Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 6.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't know if there's a real pinnacle to this profession. Some times it really seems like there isn't one. But I do now know that when you're standing there waiting and hoping for two words instead

Made partner today. 

Big news for The_Son - just found out he got the Rubenstein Scholarship from Chicago! Full tuition + a $20,000 per year stipend. Last week he was fortunate enough to be offered a full-tuition scholars

Strongly considering filing a motion to change that judge on that case I keep bringing up. I've done the research and believe I have a basis (although I'd bet on the motion losing). Also want to preserve the issue for appeal because by losing this hearing the judge has essentially tipped his hand as to where he may be leaning for the trial. Got the partners blessing on filing too.

Just tough pulling the trigger in a small jurisdiction and I do believe this judge would take the motion personally and possibly "punish" me for it in future hearings. Deadline on filing is today, so gotta choose quickly. :wall:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strongly considering filing a motion to change that judge on that case I keep bringing up. I've done the research and believe I have a basis (although I'd bet on the motion losing). Also want to preserve the issue for appeal because by losing this hearing the judge has essentially tipped his hand as to where he may be leaning for the trial. Got the partners blessing on filing too.

Just tough pulling the trigger in a small jurisdiction and I do believe this judge would take the motion personally and possibly "punish" me for it in future hearings. Deadline on filing is today, so gotta choose quickly. :wall:

Well you got to do everything you can for your client right? If it's the right thing to do then I guess you go for it and let the chips fall where they will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is appropriate, file the motion. Do your job.

Yep. Just whining, #####ing, and ranting.

Isn't that what we do in this thread?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is appropriate, file the motion. Do your job.

Yep. Just whining, #####ing, and ranting.

Isn't that what we do in this thread?

Yup. I was going to type a long rant but the typing was part of the rant.... so, I'm just going to go home and have a drink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it legal for a person to lie to their lawyer when they know he/she is going to misrepresent the truth to the court? Why isn't that perjury? Or something similar?

Because they aren't under oath.

But isn't the lawyer "under oath" (or the equivalent -- prevented from lying somehow) when they address the court?

You can't knowingly make a false statement to the court or solicit one from a witness or your client.

As others have said, however, often the lawyer doesn't know the truth and is simply acting as a "zealous advocate" for their client. Most criminal attorneys, for this reason, don't want to know whether their client is actually guilty or innocent, and often tell their clients that.

There's also something called the litigation privilege which also protects attorneys.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot count how many times I've been the revealer of cheating or the attorney-victim of a client who swore to me that they weren't until the other side nailed them in court somehow or in a deposition. The reaction is always the same:

You either see them thinking or they actually say, "How in the hell did they find out?" It's like a confused puppy look mixed with that feeling of fear that you get when you speed past the cop in the speedtrap that you saw too late to slow down so you look behind you for three miles on the highway.

I've throw my briefcase/satchel whatever the hell you call it at a client in a conference room for lying to me and making me look like the schmuk in open court.

My favorite was the chick that sworn up and down no affair and that she had no money and needed every type of support imaginable only to find out by way of subpoena for my guy that she (1) bought a house for her boyfriend during the divorce and (2) paid cash.

That was a fun phone call to opposing counsel. So, Dave, how are things. Good good, yeah, I need a new set of clubs too. Yeah, aren't we all. Listen, I don't want you to be surprised in court, but I just found out your girl bought a house cash for her boyfriend so I'll be filing a motion. Yeah, if you want to talk to her. Sure, if you send a settlement offer I'll have him consider it before I file. Tomorrow? Yeah I'll be in. Thanks.

And this sort of situation, friends, is why you don't act like a #### to opposing counsel unless you have to.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you quit the case if your client lies to you about something they know you'll be representing to the court?

(I'd suck so bad at being a lawyer.)

Possibly.

Ethically you have to notify the client that you cannot make the argument(s) that are based upon the lie(s) they want to tell, and you have to avoid asking them the questions that they'll lie to answer. If the client persists in wanting to tell their lie, you are certainly entitled and arguably obligated to withdraw from the case. You'd have to file a motion, and it might require an in camera hearing wherein you disclosed off the record and privately to the judge that the client wished to lie and you could not ethically continue to represent them.

The judge would be pretty hard-pressed to keep you in the case under those circumstances, though it would be possible for the client to testify without you questioning them as a way of avoiding your ethical violation; that would also look VERY strange to a jury which would immediately start to speculate about why that was happening and might ultimately figure it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

I really like John Oliver and I currently represent my wife.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

I really like John Oliver and I currently represent my wife.

