Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads


Recommended Posts

So I saw where Wal-Mart stopped having a uniform and went to a dress code so that their associates had to buy the clothes. No logo wear. I guess that answers my question.

I answered the school 4th Amendment issue in the other thread. You were right.

I give all credit to hanging out in here with you guys.

There's a hell of a lot less expensive than law school.

True

That is for damn certain.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.6k
  • 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. 

The managing partners of the small plaintiff firm I work for called me in for a meeting today and informed me they'll be making me an offer this summer for a contract that calls for a gradual transfer

So I saw where Wal-Mart stopped having a uniform and went to a dress code so that their associates had to buy the clothes. No logo wear. I guess that answers my question.

I answered the school 4th Amendment issue in the other thread. You were right.

I give all credit to hanging out in here with you guys.

There's a hell of a lot less expensive than law school.

True

That is for damn certain.

Says the guy with the scholarships to top ten schools.

I have like 75k in loans to a tier 3 school, #######.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I saw where Wal-Mart stopped having a uniform and went to a dress code so that their associates had to buy the clothes. No logo wear. I guess that answers my question.

I answered the school 4th Amendment issue in the other thread. You were right.

I give all credit to hanging out in here with you guys.

There's a hell of a lot less expensive than law school.

True

That is for damn certain.

Says the guy with the scholarships to top ten schools.

I have like 75k in loans to a tier 3 school, #######.

pushing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I got pulled over during law school on my way to (or maybe from) a job interview. The cop asked where I was going, so the law thing came up, and he asked which side I was on -- figuring, I suppose, that all lawyers had to be either for the criminals or for the police. I actually had interviewed or was going to interview at some point with the Los Angeles DA's office. (Most memorable part of that: I got to sit in on the OJ Simpson trial for a bit -- I was about 20 feet in back of OJ's head. Expert testimony on carpet fibers from the van or something. Super boring.) So I told him about that and stated I was on the side of Justice. I got only a warning.

I haven't been pulled over since then.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

No, never. That seems too do-you-know-who-I-am and would almost certainly kill any chance I'd have of getting any sort of favor or consideration given to me.

The only time I'd imagine I'd ever do that is if the officer was trying to pressure me to do something I didn't want to do and that I knew I didn't have to do, like consent to a search of my vehicle without probable cause, and only then might I suggest that I know a little something about the way the law works and, no, I'm still not consenting to a search.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have. Not as a Do You Know Who I Am type thing but more as part of the conversation as to the penalty for the ticket he is threatening to write.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

Twice.

Once it came up in conversation - I was on my way to a hearing, and he asked where I was going. I was pulled over for making an illegal u-turn in an area I wasn't familiar with around a courthouse. I was let off.

The other time, I was pulled over for a seatbelt violation (soon after those started happening) and had no idea why I was being pulled over. The officer asked if I knew why I was being pulled over. "Because you hate lawyers?" He laughed. I got a ticket.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got pulled over for expired tags after work on a Friday. Cop asked where I was coming from, I said from work, he said what do you do, I said lawyer. He said, "well, consider this a professional courtesy - since your tags are so overdue that I can't even cite you, I'd have to give you a criminal summons. I'm sure you don't want that on your record. Get those renewed on Monday." I actually rented a car for the weekend. :nerd:

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

Twice.

Once it came up in conversation - I was on my way to a hearing, and he asked where I was going. I was pulled over for making an illegal u-turn in an area I wasn't familiar with around a courthouse. I was let off.

The other time, I was pulled over for a seatbelt violation (soon after those started happening) and had no idea why I was being pulled over. The officer asked if I knew why I was being pulled over. "Because you hate lawyers?" He laughed. I got a ticket.

:goodposting:

That's about my speed too. Other than what I said above, if it came up naturally in conversation, e.g. "where are you going?", I'd tell the truth.

I could also see myself cracking that joke (in fact, in traffic court on a cell phone ticket where I was contesting the late payment penalty rather than the underlying cell phone ticket, I noted that I felt the cop interrupting my phone conversation was rather rude - I had everyone laughing including the judge and the cop).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have only ever gotten pulled over in my smaller jurisdiction (I did and still do work in the Phoenix metro area but have never been pulled over there). I've probably been pulled over 6-7 times in my jurisdiction. I never offer what I do. However, the officers either immediately recognize me or recognize my name and notice I'm in attorney type clothing so I think in every instance they realized who I was and that I'm a defense attorney.

