The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads

[Zow 8,598]

5 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

I agree with CM for the most part and would look forward to getting the guys that you are speaking about (pushing back) in a courtroom when this is all over.  Especially under New Jersey law.

Again, not my area (I've done a number of evictions representing landlords but that's mainly just doing the actual representation for the landlords where it's almost always a simple nonpayment factual issue), but as I understand it AZ is a bit more favorable to landlords/lessors than most states. So, I'm not so sure how this plays out in my jurisdiction. Honestly some help from the other two branches would be useful at this point I think.  

[CletiusMaximus 9,078]

1 hour ago, Zow said:

3 hours ago, CletiusMaximus said:

The first thing to do is get a copy of the contract and read it.  You don't need a lawyer for this.  Look for a clause named "Force Majeure" - its probably a 50/50 chance there will be one in a contract like this.  That may give you an out.  There may be other contract clauses that give you an out.  Apart from the contract language, and certainly not wanting to give legal advice in this context, if I had to give off-the-cuff advice to a client in this situation I would tell them to not pay the second installment and demand a refund.  There is a general contractual concept regarding impossibility that I think would apply in this case.  It is legally impossible for them to deliver what they agreed to provide under current circumstances.  I have several clients in somewhat similar circumstances right now and I'm advising them, as a general proposition, its going to be very difficult to enforce contractual obligations that involve things like travelling and breaking shelter-in-place orders.

 

While it's not my practice area, a significant division of the attorneys in my office handle contract work and represent commercial tenants/lessees (as well as some commercial lessors). This issue has been the primary topic of our regular officewide collaboration meetings. The bold is the argument being made for tenants who just want out of the lease (it sounds like the impact of the CARES Act and just general sensibility is thankfully generally prevailing in situations where neither party wants to substantially breach or terminate the lease but instead just needs some understandable temporary relief on some of the financial terms). Push back has been pretty aggressive (and arguably harsh) with the argument that the commercial lessor hasn't made the decision to implement the restrictions and, in say a restaurant example, the lessor is providing what they're contractually bound to - a location set up to be a restaurant.   

I haven't seen any actual litigation results yet, but it's a curious issue.

One issue is that both CARES and  many state emergency orders directly address commercial and residential leases, so those are a somewhat different animal at this time as contrasted with general commercial contracts.  I assume a one-off vacation rental would not be impacted by those emergency orders/statutes, but that would also be something to consider.

 

[RC94 2,032]

I was hoping you guys can give me some unemployment insurance advice.  I lost my job and applied for unemployment in NJ back in March, but it still hasn't been processed.  I've tried multiple times in multiple ways to get in touch with someone to see what's going on with it, but you can't get in touch with anyone.  Even an email I sent was replied to with a form letter that didn't address my email.  It's been almost 6 weeks now so I'm getting concerned that it's been forgotten.  I'm also concerned that they might reject it and tell me to apply in NY instead since my company is based in NY and my office was there.  I live in NJ and worked from home regularly, so I applied in NJ.

If they reject my application and I have to start over in NY after that, I will lose a ton more time.  I have already lost so much time and money with this, I'm starting to think about applying in NY just to get it started now rather than wait even longer.  I would never take money from both states and would cancel whichever comes back to me last, but is it against the law to apply in both states?

[3 hour lunch 179]

Any advice on not settling an estate? My mom died last week (husband died last year) and she basically had nothing outside of her town house which she owed nearly as much as it was worth, and she left it in bad shape. Likely a small amount in the bank and a bunch of debt. If we do “nothing” I know we forfeit any assets but in this case is there any reason to go through probate or whatever? Hiring someone seems like a waste, as does getting the house all cleaned up, etc.

[shadrap 1,790]

confirm her assets & debts, then decide if to open a probate.  a simple probate can be $1500 to $3000 unless you are East coast or California.  Open a probate with you as Personal Rep.(if no family member disagrees), deed all assets to heirs.  close probate.  simple probate takes about 6 months.

I'm not an attorney.

[GroveDiesel 9,213]

On 4/30/2020 at 11:57 AM, RC94 said:

I was hoping you guys can give me some unemployment insurance advice.  I lost my job and applied for unemployment in NJ back in March, but it still hasn't been processed.  I've tried multiple times in multiple ways to get in touch with someone to see what's going on with it, but you can't get in touch with anyone.  Even an email I sent was replied to with a form letter that didn't address my email.  It's been almost 6 weeks now so I'm getting concerned that it's been forgotten.  I'm also concerned that they might reject it and tell me to apply in NY instead since my company is based in NY and my office was there.  I live in NJ and worked from home regularly, so I applied in NJ.

If they reject my application and I have to start over in NY after that, I will lose a ton more time.  I have already lost so much time and money with this, I'm starting to think about applying in NY just to get it started now rather than wait even longer.  I would never take money from both states and would cancel whichever comes back to me last, but is it against the law to apply in both states?

Not sure if you’ve received anything yet, but NJ put out a guide recently. Apparently how you answer(ed) the questions when you apply matters a lot. And how you should answer them wasn’t exactly clear. The guide they put out gives more specific instruction and helps clear up the confusion.

Link

I don’t know that it helps you out now, but you can at least look and see if you answered a question incorrectly and it may be holding things up for you because of that.

[RC94 2,032]

2 hours ago, GroveDiesel said:

Not sure if you’ve received anything yet, but NJ put out a guide recently. Apparently how you answer(ed) the questions when you apply matters a lot. And how you should answer them wasn’t exactly clear. The guide they put out gives more specific instruction and helps clear up the confusion.

Link

I don’t know that it helps you out now, but you can at least look and see if you answered a question incorrectly and it may be holding things up for you because of that.

They haven't processed my claim yet.  It's been 7 weeks now.

