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
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
In fairness, though, it refers to the ruling as succubistic. Not the judge. Sign me up for the appeal.CletiusMaximus said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
“Your honor, it’s just a Men’s Rights Activist term for an idea that demonstrates women’s belief that all men exist to be manipulated for their benefit. Nothing sexist about it at all.”
Zow
Footballguy
Coming to this thread for advice for reasons that will become apparent. I recently received a pretty good compliment from an opposing counsel: his firm is courting me to come join them. I had a recent, very ugly divorce trial filled with the myriad of issues, positions, and unreasonableness that drives most family law practitioners to drink. Trial was a full two days and by the end of it I'm sure the judge just wanted to stick the parties on a deserted island together for eternity. But, contrary to a lot of these cases, opposing counsel and, perhaps to a lesser extent, myself kept the trial about as civil as possible. Frankly, I thought I dipped my toe into the ugliness and did not walk away thinking I litigated my best but a week or so after the trial the opposing counsel (who apparently is a partner at his firm) asks me to call him back on a "personal matter" and, when I do, he tells me he was impressed with my professionalism in the courtroom, that his firm has done some research on me, and that he/they want(s) me to consider joining his firm as a higher end family law and criminal defense trial lawyer with a fast track to partnership.
I'm presently a partner at one of the more prominent firms in a more rural county of my state. I make very good money for more my area (albeit I work very hard for it) and I have a very strong reputation in the relatively small legal community here. While my name isn't on the office door I basically enjoy all the freedoms of it being there without the stress that I'm super responsible for administrative issues. Essentially, I'm left alone to work and I can come and go, take whatever case I choose, charge what I deem appropriate, etc. As such, while I'm working at an unsustainable rate and getting a touch burned out, I've done so at my choosing and I believe my firm would have my back if I let my numbers dip a bit. I had planned to run for judge in a few years here and believe I'd have a very good chance of winning the election and, should a judge retire mid-term, my name would be a viable one for selection by the governor to fill that spot and my ends of retaining that position would be high. Recently, however, my paralegal retired and I'm struggling to find a replacement which is putting me in a position where I need to slow down. I do have some concerns about the long-term sustainability of the firm and I do not have a desire to open my own practice. Nonetheless I remain very loyal and genuinely enjoy my co-workers. I've been there 6.5 years now and have been practicing for 10.5.
The firm that reached out is the most prominent firm in either what can objectively be described as the most desired city or one of the most desired cities in my state. It strangely really reminds me (based and what I have gathered from research and talking to attorneys I know in that jurisdiction) a lot of HHM from Better Call Saul in terms of size, reputation, and environment . When I told my wife about the invitation to check out the firm as an option she immediately became excited about the prospect of living in that area and is very in favor of exploring the opportunity. I cannot deny that while the cost of living is a bit higher there the quality of life and, more importantly, the educational options for my kids are much stronger there. So, while it felt like I was cheating on a girlfriend, I called the attorney back and expressed an interest. After a few discussions we've settled on a date later this month to do a "meet and greet" (as the attorney called it) and they've offered to put my wife and I up in a hotel, take us to lunch and dinner, and show us around. At this point there hasn't been any specific discussions about numbers but the attorney made a comment which I inferred suggested a ballpark number close to what I'm making now with the opportunity to make even more in a couple of years.
I'm posting because I haven't really done a job interview since law school (I'm not even sure if the purported day-long "meet and greet" counts as one) and I'm sitting here at home somewhat stunned and daunted at the notion of changing firms and moving about 3 hours away from my current home. After my first job I've gotten my other offers super informally from people who routinely saw me in court. Hell, I got my job offer to work at my current firm after several bottles of wine amongst the partners and my wife and me. So, looking for some insight on a few things:
1. Is it worthwhile putting together some sort of resume or, alternatively, like some sort of cover sheet/letter with brief descriptions of the areas of law I have practiced, some statistics about the numbers of trials I've done in each area, and reference to some of the more notable trials I've won? In addition should I provide my fee numbers and pay from the last couple of years? The firm hasn't asked for such and I don't know if that's overdoing it but, saying this as humbly as I can, I'm thinking they may be underestimating my experience and success -- particularly in the area of criminal defense.
2. In the past I've always taken new jobs because the pay increase was obvious/substantial. I am assuming this would be a lateral move (if they can provide me the opportunity to make more than I do now I'll be very surprised) with a possibility to earn more than my current position. For those of you who have made lateral moves what specifically caused you to make the move? How heavily did you weigh the impact on your personal life versus professional? In other words, how much value would you place working in a jurisdiction where you have a very favorable and positive reputation versus going to a different jurisdiction where judges and opposing counsel probably wouldn't know you?