Have always gotten a warning. Far too many than I deserve.

ETA: I do remember having this conversation though:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I don't know.

Cop: Come on, be honest, you know you ran that red light.

Me: Officer, you know I'm a defense attorney. What do you think I should advise somebody to do when a cop is asking him to admit to something?

Cop: Well, I just thought you could be honest with me.

Me: If you want honesty, I have a front headlight out, my temporary license plate is probably not properly displayed, and had you seen me a few moments prior I may have been speeding. So I was honest in saying I didn't know.

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

Shakespeare Didn't Really Want To Kill All The Lawyers, But We Should Deregulate Their Profession

WSJ, September 18, 2014

One of the Bard’s often-quoted lines is Dick the Butcher’s admonition in Henry VI, Part 2, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

That idea, argues lawyer David Epstein, is mistakenly thought to mean that Shakespeare was antagonistic toward the legal profession. Instead, as we read in this Wall Street Journal piece, Shakespeare actually meant “to portray lawyers as the guardians of the rule of law who stand in the way of a fanatical mob.”

Whether you agree with Epstein’s interpretation or not, more than four centuries after Shakespeare’s time, we should do somethingabout lawyers, something that entails no violence.

That something is to deregulate the legal profession.

To repeat a point I have made here before, most companies and professions like regulation. They seek it, happily trading off some freedom for security from the blustery winds of wide-open competition. One of the organized interest groups that has been very successful in getting government to stifle competition so it can act like a cartel is the legal profession.

It used to be egregiously cartel-like, requiring that members adhere to fee schedules, thus shutting down price competition, and forbidding lawyers from advertising. Both of those strictures, embodied in the Canons of Legal Ethics, have been wiped away, though. The Supreme Court ruled that mandatory fee schedules violated the Sherman Act in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar in 1975 and the prohibition against advertising was similarly struck down by the Court in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona in 1977.

Those decisions whittled away the profession’s internal rules against competition, allowing lawyers to compete with each other. Still standing, however, is the bar’s defense against external competition: the prohibition against “unauthorized practice of law.” Only individuals who hold a license to practice law in a state may do so and anyone who does not hold a license is guilty of “unauthorized practice” should he or she venture to do anything that might be considered “practice of law.”

It doesn’t matter in the least how competent the individual may be to do the task, how expertly it was done, or how satisfied the other person was with the work. Unauthorized practice is strictly forbidden. And because exactly what constitutes the “practice of law” is not precisely defined, the effect (and the purpose) is to scare those who are not members of the bar from coming anywhere near “lawyers’ turf.”

With the high licensure barrier to entry into the market for legal services (in most states, only people who have graduated from an American Bar Association accredited law school are eligible to take the bar exam), lawyers can charge more. Owing to the great cost of getting into the guild, few lawyers can even think about taking cases from poor people who can’t afford to pay substantial fees.

Among the many who have noticed that problem are Brookings Institution scholars Robert Crandall and Clifford Winston, whose 2011 book First Thing We Do, Let’s Deregulate All the Lawyers makes a strong case in favor of a laissez-faire approach to the legal profession. They write, “The reality is that many more people could offer various forms of legal services today at far lower prices if the American Bar Association did not artificially restrict the number of lawyers…Occupational licensing limits competition and raises the cost of legal services.”

The profession’s licensure system is enforced through unauthorized practice of law (UPL) prohibitions. If it weren’t for them, people could enter the market without having first spent three largely useless but extremely expensive years in law school.

It is because of those prohibitions that many Americans can’t afford an attorney. As law professor Laurel Rigertas writes in her recent Fordham Law Review article The Legal Profession’s Monopoly: Failing to Protect Consumers, “Much of the public is left wandering around the self-help section of bookstores and self-help kiosks in courthouses trying to figure out how to handle matters on their own.”

Too bad about those Americans who are priced out of the market, but the ABA insists that its restrictions are only there to protect the public against incompetence. Some people might get bad advice from inadequately trained legal practitioners, so organized bar says it has to step in and ensure competence by keeping law students in approved law schools for three years.

The problem with that rationale is that spending all that time in law school is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for competence in performing legal tasks. Stanford Law School professor Deborah Rhode has been attacking that notion since 1981. She and Lucy Buford Ricca (also at Stanford) write in their Fordham Law Review article Protecting the Profession or the Public: Rethinking Unauthorized-Practice Enforcement,

“In other nations that permit nonlawyers to provide legal advice and to assist with routine documents, the research available does not suggest that their performance has been inadequate. In a study comparing outcomes for low-income clients in the United Kingdom on a variety of matters such as welfare benefits, housing, and employment, nonlawyers generally outperformed lawyers in terms of concrete results and client satisfaction….In the United States, studies of lay specialists who provide legal representation in bankruptcy and administrative agency hearings find that they generally perform as well or better than attorneys.