[belljr 11,015]

Hi I have a lawery question.....I had a tree fall and damage my deck and vinyl fence.

Insurance adjuster came out and my insurance cut me a check for about 9k.   

Since I was not going with the construction company that did the estimate the insurance company sent me the money but since it was over 5k, my mortgage company was added to check.  I sent check and letter to mortgage company with the contractors that will be performing the work. One is my friend (a licensed contractor) who built my deck originally. One is the company that originally did the Fence.   I told them exactly what I wanted fixed.  Their estimates came in at about 5k total.

I was given a form by my mortgage company that need to be filled out by contractors the work was completed, they were paid in full and the amount and no liens will be placed.

Will there be any issues if it's 4k less?  If so I would just add onto my fence total.

Edited May 8, 2020 by belljr

[Zow 8,598]

On 3/11/2020 at 8:03 AM, Zow said:

I am being interviewed by them today. People actually read their stuff?  

Law360 article came out today...

[flranger 768]

On 5/8/2020 at 6:18 PM, belljr said:

Hi I have a lawery question.....I had a tree fall and damage my deck and vinyl fence.

Insurance adjuster came out and my insurance cut me a check for about 9k.   

Since I was not going with the construction company that did the estimate the insurance company sent me the money but since it was over 5k, my mortgage company was added to check.  I sent check and letter to mortgage company with the contractors that will be performing the work. One is my friend (a licensed contractor) who built my deck originally. One is the company that originally did the Fence.   I told them exactly what I wanted fixed.  Their estimates came in at about 5k total.

I was given a form by my mortgage company that need to be filled out by contractors the work was completed, they were paid in full and the amount and no liens will be placed.

Will there be any issues if it's 4k less?  If so I would just add onto my fence total.

Generally, the mortgage company just wants to make sure the work is done and repaired per code to protect their interest in the property.  As long as that is the case the amount rarely will cause an issue.

[Walking Boot 8,296]

In-depth analysis: Which Supreme Court Justice flushed their toilet during oral arguments live stream?

Bonus content: are faint "plop" sounds heard in the minutes before the flush?

 

I do not think SCOTUSblog has weighed in.

 

Stephen Breyer

[Zow 8,598]

Just now, Walking Boot said:

In-depth analysis: Which Supreme Court Justice flushed their toilet during oral arguments live stream?

Bonus content: are faint "plop" sounds heard in the minutes before the flush?

 

I do not think SCOTUSblog has weighed in.

 

 

  Hide contents

Stephen Breyer

 

Since my first Teams/telephonic hearing I have kept the mute button on by default. Wonder if the justice thought he had it on. 

[Walking Boot 8,296]

23 minutes ago, Zow said:

Since my first Teams/telephonic hearing I have kept the mute button on by default. Wonder if the justice thought he had it on. 

We should begin by noting that this wouldn’t be Breyer’s first phone-related disruption. In 2017, for instance, Breyer committed a major faux pas when his phone went off in the middle of a public hearing, despite phones being strictly forbidden in the courtroom. At the time, a spokeswoman called it an “oversight.”

And Wednesday, at precisely 12:29 p.m. during the same oral arguments that would soon give us the flush, Roberts repeatedly called on Breyer to begin his questions, only to be met with silence. This was not a case, as with his colleagues, of overuse of the mute button. Two more justices took their turns before Breyer finally appeared, at which point he informed listeners: “The telephone started to ring, and it cut me off the call. And I don’t think it was a robocall, and we got it straightened out.”

All of which is to say, it’s clear that Breyer’s command of his phone’s functionality is tenuous at best.

Breyer also seems to have established a willingness to multitask during arguments. As you can hear in the audio below, when Breyer unmuted at 11:57 a.m. to indicate that he had finished questioning Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, he was accompanied by an audible clinking of what sounded very much like dishes.

If that was indeed the sound of Breyer finishing his lunch (the clattering has the unmistakable tone of someone discarding silverware onto an empty plate), it would mean that he had been more than happy to eat and engage in oral arguments simultaneously. The presumptive meal also prompts its own line of speculation. If the flush belonged to Breyer, a bowel movement would have come roughly 43 minutes after the justice’s meal.

This seems feasible.

[jvdesigns2002 3,151]

Just wanted to tap in here for some general information--not legal advice. I want to make clear--I'm not looking to sue my employer or anything like that--but my boss has been really getting on my nerves as of late.  Here is the situation:

She is of the belief that covid is basically nothing to worry about and is constantly spouting off in group texts and emails to employees----- politically based banter of how the lockdown is unconstitutional, conspiracy theories, basically politicizing the pandemic to the staff.  Keep in mind--our staff is small--but there are a couple of us that are legimately worried about the virus. I am immune compromised and I take care of my 80 year old diabetic mother.  Another one of the staff members is also very worried about the virus. During one of the group chats--as the manager--I asked that she keep politics out of the group texts/emails that she sends to employees as people are entitled to have their own political beliefs without any influence or pressure from their employer.  Today she sent out another email even after I asked her to refrain from doing it and to specifically keep me out of any communications regarding politics.    I'm in California--and I was wondering if this constitutes hostile work place or work place harassment.   I don't want to sue--but honestly--if she keeps doing it--I am open to having an employment attorney type up something on letterhead warning her that I won't tolerate it any further.  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  

Edited May 18, 2020 by jvdesigns2002

[-fish- 13,791]

2 hours ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

Just wanted to tap in here for some general information--not legal advice. I want to make clear--I'm not looking to sue my employer or anything like that--but my boss has been really getting on my nerves as of late.  Here is the situation:

She is of the belief that covid is basically nothing to worry about and is constantly spouting off in group texts and emails to employees----- politically based banter of how the lockdown is unconstitutional, conspiracy theories, basically politicizing the pandemic to the staff.  Keep in mind--our staff is small--but there are a couple of us that are legimately worried about the virus. I am immune compromised and I take care of my 80 year old diabetic mother.  Another one of the staff members is also very worried about the virus. During one of the group chats--as the manager--I asked that she keep politics out of the group texts/emails that she sends to employees as people are entitled to have their own political beliefs without any influence or pressure from their employer.  Today she sent out another email even after I asked her to refrain from doing it and to specifically keep me out of any communications regarding politics.    I'm in California--and I was wondering if this constitutes hostile work place or work place harassment.   I don't want to sue--but honestly--if she keeps doing it--I am open to having an employment attorney type up something on letterhead warning her that I won't tolerate it any further.  Any thoughts would be appreciated.  

