What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

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

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113318&p=16724589

I guess this thread is for venting about legal discussion. I'll just put this here.
I have no idea what that guy's point was and I read his posts like 8 times.
"I went to law school and I can use this language however I want to."
Even apart from misusing a couple of words, I don't know what he was getting at.

To be fair, I never passed the NY bar or graduated from a top fifty.
He's just trying to say that the Supreme Court has usurped state's rights and actively made federal law they had no business making based on his interpretation of the Constitution, which is the correct one (in his head, obviously.) He had to go all "yea, the speckled she-bear" on us, though, and it didn't work out so well.
No, that's not at all what I'm trying to say. Disagree as you will with what "codify" means, but this is the most condescending thing I've ever read. I think you pay great attention to detail, Henry. And you sort of edited your post and then...Dude, do what you want. This is sort of nasty.
I'm happy for you that you've never had to read something more condescending than that.

 
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113318&p=16724589

I guess this thread is for venting about legal discussion. I'll just put this here.
I have no idea what that guy's point was and I read his posts like 8 times.
"I went to law school and I can use this language however I want to."
Even apart from misusing a couple of words, I don't know what he was getting at.

To be fair, I never passed the NY bar or graduated from a top fifty.
He's just trying to say that the Supreme Court has usurped state's rights and actively made federal law they had no business making based on his interpretation of the Constitution, which is the correct one (in his head, obviously.) He had to go all "yea, the speckled she-bear" on us, though, and it didn't work out so well.
No, that's not at all what I'm trying to say. Disagree as you will with what "codify" means, but this is the most condescending thing I've ever read. I think you pay great attention to detail, Henry. And you sort of edited your post and then...Dude, do what you want. This is sort of nasty.
I'm happy for you that you've never had to read something more condescending than that.
Wow. Okay. We walk...different paths. Not sure you're as smart as you think you are, mang.

Peace.

 
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113318&p=16724589

I guess this thread is for venting about legal discussion. I'll just put this here.
I have no idea what that guy's point was and I read his posts like 8 times.
"I went to law school and I can use this language however I want to."
Even apart from misusing a couple of words, I don't know what he was getting at.

To be fair, I never passed the NY bar or graduated from a top fifty.
He's just trying to say that the Supreme Court has usurped state's rights and actively made federal law they had no business making based on his interpretation of the Constitution, which is the correct one (in his head, obviously.) He had to go all "yea, the speckled she-bear" on us, though, and it didn't work out so well.
No, that's not at all what I'm trying to say. Disagree as you will with what "codify" means, but this is the most condescending thing I've ever read. I think you pay great attention to detail, Henry. And you sort of edited your post and then...Dude, do what you want. This is sort of nasty.
I'm happy for you that you've never had to read something more condescending than that.
Wow. Okay. We walk...different paths. Not sure you're as smart as you think you are, mang.

Peace.
I have no illusions about being smarter than you are, or anyone else is. Nor am I intending to be condescending with that post. And if what you read in that post is condescension, well, maybe your head goes to the place where your posts come from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113318&p=16724589

I guess this thread is for venting about legal discussion. I'll just put this here.
I have no idea what that guy's point was and I read his posts like 8 times.
"I went to law school and I can use this language however I want to."
Even apart from misusing a couple of words, I don't know what he was getting at.

To be fair, I never passed the NY bar or graduated from a top fifty.
He's just trying to say that the Supreme Court has usurped state's rights and actively made federal law they had no business making based on his interpretation of the Constitution, which is the correct one (in his head, obviously.) He had to go all "yea, the speckled she-bear" on us, though, and it didn't work out so well.
No, that's not at all what I'm trying to say. Disagree as you will with what "codify" means, but this is the most condescending thing I've ever read. I think you pay great attention to detail, Henry. And you sort of edited your post and then...Dude, do what you want. This is sort of nasty.
I'm happy for you that you've never had to read something more condescending than that.
Wow. Okay. We walk...different paths. Not sure you're as smart as you think you are, mang.