3. As I've expressed some in the past few months, my current hours and stressful cases have taken their toll on me. My plan was to run for judge in a couple of years as I think I could serve well and it'd be some stress relief to be back on straight salary without feeling anxious every minute I'm not billing/working. This obviously changes that drastically as this prospective firm probably offers significant stability but they would expect me to be there indefinitely and I would expect the same if I made the move. I imagine my hours (which currently hover around 60-65 per week) probably wouldn't change much. In all honesty I'm getting tired but I don't know if that's simply the hours or if it's the current monotony of my position and recent decrease in morale at my current firm. I genuinely don't know how to process this. I do really like the idea that this move is probably better for m kids in the long run since the educational and cultural opportunities for them are so much better than the current city we live in.
My head is spinning a bit right now and I cannot help but feel guilty that I am considering leaving my firm because I consider the people there nearly a second family. My wife and kids are away for the weekend and I'm exhausted but I need to express to somebody or some entity -- since my wife and I have decided to not tell friends or family -- my thoughts and concerns on this opportunity.
I'm presently a partner at one of the more prominent firms in a more rural county of my state. I make very good money for more my area (albeit I work very hard for it) and I have a very strong reputation in the relatively small legal community here. While my name isn't on the office door I basically enjoy all the freedoms of it being there without the stress that I'm super responsible for administrative issues. Essentially, I'm left alone to work and I can come and go, take whatever case I choose, charge what I deem appropriate, etc. As such, while I'm working at an unsustainable rate and getting a touch burned out, I've done so at my choosing and I believe my firm would have my back if I let my numbers dip a bit. I had planned to run for judge in a few years here and believe I'd have a very good chance of winning the election and, should a judge retire mid-term, my name would be a viable one for selection by the governor to fill that spot and my ends of retaining that position would be high. Recently, however, my paralegal retired and I'm struggling to find a replacement which is putting me in a position where I need to slow down. I do have some concerns about the long-term sustainability of the firm and I do not have a desire to open my own practice. Nonetheless I remain very loyal and genuinely enjoy my co-workers. I've been there 6.5 years now and have been practicing for 10.5.
The firm that reached out is the most prominent firm in either what can objectively be described as the most desired city or one of the most desired cities in my state. It strangely really reminds me (based and what I have gathered from research and talking to attorneys I know in that jurisdiction) a lot of HHM from Better Call Saul in terms of size, reputation, and environment . When I told my wife about the invitation to check out the firm as an option she immediately became excited about the prospect of living in that area and is very in favor of exploring the opportunity. I cannot deny that while the cost of living is a bit higher there the quality of life and, more importantly, the educational options for my kids are much stronger there. So, while it felt like I was cheating on a girlfriend, I called the attorney back and expressed an interest. After a few discussions we've settled on a date later this month to do a "meet and greet" (as the attorney called it) and they've offered to put my wife and I up in a hotel, take us to lunch and dinner, and show us around. At this point there hasn't been any specific discussions about numbers but the attorney made a comment which I inferred suggested a ballpark number close to what I'm making now with the opportunity to make even more in a couple of years.
I'm posting because I haven't really done a job interview since law school (I'm not even sure if the purported day-long "meet and greet" counts as one) and I'm sitting here at home somewhat stunned and daunted at the notion of changing firms and moving about 3 hours away from my current home. After my first job I've gotten my other offers super informally from people who routinely saw me in court. Hell, I got my job offer to work at my current firm after several bottles of wine amongst the partners and my wife and me. So, looking for some insight on a few things:
1. Is it worthwhile putting together some sort of resume or, alternatively, like some sort of cover sheet/letter with brief descriptions of the areas of law I have practiced, some statistics about the numbers of trials I've done in each area, and reference to some of the more notable trials I've won? In addition should I provide my fee numbers and pay from the last couple of years? The firm hasn't asked for such and I don't know if that's overdoing it but, saying this as humbly as I can, I'm thinking they may be underestimating my experience and success -- particularly in the area of criminal defense.
2. In the past I've always taken new jobs because the pay increase was obvious/substantial. I am assuming this would be a lateral move (if they can provide me the opportunity to make more than I do now I'll be very surprised) with a possibility to earn more than my current position. For those of you who have made lateral moves what specifically caused you to make the move? How heavily did you weigh the impact on your personal life versus professional? In other words, how much value would you place working in a jurisdiction where you have a very favorable and positive reputation versus going to a different jurisdiction where judges and opposing counsel probably wouldn't know you?