@bigbottom is the employment guy as I recall.   I think that this is more than nothing, but I'm not sure if it's something.

[bigbottom 11,123]

37 minutes ago, -fish- said:

@bigbottom is the employment guy as I recall.   I think that this is more than nothing, but I'm not sure if it's something.

California is a state that actually has some employment laws on the books regarding political activities. Here are a couple articles on the topic. 

https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html#1

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx

[jvdesigns2002 3,151]

7 hours ago, bigbottom said:

California is a state that actually has some employment laws on the books regarding political activities. Here are a couple articles on the topic. 

https://www.shouselaw.com/employment/political-retaliation.html#1

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/employers,-politics-and-free-speech-in-california.aspx

Thanks for these. I read over them—a lot of them don’t deal directly with my situation.  I don’t think my boss is trying to. Influence the staff for political action (which is what some of those links mention)—-it’s more like I’ve told her that I don’t want to hear anything dismissive or political  about the virus as I do not feel comfortable politicizing people dying of illness and it’s something that I am sensitive about in regards to my own health and my elderly mothers health condition.   Even with that knowledge—she thinks it’s okay to group message and email us propoganda that is the very nature of what I told her that I am not comfortable with.   If an employee tells a superior that they do not feel comfortable discussing a non-work related topic at the workplace—and that superior continues to bring that very topic up over and over again—does that qualify as a form of hostile work environment?   By the way—thank you very much for your thoughts and for taking the time. 

[bigbottom 11,123]

9 hours ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

Thanks for these. I read over them—a lot of them don’t deal directly with my situation.  I don’t think my boss is trying to. Influence the staff for political action (which is what some of those links mention)—-it’s more like I’ve told her that I don’t want to hear anything dismissive or political  about the virus as I do not feel comfortable politicizing people dying of illness and it’s something that I am sensitive about in regards to my own health and my elderly mothers health condition.   Even with that knowledge—she thinks it’s okay to group message and email us propoganda that is the very nature of what I told her that I am not comfortable with.   If an employee tells a superior that they do not feel comfortable discussing a non-work related topic at the workplace—and that superior continues to bring that very topic up over and over again—does that qualify as a form of hostile work environment?   By the way—thank you very much for your thoughts and for taking the time. 

I doubt that would rise to the level of being an actionable hostile work environment claim, even in California.  First, to give rise to a legal claim, the unwelcome behavior must involve or be directed at a protected characteristic. In other words, the harassment has to be based on your gender, your race, your national origin, your religion, etc.  Now, you mentioned you are immune compromised, so perhaps you have a recognized disability or medical condition. However, I don’t see how her general statements directed to a group regarding her personal beliefs about COVID-19 would be considered harassment based on purported disability. Moreover, to be actionable harassment, the unwelcome conduct has to be either severe or pervasive. A communication like the one you mentioned will not be deemed severe. Whether or not it is pervasive depends on how often she brings this up. Is it isolated and sporadic, or is it a regular occurrence?  In any event, it sounds to me highly unlikely that you would get past the first prong unless her comments were directly related to your disability or immune-compromised status.

Your other route is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  That is typically a very high bar to meet in order to prove a claim. Here are the requirements to prove a claim:

(1) A defendant acted in an outrageous manner

(2) The defendant’s conduct was intentionally meant to cause the plaintiff emotional distress OR the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the fact that the conduct would cause the plaintiff emotional distress

(3) The plaintiff did in fact suffer emotional distress such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, or worry, at a level no reasonable person should be expected to endure, and

(4) The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing that emotional distress.

Looking at these, I think it would be challenging to meet both 1 and 2.  First, outrageousness from a legal standpoint is typically a high bar.  Is she cursing at you or insulting you? Is she joking that it would be okay for your grandmother to die? These are the types of things that are deemed outrageous (whether conduct is outrageous is generally determined with respect to whether the conduct would be outrageous on its face to a reasonable observer). Saying that COVID-19 is nothing to worry about is highly unlikely to rise to the level of outrageousness required for legal liability. Perhaps there is more to what she said?  Second, your boss either has to intend to cause you emotional distress or act with reckless disregard to the emotional distress. You asking her to refrain from speaking about political topics because co-workers are entitled to their own beliefs is likely insufficient to put her on notice that her conduct causes you emotional distress. You would need to have put her on notice that her conduct is actually harming you at a level that no reasonable person would have to endure (another element you would have to prove),

Moreover, if you complained to the higher ups and they told your boss that she was not to engage in political discourse or communications regarding the coronavirus, she might believe that she is the one who has a legal claim against the employer. But as discussed in the links, she would likely not succeed on her claim because the employer direction is restricted to political activity at work, and would not be motivated by the employer’s political reasons. That said, employers in CA are often disinclined to direct employees to refrain from engaging in political discussions because of the legal protections on the books related to political activity.

I know the above is likely not what you wanted to hear. That said, my advice is to have a more frank discussion with your boss about the impact her communications on this topic have on you from an emotional distress standpoint given your medical condition. Once she has a better understanding of how it is affecting you, she may be more likely to curb the behavior. And if you specifically mention your medical condition as an exacerbating component to your reaction, it may get her attention as that starts to veer into the arena of potential legal liability. 
 

