reasoned that no due process violation occurred because in an earlier hearing in the case (which led to a finding that the university vacated because of yet other procedural problems), the accused student did submit cross-examination questions. Gibbons reached this conclusion despite conceding that it was “unclear” whether that earlier record played any role in the university panel’s deliberation."

And there's the rub. Preventing direct questioning allowed the cross-examination to potentially slip through the cracks, as it were, and not provide the panel with the opportunity to hear the witness ever answer the accused at the hearing that determined his future.  
Click to expand...
But again, this isn’t prison. I get that you don’t like this.  But it’s not prison.  I get that education is important - trust me I do.  But it isn’t prison.  

And as an aside, your man KC Johnson is not someone I’d be quoting like gospel on this issue.  He’s a smart guy, but he’s also a pretty serious profiteer on this one issue.  Some would argue Alex Jones level profiteer.  

 
Henry Ford said:
But again, this isn’t prison. I get that you don’t like this.  But it’s not prison.  I get that education is important - trust me I do.  But it isn’t prison.  

And as an aside, your man KC Johnson is not someone I’d be quoting like gospel on this issue.  He’s a smart guy, but he’s also a pretty serious profiteer on this one issue.  Some would argue Alex Jones level profiteer.  
Click to expand...
It's not prison. Prison involves a liberty interest. It's very different than expulsion. It's also very serious, though, and people are potentially deprived of their reputations and property interests.  

As for Johnson, your concern is why I made sure to put "opinion" next to each link of his, so that people here didn't get misled. And if Volokh has him write a four-part series, well, I'm trusting Volokh. If he turns out to be a huckster and a profiteer, I'll suffer the egg on my face.

By the way, I'm not completely unaware: I'm aware of the popularity of these opinions, aware that there are interested parties with selfish motives all around, and also aware that today is probably not a good day to be talking about campus sexual assault if you hold the opinions I do about the procedural issues that go along with campus sexual assault.  

 
rockaction said:
It's not prison. Prison involves a liberty interest. It's very different than expulsion. It's also very serious, though, and people are potentially deprived of their reputations and property interests.  

As for Johnson, your concern is why I made sure to put "opinion" next to each link of his, so that people here didn't get misled. And if Volokh has him write a four-part series, well, I'm trusting Volokh. If he turns out to be a huckster and a profiteer, I'll suffer the egg on my face.

By the way, I'm not completely unaware: I'm aware of the popularity of these opinions, aware that there are interested parties with selfish motives all around, and also aware that today is probably not a good day to be talking about campus sexual assault if you hold the opinions I do about the procedural issues that go along with campus sexual assault.  
Click to expand...
I don’t have any more issue with these opinions than I have for years, if it helps. I don’t think you’re being dishonest or a jerk about it, I just want to drag you away from KC Johnson and beat him back with a lighted torch and a pitchfork while the villagers chase him into the sea. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I don’t have any more issue with these opinions than I have for years, if it helps. I don’t think you’re being dishonest or a jerk about it, I just want to drag you away from KC Johnson and beat him back with a lighted torch and a pitchfork while the villagers chase him into the sea. 
Click to expand...
Oh, I wasn't talking about you having issues with these opinions. You seem very even-handed in your assessments. I'm just saying I'm not trying to be, on the wrong day, hollering at the sky about injustice when there's even worse injustices around. See: MSU. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If interested, we did a policy simulation out here and I'd be happy to link to a google doc of the memo. On this specific topic too. DM me for it if you'd like, I'd rather not post publicly.

 
Instinctive said:
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.
Click to expand...
Congrats and welcome to a great and rewarding profession. 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/15/business/lawyers-addiction-mental-health.html?mc=aud_dev&mcid=fb-nytimes&mccr=FebMC5&mcdt=2018-02&subid=FebMC5&ad-keywords=AudDevGate&referer=http://m.facebook.com

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
"I'm sorry, He's not available.  He's in Chile fly fishing for three weeks and will then be in France.  He should be back March 15th."

I hate you private attorneys.
Click to expand...
lol.  Henry? YF?  You guys want to field this or are you on vacation someplace?

I'm a private attorney.  I haven't had a "vacation" longer than 4 days (including a weekend) in 15 years, and all of those included having a laptop with me and doing work at some point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Smile
Reactions: Zow
Ditkaless Wonders said:
"I'm sorry, He's not available.  He's in Chile fly fishing for three weeks and will then be in France.  He should be back March 15th."

I hate you private attorneys.
Click to expand...
I recently had opposing counsel (BigLaw partner) request to continue our oral argument on appeal because she had a preplanned European vacation. For reasons not entirely clear to me, she thought it was necessary to attach all her receipts and (extensive) travel itinerary to her request with the court. Definitely felt like a bit of a humblebrag. 

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
"I'm sorry, He's not available.  He's in Chile fly fishing for three weeks and will then be in France.  He should be back March 15th."

I hate you private attorneys.
Click to expand...
I'm going to London for 10 days at the end of March.

 
the rover said:
lol.  Henry? YF?  You guys want to field this or are you on vacation someplace?

I'm a private attorney.  I haven't had a "vacation" longer than 4 days (including a weekend) in 15 years, and all of those included having a laptop with me and doing work at some point.
Click to expand...
Dude, you gotta break away. I'm not going anywhere for 3 weeks. But nothing's so important you can't take a week.

 
thecatch said:
I recently had opposing counsel (BigLaw partner) request to continue our oral argument on appeal because she had a preplanned European vacation. For reasons not entirely clear to me, she thought it was necessary to attach all her receipts and (extensive) travel itinerary to her request with the court. Definitely felt like a bit of a humblebrag. 
Click to expand...
In Texas, attorneys each year can designate four weeks as vacation weeks and any settings (hearing, oral argument, trial, etc.) set during those weeks in a state court case will automatically be reset if the lawyer is the lead attorney on the case. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bigbottom said:
In Texas, attorneys each year can designate four weeks as vacation weeks and any settings (hearing, oral argument, trial, etc.) set during those weeks in a state law case will automatically be reset if the lawyer is the lead attorney on the case. 
Click to expand...
Very nice. In the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, we still draft our own orders using carbon paper for the copies.

 
when a defendant walks in to court, serving as his own lawyer... are you happy because victory is all but assured? or distressed because this is going to be a fiasco that could go on forever?

how often does it work out that the defendant, serving as his/her own lawyer, has a grasp on reality?

 
I'm trying to untangle ownership interests in a property which has now passed through 3 generations of a family. Anyone ever dealt with a situation where a probate court order (i.e. passing of 2nd generation interest to her heirs) listed a different ownership % than the deed history indicates? Specifically, deed history shows this individual had 1/3 interest, but her 1995 probate court (different county) ordered that she pass a 1/2 interest. Some in the family say this person obtained 1/6 interest from a different sibling, and I suspect the probate court must have had sufficient record of that to make the order, but it the transfer of the 1/6 ownership was never documented in the county where the property exists. The probate attorney died in 2005, so obtaining his records has not been successful. Any experience in this area is greatly appreciated. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bigbottom
2024 Edition - Please help bigbottom win a Battle of the Bands and support Chance for Hope as a Bonus! Just a $10 donation makes a difference
Replies
26
Views
402
Mr.Pack
Mr.Pack
DJackson10
Work won’t allow me back after being injured because of limitations on a separate issue they had no issue with previously when doing this job
Replies
29
Views
1K
DJackson10
DJackson10
DJackson10
Got hurt after I left work 3 weeks ago and my employer is giving me a hard time since the issue
2 3
Replies
101
Views
3K
DJackson10
DJackson10

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top