Extensive formal training is less critical than daily experience for effective advocacy.”

If the market for legal services were deregulated, practitioners would quickly figure out the optimal kind and duration of training for them to succeed in business. It isn’t the years of law school classes (almost all of which is quickly forgotten) that make one competent, but instead the need to build your reputation through good service.

In short, the licensing regulations in the legal profession don’t protect the public, but merely raise the cost of services, doing the most harm to those who can least afford to pay.

But even if we could persuade a lot of legislators that UPL is nothing but anti-competitive turf protection, we would confront the further difficulty that UPL enforcement is mostly in the domain of the judicial branch. Professor Rigertas observes in the article cited above, “With rare exceptions, legislatures cannot authorize nonlawyers to engage in acts that are considered the practice of law, so any changes to the scope of the legal profession’s monopoly must come from the state supreme courts….”

She points out a few, small steps that have been taken in that direction. The Supreme Court of Washington has, for example, decided to permit Limited License Legal Technicians to do work in the area of family law. The small steps these few courts have taken have been opposed by the organized bar. Trying to get to a deregulated profession through incremental liberalizations authorized by justices willing to joust with their compatriots in the profession would take forever. Or at least half of forever.

I don’t think that is necessary. State Supreme courts may have “inherent” control over the legal profession, but that should not mean that they get to create and enforce a new victimless crime on their own. The legislative branch shouldn’t sit around like potted plants while the judicial branch abuses citizens.

State legislators – a coalition of conservatives who believe in free markets and liberals who actually put the interests of poor people above lawyer campaign support – could pass statutes providing that no one will be fined or imprisoned for the rendering of any legal service except upon proof of fraud. Consumers who could prove they’d been defrauded by someone falsely claiming to have legal credentials could take action, but bar associations trying to stifle competition could not.

If that were the law of a state, all of which judges are sworn to uphold, we would probably never see any more cases where paralegals, secretaries, or family members are attacked merely for having trespassed on lawyers’ turf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

100% agree.

It's telling that when you finish your years at law school - that doens't make you a lawyer. You still have to take the bar. And the very first thing that the BarBri teacher told us all on that day was this - forget everything you learned in law school because this is what you need to know to pass the bar.

Then you pass the bar, get sworn in and get a job in a firm - and the firm partner will tell you - I don't care what you learned from BarBri, and the Phaltsgraff (sp?) case doesn't matter. Here, we file the motion this way, the forms are here, and on and on and be nice to the judge.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

100% agree.

It's telling that when you finish your years at law school - that doens't make you a lawyer. You still have to take the bar. And the very first thing that the BarBri teacher told us all on that day was this - forget everything you learned in law school because this is what you need to know to pass the bar.

Then you pass the bar, get sworn in and get a job in a firm - and the firm partner will tell you - I don't care what you learned from BarBri, and the Phaltsgraff (sp?) case doesn't matter. Here, we file the motion this way, the forms are here, and on and on and be nice to the judge.

Anyone need an apprentice? I appear to have some time on my hands.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

There are still states where you can just "read the law" and take the bar, without ever going to law school. When I took the VA bar, I had "law readers" sitting on both sides of me (I don't think either passed though).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

There are still states where you can just "read the law" and take the bar, without ever going to law school. When I took the VA bar, I had "law readers" sitting on both sides of me (I don't think either passed though).

How would you know if they passed or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

There are still states where you can just "read the law" and take the bar, without ever going to law school. When I took the VA bar, I had "law readers" sitting on both sides of me (I don't think either passed though).

How would you know if they passed or not?

There was a published list of names of those who passed, and Virginia sits everyone alphabetically for the exam. I guess I don't know if they passed a later exam.

Edited by Don Quixote
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

There are still states where you can just "read the law" and take the bar, without ever going to law school. When I took the VA bar, I had "law readers" sitting on both sides of me (I don't think either passed though).

How would you know if they passed or not?

There was a published list of names of those who passed, and Virginia sits everyone alphabetically for the exam. I guess I don't know if they passed a later exam.