Edited May 19, 2020 by bigbottom

[jvdesigns2002 3,151]

17 hours ago, bigbottom said:

I doubt that would rise to the level of being an actionable hostile work environment claim, even in California.  First, to give rise to a legal claim, the unwelcome behavior must involve or be directed at a protected characteristic. In other words, the harassment has to be based on your gender, your race, your national origin, your religion, etc.  Now, you mentioned you are immune compromised, so perhaps you have a recognized disability or medical condition. However, I don’t see how her general statements directed to a group regarding her personal beliefs about COVID-19 would be considered harassment based on purported disability. Moreover, to be actionable harassment, the unwelcome conduct has to be either severe or pervasive. A communication like the one you mentioned will not be deemed severe. Whether or not it is pervasive depends on how often she brings this up. Is it isolated and sporadic, or is it a regular occurrence?  In any event, it sounds to me highly unlikely that you would get past the first prong unless her comments were directly related to your disability or immune-compromised status.

Your other route is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  That is typically a very high bar to meet in order to prove a claim. Here are the requirements to prove a claim:

(1) A defendant acted in an outrageous manner

(2) The defendant’s conduct was intentionally meant to cause the plaintiff emotional distress OR the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the fact that the conduct would cause the plaintiff emotional distress

(3) The plaintiff did in fact suffer emotional distress such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, or worry, at a level no reasonable person should be expected to endure, and

(4) The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing that emotional distress.

Looking at these, I think it would be challenging to meet both 1 and 2.  First, outrageousness from a legal standpoint is typically a high bar.  Is she cursing at you or insulting you? Is she joking that it would be okay for your grandmother to die? These are the types of things that are deemed outrageous (whether conduct is outrageous is generally determined with respect to whether the conduct would be outrageous on its face to a reasonable observer). Saying that COVID-19 is nothing to worry about is highly unlikely to rise to the level of outrageousness required for legal liability. Perhaps there is more to what she said?  Second, your boss either has to intend to cause you emotional distress or act with reckless disregard to the emotional distress. You asking her to refrain from speaking about political topics because co-workers are entitled to their own beliefs is likely insufficient to put her on notice that her conduct causes you emotional distress. You would need to have put her on notice that her conduct is actually harming you at a level that no reasonable person would have to endure (another element you would have to prove),

Moreover, if you complained to the higher ups and they told your boss that she was not to engage in political discourse or communications regarding the coronavirus, she might believe that she is the one who has a legal claim against the employer. But as discussed in the links, she would likely not succeed on her claim because the employer direction is restricted to political activity at work, and would not be motivated by the employer’s political reasons. That said, employers in CA are often disinclined to direct employees to refrain from engaging in political discussions because of the legal protections on the books related to political activity.

I know the above is likely not what you wanted to hear. That said, my advice is to have a more frank discussion with your boss about the impact her communications on this topic have on you from an emotional distress standpoint given your medical condition. Once she has a better understanding of how it is affecting you, she may be more likely to curb the behavior. And if you specifically mention your medical condition as an exacerbating component to your reaction, it may get her attention as that starts to veer into the arena of potential legal liability. 
 

Just wanted to thank you very much for your time to explain things to me to in such a detailed but also understandable fashion. Your input went above and beyond what I was expecting.  I suspected that by itself that there probably wasn't much that I could do--but I did "reply all" to her email and saved a copy of my reply in my archives.  In the reply all I said that from this point on--I'd like any email or contact from my employer to be business related and that I find political emails/communications from my employer to be out of line and offensive.  She replied that "she was not trying to influence or pressure anybody politically" to where I replied all again "that any employee inherently feels pressure to read emails from their employer and that this is exactly why this needs to stop"--and so far no response. Maybe she got the point--but I figure that I will continue to clearly document that those types of communications are not welcome and are offensive to me--and if she continues to do it--I do think that clear documentation of it can probalby help me somehow if I needed it.   Thank you again for your time and efforts.  

[-fish- 13,791]

17 hours ago, bigbottom said:

I doubt that would rise to the level of being an actionable hostile work environment claim, even in California.  First, to give rise to a legal claim, the unwelcome behavior must involve or be directed at a protected characteristic. In other words, the harassment has to be based on your gender, your race, your national origin, your religion, etc.  Now, you mentioned you are immune compromised, so perhaps you have a recognized disability or medical condition. However, I don’t see how her general statements directed to a group regarding her personal beliefs about COVID-19 would be considered harassment based on purported disability. Moreover, to be actionable harassment, the unwelcome conduct has to be either severe or pervasive. A communication like the one you mentioned will not be deemed severe. Whether or not it is pervasive depends on how often she brings this up. Is it isolated and sporadic, or is it a regular occurrence?  In any event, it sounds to me highly unlikely that you would get past the first prong unless her comments were directly related to your disability or immune-compromised status.

Your other route is a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.  That is typically a very high bar to meet in order to prove a claim. Here are the requirements to prove a claim:

(1) A defendant acted in an outrageous manner

(2) The defendant’s conduct was intentionally meant to cause the plaintiff emotional distress OR the defendant acted with reckless disregard of the fact that the conduct would cause the plaintiff emotional distress

(3) The plaintiff did in fact suffer emotional distress such as fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, embarrassment, anger, chagrin, disappointment, or worry, at a level no reasonable person should be expected to endure, and

(4) The defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing that emotional distress.

