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 (1 Viewer)

Anyone do education law? Had an interesting hypo come up in a family case and I'm trying to piece through it. Parents going through divorce and its nasty so in that there are always ancillary things that happen whether you like it or not, or even if the lawyers aren't scum as is not always the case.

One of the parents informs the kid's private school teacher that parent believes the kid is suicidal. Other parent doesn't dispute. There are no medical documents to support, no counseling notes to work with and the kids doesn't nor has ever had specialized services. Teacher informs school admin who calls parents. Parents say, collectively, yeah he could be but we don't have anything to back that up at all. Neither teacher nor admin have ever seen anything that would lead to them to believe this is true.

What does school admin do now?
In Washington it's mandatory reporting to CPS.

 
Oh, and I get to go into our broken family law court system again. I need to modify my decree/child support orders for mortgage financing purposes. Even though it's stipulated, it will still be a pain in the ###.

 
njherdfan said:
Christo said:
njherdfan said:
To those who practice in DC, where are you barred, and do you have any recommendations for which bar I should take? I'll be practicing in DC, so I can take any bar I want. My practice area is almost entirely in DC, so there's no obvious secondary location where I'm likely to end up and no obvious choice of which exam to take. I'm leaning towards taking Maryland's exam now because it has a higher pass rate than Virginia's and I don't need to wear a suit to take it, but any and all recommendations are appreciated.
WTF? What state requires you to wear a suit?
The same state that would emphasize the "high calibre" of professionalism needed to practice in it.
:lmao: Jesus Christ

 
njherdfan said:
Christo said:
njherdfan said:
To those who practice in DC, where are you barred, and do you have any recommendations for which bar I should take? I'll be practicing in DC, so I can take any bar I want. My practice area is almost entirely in DC, so there's no obvious secondary location where I'm likely to end up and no obvious choice of which exam to take. I'm leaning towards taking Maryland's exam now because it has a higher pass rate than Virginia's and I don't need to wear a suit to take it, but any and all recommendations are appreciated.
WTF? What state requires you to wear a suit?
The same state that would emphasize the "high calibre" of professionalism needed to practice in it.
:lmao: Jesus Christ
:goodposting:

 
Awesome day in court today. A true picture of the valiant work we do.

Couldn't help the client at all can't stop the guy from doing what he is doing because nothing rises to the level of admissible evidence and he knows just enough to not get it rise to a point that it would be. Yup. Awesome fun. Love restaining order cases. Really deal with the salt of the earth. Good people, doing good work, for good. Words we use all the time in that courtroom.

Ugh. There isn't a bottle of Jack Daniels big enough to drown away this day and it's not even over yet.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Awesome day in court today. A true picture of the valiant work we do.

Couldn't help the client at all can't stop the guy from doing what he is doing because nothing rises to the level of admissible evidence and he knows just enough to not get it rise to a point that it would be. Yup. Awesome fun. Love restaining order cases. Really deal with the salt of the earth. Good people, doing good work, for good. Words we use all the time in that courtroom.

Ugh. There isn't a bottle of Jack Daniels big enough to drown away this day and it's not even over yet.
:lmao:

I just had a pro per opposing party send me two videos where she is video-taping the parties' two year old daughter saying that she doesn't want to see Daddy/my client. It's clear she's coached the child and is literally physically holding the child still until the child says what she's coached her to say. I'm going to bury her with this, but it's ####### vile and I feel dirty for even being involved.

Oh, and this is on the heels of me getting her restraining order dismissed for a procedural defect and merely filing a motion to enforce the parties' custody order because she's been depriving my client of his parenting time for no good reason. So she's pissed off. They have essentially a 50/50 order with joint everything, and my client just wants to keep it that way. Because he's still in love with this crazy chick and is on video getting into a mutual physical fight with this woman's new boyfriend.

Yay family law!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee said:
Anyone have any experience in wrongful death , negligence suits in the medical field?
Lots.
From talking to our lawyer today we are in the settlement phase . Still have an April trial date , its been a long road here.
Sounds like you're in the trial phase, too.
and its over . Really respect the work you guys do
Settled? Did it go well-ish?

 
HellToupee said:
Anyone have any experience in wrongful death , negligence suits in the medical field?
Lots.
From talking to our lawyer today we are in the settlement phase . Still have an April trial date , its been a long road here.
Sounds like you're in the trial phase, too.
and its over . Really respect the work you guys do
Settled? Did it go well-ish?
We think so , at least well enough not to have to go to trial
 
Yankee23Fan said:
Awesome day in court today. A true picture of the valiant work we do.