Peace.
I have no illusions about being smarter than you are, or anyone else is. Nor am I intending to be condescending with that post. And if what you read in that post is condescension, well, maybe your head goes to the place where your posts come from.
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?

 
Because the judge that was assigned to hear the motion was not the judge who tried the case and therefore the motion judge wanted the other judge to deal with it - and that judge wasn't in today.
If the other attorney had showed up, was this judge still going to punt, or was he going to hold the hearing? It'd be pretty weird if he was prepared to entertain argument and make a ruling, but was not willing to enter a default. I mean, it's weird that he wouldn't enter a default either way, but even weirder if he was prepared to hold the hearing.
I don't know. What pisses me off more than anything else is the motion judge is a judge I am in front of all the time and I actually do mediation for this judge. Without being on a committee.

This was just calendar moving without regard to the litigants because the administrative office of the courts probably yelled at him for something recently and he's trying to make his schedule look better. Whatever.
I have no idea what this means. Your clerk of court gets to yell at judges? What's that like?

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...
That hurt a little

 
Because the judge that was assigned to hear the motion was not the judge who tried the case and therefore the motion judge wanted the other judge to deal with it - and that judge wasn't in today.
If the other attorney had showed up, was this judge still going to punt, or was he going to hold the hearing? It'd be pretty weird if he was prepared to entertain argument and make a ruling, but was not willing to enter a default. I mean, it's weird that he wouldn't enter a default either way, but even weirder if he was prepared to hold the hearing.
I think it would be weird if he was actually prepared to hold the hearing on the merits of the motion to reconsider. My brief exposure to New Jersey state courts made my head hurt, but it seems insane that you could try a case before the finder of fact, and then argue the motion to reconsider before another judge.

 
Because the judge that was assigned to hear the motion was not the judge who tried the case and therefore the motion judge wanted the other judge to deal with it - and that judge wasn't in today.
If the other attorney had showed up, was this judge still going to punt, or was he going to hold the hearing? It'd be pretty weird if he was prepared to entertain argument and make a ruling, but was not willing to enter a default. I mean, it's weird that he wouldn't enter a default either way, but even weirder if he was prepared to hold the hearing.
I think it would be weird if he was actually prepared to hold the hearing on the merits of the motion to reconsider. My brief exposure to New Jersey state courts made my head hurt, but it seems insane that you could try a case before the finder of fact, and then argue the motion to reconsider before another judge.
Its not very surprising that a judge would be reluctant to default the motion in these circumstances. Frustrating and annoying, but not all that unusual.

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...
So, what? Carradine's just another guy who strangled himself in a closet while masturbating to you?

 
ok

since none of you are South African lawyers i do not know if anyone knows the answer to this, BUT I'll ask anyway

it is correct, o believe, that in our country Oscar Pistorius could not have been made to take the stand.

Was he obligated to over there? does anyone know? By all accounts he kind of got torn apart and did himself no favors up there. I was just wondering if he had to testify or if (as over here) he could have chosen not to.

as a secondary question, what is the rationale behind allowing someone to not incriminate themselves? It seems to me hearing from the defendant in a criminal case is a pretty important thing.
1. No clue.

2. The rationale stems from our burden of proof standard in the criminal court - that the state bears the entire burden. Accordingly, since they bear the burden, the Defendant technically doesn't need to put on any sort of defense. Furthermore, since the jury's focus should be mainly on the state's evidence, if a defendant could be compelled to testify by the state then the trial may turn more into a smearing contest of the defendant's character or, quite possibly, the jury could convict the Defendant simply because they didn't like him. This isn't consistent with the burden of proof. And that pesky 5th Amendment.

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...
So, what? Carradine's just another guy who strangled himself in a closet while masturbating to you?
I saw a picture of Carradine's "crime scene" photos in a CLE once. Along with many other similar deaths, many of whom were white upper class dentists.

Not a CLE I slept through, although about half the crowd walked out.

 
Our administrative office of the courts is the supreme court and it's administrative wing to run the judiciary. So that's who yells at judges to move their calendars.