Looking at these, I think it would be challenging to meet both 1 and 2.  First, outrageousness from a legal standpoint is typically a high bar.  Is she cursing at you or insulting you? Is she joking that it would be okay for your grandmother to die? These are the types of things that are deemed outrageous (whether conduct is outrageous is generally determined with respect to whether the conduct would be outrageous on its face to a reasonable observer). Saying that COVID-19 is nothing to worry about is highly unlikely to rise to the level of outrageousness required for legal liability. Perhaps there is more to what she said?  Second, your boss either has to intend to cause you emotional distress or act with reckless disregard to the emotional distress. You asking her to refrain from speaking about political topics because co-workers are entitled to their own beliefs is likely insufficient to put her on notice that her conduct causes you emotional distress. You would need to have put her on notice that her conduct is actually harming you at a level that no reasonable person would have to endure (another element you would have to prove),

Moreover, if you complained to the higher ups and they told your boss that she was not to engage in political discourse or communications regarding the coronavirus, she might believe that she is the one who has a legal claim against the employer. But as discussed in the links, she would likely not succeed on her claim because the employer direction is restricted to political activity at work, and would not be motivated by the employer’s political reasons. That said, employers in CA are often disinclined to direct employees to refrain from engaging in political discussions because of the legal protections on the books related to political activity.

I know the above is likely not what you wanted to hear. That said, my advice is to have a more frank discussion with your boss about the impact her communications on this topic have on you from an emotional distress standpoint given your medical condition. Once she has a better understanding of how it is affecting you, she may be more likely to curb the behavior. And if you specifically mention your medical condition as an exacerbating component to your reaction, it may get her attention as that starts to veer into the arena of potential legal liability. 
 

Plus if she fires you because you challenge her about this, then you probably have a pretty legit claim if you document it first.  :plaintiffguy:

[Zow 8,598]

So, uh, any of you read the nytimes, wapo, and/or law360?

[SWC 15,477]

13 minutes ago, Zow said:

So, uh, any of you read the nytimes, wapo, and/or law360?

just link the article so people can read it bromigo take that to the bank 

[bigbottom 11,123]

On 5/20/2020 at 12:20 AM, jvdesigns2002 said:

Just wanted to thank you very much for your time to explain things to me to in such a detailed but also understandable fashion. Your input went above and beyond what I was expecting.  I suspected that by itself that there probably wasn't much that I could do--but I did "reply all" to her email and saved a copy of my reply in my archives.  In the reply all I said that from this point on--I'd like any email or contact from my employer to be business related and that I find political emails/communications from my employer to be out of line and offensive.  She replied that "she was not trying to influence or pressure anybody politically" to where I replied all again "that any employee inherently feels pressure to read emails from their employer and that this is exactly why this needs to stop"--and so far no response. Maybe she got the point--but I figure that I will continue to clearly document that those types of communications are not welcome and are offensive to me--and if she continues to do it--I do think that clear documentation of it can probalby help me somehow if I needed it.   Thank you again for your time and efforts.  

Sorry I missed this post. Happy to offer my perspective, for whatever that’s worth. Best of luck and I hope things improve. 

Edited May 22, 2020 by bigbottom

[bigbottom 11,123]

1 hour ago, Zow said:

So, uh, any of you read the nytimes, wapo, and/or law360?

Just read an article. I bet you never would have guessed you’d be quoted in the papers talking about a HJ!

[Zow 8,598]

17 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

Just read an article. I bet you never would have guessed you’d be quoted in the papers talking about a HJ!

In the full version (on Cronkite pbs and some other outlets) I also quote The Wire 🤣

[jvdesigns2002 3,151]

On 5/19/2020 at 10:34 PM, -fish- said:

Plus if she fires you because you challenge her about this, then you probably have a pretty legit claim if you document it first.  :plaintiffguy:

I don't hope that happens--but I honestly get the feeling that she's passive aggressively trying to make my life at work a living hell because my political beliefs are not in line with hers.  I had told her in February that the coronavirus was a big deal and that I think it could effect the business--and she basically laughed me off.   When the lockdown started--I took a paycut--and worked mainly from home--but did go into the office a few days a week to receive packages, return calls, and to take pictures of merchandise that I could use to contact clients about digitally.   Even though I made enough sales and profit to more than cover the reduced salary that I was making (I also brought her much needed liquidity in an environment where basically no business was being conducted in our industry)--she would constantly send me texts/emails almost guilting me for the fact that I was not laid off--even though I took like a 40% paycut.   Last year--she was going to hire an accountant to do our books--and every accountant that she interviewed said that our invoicing and pricing system is complex that it would cost $1200-1500/month to do it.  I offered her an annual contract at the beginning of the year to do it for less than $700/month and that I'd do it outside of work hours--and I even volunteered to do 3 months of accounting for free because of the pandemic.  I've basically single handedly ran and grew her buisness for like 15 years straight--and sevral years ago--she brought her ex husband (and father of her child) in to work at the shop.   I caught him red handed stealing sales/commissions from other employees and myself several times with clear documentation--and he got nothing more than slap on the wrist.  The dude is a good salesperson--but because of their past history--he knows exactly how to handle and manipulate her into getting his way.   Ever since the pandemic--we've been doing staggered shifts to avoid cross contamination and cross exposure of the staff--and they are always working together.  They share the same political beliefs and they both are dismissive of the lockdown and the virus-- but I don't have that luxury.  I am immune compromised and I take care of my 80 year old diabetic mother.   