Couldn't help the client at all can't stop the guy from doing what he is doing because nothing rises to the level of admissible evidence and he knows just enough to not get it rise to a point that it would be. Yup. Awesome fun. Love restaining order cases. Really deal with the salt of the earth. Good people, doing good work, for good. Words we use all the time in that courtroom.

Ugh. There isn't a bottle of Jack Daniels big enough to drown away this day and it's not even over yet.
:lmao:

I just had a pro per opposing party send me two videos where she is video-taping the parties' two year old daughter saying that she doesn't want to see Daddy/my client. It's clear she's coached the child and is literally physically holding the child still until the child says what she's coached her to say. I'm going to bury her with this, but it's ####### vile and I feel dirty for even being involved.

Oh, and this is on the heels of me getting her restraining order dismissed for a procedural defect and merely filing a motion to enforce the parties' custody order because she's been depriving my client of his parenting time for no good reason. So she's pissed off. They have essentially a 50/50 order with joint everything, and my client just wants to keep it that way. Because he's still in love with this crazy chick and is on video getting into a mutual physical fight with this woman's new boyfriend.

Yay family law!
Do they really call unrepresented folks "pro per" instead of "pro se" in your jurisdiction?

 
NYC landlord-tenant anyone?

I did NY State landlord tenant for my 1L summer, but not in the city, so I know just enough to give bad advice.

Have a coworker whose building is vacated, but not destroyed due to the explosion.

Have not seen the lease, but I imagine it's boilerplate.

She's not rent-stabilized/rent-controlled. City does have a vacate order in place cured by building owner showing structural stability

I think this is going to just be a very expensive and painful lesson as to why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund, but was wondering if there was NYC law that I may be overlooking.

 
NYC landlord-tenant anyone?

I did NY State landlord tenant for my 1L summer, but not in the city, so I know just enough to give bad advice.

Have a coworker whose building is vacated, but not destroyed due to the explosion.

Have not seen the lease, but I imagine it's boilerplate.

She's not rent-stabilized/rent-controlled. City does have a vacate order in place cured by building owner showing structural stability

I think this is going to just be a very expensive and painful lesson as to why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund, but was wondering if there was NYC law that I may be overlooking.
What is the question?

 
NYC landlord-tenant anyone?

I did NY State landlord tenant for my 1L summer, but not in the city, so I know just enough to give bad advice.

Have a coworker whose building is vacated, but not destroyed due to the explosion.

Have not seen the lease, but I imagine it's boilerplate.

She's not rent-stabilized/rent-controlled. City does have a vacate order in place cured by building owner showing structural stability

I think this is going to just be a very expensive and painful lesson as to why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund, but was wondering if there was NYC law that I may be overlooking.
What is the question?
Are there NYC laws that create a duty of care for the City to tenants forced to vacate because of disaster or events beyond tenant's control?

 
NYC landlord-tenant anyone?

I did NY State landlord tenant for my 1L summer, but not in the city, so I know just enough to give bad advice.

Have a coworker whose building is vacated, but not destroyed due to the explosion.

Have not seen the lease, but I imagine it's boilerplate.

She's not rent-stabilized/rent-controlled. City does have a vacate order in place cured by building owner showing structural stability

I think this is going to just be a very expensive and painful lesson as to why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund, but was wondering if there was NYC law that I may be overlooking.
What is the question?
Are there NYC laws that create a duty of care for the City to tenants forced to vacate because of disaster or events beyond tenant's control?
No experience in NYC but I can't imagine there is.

 
NYC landlord-tenant anyone?

I did NY State landlord tenant for my 1L summer, but not in the city, so I know just enough to give bad advice.

Have a coworker whose building is vacated, but not destroyed due to the explosion.

Have not seen the lease, but I imagine it's boilerplate.

She's not rent-stabilized/rent-controlled. City does have a vacate order in place cured by building owner showing structural stability

I think this is going to just be a very expensive and painful lesson as to why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund, but was wondering if there was NYC law that I may be overlooking.
What is the question?
Are there NYC laws that create a duty of care for the City to tenants forced to vacate because of disaster or events beyond tenant's control?
No experience in NYC but I can't imagine there is.
The rent-stabilized/rent-controlled folks have a much different relationship with the city and "make out" comparatively.