3. As I've expressed some in the past few months, my current hours and stressful cases have taken their toll on me. My plan was to run for judge in a couple of years as I think I could serve well and it'd be some stress relief to be back on straight salary without feeling anxious every minute I'm not billing/working. This obviously changes that drastically as this prospective firm probably offers significant stability but they would expect me to be there indefinitely and I would expect the same if I made the move. I imagine my hours (which currently hover around 60-65 per week) probably wouldn't change much. In all honesty I'm getting tired but I don't know if that's simply the hours or if it's the current monotony of my position and recent decrease in morale at my current firm. I genuinely don't know how to process this. I do really like the idea that this move is probably better for m kids in the long run since the educational and cultural opportunities for them are so much better than the current city we live in.
My head is spinning a bit right now and I cannot help but feel guilty that I am considering leaving my firm because I consider the people there nearly a second family. My wife and kids are away for the weekend and I'm exhausted but I need to express to somebody or some entity -- since my wife and I have decided to not tell friends or family -- my thoughts and concerns on this opportunity.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I have no frame of reference for that save one.
Pick whatever helps you truly be a good father and husband. Not just more money, truly a good father and husband.
That's all that matters. We bleed too much for this job and forget what matters most in the process. For all the lawyer jokes we face, most of them earned, very few see what this job does to us. Its rarely worth it.
Pick whatever helps you truly be a good father and husband. Not just more money, truly a good father and husband.
That's all that matters. We bleed too much for this job and forget what matters most in the process. For all the lawyer jokes we face, most of them earned, very few see what this job does to us. Its rarely worth it.
Zow
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
Agreed, and I'd also do a business plan if partnership at the new firm is your goal. A business plan is a must for anyone at partnership level. What practice do you have to bring over? How do you source clients? What contacts do you have? Organizations? Speaking engagements? Profile in the industry?
And it should be an actionable business plan. Not like "attract more business" but rather "attend 2019 Crimlaw studs event and speak on third panel"
And also no way I'm going from partner to non-partner at a bigger firm in a more expensive place without a meaningful raise.
This probably deserves its own thread - but MillerCoors, LLC is suing Anheuser-Busch - over the corn syrup Super Bowl ad
I guess the ad must have worked...
I guess the ad must have worked...
-fish-
Footballguy
AB's chief of marketing needs to learn from the Pot Brothers. If he hadn't admitted in an interview that he was purposely trying to confuse and mislead the public, there wouldn't be a case.This probably deserves its own thread - but MillerCoors, LLC is suing Anheuser-Busch - over the corn syrup Super Bowl ad
I guess the ad must have worked...
-fish-
Footballguy
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
Thorn
Footballguy
@Woz From what you've said, this isn't really an "interview" situation but a true meet and greet. Your interview was in the courtroom. You're at a level now where you don't really interview. It would be good to have a CV ready, but my bet is that this is just a matter of (1) can you agree on compensation and (2) do you fit in with their culture.
Not sure I can tell you much on the lateral move. I recently switched from partner to of counsel/business owner, but it was leveraged on my local contacts. I would let new firm know that you would be losing 10 years of becoming a known and valued commodity where you are now (which is HUGE), so for it to make sense for you to come over, they'd need to assist with that loss, either monetarily, via feeding you some cases, or both.
gll gb
Not sure I can tell you much on the lateral move. I recently switched from partner to of counsel/business owner, but it was leveraged on my local contacts. I would let new firm know that you would be losing 10 years of becoming a known and valued commodity where you are now (which is HUGE), so for it to make sense for you to come over, they'd need to assist with that loss, either monetarily, via feeding you some cases, or both.