So then no on the sex with clients portion?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

I really like John Oliver and I currently represent my wife.

So then no on the sex with clients portion?

This guy gets it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all

swear allegiance to the British government and

have sex with your clients.

Comments?

Ah yes, the ucc argument mixed with the gold trim in the flag. He was trained by the best.
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

I really like John Oliver and I currently represent my wife.

So then no on the sex with clients portion?

This guy gets it.

No I'm married as well

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be some weird thing going around the internet saying that "Bar" as in "Bar Association" is an Acronym that stands for British Accreditation Registry. We're apparently all part of a secret conspiracy and swear a secret oath.

Now I know how the Freemasons felt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be some weird thing going around the internet saying that "Bar" as in "Bar Association" is an Acronym that stands for British Accreditation Registry. We're apparently all part of a secret conspiracy and swear a secret oath.

Now I know how the Freemasons felt.

The use of the term bar to mean "the whole body of lawyers, the legal profession" comes ultimately from English custom. In the early 16th century, a railing divided the hall in the Inns of Court, with students occupying the body of the hall and readers or benchers on the other side. Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar"

For those who might not be aware.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

My favorite part of court appearances is where after we are done, we kick out all the common people and clients and this massive big screen TV comes out of the wall behind the judges bench (they have this in all courtroom in the country by the way) and the queen appears to go through the day M style like in James Bond. Then we laugh and make sure we all say we had a "jolly good show" today, the queen giggles and then moves on. I've actually wondered if it was really a live feed on occaision because the laugh is always the same.

And then we drink a beer. Good rule of thumb - if you are ever in a courtroom and you want a sip of water from the pitcher on the table with the cups - just don't. Trust me on this.

I've never had sex with a client though. I've seen that movie. Never ends well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

My favorite part of court appearances is where after we are done, we kick out all the common people and clients and this massive big screen TV comes out of the wall behind the judges bench (they have this in all courtroom in the country by the way) and the queen appears to go through the day M style like in James Bond. Then we laugh and make sure we all say we had a "jolly good show" today, the queen giggles and then moves on. I've actually wondered if it was really a live feed on occaision because the laugh is always the same.

And then we drink a beer. Good rule of thumb - if you are ever in a courtroom and you want a sip of water from the pitcher on the table with the cups - just don't. Trust me on this.

I've never had sex with a client though. I've seen that movie. Never ends well.

They only do that in Federal Court in Louisiana. State Court we have to listen to Francoise Hollande.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

My favorite part of court appearances is where after we are done, we kick out all the common people and clients and this massive big screen TV comes out of the wall behind the judges bench (they have this in all courtroom in the country by the way) and the queen appears to go through the day M style like in James Bond. Then we laugh and make sure we all say we had a "jolly good show" today, the queen giggles and then moves on. I've actually wondered if it was really a live feed on occaision because the laugh is always the same.

And then we drink a beer. Good rule of thumb - if you are ever in a courtroom and you want a sip of water from the pitcher on the table with the cups - just don't. Trust me on this.

I've never had sex with a client though. I've seen that movie. Never ends well.

They only do that in Federal Court in Louisiana. State Court we have to listen to Francoise Hollande.

Yeah, frenchies suck. Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Cliven Bundy's supporters, who refers to himself as a "self-trained lawyer", says "bar-trained lawyers" can't be trusted because you all swear allegiance to the British government and have sex with your clients.

Comments?

My favorite part of court appearances is where after we are done, we kick out all the common people and clients and this massive big screen TV comes out of the wall behind the judges bench (they have this in all courtroom in the country by the way) and the queen appears to go through the day M style like in James Bond. Then we laugh and make sure we all say we had a "jolly good show" today, the queen giggles and then moves on. I've actually wondered if it was really a live feed on occaision because the laugh is always the same.

And then we drink a beer. Good rule of thumb - if you are ever in a courtroom and you want a sip of water from the pitcher on the table with the cups - just don't. Trust me on this.

I've never had sex with a client though. I've seen that movie. Never ends well.

They only do that in Federal Court in Louisiana. State Court we have to listen to Francoise Hollande.

Yeah, frenchies suck. Sorry.

We popped a bottle of California Blanc de Noir the other day and called it Champagne. Man, did he lose it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be some weird thing going around the internet saying that "Bar" as in "Bar Association" is an Acronym that stands for British Accreditation Registry. We're apparently all part of a secret conspiracy and swear a secret oath.