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...
So, what? Carradine's just another guy who strangled himself in a closet while masturbating to you?
He was masturbating to rocknation?!? :shock:

 
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...
So, what? Carradine's just another guy who strangled himself in a closet while masturbating to you?
He was masturbating to rocknation?!? :shock:
Beat me to it. If he died in 2010, it was a sad, sad masturbatory experience, I assure you.

 
TheIronSheik said:
Henry Ford said:
rockaction said:
Henry Ford said:
rockaction said:
I generally go with the opinion that the crowd -- as sourced -- is much, much smarter than I am. By ten folds. By a ton. By whatever colloquialism you'll want to use. That's a genuine sentiment. Such as learning about the exact meaning of codification, which really wasn't my point, but become a huge bone of contention. And that's about it.

I apologize for the "terrier" comments, if those rankled you.
It's the internet. I'm not worried about it, I'm not offended and angry, and assumed we were just giving each other #### back and forth until you started using ellipses in your sentences. Then #### got real.

I'm hopeful this won't sound condescending, but rather funny:

Can you do "We walk.... different paths" in the voice of Kwai Chang Caine? Just once?
Too young to even get the reference...
So, what? Carradine's just another guy who strangled himself in a closet while masturbating to you?
He was masturbating to rocknation?!? :shock:
Yeah. So?

 
B-Deep said:
ok

since none of you are South African lawyers i do not know if anyone knows the answer to this, BUT I'll ask anyway

it is correct, o believe, that in our country Oscar Pistorius could not have been made to take the stand.

Was he obligated to over there? does anyone know? By all accounts he kind of got torn apart and did himself no favors up there. I was just wondering if he had to testify or if (as over here) he could have chosen not to.
He was not obligated to testify. See this document at page 12.

The Zimmerman case here in the states was kind of weird in that Zimmerman offered a self-defense defense without testifying. That's hard to do. If the evidence clearly shows that a defendant shot and killed a victim, the testimony of the accused is normally the only way to establish facts that support a self-defense defense. This is one reason why I think it was deeply weird that the prosecution in the Zimmerman case essentially opened the door to hearsay evidence supporting Zimmerman's defense. I think that was a mistake.

 
http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=113318&p=16724589

I guess this thread is for venting about legal discussion. I'll just put this here.
I have no idea what that guy's point was and I read his posts like 8 times.
"I went to law school and I can use this language however I want to."
Even apart from misusing a couple of words, I don't know what he was getting at.

To be fair, I never passed the NY bar or graduated from a top fifty.
He's just trying to say that the Supreme Court has usurped state's rights and actively made federal law they had no business making based on his interpretation of the Constitution, which is the correct one (in his head, obviously.) He had to go all "yea, the speckled she-bear" on us, though, and it didn't work out so well.
Now you're just making things up.
It's my favorite opinion ever. Ever. You haven't read it? It's about a cab driver who jumps out of his cab during an emergency, and it severely injures someone - maybe kills. *Nope- looked it up, slight injuries.

Okay, I completely screwed up the language.

Cordas v. Peerless Transportation Co. 27 NYS2d 198.

There are those who stem the turbulent current for bubble fame, or who bridge the yawning chasm with a leap for the leap's sake, or who "outstare the sternest eyes that look, outbrave the heart most daring on the earth, pluck the young sucking cubs from the she-bear, yea, mock the lion when he roars for prey" to win a fair lady, and these are the admiration of the generality of men; but they are made of sterner stuff than the ordinary many upon whom the law places no duty of emulation.

Translation - the reasonable man is a #####. Case dismissed.
I think I get this upon reflection. You have to understand, I've quit smoking and taken the day off in a haze of inebriation. Regardless, even though I have a limited capacity for schadenfreude, as long as we're trading cases, this one might be my favorite case ever. It's darkly humorous. From Dressler's Crim Law casebook, it made me laugh out loud, which surprised me. I don't usually get off on stuff like this. I think what does it is that the footnotes the judge includes are so...humane.