Just admit it, you were copying and didn't pass either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

There are still states where you can just "read the law" and take the bar, without ever going to law school. When I took the VA bar, I had "law readers" sitting on both sides of me (I don't think either passed though).

How would you know if they passed or not?

There was a published list of names of those who passed, and Virginia sits everyone alphabetically for the exam. I guess I don't know if they passed a later exam.

So you knew their names? And that they were law readers? Sorry, not trying to depose you but did you know them socially or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there are still a few states that allow this without a J.D. (not sure how many), but I think other than CA they all require you to have completed 1-2 years of law school. I think CA still has the full apprenticeship option, though I don't think many people do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

washington has something called rule 9 where you can clerk while doing self-study. a lawyer needs to mentor you. I think it's a 4-year program and you can do limited practice your last year and then sit for the bar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

washington has something called rule 9 where you can clerk while doing self-study. a lawyer needs to mentor you. I think it's a 4-year program and you can do limited practice your last year and then sit for the bar.

If you do a program like this, do you have any chance of getting reciprocity if you move to another state?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm ok with that. Law School is a racket worse than the mob and I wouldn't mind seeing that system crash down upon itself.

Let's go back to an apprentice-type structure.

There are still states where you can just "read the law" and take the bar, without ever going to law school. When I took the VA bar, I had "law readers" sitting on both sides of me (I don't think either passed though).

How would you know if they passed or not?

There was a published list of names of those who passed, and Virginia sits everyone alphabetically for the exam. I guess I don't know if they passed a later exam.

So you knew their names? And that they were law readers? Sorry, not trying to depose you but did you know them socially or something?

I did not know socially, but they were a bit chatty before the exam and during breaks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

washington has something called rule 9 where you can clerk while doing self-study. a lawyer needs to mentor you. I think it's a 4-year program and you can do limited practice your last year and then sit for the bar.

If you do a program like this, do you have any chance of getting reciprocity if you move to another state?

depends on the state. some require you to have graduated an accredited school. but most let you sit for the bar if you are a member of another state's bar, so at least you can get in that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have only ever gotten pulled over in my smaller jurisdiction (I did and still do work in the Phoenix metro area but have never been pulled over there). I've probably been pulled over 6-7 times in my jurisdiction. I never offer what I do. However, the officers either immediately recognize me or recognize my name and notice I'm in attorney type clothing so I think in every instance they realized who I was and that I'm a defense attorney.

Have always gotten a warning. Far too many than I deserve.

ETA: I do remember having this conversation though:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I don't know.

Cop: Come on, be honest, you know you ran that red light.

Me: Officer, you know I'm a defense attorney. What do you think I should advise somebody to do when a cop is asking him to admit to something?

Cop: Well, I just thought you could be honest with me.

Me: If you want honesty, I have a front headlight out, my temporary license plate is probably not properly displayed, and had you seen me a few moments prior I may have been speeding. So I was honest in saying I didn't know.

:lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

See, these are the days that make you want to drink. Heavily. To the point of blindness.

5 appearances on the calendar in two different counties So I had to get home very late, and then when everyone went to bed study up and prep to be sure I had everything in the right order in my head. Then wake up early before everyone else to get to court to coordinate sitting down with all my clients..

Get to court at 8. Email in my folder that one of the matters just blew up because of a 3rd party. Spent 30 minutes on phone and texting trying to find out what in the samhell happened. Spend the better part of any free time in between being on my feet figuring out the explosion and the result - I have to file an Order to Show Cause Monday. So my weekend is ruined. But I will win the OTSC and spoke with the clerk for the judge I will be in front of for it to prep them for my arrival on Monday. 1 thing down. Made more a mess, client annoyed but understanding, all other parties involved want me dead.

Next, family court matter. Get tentative decision. I win all parts. Nice. This should be easy. Other side is late for no reason so can't go first to agree with the judge. Other side finally gets there. Pro Se. Tries every please help me judge I'm just an innoncent person in this big bad world of ours ploy possible. Judge doesn't but any of it. So person says fine, enter the order... I'm coming back with an attorney. Ok sparky. So win #1 - client is jubilent.

Next matter. I am late for it because I had to deal with the family stuff longer than necessary for a case that I won on before I got the calendar call. The matter isn't on the court calendar. Talk to clerk. Nope, not here. And my adversary wasn't there. It got carried and they forgot to tell me. Ok, in the end I'm good with that but it would have been nice to not waste my time. So, 1 win, 1 explosion and 1 waste of time.

