The Lawyer Thread Where We Stop Ruining Other Threads

[Zow 8,519]

I just got my first ever sheep-####er case today. My Mom is going to be so proud.

I've got a baaaaaaad feeling about that case.

He's actually a previous client that was on the lam for allegedly pulling the wool over an old lady's eyes in a theft case.

ETA: It's funny because it's true.

Edited April 8, 2015 by Zow

[Yankee23Fan 9,294]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

Well, first you find a nice cold stream...

[Zow 8,519]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

Waiting on the police report...

[Thorn 3,037]

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.

[NCCommish 7,522]

Nice job.

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,756]

The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?

[Henry Ford 60,520]

The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?

What basis would they have to ask for them after the new agreement starts?

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,756]

The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?

What basis would they have to ask for them after the new agreement starts?

It depends.

Is this just refinancing what principal remained when the issue started?

[krista4 23,797]

Wow, Thorn.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?

What basis would they have to ask for them after the new agreement starts?

It depends.

Is this just refinancing what principal remained when the issue started?

They're jettisoning the old agreement and starting with a brand new financing agreement. The old one is null and void, by my reading. They should have no right to a single penny from before the signing of that agreement.

[Don Quixote 4,716]

Nice job.

Before she spends it all, may be worth noting that if the principal was reduced, she could have COD income if the extender is not passed again. (At least, I think so; haven't dealt with that rule re forgiveness on a principal residence.)

Edited April 10, 2015 by Don Quixote

[Thorn 3,037]

The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?

What basis would they have to ask for them after the new agreement starts?

It depends.

Is this just refinancing what principal remained when the issue started?

They "refinanced" the total current balance, i.e., old principal balance plus outstanding interest. The only "downside" is that she will have a balloon payment for the remaining principal and interest ... in 2034.

"I'll be pushing up daises by then," she said.

[BassNBrew 10,561]

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.

Isn't this just part of the game?

I had a judge tell me she would dismiss my case the next time I abbreviated Boulevard in the complaint.

[Zow 8,519]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

Waiting on the police report...

So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).

The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.

I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'

[Zow 8,519]

As for today, I just finished a jury trial I had absolutely zero business winning. Didn't even give myself the trial psychosis where I've prepped so much I convince myself we should win. I litigated the heck out of this thing, but thought I had zero chance. Two examples as to why: my "key" witness gets on the stand, absent-mindedly rolls up his sleeves, and numerous swastika and white power tattoos are displayed (note: there were multiple races on the jury); my client testified and significantly changed her story to the extent that it no longer was consistent with my opening statement and completely obliterated one of our two defenses.

Jury only deliberated for an hour or so. Came back right in the middle of the lunch hour too so I figured they rushed back. Verdict: not guilty. I almost fell out of my chair.

[randall146 4,415]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

Waiting on the police report...

So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).

The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.

I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'

I've only gone on a view of my guy's child porn once. That was enough for me to know I never want to see it again. Just viscerally upsetting. Now I just take their word for it when they tell me yes, they had it, and yes, it shows such and such.

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,756]

Roarin.

[Zow 8,519]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

Waiting on the police report...

So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).

The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.

I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'

I've only gone on a view of my guy's child porn once. That was enough for me to know I never want to see it again. Just viscerally upsetting. Now I just take their word for it when they tell me yes, they had it, and yes, it shows such and such.

I'm too worried about potential PCR/ineffective claims and, as ####### terrible as this sounds, I've seen enough of it now that I can mentally prepare for it somewhat. Unfortunately oftentimes the proof issues relies too much on whether the state can prove age (and the majority of the victims in the pictures are never identified so age is an issue).

Edited April 10, 2015 by Zow

[krista4 23,797]

Not enough money in the world for me to do work that required me to see that stuff.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum.

I don't know. I have a pretty vivid imagination. Especially when considering what can be shoved up the rectum of someone who's involved in child pornography.

[The General 24,234]

Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?

[krista4 23,797]

Oh, and don't get me wrong--I admire the work you guys can do and believe everyone should be well represented by counsel.

[Zow 8,519]

And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum.

I don't know. I have a pretty vivid imagination. Especially when considering what can be shoved up the rectum of someone who's involved in child pornography.

Well, then, you've seen in your imagination when I've now seen in hi-def. What this guy did to his rectum should have wrecked him.

[Zow 8,519]

Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?

This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.

I've actually had clients do this while the case was pending to show that they are not physically aroused by the images in an effort to either reach a better plea agreement or convince a prosecutor to dismiss a case.