I know that NYC eviction process is different than upstate. I was wondering if after 9/11, Sandy or other disasters anything had been put in place for the middle class.

(Total rant, but it's amazing the distinction between the Harlem and East Village explosion. City set aside 250K from the mayor's fund for Harlem, nothing for E Village. City guarantees rent-controlled payments for 12 months and will allow rent-controlled tenants to break lease. Not so for market-rate. Rent controlled/stabilized/subsidized is the suck)

 
Awesome day in court today. A true picture of the valiant work we do.

Couldn't help the client at all can't stop the guy from doing what he is doing because nothing rises to the level of admissible evidence and he knows just enough to not get it rise to a point that it would be. Yup. Awesome fun. Love restaining order cases. Really deal with the salt of the earth. Good people, doing good work, for good. Words we use all the time in that courtroom.

Ugh. There isn't a bottle of Jack Daniels big enough to drown away this day and it's not even over yet.
:lmao:

I just had a pro per opposing party send me two videos where she is video-taping the parties' two year old daughter saying that she doesn't want to see Daddy/my client. It's clear she's coached the child and is literally physically holding the child still until the child says what she's coached her to say. I'm going to bury her with this, but it's ####### vile and I feel dirty for even being involved.

Oh, and this is on the heels of me getting her restraining order dismissed for a procedural defect and merely filing a motion to enforce the parties' custody order because she's been depriving my client of his parenting time for no good reason. So she's pissed off. They have essentially a 50/50 order with joint everything, and my client just wants to keep it that way. Because he's still in love with this crazy chick and is on video getting into a mutual physical fight with this woman's new boyfriend.

Yay family law!
Do they really call unrepresented folks "pro per" instead of "pro se" in your jurisdiction?
I've heard both, but we definitely use the former more. I always thought "pro se" denoted a federal case where "pro per" was a state case, but I don't really know. What I do know is that the bulk of the judges I'm in front of say "pro per" so that's what I'll use too.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
I fall on the quality of life side. I cherish the time I have with my family. I could make more money if I stayed in the office more but the money isn't worth it. For me.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?

We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
Does moving to the government foreclose you going back to a law firm, possibly as a partner, in a few years?

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
I went from private practice to gov't. Took around a $60k or so pay cut, and the cut in money made absolutely no difference in my life. Take the pay cut and work for the gov't. Important caveat: My first govt job was at the DOJ, and I actually worked MORE hours than at my firm. That sucked. My second gov't job was in-house counsel at one of the Departments (Agriculture/Interior/Treasury/Labor/etc.), and it was everything I wanted/needed.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
Does moving to the government foreclose you going back to a law firm, possibly as a partner, in a few years?
Not to speak for theCatch, but conventional wisdom is yes, that door is essentially closed. Perhaps not completely slammed shut, but it is generally hard to leave the private sector (in most cases giving up whatever client base you'd built), then rejoin years later when you are older and your network is most likely smaller. In my experience, it is very hard to motivate oneself to do the breakfasts, country clubs, conferences, charity events and other marketing bs if your career no longer depends on it. Inns of Court or my son's soccer game on a Tuesday night? If you're not marketing, there's not much contest there.

 
You know commercial transactions for 7 figures where the lending bank set everything up for the deal in one specific way and then 3 days before the closing set forth conditions that make it a completely different deal and you have to drop everything and answer those conditions with no time to do it in the middle of tax season? Those deals?

Yeah I hate them.

And it's not like dropping everything is a piece of cake either. I have a dismissal motion denial, interlocutory appeal, motion to reconsider and potential federal removal issue all on the same case and my deadline to file something and pick which way I'm going to attack this thing first is........................ tomorrow.

I did however open up a solid and spectacular bottle of single barrel Jack last night and it definately is the perfect nightcap to this job. I need to get one for the office with a straw.

 
You know commercial transactions for 7 figures where the lending bank set everything up for the deal in one specific way and then 3 days before the closing set forth conditions that make it a completely different deal and you have to drop everything and answer those conditions with no time to do it in the middle of tax season? Those deals?

Yeah I hate them.

And it's not like dropping everything is a piece of cake either. I have a dismissal motion denial, interlocutory appeal, motion to reconsider and potential federal removal issue all on the same case and my deadline to file something and pick which way I'm going to attack this thing first is........................ tomorrow.