Next matter, client apoplectic with a state agency for doing their job and is all Mel Gibson in Braveheart riding the horse and screaming about Freedom to paint your face blue. Just a conference so I don't have to worry about any orders, but I have to be on my game. You know, like you do. Agency rep is clear, concise, professional, nice, humble - basically all the things you don't want an adversary to be. Client, on the other hand, let's just say that he wasn't any of that. So that didn't go well. I'm going to have to tell him to come up with some money that he doesn't want to but it's the nature of the beast. I can't win this one with the records of the agency stacked against my client's say so. So, 1 win, 1 explosion, 1 waste of time and 1 oh good god just let me go home.

So I leave that courthouse.. Nice drive. Almost ran out of gas because I've been so busy I wasn't paying attention. But it's ok. The car has a warning system that DOESN'T SHUT THE EFF UP ABOUT LOW ON FUEL. Ok, car, I deserve that. So I have to find cheapo gas on the side road to fill er up. Nice guy helped me. No way he understood a word of English and I don't think he knew what a credit card was, but he was nice and we got through it. So I get to court.

Judge is hearing a carry over motion on a massive 5 part motion that was ungodly to hear. Accusations by both attorneys to each other about being full of stuff that is usually reserved for toilets, at least one client trying to interject while his attorney was talking - that is always awesome by the way - and just general unhappiness. Judge not happy. Staff not happy. Me getting unhappy. Judge finishes that case and gets off the bench without a word. Ok.... so does that mean that we are next? I ponder this with my adversary as we try to figure out the way to handle this when the clerk comes out - he's going to lunch, Come back in an hour. ****. Ok.

Go to lunch. Ponder my actions in the case. Because it's a summary judgment case. It's an awful case but my client is the most sympathetic person in the world who I would give money to if I could. Just feel awful for the client and trying to help anyway I can. The sum judge motion of the defendant insurance company is brilliant. The kind of brief that a judge can just remove the attorney's signature from and affix his or her own. We've all seen them - and maybe even writtien one of two of them - it sucks when you are on the wrong end of one. My brief..... not so much. I'm not just trying to push the bolder up a hill, the hill has landmines and there are cannons shooting at me while I do it. Client shows up without warning to be there because client needs to see the judge dismiss the case to accept the reality of it. I have prepared the client for the fact that I am going to lose and I am going to lose huge.

Finally get to oral argument. Adversary is brilliant. But something happens. Judge starts asking questions almost directly from my brief. I get that attorney ping in my brain - wait, is he siding with me or playing with me?. Argument goes on. Adversary hits all his points. Many I can't argue. I in fact have one small out. It's a mousehole of an out. The only argument I have. And it requires delicacy in a case that is not delicate. But I'm not at 0% chance. I'm at 10%. The cannons are still firing. Judge lets adversary finish and then says to me, counsel, your adversary is correct on such and such issue so am I to understand that you don't think the law applies to this case?

Ok, side bar here - this is not a good question to be asked in a crowded courtroom of your peers, with your client sitting next to you thinking you will save them from the depths. In fact it might just be the worst question to be asked. Further, when the judge asks the question with that tone that some judges have of - why are you in my courtroom at all? - you know you are in trouble. Still, judge's questions led me to believe that maybe that mousehole is a place that he is willing to travel to. So I start my argument. Yes judge, the law as stated by my adversary doesn't apply here. Here mousey, I have some cheese. Judge stops me midsentence - I hate that. Question - but the law is clear is it not - goes on 5 minute speech on the law and how I am clearly not reading it. So you didn't like that cheese? Ok I will try another piece.

Understood judge but - and here is my only shot argument - I go on. Judge perks up. Judge nods. Oh my god he's eating the cheese. I finish. Judge looks at adversary. Counsel is correct he says, now that the facts are laid out and this issue is being argued, I understand his point. Why should I grant summary judgment with that in mind. Oh my god - I'm buying this cheese every day now. Adversary can't quite get the judge to side with him in rebuttal. Judge stops us. Starts his findings of fact. Does his conclusions. Sum Judg denied. I won. Holy OMG I won. Adversary and I shake hands and have a laugh about a joke we were talking about before we started (nicest adversary I've ever had by the way). Client is a mess with joy. Tears. Sobbing. The whole 9.