[-fish- 13,791]

Can we start a class action against comcast/xfinity? I went to add HBO so I could watch Game of Thrones on Sunday.

On the website, in red letters and a big bold font it says you can add HBO to your existing account for $10. When you hit the big yellow button to accept the offer, it puts it in your cart at $15/month (in smallish print). Three different comcast reps completely ignored the fact that there is an offer for $10/month and said that the promotional offer is $15.

I imagine a ton of people are resubscribing around now, and they're all getting ripped off to the tune of $5/month.

[The General 24,234]

Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?

This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.

I've actually had clients do this while the case was pending to show that they are not physically aroused by the images in an effort to either reach a better plea agreement or convince a prosecutor to dismiss a case.

That is crazy. Cannot believe that this is a real thing.

[randall146 4,415]

Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?

This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.

I've actually had clients do this while the case was pending to show that they are not physically aroused by the images in an effort to either reach a better plea agreement or convince a prosecutor to dismiss a case.

That is crazy. Cannot believe that this is a real thing.

It's really crazy. The original is like a sensitive ring around the guy's #### to see if he gets aroused. It theoretically terrifies me because I'm sure I'd show stimulation to some weird random thing.

The newer technology is even weirder - it's like an airbag around your #### that measures air displacement. What kind of sickos come up with these things?

Edited April 11, 2015 by randall146

[randall146 4,415]

Not enough money in the world for me to do work that required me to see that stuff.

It is truly awful. And I've seen and heard a ton of other terrible things in criminal cases. Horrible autopsy photos, child molestation victim testimony, etc. I assumed I'd be fine seeing it because doing criminal defense kind of takes away your sensitivity to sick ####. I was way wrong. Like I said it's viscerally disturbing.

How disturbing it was really governs my view on pedophiles too, because I used to assume it was kind of a slippery slope where a person might like regular porn and someone might like "just 18 porn" and someone else might like young teen or then child porn. But when I saw it is was so totally disturbing that I now feel like those attracted to child porn must just flat out wired differently.

Also (and this is a completely non-defense attorney thing to say) I don't think any amount of therapy can change a pedophiles predilection, any more than therapy could make a straight guy gay or a gay guy straight. Therapy can certainly help a person manage and control their urges, but I don't think there's any "cure" to pedophilia.

Edited April 11, 2015 by randall146

[randall146 4,415]

I will add that, unlike Woz, I've never had the pleasure of viewing dog or sheep ####### videos. Maybe it's because we don't really do that stuff here in Rhode Island. Quahog #######, sure, but who among us doesn't like to #### a nice quahog.

Edited April 11, 2015 by randall146

[Gawain 2,211]

I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.

But you have to give us more info........

Waiting on the police report...

So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).

The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.

I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'

Costanza defense?

Was that site wrong? Should I not have downloaded that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorence on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first launched internet explorer that that sort of thing is frowned upon... you know, cause I've visited a lot of 4Chan, and I tell you, people do that all the time.

[krista4 23,797]

Not enough money in the world for me to do work that required me to see that stuff.

It is truly awful. And I've seen and heard a ton of other terrible things in criminal cases. Horrible autopsy photos, child molestation victim testimony, etc. I assumed I'd be fine seeing it because doing criminal defense kind of takes away your sensitivity to sick ####. I was way wrong. Like I said it's viscerally disturbing.

How disturbing it was really governs my view on pedophiles too, because I used to assume it was kind of a slippery slope where a person might like regular porn and someone might like "just 18 porn" and someone else might like young teen or then child porn. But when I saw it is was so totally disturbing that I now feel like those attracted to child porn must just flat out wired differently.

Also (and this is a completely non-defense attorney thing to say) I don't think any amount of therapy can change a pedophiles predilection, any more than therapy could make a straight guy gay or a gay guy straight. Therapy can certainly help a person manage and control their urges, but I don't think there's any "cure" to pedophilia.

That's interesting stuff. I remember listening to a show on NPR that basically came to the same conclusion.

[Zow 8,519]

I wish I had a costanza defense. Unfortunately forensic software can trace the metadata to particular search terms. The device's user searched for these particular images. Circumstantial evidence, particular the numerous photos and videos of person who looks incredibly a lot like my client where he shows his affection for the family dog as well as his ability to fit things inside himself, suggest that may be him.

I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.

[Gawain 2,211]

I wish I had a costanza defense. Unfortunately forensic software can trace the metadata to particular search terms. The device's user searched for these particular images. Circumstantial evidence, particular the numerous photos and videos of person who looks incredibly a lot like my client where he shows his affection for the family dog as well as his ability to fit things inside himself, suggest that may be him.

I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.