gll gb
Zow
Footballguy
Thanks. Your thoughts are on plane with mine. My discussions with my wife have been solely based around compensation. My wife really wants to move to this area (I can't say I blame her, it's one of the best areas to live in AZ and the cultural and educational improvements - along with not being on the surface of the sun - make it very appealing). I'm trying to decide how to balance this against the current good will that I've developed in my current immediate jurisdiction. Because I've developed a good reputation there I do not have to worry about whether my next client will hire me (I've had to turn people away regularly now for two years) and, in my criminal practice, it's not a secret that the prosecutor's office is more willing to settle my cases more favorably and more quickly. Also, since I've been in front of all the judges in my jurisdiction plenty and my reputation there is good too, the judges will give me the benefit of the doubt and some reasonable deference. These are big things that make an otherwise stressful practice easier. And they are positives about remaining with my current firm in my jurisdiction.Thorn said:
I should note, because I don't think I did earlier, that my family law paralegal retired a month ago and, probably due to my area, I/my office have/has not been able to replace her. She intentionally timed her retirement well because I have a surprisingly light March and early April (actually taking my first full week off in years) but come mid-April it's going to be near if not full crisis mode if I haven't been able to replace her with somebody competent. Further, while I cannot complain at all about my compensation with my current firm, I believe I have probably hit the financial ceiling of what I can make here. I think I could maybe squeeze out something like 10% more if we continue to grow (we now have several associates and they do both directly and indirectly help me make more) by increasing my rates on my criminal cases and being even more selective in family law but I also know that I cannot continue to work at the pace I did in 2017 and 2018 for much longer without the stress and long hours having too much of a negative impact on my personal life. I do worry that long-term damage could be done to my health, my marriage, and my happiness. Finally, I should note that while I really do like the other two partners at my firm and I really appreciate the autonomy they let me have within my areas of practice they are a married couple. As such, I have basically no real power and me being a "partner" is really just a hollow title/ego stroke in reality. I really don't mind this arrangement but just wanted to more aptly describe it.
I did have a recent phone conversation with the partner at the firm I'm meeting with (the guy I referenced as my opposing counsel earlier) and he made a comment that I found promising. While we haven't talked about numbers he did say something along the lines of, "plenty of attorneys in our areas of practice can do a good job and make X pretty easily and be happy with that, but I believe at [insert name of firm] we are really set up in a way that, with good work ethic and hustle, somebody can make x + y." X + y would be about a 20% increase from what I made this past year which would put me at exactly where I'd want to be (and it would make up the difference in the increased cost of living in the new area). So, I guess the discussion for the meeting, when it turns to numbers, is what's the path to getting to that number and how long would it take (recognizing some of that is on me). This is caused me to be cautiously optimistic. The firm's hospitality (putting us up in the hotel, lunch and dinner are taken care off, and they set my wife up with appointments with a realtor, somebody from the schools, etc.) is all got me feeling pretty good. And, to your point, the attorney said that while I should send a resume/CV the day really is exactly about meeting the partners at the firm and seeing if it's a personality match. I do like Otis's and Krista's suggestions above about sending something detailing more my experience in certain areas of law so I want to take that up to.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
So a more “prestigious” firm locally, but not a national firm.
A lateral move for pay (is this salary?), but if you work at least as hard as now, maybe a 20% bump?
A backwards move from partner to associate (so no profit share?).
A higher cost of living, but better location.
Will your clients come with you? Will your relationships matter at the new firm? No more aspirations of judge then?
A lateral move for pay (is this salary?), but if you work at least as hard as now, maybe a 20% bump?
A backwards move from partner to associate (so no profit share?).
A higher cost of living, but better location.
Will your clients come with you? Will your relationships matter at the new firm? No more aspirations of judge then?
Zow
Footballguy
1. Correct.
2. Correct.
3. Unknown yet. I can't imagine taking a straight salary position at this point so that would be a deal-breaker for me.
4. Correct. But I think the increase in the cost of living is substantially outweighed by the improvement in the education and culture for my kids. It's also an area of AZ that doesn't double for the surface of the sun for 3-4 months every summer like where I currently live. Lastly, and this is a big thing for my wife, we'd be an hour closer to my in-laws and we'd be able to regularly use her family's cabin given that it'd be much closer in proximity to this new area.
5. These are all good questions that I don't have answers to yet. The firm is still relatively close enough to my jurisdiction to take some cases. I believe ethically I'd have to give my current clients the options of switching firms. I have three higher profile, week-long jury trials scheduled in the next 3 months as well that'd have to be figured out logistically should I accept a position at this new firm (just the thought of this causes an immediate stressful reaction). Regarding the judge aspirations I think the primary force behind those aspirations is that in my current county I really do believe I'm one of the best candidates. If I make this move obviously I'd be in the for long haul and would have to shelve those aspirations for at least a decade or so but I don't think that'd be a huge issue for me.