Get the order, talk client down off the ledge of promise of milk and honey and say we still have a long fight but this is good. Get in my car. Get back to office. Letter from adversary waiting for me. Call me ASAP it says. Ok, so I call. Yankee23fan, he says (not really) I have bad news. You did a great job today and it was a lot of fun. I spoke to my contact on this policy. Because you won on the point you won which was your only point you could win on, the policy doesn't cover the damages now. So they are going to disclaim coverage. I told them that you are on the ball on this one and will be able to force them to defend so they know that. So I got settlement authority.

And it's for 5% of the total value of the case. And I have nowhere to go with it because they are right. I read the policy. Because I won on the only thing I could win on, I can't get the policy to cover the damage.

1 win, 1 explosion, 1 waste of time, 1 omg get me out of here and 1 win that was in the end a massive loss of biblical measure. All in a days work. 5 cases. Only 1 client really happy. I had a Costanza - but I have hand! - moment after I read the policy. I'm gonna need it. :wall:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have only ever gotten pulled over in my smaller jurisdiction (I did and still do work in the Phoenix metro area but have never been pulled over there). I've probably been pulled over 6-7 times in my jurisdiction. I never offer what I do. However, the officers either immediately recognize me or recognize my name and notice I'm in attorney type clothing so I think in every instance they realized who I was and that I'm a defense attorney.

Have always gotten a warning. Far too many than I deserve.

ETA: I do remember having this conversation though:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I don't know.

Cop: Come on, be honest, you know you ran that red light.

Me: Officer, you know I'm a defense attorney. What do you think I should advise somebody to do when a cop is asking him to admit to something?

Cop: Well, I just thought you could be honest with me.

Me: If you want honesty, I have a front headlight out, my temporary license plate is probably not properly displayed, and had you seen me a few moments prior I may have been speeding. So I was honest in saying I didn't know.

:lmao:

Attorney-type clothing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the order, talk client down off the ledge of promise of milk and honey and say we still have a long fight but this is good. Get in my car. Get back to office. Letter from adversary waiting for me. Call me ASAP it says. Ok, so I call. Yankee23fan, he says (not really) I have bad news. You did a great job today and it was a lot of fun. I spoke to my contact on this policy. Because you won on the point you won which was your only point you could win on, the policy doesn't cover the damages now. So they are going to disclaim coverage. I told them that you are on the ball on this one and will be able to force them to defend so they know that. So I got settlement authority.

And it's for 5% of the total value of the case. And I have nowhere to go with it because they are right. I read the policy. Because I won on the only thing I could win on, I can't get the policy to cover the damage.

1 win, 1 explosion, 1 waste of time, 1 omg get me out of here and 1 win that was in the end a massive loss of biblical measure. All in a days work. 5 cases. Only 1 client really happy. I had a Costanza - but I have hand! - moment after I read the policy. I'm gonna need it. :wall:

5% is better than 0% plus being cast in judgment for costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the order, talk client down off the ledge of promise of milk and honey and say we still have a long fight but this is good. Get in my car. Get back to office. Letter from adversary waiting for me. Call me ASAP it says. Ok, so I call. Yankee23fan, he says (not really) I have bad news. You did a great job today and it was a lot of fun. I spoke to my contact on this policy. Because you won on the point you won which was your only point you could win on, the policy doesn't cover the damages now. So they are going to disclaim coverage. I told them that you are on the ball on this one and will be able to force them to defend so they know that. So I got settlement authority.

And it's for 5% of the total value of the case. And I have nowhere to go with it because they are right. I read the policy. Because I won on the only thing I could win on, I can't get the policy to cover the damage.

1 win, 1 explosion, 1 waste of time, 1 omg get me out of here and 1 win that was in the end a massive loss of biblical measure. All in a days work. 5 cases. Only 1 client really happy. I had a Costanza - but I have hand! - moment after I read the policy. I'm gonna need it. :wall:

5% is better than 0% plus being cast in judgment for costs.

WITNESS!

Link to post
Share on other sites

washington has something called rule 9 where you can clerk while doing self-study. a lawyer needs to mentor you. I think it's a 4-year program and you can do limited practice your last year and then sit for the bar.

I've never researched it but I heard that California has apprenticeship rules in place still, though practically no one uses them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have only ever gotten pulled over in my smaller jurisdiction (I did and still do work in the Phoenix metro area but have never been pulled over there). I've probably been pulled over 6-7 times in my jurisdiction. I never offer what I do. However, the officers either immediately recognize me or recognize my name and notice I'm in attorney type clothing so I think in every instance they realized who I was and that I'm a defense attorney.

Have always gotten a warning. Far too many than I deserve.