Because of this--I spent lots of my own time and money--and got the shop cases of sanitary wipes, a top of the line uv-c chamber, gallons of hand sanitizer, uv-c lamps with timers to sanitize the shop before we open and after we close, all sorts of cleaning solutions, boxes of gloves, and masks...etc.   LIterally--the owner of the shop got a couple of bottles of hand soap--and the rest of the health protocols were paid for and coducted by me.   Today--my shift starts at 10am--and unbeknownst to me--she had scheduled for our display cases to have new anti-scratch films applied on them.  I come to the shop--and one of my co-workers is there---with 3 guys from the company that are installing the film--and 2 of them are not wearing masks and are walking all over the showroom.  I ask my co-worker why they aren't wearing masks when I left a giant pile of individually wrapped masks on the counter for people to wear--and my co-worker said that the owner of the shop told the guys that they didn't need to wear masks.  Keep in mind--the owner of the shop and the entire staff  is fully aware of my and my mothers health conditions--and she knew that I worked today--and she still risked my health for no good reason.   I texted her today and told her that my health and the health of my family is not hers to compromise and that I already had an employement lawyer--and I have documented the entire history of events with him--which is true.     Again--I'm not looking to sue--but I'm also not going to allow myself to get taken advantage of--and if she tries to mess with me----it will backfire on her.  

Sorry for the long backstory---and I don't blame you if you throw a "tl:dr" my way. Lol 

Edited May 22, 2020 by jvdesigns2002

[rockaction 24,824]

11 minutes ago, jvdesigns2002 said:

Sorry for the long backstory---and I don't blame you if you throw a "tl:dr" my way. Lol 

I read it. I think you're a good dude, jvd, and I wish you the best. Politicizing the virus has become one of my pet peeves. Viruses know no politics. They just are, existing if the host is suitable. Anyway, that sounds awful. Like I said, best of luck. 

[BigSteelThrill 5,359]

How this stuff with Stone/Barr falling out with our local lawyer types?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzPi34wStTw

[Zow 8,598]

So I've been offered an equity partnership at my firm. Been there one year as a lateral hire and came on with the understanding that if I met expectations they'd offer me an equity partnership - and here we are. Currently pretty happy with my current pay structure (50% of my receivables). Billing around 1950-2000 hours for the year - I work a lot but I probably can sustain this pace another ten years. Oddly, if I become an equity partner my "normal" bi-weekly monthly pay will go down quite a bit with anticipation of sizable quarterly payouts. The drop in bi-weekly pay actually has my wife a bit nervous as she handles our montly expenses and tends to look at money/income as the simple equation of "are we bringing in more money per month than our bills are?". However, when I met with the managing partner he discussed it like it was a no-brainer for me as the structure still gets me a very high percentage of my own receivables (seems like the wild card factor is firm expenses vary per quarter and I could have a great quarter but get a low percentage for reasons outside my control). Seems like it's the clear choice for the long-run as I should get a return on the investment as I rack up more shares and, frankly, if I want to chill out for a quarter or two here and there it'll provide a much higher floor. But, this is totally new territory for me as I've only ever been salaried or received a set percentage of my receivables (I've really enjoyed and felt incentivized by the latter). 

Anybody on here ever not been happy with going equity partner? Any horror stories I should consider?

Assuming I do, should I create an LLC to hold my shares?

Any other advice or input? 

I'd note that in ten or so years I could see myself pushing hard towards becoming either a Superior Court judge or an Appellate Court judge. I nearly ran for Superior Court judge 1.5 years ago when I was at my old firm (long ####### story there) and do think it's something I'd like to do one day. I could also see myself running a large public defender's office. That said, I really like my new/current firm and I have no intentions of leaving anytime soon (would take a sizable paycut probably if I became a judge or head PDO and that won't work with 4 kids). I'm just mentioning it because I genuinely don't know whether this is my forever job although I'd be all right with it if it was. 

[Zow 8,598]

On 6/24/2020 at 4:07 AM, BigSteelThrill said:

How this stuff with Stone/Barr falling out with our local lawyer types?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzPi34wStTw

It's pretty settled that prosecutors have broad discretion whether to prosecute. It's also pretty settled/common for prosecuting agencies to have a clear hierarchical structure so while the prosecutor of record may have general discretion on his or her case it isn't shocking to see a higher-up step in and that probably protects the attorney of record ethically (I once had a prosecutor, as we're walking in to pick the jury say to me, "I hope you win. I don't think your guy is guilty but my bosses won't let me drop it.").  So, while this is certainly strange - as the prosecutors on the Flynn case have a lot of experience (and were probably rightfully pissed when their bosses stepped in) - it's, unfortunately, not the craziest thing ever and it may not even be unethical (frankly, I found it more questionable that the judge demanded to know motivations). 

Seems clear though that this is politcally motivated. Which I find repugnant and am pissed because it's just going to further the negative stigma of our criminal justice system and, tangentially, I'll now have to deal with more defendant clients (and their mothers) whining about or wanting to use political connections/conspiracies/motivations in their case when there really isn't any present. 

Edited June 25, 2020 by Zow

[-OZ- 8,116]

Question gents and ladies,

I'm currently a federal civilian, working primarily in labor, investigations, and ethics. I've only been doing this for 3 years and it's okay but I don't love it.

I was a judge advocate for 12 years before that, in a variety of assignments. 

One of the things I loved most was advising / helping individuals improve their own lives, with a fair bit of legal assistance or just being that guy people bounced ideas off of. 

I'm very interested in personal finance and estate planning. I'm thinking of pursuing a LLM in tax / estate planning, online. UA (roll tide!) offers the online program. (I have an LLM in military law already) The only issue is I'd most likely leave federal service if I wanted to use the degree, although there's a possibility that a legal assistance job could open in the next couple years. I'd be interested in that for sure, although eventually could go private anyway.  The degree will cost around $45,000 over two years, so that's a consideration.

If you work in estate planning, how important is the specific LLM? How do you enjoy your job? How much does the school matter? (UA is obviously not Vanderbilt or Stanford, but doors do tend to open here with it). Any advice is appreciated. 

[Instinctive 509]

On 7/8/2020 at 8:09 AM, -OZ- said:

I was a judge advocate for 12 years before that, in a variety of assignments. 