As a further update, I was contacted today by the presiding judge of my county and the chief deputy county attorney. They asked me to apply to be the head county public defender (basically I'd run the public defender's office). This would be at the office I started out at ten years ago and, frankly, offers me probably the most job satisfaction I could have. I'd be lying if I didn't say that a part of me really wants to consider this. It'd likely mean less hours, I wouldn't be dealing with my least favorite part of private practice (dealing with clients who don't pay their bills/complain about their bills), and I can't deny that I feel a call to service. Unfortunately, there are some logistical hurdles (it'd be about a 50 minute commute one way) and very sizable pay cut (although the county offers better benefits than I'm currently getting). I mentioned this opportunity to my wife whose initial reaction was a no because of the pay cut. But, man, if you had told me ten years ago I'd have had the option to run a public defender's office I'd have been so excited about the opportunity and would call current me crazy for not even exploring it.
On top of all this I still feel some pretty fierce loyalty to my current firm and genuinely haven't been seeking these opportunities out.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thorn
Footballguy
(i), (ii), and (iii) are linked with an "and", so yes, you need all three to make part (2)
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
mr. furley
Footballguy
what is "Federal Safekeeper - Statute 0001.00"???
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Zow
Footballguy
1. Probably about 35%. Hard to say bc I currently fee share and get about forty cents on every dollar I bring in so really I control to an extent what I can make. PD is obviously straight salary.
2. I’d prefer to move closer to PD job if I took it but I strongly doubt my wife would go for it and she’s got several valid reasons for taking that stance.
3. 50 minute commute is without traffic (mostly straight highway). I currently make that a couple times per week. I don’t mind it at that rate and I’m usually still able to be productive on the drive by returning client calls or listening to recorded interviews or evidence or, frankly, it’s nice once in awhile on the drive home after a long day to just zone out to a podcast or whatever before getting home to become my kids’ jungle gym. Doing it daily though would suck.
the rover
Footballguy
Woz, just a couple thoughts based on my experience. The more time you have for yourself and your family, the happier you'll be. This includes commuting. Unless you want to work the rest of your life, make selfish decisions regarding money now. Working for a salary is ok for young attorneys, but if you can be taking a partner's share, it gives you more flexibility in the future. After taking the leap from working in a firm and rejecting a partnership to forming my own firm, I've never been happier, can work just about any schedule I like, and after three years I'm making far more than I ever did with a firm.
Fierce loyalty to a firm, unless you own a majority share, has been the undoing of many attorneys. When it comes to making a business decision, you'll find that more often than not loyalty to a law firm is a one-way proposition.
Have a plan to do something that you'll be satisfied doing. If you want to be a judge and you think you'd be good at it, work toward that. Have a firm timeline that you establish to make it happen.
Fierce loyalty to a firm, unless you own a majority share, has been the undoing of many attorneys. When it comes to making a business decision, you'll find that more often than not loyalty to a law firm is a one-way proposition.
Have a plan to do something that you'll be satisfied doing. If you want to be a judge and you think you'd be good at it, work toward that. Have a firm timeline that you establish to make it happen.
Thorn
Footballguy
This is a legal/political question - though, I don't think the political aspect is divisive enough to belong in the PSF. (i.e. think about this as a lawyer)
So, by now, we all know that Barr has concluded that the evidence of obstruction against Trump is insufficient to warrant charges - i.e. DOJ does not think they could prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Without seeing the underlying evidence, I still think Barr is probably correct here, and from a legal standpoint is on solid ground.
My question for the bright legal minds here, is: "Should Barr have issued his opinion?"
The relevant Special Counsel Regulations:
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
My read of the Regulations is that Barr was not required to issue his opinion on the validity of an Obstruction of Justice charge. The regulations state that the report has to explain each action taken by the SC - and, in this case the "action" taken by the SC was to not decide on the Obstruction of Justice charge - and that should have been, and was, reported by Barr.
In addition to the above regulations, there is long-standing policy at DOJ to not indict a sitting president, rather deferring to the constitutional process of impeachment. In his letter, Barr said he reached his decision, notwithstanding that long-standing policy. But, I think, that by issuing his opinion, he was stepping over that policy, and into the authority of congress.
In this instance - Barr was reaching a conclusion, that he was not required to make. Much like a court should not decide an issue that is not before it - I think it was improper for Barr to issue his opinion on the underlying crime. DOJ was not going to indict the president, even if Barr reached a contrary conclusion. The question of Obstruction of Justice (and even the conspiracy charges related specifically to Trump), is a question that the constitution says should be answered by Congress.