Now I know how the Freemasons felt.

The use of the term bar to mean "the whole body of lawyers, the legal profession" comes ultimately from English custom. In the early 16th century, a railing divided the hall in the Inns of Court, with students occupying the body of the hall and readers or benchers on the other side. Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar"

For those who might not be aware.

It's all :bs: The bar is where we gather after the courts are closed for the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There appears to be some weird thing going around the internet saying that "Bar" as in "Bar Association" is an Acronym that stands for British Accreditation Registry. We're apparently all part of a secret conspiracy and swear a secret oath.

Now I know how the Freemasons felt.

The use of the term bar to mean "the whole body of lawyers, the legal profession" comes ultimately from English custom. In the early 16th century, a railing divided the hall in the Inns of Court, with students occupying the body of the hall and readers or benchers on the other side. Students who officially became lawyers crossed the symbolic physical barrier and were "admitted to the bar"

For those who might not be aware.

It's all :bs: The bar is where we gather after the courts are closed for the day.

The day I passed the Louisiana bar was the last time I passed a bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim, do you have a link to this guy's comments? I'd like to share them with the office.

It's in the Bundy thread.

FWIW, I always thought "bar", in connection with the law, meant a place that you go to drink large amounts of liquor. Certainly the attorneys I've known personally did nothing to dissuade me that this was the fact of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Opening_delayed_in_trial_of_defendant_ordered_to_represent_himself_.html

Wondering what you guys thought of this... (full story link above)

Joshua Nisbet, a criminal defendant described as so uncooperative with his court-appointed attorneys that a judge stripped him of his constitutional right to a lawyer, was polite, deferential and self-effacing Monday as he began representing himself on the first day of his trial on a robbery charge.

Nisbet, who turns 37 on Tuesday, drew some chuckles from jurors and apologized to a witness he questioned on the first day of his trial in the Cumberland County Courthouse.

The defendant, dressed in a pink-striped shirt and pink-patterned tie, stood in sharp contrast to the obstinate, “paranoid” man described by Justice Thomas Warren when he issued his order – unprecedented in Maine – that Nisbet had “forfeited his right to counsel.”

Edited by SeaDogStat
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Opening_delayed_in_trial_of_defendant_ordered_to_represent_himself_.html

Wondering what you guys thought of this... (full story link above)

Joshua Nisbet, a criminal defendant described as so uncooperative with his court-appointed attorneys that a judge stripped him of his constitutional right to a lawyer, was polite, deferential and self-effacing Monday as he began representing himself on the first day of his trial on a robbery charge.

Nisbet, who turns 37 on Tuesday, drew some chuckles from jurors and apologized to a witness he questioned on the first day of his trial in the Cumberland County Courthouse.

The defendant, dressed in a pink-striped shirt and pink-patterned tie, stood in sharp contrast to the obstinate, “paranoid” man described by Justice Thomas Warren when he issued his order – unprecedented in Maine – that Nisbet had “forfeited his right to counsel.”

Seems hard to believe that this judge can bar you from having counsel. As a layman I would think someone could use that on appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck does a judge do that? I can't figure out one single legitimate reason to do that. Any convinction has to be overturned by the upper court, no?

That's what I was wondering... the guy has been in County lock up for 3 years and gone thru 5 court appointed lawyers in that time with each eventually requesting to be replaced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck does a judge do that? I can't figure out one single legitimate reason to do that. Any convinction has to be overturned by the upper court, no?

If you can waive your right to a jury, I'm not sure how you couldn't (in some circumstances) waive your right to counsel.

But he is not waiving his right to counsel...it was taken away and he states that he is under duress from not having counsel (though he does have 2 lawyers "chaperoning" him, I guess)

I will have to ask one of the lawyers assigned as chaperone when he comes out tonight...

Edited by SeaDogStat
Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck does a judge do that? I can't figure out one single legitimate reason to do that. Any convinction has to be overturned by the upper court, no?

If you can waive your right to a jury, I'm not sure how you couldn't (in some circumstances) waive your right to counsel.

You can waive your right - but I don't know of any rule or procedure that allows the court to order that waiver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck does a judge do that? I can't figure out one single legitimate reason to do that. Any convinction has to be overturned by the upper court, no?

If you can waive your right to a jury, I'm not sure how you couldn't (in some circumstances) waive your right to counsel.