You have to click the ellipses to unedit the edited case. It's worth it. Bailey v. Commonwealth of Virginia. Not funny, unless it is.

http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/collages/10036

 
Bailey knew further that Murdock was easily agitated and that he became especially angry if anyone disparaged his war hero, General George S. Patton. During the conversation in question, Bailey implied that General Patton and Murdock himself were homosexuals
Best part. Dying laughing with a buddy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bailey knew further that Murdock was easily agitated and that he became especially angry if anyone disparaged his war hero, General George S. Patton. During the conversation in question, Bailey implied that General Patton and Murdock himself were homosexuals
Best part. Dying laughing with a buddy.
My friend and I with similar senses of humor have re-enacted that conversation. That's the kicker of the case. Unreal.

 
I can't decide how a guy outside Roanoke in the early 80s using a cb radio would "imply" that George S. Patton and another man are homosexuals.

 
I can't decide how a guy outside Roanoke in the early 80s using a cb radio would "imply" that George S. Patton and another man are homosexuals.
That hit me last night. Did he make clucking noises with his tongue or something? My word. Anyway, thanks for reading the case. Always a favorite of mine to share, yet very few people appreciate it.

 
I can't decide how a guy outside Roanoke in the early 80s using a cb radio would "imply" that George S. Patton and another man are homosexuals.
That hit me last night. Did he make clucking noises with his tongue or something? My word. Anyway, thanks for reading the case. Always a favorite of mine to share, yet very few people appreciate it.
It seems like a judicial opinion method of explaining that one guy said over a CB that the other guy liked to go down on General Patton.

 
I can't decide how a guy outside Roanoke in the early 80s using a cb radio would "imply" that George S. Patton and another man are homosexuals.
"So when Georgie finishes is it only semen that drips out of your ### or is it blood and guts too?"

"You like to reenact the slapping incident with George, don't you."

 
If we're talking funny law things we've read, I'd highly recommend the following ALR reports:

87 A.L.R.3d 351-Attorney's verbal abuse of another attorney as grounds for disciplinary action

and

85 A.L.R.4th 544- Bringing of frivolous civil claim as ground for discipline of attorney. The best quote from that one is

n Re Jafree (1982) 93 Ill 2d 450, 67 Ill Dec 104, 444 NE2d 143, later proceeding (CA7) 759 F2d 604, the court ordered disbarment of an attorney, finding that the attorney's purpose was to harass the defendants with vexatious claims, where during his 10-year career the attorney had instituted over 40 frivolous lawsuits and appeals. The court recited several examples, including a suit on behalf of all the trees in the United States to have the in forma pauperis forms used in the Federal District Court declared unconstitutional, suits against law schools seeking to have law degrees awarded to him nunc pro tunc, and against several individuals for breaching the United States Treaty of Friendship with Pakistan. He also filed a complaint with the Pollution Control Board, charging an individual with pollution of the mind and contamination of the air with character assassination. In determining what degree of discipline was warranted, the court considered that the attorney's legal career had been characterized by the filing of frivolous lawsuits and scurrilous charges and that he had previously been suspended. The court concluded that the attorney was not capable of conforming his conduct to an acceptable standard, and that his unprofessionalism was an abuse of the privilege to practice law and clearly tended to bring the judicial system and legal profession into disrepute.
 
If we're talking funny law things we've read, I'd highly recommend the following ALR reports:

87 A.L.R.3d 351-Attorney's verbal abuse of another attorney as grounds for disciplinary action

and

85 A.L.R.4th 544- Bringing of frivolous civil claim as ground for discipline of attorney. The best quote from that one is