Now, from a legal standpoint, Congress is still free to make these determinations once they get the underlying reports/evidence. But, has Barr impermissibly injected his own opinion into the public discourse here - thereby influencing public opinion on a political question?
I think the answer is Yes - Barr has overstepped his bounds here, and ethically he should have remained on the sidelines (in terms of offering his legal opinion to a political question), unless Congress asked for his opinion.
So, by now, we all know that Barr has concluded that the evidence of obstruction against Trump is insufficient to warrant charges - i.e. DOJ does not think they could prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Without seeing the underlying evidence, I still think Barr is probably correct here, and from a legal standpoint is on solid ground.
My question for the bright legal minds here, is: "Should Barr have issued his opinion?"
The relevant Special Counsel Regulations:
(a) The Attorney General will notify the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Judiciary Committees of each House of Congress, with an explanation for each action
(1) Upon appointing a Special Counsel;
(2) Upon removing any Special Counsel; and
(3) Upon conclusion of the Special Counsels investigation, including, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a description and explanation of instances (if any) in which the Attorney General concluded that a proposed action by a Special Counsel was so inappropriate or unwarranted under established Departmental practices that it should not be pursued.
My read of the Regulations is that Barr was not required to issue his opinion on the validity of an Obstruction of Justice charge. The regulations state that the report has to explain each action taken by the SC - and, in this case the "action" taken by the SC was to not decide on the Obstruction of Justice charge - and that should have been, and was, reported by Barr.
In addition to the above regulations, there is long-standing policy at DOJ to not indict a sitting president, rather deferring to the constitutional process of impeachment. In his letter, Barr said he reached his decision, notwithstanding that long-standing policy. But, I think, that by issuing his opinion, he was stepping over that policy, and into the authority of congress.
In this instance - Barr was reaching a conclusion, that he was not required to make. Much like a court should not decide an issue that is not before it - I think it was improper for Barr to issue his opinion on the underlying crime. DOJ was not going to indict the president, even if Barr reached a contrary conclusion. The question of Obstruction of Justice (and even the conspiracy charges related specifically to Trump), is a question that the constitution says should be answered by Congress.
Now, from a legal standpoint, Congress is still free to make these determinations once they get the underlying reports/evidence. But, has Barr impermissibly injected his own opinion into the public discourse here - thereby influencing public opinion on a political question?
I think the answer is Yes - Barr has overstepped his bounds here, and ethically he should have remained on the sidelines (in terms of offering his legal opinion to a political question), unless Congress asked for his opinion.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
"Don't redline this thing to death or spend too much time on it, just spin through it for red flags and make sure we're protected and everything is fair." [attaches 32 page, extremely one-sided LL-friendly commercial lease]
I love my clients.
I love my clients.
Zow
Footballguy
Significant update from this post. Taking the advice from people on here me preparing and sending a CV was huge. I wound up being in interviews for about 7 hours when I went there for the "meet and greet" as I met with each partner in the firm and the CV was a starting point in nearly every one. The day went very well as I heard from the managing partner the very next day who wanted to extend me an offer but I had a pending case with that firm so the potential move went on hold for a couple of months.
Well, today, I received an received an offer from the firm in the more desirable location to make about as much in the first year as I am now with the contractual guarantee of a partnership offer after one year provided I reach a goal that should be relatively easily attainable. This is with a more established firm in a better place to live (granted, I have no good will there and we know only a handful of people who lives there). My wife thinks it's a no-brainer. It's financially a better option than running for the judge position that just opened or taking the head public defender position I mentioned previously.
The problem is though the offer has me stressed out more than I anticipated. I say this because the thought of telling the current named partner with my firm that I'm leaving actually makes me feel nauseous and tense up. Trying to say this in the most humble way possible, I am the biggest earner for my firm and since I joined it 7 years ago I have played a major role in making it the most notable and largest firm in the county. I have been fairly compensated for the hard work and, probably more importantly, the named partners have had my back the entire way -- even when it meant challenging certain judges and refusing to take certain borderline positions in court. We are a good team. So, leaving the firm, and especially the thought of telling the one named partner I'm most close to and work numerous cases together with, makes me feel like I'm about to dump an incredibly loyal, solid girlfriend (who may have some annoying idiosyncrasies but they are easily overlooked) for a shot with the super hot chick. To compound this the prospective new firm wants to me join them in 30 or so days - and the thought of dealing with figuring out my current caseload is overwhelming. In other words, not only would I have to tell my firm I'm joining another but I'd have to offer my current clients the chance to take their business elsewhere if they stayed with me (which I think many would). Figuring out billing/fee sharing on that will not be fun.