You can waive your right - but I don't know of any rule or procedure that allows the court to order that waiver.

Assuming it's true that the judge basically waived this guy's right to counsel, is this the type of thing that could get the judge in trouble after the appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck does a judge do that? I can't figure out one single legitimate reason to do that. Any convinction has to be overturned by the upper court, no?

If you can waive your right to a jury, I'm not sure how you couldn't (in some circumstances) waive your right to counsel.

You can waive your right - but I don't know of any rule or procedure that allows the court to order that waiver.

Conduct can be construed to imply waiver. All the court is saying is that if a defendant literally refuses to cooperate with multiple court appointed attorneys, then he has waived his right to have counsel appointed for him. That doesn't seem particularly radical to me. Gideon doesn't require you to get the defense counsel of your choice. You can't hold out for Alan Dershowitz.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck does a judge do that? I can't figure out one single legitimate reason to do that. Any convinction has to be overturned by the upper court, no?

If you can waive your right to a jury, I'm not sure how you couldn't (in some circumstances) waive your right to counsel.

You can waive your right - but I don't know of any rule or procedure that allows the court to order that waiver.

Conduct can be construed to imply waiver. All the court is saying is that if a defendant literally refuses to cooperate with multiple court appointed attorneys, then he has waived his right to have counsel appointed for him. That doesn't seem particularly radical to me. Gideon doesn't require you to get the defense counsel of your choice. You can't hold out for Alan Dershowitz.

Agreed - but still. So basically, if the court doesn't like you it can remove your right to an attorney? Because that is how you can spin this. So he didn't get along with 5 attorneys. Get him a 6th. Or, how about the judge deny the application to be removed? Sometimes we have to be big boys and do our jobs even when we don't want to.

Just seems like a really bad idea to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received greatest discovery requests of all time:

Request for production No. 1: Produce all documents or tangible things that support the allegations of your Petition.

Request for production No. 2: Produce all documents or tangible things that do not support the allegations of your Petition.

I'm dying over here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received greatest discovery requests of all time:

Request for production No. 1: Produce all documents or tangible things that support the allegations of your Petition.

Request for production No. 2: Produce all documents or tangible things that do not support the allegations of your Petition.

I'm dying over here.

Do they have to pay copying costs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received greatest discovery requests of all time:

Request for production No. 1: Produce all documents or tangible things that support the allegations of your Petition.

Request for production No. 2: Produce all documents or tangible things that do not support the allegations of your Petition.

I'm dying over here.

Do they have to pay copying costs?

Response to No. 2: Objection, vague and overly broad. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, attached please find a copy of Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats and a photograph of a dead muskrat.

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received greatest discovery requests of all time:

Request for production No. 1: Produce all documents or tangible things that support the allegations of your Petition.

Request for production No. 2: Produce all documents or tangible things that do not support the allegations of your Petition.

I'm dying over here.

Do they have to pay copying costs?

Response to No. 2: Objection, vague and undefined. Subject to said objection and without waiving same, attached please find a copy of Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats and a photograph of a dead muskrat.

:lol::lol: I'm crying. Maybe because I have to get my trial brief done and I need to mark all the exhibits..... good job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received greatest discovery requests of all time:

Request for production No. 1: Produce all documents or tangible things that support the allegations of your Petition.

Request for production No. 2: Produce all documents or tangible things that do not support the allegations of your Petition.

I'm dying over here.

That's amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think threatening to shoot your court-appointed counsel's eye out with a bb gun is probably effective waiver.

Do they give guys in lockup BB guns?

I don't think so, but sex between inmates is ok...

https://bangordailynews.com/2014/03/10/news/portland/cumberland-county-sheriff-details-latest-case-of-inmates-breaching-maximum-security-for-sex/

PORTLAND, Maine — Cumberland County Sheriff Kevin Joyce on Monday said jail officials are lucky two inmates who were able to breach security over the weekend in the facility’s most fortified section only wanted to meet up for sex.

In an afternoon news conference, Joyce told reporters the maximum security inmates executed a rendezvous plan similar to one used successfully for a conjugal meet-up by a previous pair of inmates two years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just received greatest discovery requests of all time:

Request for production No. 1: Produce all documents or tangible things that support the allegations of your Petition.

Request for production No. 2: Produce all documents or tangible things that do not support the allegations of your Petition.

I'm dying over here.

Do they have to pay copying costs?

Oh, and no. They do not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...