One of the things I loved most was advising / helping individuals improve their own lives, with a fair bit of legal assistance or just being that guy people bounced ideas off of. 

I'm very interested in personal finance and estate planning. I'm thinking of pursuing a LLM in tax / estate planning, online. UA (roll tide!) offers the online program. (I have an LLM in military law already)

You take a PM on JAG? Don't want to clutter the thread but have toyed with this on and off and every year or so I do a little more research and get a little more serious about it. 

[-OZ- 8,116]

4 minutes ago, Instinctive said:

You take a PM on JAG? Don't want to clutter the thread but have toyed with this on and off and every year or so I do a little more research and get a little more serious about it. 

Sure. 

[shadrap 1,790]

Daughter getting a divorce in Denver area.  How do I hire a GREAT divorce attorney?  How do I find one?  Plenty of names out there but how do I know they are any good.  Recommendations are welcome.

Thanks big time.

 

[johnnycakes 1,189]

52 minutes ago, shadrap said:

Daughter getting a divorce in Denver area.  How do I hire a GREAT divorce attorney?  How do I find one?  Plenty of names out there but how do I know they are any good.  Recommendations are welcome.

Thanks big time.

 

I know when I was getting a divorce, I started by looking for an attorney who was a member of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.  I don't know how much that means, but I was looking for an attorney who focused on matrimonial law.  

[Zow 8,598]

48 minutes ago, shadrap said:

Daughter getting a divorce in Denver area.  How do I hire a GREAT divorce attorney?  How do I find one?  Plenty of names out there but how do I know they are any good.  Recommendations are welcome.

Thanks big time.

 

I do a lot of divorce work - albeit not in that jurisdiction (although I may have a referral - let me try to find it). 

Please do understand that it's a lot more complicated than finding a "great" lawyer and that "great" in the divorce context can mean different things. In my experience, the public generally defines a "great" divorce lawyer as an over-litigator. If money isn't a concern, and the potential client wants to take some pretty drastic/aggressive positions, then I suppose in that situation that lawyer would be great. However, bear in mind that generally the law and procedure for family law isn't all that complicated and that the reality of most situations is that it's in both parties' (and any kids in common's) best interests for the matter to settle. Furthermore, the true difficulty in a divorce case usually lies with the fact that divorce is a very emotional process but divorce law and procedure is rather unemotional. As such, most of the time a "great" lawyer is one who can connect with and communicate well with the client. With that in mind I'd encourage your daughter to set a few appointments and see which attorney or attorneys she is most comfortable with. Then, from there, maybe check some online reviews or, ideally, speak with other clients of that lawyer if at all possible. 

[Don Quixote 4,776]

1 hour ago, shadrap said:

Daughter getting a divorce in Denver area.  How do I hire a GREAT divorce attorney?  How do I find one?  Plenty of names out there but how do I know they are any good.  Recommendations are welcome.

Thanks big time.

 

My wife went to law school with someone who practices family law in the Denver area. Happy to shoot name/firm over PM.

[shadrap 1,790]

7 minutes ago, Zow said:

I do a lot of divorce work - albeit not in that jurisdiction (although I may have a referral - let me try to find it). 

Please do understand that it's a lot more complicated than finding a "great" lawyer and that "great" in the divorce context can mean different things. In my experience, the public generally defines a "great" divorce lawyer as an over-litigator. If money isn't a concern, and the potential client wants to take some pretty drastic/aggressive positions, then I suppose in that situation that lawyer would be great. However, bear in mind that generally the law and procedure for family law isn't all that complicated and that the reality of most situations is that it's in both parties' (and any kids in common's) best interests for the matter to settle. Furthermore, the true difficulty in a divorce case usually lies with the fact that divorce is a very emotional process but divorce law and procedure is rather unemotional. As such, most of the time a "great" lawyer is one who can connect with and communicate well with the client. With that in mind I'd encourage your daughter to set a few appointments and see which attorney or attorneys she is most comfortable with. Then, from there, maybe check some online reviews or, ideally, speak with other clients of that lawyer if at all possible. 

I have a greater understanding now.

I sincerely Thank you.

[shadrap 1,790]

1 minute ago, Don Quixote said:

My wife went to law school with someone who practices family law in the Denver area. Happy to shoot name/firm over PM.

Please do.

[shadrap 1,790]

On 6/25/2020 at 9:52 AM, Zow said:

So I've been offered an equity partnership at my firm. Been there one year as a lateral hire and came on with the understanding that if I met expectations they'd offer me an equity partnership - and here we are. Currently pretty happy with my current pay structure (50% of my receivables). Billing around 1950-2000 hours for the year - I work a lot but I probably can sustain this pace another ten years. Oddly, if I become an equity partner my "normal" bi-weekly monthly pay will go down quite a bit with anticipation of sizable quarterly payouts. The drop in bi-weekly pay actually has my wife a bit nervous as she handles our montly expenses and tends to look at money/income as the simple equation of "are we bringing in more money per month than our bills are?". However, when I met with the managing partner he discussed it like it was a no-brainer for me as the structure still gets me a very high percentage of my own receivables (seems like the wild card factor is firm expenses vary per quarter and I could have a great quarter but get a low percentage for reasons outside my control). Seems like it's the clear choice for the long-run as I should get a return on the investment as I rack up more shares and, frankly, if I want to chill out for a quarter or two here and there it'll provide a much higher floor. But, this is totally new territory for me as I've only ever been salaried or received a set percentage of my receivables (I've really enjoyed and felt incentivized by the latter). 

Anybody on here ever not been happy with going equity partner? Any horror stories I should consider?

Assuming I do, should I create an LLC to hold my shares?

Any other advice or input? 