I've barely slept the last couple of nights. I don't know why this has me so stressed - but it's getting to the point where I had to tell my wife tonight when I got home from a long day that I just couldn't discuss it. The move is what my family wants. The prospective firm is incredibly reputable and the managing partner seems very reasonable. But I feel guilty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Zow
Footballguy
But there are instances where a court - that is, at least a trial court - can issue an order sua sponte.
My opinion is that I cannot say with certainty that Barr acted unethically. However, I found his issuance of his opinion to be foolish (why give an opinion if you don't have to?) and surmise that he's lost the respect of many in the legal community. Of course, he's practicing in a world entirely foreign to me, and the benefit of appeasing the President may outweigh any negatives. As a criminal attorney, I found his legal position, while not frivolous, to be about as close to crossing that line as reasonably possible.
-fish-
Footballguy
if you still count as faculty even though you're volunteering, you can get your kids free or reduced tuition.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Perhaps you didn't read the fine print:
* Adjunct positions do not qualify for family tuition discounts or any other benefits.
** Also, you have to mop the floors and empty trashcans in all faculty offices and classrooms daily.
Otis
Footballguy
You guys ever struggle to let things go? I hate this job sometimes.
Had a big hearing in a case last week, I took the lead against a couple of more senior lawyers on the other side (recently I’m lead counsel in more and more cases, but it’s still a relatively new role for in my career). I prepared hard for it. You can always use more time—another week would have been nice—but I felt I went in prepared. Was a packed courtroom and first impressions are so important; clients and investors all in the courtroom. It went just “OK.” We won’t have a decision for a few months, but the judge was mixed and it’s very unclear which way he’ll go (some folks on our side previously thought it would be a slam dunk for us). I can’t help but agonize — still over a week later — about things I should have said or done differently, some missed opportunities, and a couple things I just plain flubbed. I’m supposed to be this fantastic courtroom lawyer, and I delivered maybe a 6-7 performance. On the bright side everyone seems to think the leads on the other side weren’t that impressive, so maybe I showed better than they did. (You never know whether people are just trying to be nice to your face and then tearing you up behind your back). But after all the prep and buildup to this, I’m struggling hard to let it go. Even things as stupid as when local counsel introduced me, I forgot to stand up. I have no idea why, I was just in my own head and looking at my notes and distracted. And little things I could have done differently in argument; a point I should have made on rebuttal but just plain forgot to make. Etc.
This isn’t totally new to me — I’ve often found that I come up with the best questions and arguments while in bed the night AFTER a hearing or deposition or trial. But for some reason I can’t seem to let this one go, been up at night thinking about it, constantly thinking about it...
Ugh.
Anyway, I’m guessing I’m not the only lawyer in here who experiences this. Combine it with a frustrating week at work, the pressures of billables and business generation in a big law firm, and I just keep telling myself I need to start saving like crazy and pay off our mortgage, so that I don’t have to do this forever.
Thanks for listening.
Had a big hearing in a case last week, I took the lead against a couple of more senior lawyers on the other side (recently I’m lead counsel in more and more cases, but it’s still a relatively new role for in my career). I prepared hard for it. You can always use more time—another week would have been nice—but I felt I went in prepared. Was a packed courtroom and first impressions are so important; clients and investors all in the courtroom. It went just “OK.” We won’t have a decision for a few months, but the judge was mixed and it’s very unclear which way he’ll go (some folks on our side previously thought it would be a slam dunk for us). I can’t help but agonize — still over a week later — about things I should have said or done differently, some missed opportunities, and a couple things I just plain flubbed. I’m supposed to be this fantastic courtroom lawyer, and I delivered maybe a 6-7 performance. On the bright side everyone seems to think the leads on the other side weren’t that impressive, so maybe I showed better than they did. (You never know whether people are just trying to be nice to your face and then tearing you up behind your back). But after all the prep and buildup to this, I’m struggling hard to let it go. Even things as stupid as when local counsel introduced me, I forgot to stand up. I have no idea why, I was just in my own head and looking at my notes and distracted. And little things I could have done differently in argument; a point I should have made on rebuttal but just plain forgot to make. Etc.
This isn’t totally new to me — I’ve often found that I come up with the best questions and arguments while in bed the night AFTER a hearing or deposition or trial. But for some reason I can’t seem to let this one go, been up at night thinking about it, constantly thinking about it...
Ugh.