I did however open up a solid and spectacular bottle of single barrel Jack last night and it definately is the perfect nightcap to this job. I need to get one for the office with a straw.
The worst is clients thinking that their matter is the only thing on your plate so time to drop everything for their self created crisis.

 
O...M...F...G

I just had a knock down drag out argument with someone because they refused to acknowledge my credentials for a client because they said I didn't give them the right address. The problem as I ultimately found out? When I said the name of the town as "Anywhere Township" that was incorrect because this representative had it on the screen as..... and I kid you not....... truly not making this up........ seriously, I'm deadly serious.......... wait for it.......

Anywhere Twp.

I was expected to say Anywhere twip or however you pronounce that abbreviation FOR ****ING TOWNSHIP!

I'm going to so destroy that bottle of single barrel tonight. Poor thing is going to feel like whatever idiots thought it was a good idea to get into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson not named Buster Douglas.

 
O...M...F...G

I just had a knock down drag out argument with someone because they refused to acknowledge my credentials for a client because they said I didn't give them the right address. The problem as I ultimately found out? When I said the name of the town as "Anywhere Township" that was incorrect because this representative had it on the screen as..... and I kid you not....... truly not making this up........ seriously, I'm deadly serious.......... wait for it.......

Anywhere Twp.

I was expected to say Anywhere twip or however you pronounce that abbreviation FOR ****ING TOWNSHIP!

I'm going to so destroy that bottle of single barrel tonight. Poor thing is going to feel like whatever idiots thought it was a good idea to get into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson not named Buster Douglas.
Shut up.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
Does moving to the government foreclose you going back to a law firm, possibly as a partner, in a few years?
Not to speak for theCatch, but conventional wisdom is yes, that door is essentially closed. Perhaps not completely slammed shut, but it is generally hard to leave the private sector (in most cases giving up whatever client base you'd built), then rejoin years later when you are older and your network is most likely smaller. In my experience, it is very hard to motivate oneself to do the breakfasts, country clubs, conferences, charity events and other marketing bs if your career no longer depends on it. Inns of Court or my son's soccer game on a Tuesday night? If you're not marketing, there's not much contest there.
Interesting.i was coming from a very DC-Centric perspective, because that's all I've experienced, and in a lot of fields that deal with government agencies extensively (communications, antitrust, government contracts etc.) a lot of the partners that I've met have experience at the relevant federal agency.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
With the preface that my experience is not necessarily typical, I did an extreme version of this in 2013 by taking a ~60% pay cut to leave my stressful, awful, 24/7 availability job for one where I pick and choose what I do, work from my couch, and have an almost stress-free work existence. I considered posting the $$ figure here instead of the % but didn't want to give so much info about my compensation. But as I'd been a lawyer for 21 years at that time with some of the largest law firms and corporations in the world, you can imagine that that 60% was a significant $ amount.

For me, it was the best work-related decision I've ever made, and I'm happier than I've been since...well, happier in my job than I've ever been. My biggest adjustment has been not been the money but instead adjusting to not being "in charge." This was absolutely the right decision for me, but I don't have kids or debt. Having kids, a mortgage, other debt might counsel a different answer, but I'd say most of us can make less money than we think and still be happy, or even happier. If what is being offered is still enough for you to lead a comfortable life, there's no doubt my advice would be to go for it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
With the preface that my experience is not necessarily typical, I did an extreme version of this in 2013 by taking a ~60% pay cut to leave my stressful, awful, 24/7 availability job for one where I pick and choose what I do, work from my couch, and have an almost stress-free work existence. I considered posting the $$ figure here instead of the % but didn't want to give so much info about my compensation. But as I'd been a lawyer for 21 years at that time with some of the largest law firms and corporations in the world, you can imagine that that 60% was a significant $ amount.