I'd note that in ten or so years I could see myself pushing hard towards becoming either a Superior Court judge or an Appellate Court judge. I nearly ran for Superior Court judge 1.5 years ago when I was at my old firm (long ####### story there) and do think it's something I'd like to do one day. I could also see myself running a large public defender's office. That said, I really like my new/current firm and I have no intentions of leaving anytime soon (would take a sizable paycut probably if I became a judge or head PDO and that won't work with 4 kids). I'm just mentioning it because I genuinely don't know whether this is my forever job although I'd be all right with it if it was. 

not an attorney, but I think it is a no brainer so long as your associates are capable.    I can't imagine a firm offering that, knowing you will make less money.  4 kids =make as much money as you can, while you can.   IMHO

[-fish- 13,791]

On 7/8/2020 at 6:09 AM, -OZ- said:

Question gents and ladies,

I'm currently a federal civilian, working primarily in labor, investigations, and ethics. I've only been doing this for 3 years and it's okay but I don't love it.

I was a judge advocate for 12 years before that, in a variety of assignments. 

One of the things I loved most was advising / helping individuals improve their own lives, with a fair bit of legal assistance or just being that guy people bounced ideas off of. 

I'm very interested in personal finance and estate planning. I'm thinking of pursuing a LLM in tax / estate planning, online. UA (roll tide!) offers the online program. (I have an LLM in military law already) The only issue is I'd most likely leave federal service if I wanted to use the degree, although there's a possibility that a legal assistance job could open in the next couple years. I'd be interested in that for sure, although eventually could go private anyway.  The degree will cost around $45,000 over two years, so that's a consideration.

If you work in estate planning, how important is the specific LLM? How do you enjoy your job? How much does the school matter? (UA is obviously not Vanderbilt or Stanford, but doors do tend to open here with it). Any advice is appreciated. 

I've worked with some of the top estate people in the Seattle area on some fairly massive family trust and business issues.  I've never known if any of them has an LLM.  I just looked at a handful of their profiles and none seem to have one.

 

[Otis 13,523]

I’ll never understand you guys who love doing this. Like “oh man have you read that latest Court opinion!  So rad!”

I do this because it pays the bills. It’s a transaction. But it’s super not fun.  Am I alone in that?

[the rover 5,484]

59 minutes ago, Otis said:

I’ll never understand you guys who love doing this. Like “oh man have you read that latest Court opinion!  So rad!”

I do this because it pays the bills. It’s a transaction. But it’s super not fun.  Am I alone in that?

I like the litigation part and really like doing appeals.  Dealing with clients is the part that sucks for me.

[thecatch 2,234]

I had to do a bunch of work around the house today and almost caught up on listening to my backlog of Supreme Court arguments. I love the intellectual legal stuff (appeals, dispositive motions briefing, etc.). But, if the bulk of my practice involved discovery or actual trials, I’d be counting down the hours to my retirement. 

[Otis 13,523]

33 minutes ago, the rover said:

I like the litigation part and really like doing appeals.  Dealing with clients is the part that sucks for me.

Begging for work is fun too. Love business development. Must have been nice in the old days when the clients just showed up. 

[Zow 8,598]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

I’ll never understand you guys who love doing this. Like “oh man have you read that latest Court opinion!  So rad!”

I do this because it pays the bills. It’s a transaction. But it’s super not fun.  Am I alone in that?

Hearing “not guilty” across the board with a client facing natural life in prison ranks right up there with having sex for the first time, winning a major sporting event, getting married, adopting my kids, etc. That will never go away. But these moments are few and far between (3x so far and have another shot at it in September). 
 

Otherwise I find that the longer I do this the more it is transactional. I used to love attending CLEs and learning new case law but that’s worn off. I’m assuming this is natural as when one is a young lawyer one feels a natural esteem for the profession that wears off with each unreasonable client and unsatisfying ruling. Life position also makes a big difference as I care a lot more about what I’m making now that I have five others relying solely on me. So yeah, I care where more now about getting paid on a case.  
 

There are some lawyers that truly do love the law. Usually they seem to wind up in a salaried public service position. And that’s okay. 

[the rover 5,484]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

Begging for work is fun too. Love business development. Must have been nice in the old days when the clients just showed up. 

My clients just show up. We actually cut our marketing budget to 0 two years ago.  Just living on reputation and referrals now.

Edited July 15, 2020 by the rover

[Don't Toews Me 606]

1 hour ago, Zow said:

Hearing “not guilty” across the board with a client facing natural life in prison ranks right up there with having sex for the first time, winning a major sporting event, getting married, adopting my kids, etc. That will never go away. But these moments are few and far between (3x so far and have another shot at it in September). 
 

Otherwise I find that the longer I do this the more it is transactional. I used to love attending CLEs and learning new case law but that’s worn off. I’m assuming this is natural as when one is a young lawyer one feels a natural esteem for the profession that wears off with each unreasonable client and unsatisfying ruling. Life position also makes a big difference as I care a lot more about what I’m making now that I have five others relying solely on me. So yeah, I care where more now about getting paid on a case.  
 

There are some lawyers that truly do love the law. Usually they seem to wind up in a salaried public service position. And that’s okay. 

Not a lawyer here and this may be off-topic, but i'm curious. Do you think the bold is something that's seen in most professions? In essence, the excitement wears off after a period of time? Or do you think the stress of the job and the wear and tear of the gig makes it more exclusive with law? Or perhaps found more often in law than in other fields? 

In other words, do most gigs become transactional after a period of time? Especially as one grows older and has more financial responsibilities as it pertains to their family? At some point, I have to wonder that it becomes more clear as time goes on that you're doing your job to keep your family afloat and it may not necessarily be what you'd be doing if that responsibility was not on your plate. 

 

[Zow 8,598]

Made partner today. 

[-fish- 13,791]

On 7/15/2020 at 10:11 PM, Zow said:

Made partner today. 

Congratulations.