ETA: I do remember having this conversation though:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I don't know.

Cop: Come on, be honest, you know you ran that red light.

Me: Officer, you know I'm a defense attorney. What do you think I should advise somebody to do when a cop is asking him to admit to something?

Cop: Well, I just thought you could be honest with me.

Me: If you want honesty, I have a front headlight out, my temporary license plate is probably not properly displayed, and had you seen me a few moments prior I may have been speeding. So I was honest in saying I didn't know.

:lmao:

The powdered wig and red robes are no laughing matter, #######! :angry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have only ever gotten pulled over in my smaller jurisdiction (I did and still do work in the Phoenix metro area but have never been pulled over there). I've probably been pulled over 6-7 times in my jurisdiction. I never offer what I do. However, the officers either immediately recognize me or recognize my name and notice I'm in attorney type clothing so I think in every instance they realized who I was and that I'm a defense attorney.

Have always gotten a warning. Far too many than I deserve.

ETA: I do remember having this conversation though:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I don't know.

Cop: Come on, be honest, you know you ran that red light.

Me: Officer, you know I'm a defense attorney. What do you think I should advise somebody to do when a cop is asking him to admit to something?

Cop: Well, I just thought you could be honest with me.

Me: If you want honesty, I have a front headlight out, my temporary license plate is probably not properly displayed, and had you seen me a few moments prior I may have been speeding. So I was honest in saying I didn't know.

:lmao:

I live in a retirement/vacation town that gets warm. Pretty much the only people that wear suits are lawyers… who have to go to court that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Question:

Do any of you tell a police officer during a traffic stop (when you've been pulled over) that you're an attorney?

Why or why not?

Have you ever did this? Why did you stop (if applicable)?

I have only ever gotten pulled over in my smaller jurisdiction (I did and still do work in the Phoenix metro area but have never been pulled over there). I've probably been pulled over 6-7 times in my jurisdiction. I never offer what I do. However, the officers either immediately recognize me or recognize my name and notice I'm in attorney type clothing so I think in every instance they realized who I was and that I'm a defense attorney.

Have always gotten a warning. Far too many than I deserve.

ETA: I do remember having this conversation though:

Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over?

Me: I don't know.

Cop: Come on, be honest, you know you ran that red light.

Me: Officer, you know I'm a defense attorney. What do you think I should advise somebody to do when a cop is asking him to admit to something?

Cop: Well, I just thought you could be honest with me.

Me: If you want honesty, I have a front headlight out, my temporary license plate is probably not properly displayed, and had you seen me a few moments prior I may have been speeding. So I was honest in saying I didn't know.

:lmao:

I live in a retirement/vacation town that gets warm. Pretty much the only people that wear suits are lawyers… who have to go to court that day.

Here in the great white north we call suits "suits."

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm pretty much the lead on litigation oversight at my company now. Not that Ive litigated. I think I should have a promoted title though from assistant General counsel. No clue what that should be though or how much more I should make. I was initially hired for acquisitions and construction issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm pretty much the lead on litigation oversight at my company now. Not that Ive litigated. I think I should have a promoted title though from assistant General counsel. No clue what that should be though or how much more I should make. I was initially hired for acquisitions and construction issues.

The next step up from Assistant GC would normally be Associate GC, then Deputy GC. If you are truly a #2 to the GC and considered his/her successor, and do pretty much every area, which it sounds like you do, you could make an argument for Deputy.

Edited by krista4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm pretty much the lead on litigation oversight at my company now. Not that Ive litigated. I think I should have a promoted title though from assistant General counsel. No clue what that should be though or how much more I should make. I was initially hired for acquisitions and construction issues.

The next step up from Assistant GC would normally be Associate GC, then Deputy GC. If you are truly a #2 to the GC and considered his/her successor, and do pretty much every area, which it sounds like you do, you could make an argument for Deputy.

do you get a badge with that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm pretty much the lead on litigation oversight at my company now. Not that Ive litigated. I think I should have a promoted title though from assistant General counsel. No clue what that should be though or how much more I should make. I was initially hired for acquisitions and construction issues.

The next step up from Assistant GC would normally be Associate GC, then Deputy GC. If you are truly a #2 to the GC and considered his/her successor, and do pretty much every area, which it sounds like you do, you could make an argument for Deputy.

do you get a badge with that?

Yes, and a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm pretty much the lead on litigation oversight at my company now. Not that Ive litigated. I think I should have a promoted title though from assistant General counsel. No clue what that should be though or how much more I should make. I was initially hired for acquisitions and construction issues.