For me, it was the best work-related decision I've ever made, and I'm happier than I've been since...well, happier in my job than I've ever been. This was absolutely the right decision for me, but I don't have kids or debt. Having kids, a mortgage, other debt might counsel a different answer, but I'd say most of us can make less money than we think and still be happy, or even happier. If what is being offered is still enough for you to lead a comfortable life, there's no doubt my advice would be to go for it.
Thanks for the responses. I think I've come around and am leaning in this direction.

 
so I'm suddenly faced with the option of staying in big firm private practice or moving to the government (both are litigation positions). slightly more interested in the work the government job would involve, but this is really the age-old $ versus quality of life issue. Anyone else face a similar scenario and either loved or regreted their decision? A few years ago I probably would have taken the money no question but with a small child it's really tough.
Not to pry, but what sort of hours and pay differential are we talking here?We talking cutting your hours in half or just shaving like 5-10 hours a week off for a 50k+ pay cut?
In my case, it's a difference between basically a 9-5 job and 2000 billable hours. Government pays decently but still about 1/3 less. It's a reasonable trade off but it's still tough to walk away from a higher $ number like that.
Does moving to the government foreclose you going back to a law firm, possibly as a partner, in a few years?
Not to speak for theCatch, but conventional wisdom is yes, that door is essentially closed. Perhaps not completely slammed shut, but it is generally hard to leave the private sector (in most cases giving up whatever client base you'd built), then rejoin years later when you are older and your network is most likely smaller. In my experience, it is very hard to motivate oneself to do the breakfasts, country clubs, conferences, charity events and other marketing bs if your career no longer depends on it. Inns of Court or my son's soccer game on a Tuesday night? If you're not marketing, there's not much contest there.
Interesting.i was coming from a very DC-Centric perspective, because that's all I've experienced, and in a lot of fields that deal with government agencies extensively (communications, antitrust, government contracts etc.) a lot of the partners that I've met have experience at the relevant federal agency.
That has been my experience in DC too. If you are litigating against the government in private practice it's a big deal to have worked on the other side. other practice areas maybe not so much.

 
Time for a story with a happy ending. And a humble brag.

I represent an older lady (not quite little old lady, but close) in her foreclosure, pro bono. She had a signed modification agreement with her bank from a couple of years back, but for reasons still unknown to me, the mega-bank she's with has maintained that she failed to hold up her end of the bargain by providing financials. Financials, mind you, that the signed agreement do not call for. The agreement calls for her to make payments, which she has. She came to me about six months ago, distraught, saying that the bank had started returning her payments and was threatening foreclosure. I told her to deposit the returned checks in a separate account and not to touch them, and to continue to make payments as called for in the agreement, and to deposit the returned payments into the same account each month. "Your honor, my client has been trying to comply with her end of the bargain from day one."

I got in contact with the bank's lawyer shortly after first meeting her a few months ago, and he says, only thing I can do with mega-bank is resubmit for a new agreement. Horse ####, I say, knowing that client's financials are not as strong now as they were then, and further knowing that resubmitting gives mega-bank an excellent argument that my client did not believe the existing agreement was effective. I tell him to tell his client to honor the existing agreement or we will file a motion compelling them to, at their cost. He tells me that they have dismissed the action months ago, so good luck filing any motion. I check, and curses, it's true. They sent notice of a motion to dismiss without prejudice and say they copied client's lawyer at the time. Client claims no knowledge. Case is looking more and more like a lot of work for a lesser chance of winning.

Until - mega-bank changes firms. This case, along with a load of others, is transferred. I get a copy of the new entry of appearance, and god bless working in a small state, the new attorney is a law school class mate of mine. I call her instantly. Please give this one a look. I know it was dismissed, but this is madness. A judge is going to hate you when I move to compel your client to honor an agreement with a little old lady. She's been saving her payments aside, she can make a lump sum and continue on making payments under the old agreement. She says she will make a couple of calls, see what she can do.

She calls me this morning. They are insisting on a new agreement, she says, but they are not requiring new financials. I think your client will find the terms acceptable. She has a lilt in her voice. Okay, says me, I'll read it over. What to my wondering eyes do appear, but a new agreement with better terms than the one she had before. It is half a point lower in interest, but more importantly, requires no lump sum payment to start. She just has to start making her (smaller) payments on May 1!

I call my client to explain the new deal, and to get her to come in to sign. What do I do with the $10,000 in the other account? She asks. How did it get to 10k? I ask. Well I had 4 checks when I came to you, and I've deposited the other 6 since we started working together, and haven't touched them. Well what do you know, I guess that math makes sense. Once we finalize the agreement, I tell her, that money is yours to do with as you wish. They didn't ask for it to complete the agreement. We no longer need it as a bargaining chip; as proof that you were always willing and able to hold up your end of things. She cries. At first it seems a little excessive, but then I think, this morning, she didn't know if her house was gone in a few months. Now it's not gone, she has a smaller payment, and 10 grand in her pocket. Imagine that.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top