n Re Jafree (1982) 93 Ill 2d 450, 67 Ill Dec 104, 444 NE2d 143, later proceeding (CA7) 759 F2d 604, the court ordered disbarment of an attorney, finding that the attorney's purpose was to harass the defendants with vexatious claims, where during his 10-year career the attorney had instituted over 40 frivolous lawsuits and appeals. The court recited several examples, including a suit on behalf of all the trees in the United States to have the in forma pauperis forms used in the Federal District Court declared unconstitutional, suits against law schools seeking to have law degrees awarded to him nunc pro tunc, and against several individuals for breaching the United States Treaty of Friendship with Pakistan. He also filed a complaint with the Pollution Control Board, charging an individual with pollution of the mind and contamination of the air with character assassination. In determining what degree of discipline was warranted, the court considered that the attorney's legal career had been characterized by the filing of frivolous lawsuits and scurrilous charges and that he had previously been suspended. The court concluded that the attorney was not capable of conforming his conduct to an acceptable standard, and that his unprofessionalism was an abuse of the privilege to practice law and clearly tended to bring the judicial system and legal profession into disrepute.
Didn't Douglas want to give standing to the trees, too? Back in the seventies.

Anyway, the contamination of the air with character assassination is effing genius. :lmao:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm fairly sure you guys have heard of Jonathan Lee Riches.

Some of Riches' defendants are not even persons subject to suit. These include "Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party" and the "13 tribes of Israel." One lawsuit, which includes George Bush, also includes another 783 defendants that cover 57 pages. They include Plato, Nostradamus, Che Guevara, James Hoffa, "Various Buddhist Monks," all survivors of the Holocaust, the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel Tower, the USS Cole, the book Mein Kampf, the Garden of Eden, the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Appalachian Trail, Plymouth Rock, the Holy Grail, Nordic gods, the dwarf planet Pluto, and the entire Three Mile Island.
I'm pretty sure he sued the Taj Mahal once too but can't find a link.

 
I'm fairly sure you guys have heard of Jonathan Lee Riches.

Some of Riches' defendants are not even persons subject to suit. These include "Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Party" and the "13 tribes of Israel." One lawsuit, which includes George Bush, also includes another 783 defendants that cover 57 pages. They include Plato, Nostradamus, Che Guevara, James Hoffa, "Various Buddhist Monks," all survivors of the Holocaust, the Lincoln Memorial, the Eiffel Tower, the USS Cole, the book Mein Kampf, the Garden of Eden, the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, the Appalachian Trail, Plymouth Rock, the Holy Grail, Nordic gods, the dwarf planet Pluto, and the entire Three Mile Island.
I'm pretty sure he sued the Taj Mahal once too but can't find a link.
He sued Belichick, Brady, and Moss for illegal surveillance.

Love him.

 
Spent about four hours of unbillable time yesterday and today in a pissing match with an out-of-state attorney about the language on a title insurance policy. He caved. I take no joy in this victory.

 
Spent about four hours of unbillable time yesterday and today in a pissing match with an out-of-state attorney about the language on a title insurance policy. He caved. I take no joy in this victory.
Now would be a good time to send him an email telling him your client changed his mind.

 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?

 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?
Well, two things:

1. I'm always tempted to work with opposing counsel, because it's good practice; and

2. It isn't the movies. Everybody gets almost everything anyway. No surprises in court (except for one story I may tell some day.)

So, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?
If I hate a client that much I usually just withdraw and send them to someone else. I do have several annoying clients, but it's generally pretty easy to control communication.

 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?
Well, two things:

1. I'm always tempted to work with opposing counsel, because it's good practice; and

2. It isn't the movies. Everybody gets almost everything anyway. No surprises in court (except for one story I may tell some day.)

So, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
My thoughts exactly. I'm not a "hide the ball" kind of guy (even in criminal cases) so "working with opposition counsel" is something I do in every case anyway. Regarding giving them something, I can't imagine what you'd be hiding from them that you wouldn't ordinarily give them that wouldn't be cover by attorney client privilege or your duty of confidentiality.

 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?
In the areas of law I work in I often don't have "opposing counsel", and if I do (in the M&A context primarily) I see us as all having the same basic goal, which is getting the deal done, so no. Somewhat related to the question, though, I can admit to having a little bit of "I told you so" satisfaction in a few instances where someone unreasonably did not take my advice.