Anyway, I’m guessing I’m not the only lawyer in here who experiences this. Combine it with a frustrating week at work, the pressures of billables and business generation in a big law firm, and I just keep telling myself I need to start saving like crazy and pay off our mortgage, so that I don’t have to do this forever.
Thanks for listening.
Yankee23Fan
Fair Tax!
I still play through my mind a summary judgment motion I lost....
...10 years ago.
...10 years ago.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Don’t be so sure this would avoid the issue. Less than 30 seconds googling to find livestreams of monks:
https://www.buckfast.org.uk/live
Privacy is well and truly dead.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I just got a transcript from an oral argument I did a couple weeks ago and am cringing. We won everything we asked for, and it felt great walking out of the courtroom that day with the happy client, but I'm going to bury this transcript. So many missed arguments and poorly-phrased statements ...thecatch said:
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Get a motorcycle and become a Zen Monk who rides from town to town and solves crimes with a sidekick in his sidecar.
Zow
Footballguy
We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread.
I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this:
Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights?
Officer: Yes.
Woz: Okay. And he complied?
Officer: He did.
Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?
Officer: No.
Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer?
Officer: He did, I appreciated that.
Woz: Okayyyy.....
Man of Constant Sorrow
Footballguy
Sounds OK to me.We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread.
I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this:
Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights?
Officer: Yes.
Woz: Okay. And he complied?
Officer: He did.
Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?
Officer: No.
Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer?
Officer: He did, I appreciated that.
Woz: Okayyyy.....
Zow
Footballguy
@Otis A little over a month ago I filed a motion - that is, I decided it was best for my client to raise a particular issue that wasn't even a worry to the state or the judge at the time - which resulted in my client spending nearly a month in jail. That is to say, that if I had just let the status quo go and/or foreseen this potential result and focused instead solely on his trial prep case, my client would not have had to spend any of that time. I went back to the office and nearly threw up. After trying to notify everybody I could for the guy I went home for the weekend and didn't sleep at all because I, when I went to bed that night and was reliving it all, realized that the next day was his kid's birthday.
I'll conclude this all by relaying that I special actioned the judge's decision to the court of appeals and succeeded in getting them to issue injunctive relief overturning the judge's particular decision. We're now set for oral argument in August and the issue is likely to turn into a published opinion. Nonetheless, regardless of whether my analysis of the issue is correct, if I had just let it go and looked for the forest through the trees and foresaw how this particular judge would have reacted my client would have never done any of that time and would not have missed his kid's birthday. And I cannot give it back to him no matter what other good work I do going forwarded.
I'll conclude this all by relaying that I special actioned the judge's decision to the court of appeals and succeeded in getting them to issue injunctive relief overturning the judge's particular decision. We're now set for oral argument in August and the issue is likely to turn into a published opinion. Nonetheless, regardless of whether my analysis of the issue is correct, if I had just let it go and looked for the forest through the trees and foresaw how this particular judge would have reacted my client would have never done any of that time and would not have missed his kid's birthday. And I cannot give it back to him no matter what other good work I do going forwarded.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
I'm also a serial "Okay" abuser. I'd like to bribe the court reporter to remove all my vocalized pauses, uhms, ok's, etc.Zow said:We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread.
I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this:
Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights?
Officer: Yes.
Woz: Okay. And he complied?
Officer: He did.
Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?
Officer: No.
Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer?
Officer: He did, I appreciated that.
Woz: Okayyyy.....
Zow
Footballguy
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Congrats. They'll get over it.Zow said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
My arguments all get punctuated by "right?"Zow said:We have a court that has that too. I should probably watch it more to give myself more motivation in the Otis diet thread.
I actually dislike reading a transcript of my cross examinations the least. They go like this:
Woz: Officer, when you decided to pull my client over you turned on just your lights?
Officer: Yes.
Woz: Okay. And he complied?
Officer: He did.
Woz: Okay. So you did not have to turn on your sirens at all?
Officer: No.
Woz: Okay. And isn't it true he actually pulled into an empty parkway so your stop was safer?
Officer: He did, I appreciated that.
Woz: Okayyyy.....
"Well, judge, that's why the legislature in its wisdom made very specific rules for Offers of Judgment, right? If you'll look at the second paragraph, what it says is that the defendant doesn't get to use it to enforce costs unless we win - in fact, it's sanctionable for him to even provide it to the court unless we do, right?"
Last edited by a moderator:
johnnycakes
Footballguy
Best wishes with the super hot chick.Zow said:
Similar threads