The next step up from Assistant GC would normally be Associate GC, then Deputy GC. If you are truly a #2 to the GC and considered his/her successor, and do pretty much every area, which it sounds like you do, you could make an argument for Deputy.

do you get a badge with that?

Yes, and a gun.

That's pretty much me on the daily here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm pretty much the lead on litigation oversight at my company now. Not that Ive litigated. I think I should have a promoted title though from assistant General counsel. No clue what that should be though or how much more I should make. I was initially hired for acquisitions and construction issues.

The next step up from Assistant GC would normally be Associate GC, then Deputy GC. If you are truly a #2 to the GC and considered his/her successor, and do pretty much every area, which it sounds like you do, you could make an argument for Deputy.

do you get a badge with that?

Yes, and a gun.

Not sure if this is good or bad. But before I ever clicked that I knew exactly what it was going to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i ask a dumb question of some smart lawyers?

Assuming the proper procedures are followed and a new amendment is ratified properly is there any limits on what we can ammend the constitution to say?

i found this on wiki (definitive legal source i know)

The framers of the Constitution included a proviso at the end of Article V shielding three clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. They are: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, concerning the migration and importation of slaves; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, concerning Congress' taxing power; and, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The shield protecting the first two entrenched clauses was absolute but of limited duration; it was in force only until 1808. The shield protecting the third entrenched clause, though less absolute than that covering the others, is practically permanent; it will be in force until there is unanimous agreement among the states favoring a change.

so i assume short Article 3 section 1 that really anything goes, correct? are there any real or practical limits?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i ask a dumb question of some smart lawyers?

Assuming the proper procedures are followed and a new amendment is ratified properly is there any limits on what we can ammend the constitution to say?

i found this on wiki (definitive legal source i know)

The framers of the Constitution included a proviso at the end of Article V shielding three clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. They are: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, concerning the migration and importation of slaves; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, concerning Congress' taxing power; and, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The shield protecting the first two entrenched clauses was absolute but of limited duration; it was in force only until 1808. The shield protecting the third entrenched clause, though less absolute than that covering the others, is practically permanent; it will be in force until there is unanimous agreement among the states favoring a change.

so i assume short Article 3 section 1 that really anything goes, correct? are there any real or practical limits?

I would say anything goes even with that wiki argument. An Amendment is just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i ask a dumb question of some smart lawyers?

Assuming the proper procedures are followed and a new amendment is ratified properly is there any limits on what we can ammend the constitution to say?

i found this on wiki (definitive legal source i know)

The framers of the Constitution included a proviso at the end of Article V shielding three clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. They are: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, concerning the migration and importation of slaves; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, concerning Congress' taxing power; and, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The shield protecting the first two entrenched clauses was absolute but of limited duration; it was in force only until 1808. The shield protecting the third entrenched clause, though less absolute than that covering the others, is practically permanent; it will be in force until there is unanimous agreement among the states favoring a change.

so i assume short Article 3 section 1 that really anything goes, correct? are there any real or practical limits?

I would say anything goes even with that wiki argument. An Amendment is just that.

Yeah it's pretty wide open based on my reading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can i ask a dumb question of some smart lawyers?

Assuming the proper procedures are followed and a new amendment is ratified properly is there any limits on what we can ammend the constitution to say?

i found this on wiki (definitive legal source i know)

The framers of the Constitution included a proviso at the end of Article V shielding three clauses in the new frame of government from being amended. They are: Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, concerning the migration and importation of slaves; Article I, Section 9, Clause 4, concerning Congress' taxing power; and, Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, which provides for equal representation of the states in the Senate. These are the only textually entrenched provisions of the Constitution. The shield protecting the first two entrenched clauses was absolute but of limited duration; it was in force only until 1808. The shield protecting the third entrenched clause, though less absolute than that covering the others, is practically permanent; it will be in force until there is unanimous agreement among the states favoring a change.

so i assume short Article 3 section 1 that really anything goes, correct? are there any real or practical limits?

I would say anything goes even with that wiki argument. An Amendment is just that.

Yeah it's pretty wide open based on my reading.

I'm not aware of any limitations, though I suppose in theory that an Amendment that impliedly (not expressly) conflicts with some other provision in the Constitution could arguably be limited. The key word is "arguably" because subsequent language typically is perceived to trump prior language, but that's about the best I could come up with.

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...