One recent instance was when we were doing an acquisition of a company that had numerous issues, the largest of which was that it turned out that the majority of its revenue was earned under government contracts. These contracts are generally not assignable without government consent and also have provisions that are much, much more onerous than a contract with a non-government entity. My guys were, as always, just pushing to do the deal as quickly as possible, not to get the consents as they would take too much time, were sure they could operate under the contracts despite my pointing out several instances where our procedures simply wouldn't allow us to operate within their terms, etc. Just get 'er done (they actually used those very words for pretty much every deal).

Sure enough, within two months after closing, we were violating the contracts left and right as we were not able to function under them, and we hadn't gotten the assignments so were actually hoping that the government entities would just cancel the contracts, etc. Our guys...I wish I were making this up...came to me telling me that I had to unwind the deal. Um, no, we can't just give the assets back. Why not? Well, it just doesn't work that way. I actually had to have that conversation with everyone up through and including the President of the business unit. No, you can't just give the assets back and say you want the money back.

Sheeeeeeesh. Anyway, being able to think "I was right" gave me a small amount of pleasure, even though it would have been better for me if I had been wrong.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I sit here at 5 PM on Good Friday with the prospect of the week's end in sight, I have to give you BigLaw guys either a compliment or a dig (take whichever way you want). I don't know how you guys handle the hours. Generally, I work about 45-50. The past 8 weeks, with the partners out on maternity/paternity, I haven't worked a week under 60 hours. In that time I haven't seen the gym, have gained about ten pounds despite some decent dieting, lost ten yards on my drive, have acne, lost a step, and am turning the wife away before bed because all I want to do is sleep. Granted, the recent fat bonus check I got was nice, but my wife spent that in about thirty minutes on new furniture (which we needed - but new irons woulda been so much more rewarding).

So… congrats?

 
As I sit here at 5 PM on Good Friday with the prospect of the week's end in sight, I have to give you BigLaw guys either a compliment or a dig (take whichever way you want). I don't know how you guys handle the hours. Generally, I work about 45-50. The past 8 weeks, with the partners out on maternity/paternity, I haven't worked a week under 60 hours. In that time I haven't seen the gym, have gained about ten pounds despite some decent dieting, lost ten yards on my drive, have acne, lost a step, and am turning the wife away before bed because all I want to do is sleep. Granted, the recent fat bonus check I got was nice, but my wife spent that in about thirty minutes on new furniture (which we needed - but new irons woulda been so much more rewarding).

So congrats?
Now you can consider yourself married
 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?
I've twice had "the talk" with a client where I've told them that we had reached a point where they were no longer taking my advice, and as I result I thought it wise for them to seek a new lawyer. Thankfully both times they did take THAT advice, and found different counsel.

 
Very few weeks under 60 hours for me as well, and I've only worked at small firms.

Though I will say I've never really blinked at a lot of hours, even before I was a lawyer. I worked in real estate during the boom and up to 75 for some stretches was not uncommon.

 
Do you ever have a client that is so unreasonable that you are tempted to work with the opposition counsel or give them info that will expedite getting rid if your client?
I've twice had "the talk" with a client where I've told them that we had reached a point where they were no longer taking my advice, and as I result I thought it wise for them to seek a new lawyer. Thankfully both times they did take THAT advice, and found different counsel.
I withdrew from a couple cases already this year. When you take a high risk contingency case, if they won't take your advice, you just have to let it go.

 
As I sit here at 5 PM on Good Friday with the prospect of the week's end in sight, I have to give you BigLaw guys either a compliment or a dig (take whichever way you want). I don't know how you guys handle the hours. Generally, I work about 45-50. The past 8 weeks, with the partners out on maternity/paternity, I haven't worked a week under 60 hours. In that time I haven't seen the gym, have gained about ten pounds despite some decent dieting, lost ten yards on my drive, have acne, lost a step, and am turning the wife away before bed because all I want to do is sleep. Granted, the recent fat bonus check I got was nice, but my wife spent that in about thirty minutes on new furniture (which we needed - but new irons woulda been so much more rewarding).

So… congrats?
Yet everyone still has plenty of time to post here.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top