Dealing with sex offenders housing rights was my first big clue that I wasn't going to want to practice for very long.

I have no idea how you guys manage to put it away at night and leave it at the office.

It's a job that needs to be done under our current system (I'd rather go back to inquisitive criminal justice), but I cannot imagine dealing with the cesspool of humanity and not being changed.

[krista4 23,797]

Hey randall, I don't want to post in the SC shooting thread as I don't want to black dot it, but I saw you mentioned Bryan Stevenson in there. I love him and the Equal Justice Initiative. Have been supporting them for several years as I think the work they do is incredible, and he's a fascinating guy to see speak.

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,756]

I wish I had a costanza defense. Unfortunately forensic software can trace the metadata to particular search terms. The device's user searched for these particular images. Circumstantial evidence, particular the numerous photos and videos of person who looks incredibly a lot like my client where he shows his affection for the family dog as well as his ability to fit things inside himself, suggest that may be him.

I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.

Dealing with sex offenders housing rights was my first big clue that I wasn't going to want to practice for very long.

I have no idea how you guys manage to put it away at night and leave it at the office.

It's a job that needs to be done under our current system (I'd rather go back to inquisitive criminal justice), but I cannot imagine dealing with the cesspool of humanity and not being changed.

You don't have to represent every client that walks into your office.

[Zow 8,519]

Good morning so far:

1. Stripper client subtly propositioned me as a thank you.

2. Was referred to as a "damn smart attorney" by an ICE officer who had to explain to the probation department why he could no longer take my client because I wisely crafted the plea and factual basis to make the conviction likely not a deportable one.

[NCCommish 7,522]

They grow up so fast.

[chet 4,503]

What's a restricted name in an arrest report?

[Zow 8,519]

What's a restricted name in an arrest report?

Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.

As a defense attorney, I will occasionally have to fight the redaction if it contains information I need to effectively defend my client.

Speaking of, my poor paralegal had this conversation with the prosecutor's paralegal this morning:

Theirs: Feel free to set up your own interviews of the civilian witnesses in this case.

Mine: Okay, we need to contact non-victim witness X as we do not have their contact information. Could you please provide it?

Theirs: It should be in the police report.

Mine: it looks like the witness is the victim's sibling and shares the same address. So it's been redacted.

Theirs: That's correct. We won't give out victim information.

Mine: I understand that, but we still need to contact witness X. Would you be okay just providing the witness's telephone number?

Theirs: Send them a letter and see if they are comfortable providing it.

Mine: We don't have their address.

Theirs: Well this is why we usually try to stay out of setting up defense interviews of civilian witnesses.

:wall:

Edited April 15, 2015 by Zow

[chet 4,503]

What's a restricted name in an arrest report?

Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.

As a defense attorney, I will occasionally have to fight the redaction if it contains information I need to effectively defend my client.

Thanks. Any idea why Heidi Amirault is listed as a restricted name with no attempt to redact it?

[Zow 8,519]

What's a restricted name in an arrest report?

Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.

As a defense attorney, I will occasionally have to fight the redaction if it contains information I need to effectively defend my client.

Thanks. Any idea why Heidi Amirault is listed as a restricted name with no attempt to redact it?

She's the reporting party and above 18 so, in my opinion at least, that should be public information. They may attempt to redact it later (although I suppose that ship has sailed).

We don't use the "restricted" language in my jurisdiction so I really don't know though.

[Yankee23Fan 9,294]

Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.

Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.

I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.

[El Floppo 27,913]

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)

Did you get an answer? I don't have time to read through the thread (no idea why I'm reading it in the first place, but it's kind of on par with watching Homeland)... but I live in the city and had my building vacated after a fire.

non-rent-stabilized/controlled apt means its up to the tenant's renter's insurance to cover anything. we had none, and ended up having to pay a lot of money for various vacate-related things (moving, storage, replacement of damaged items, etc). Fortunately, the lease was pretty clear that we didn't have to continue paying rent for our vacated apartment.

I seem to recall my wife rattling off some benefits the stabilized/controlled folk get when forced to vacate. To be clear- I recall the rattling, not the benefits.

[Zow 8,519]

Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.

Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.

I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.

Everything about this is just bizarre.

[-fish- 13,791]

Mediation tomorrow. Expecting 10 hours. I dislike my client and opposing counsel. When it's over, I get to drive 4 hours. FML

[TheAristocrat 1,975]

Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.

Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.

I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.

WTF? Looking forward to the update on this one.

[Yankee23Fan 9,294]

No updates yet. Mysteriously, no one is returning my call.

On another front, I just was able to negotitate a massive win on a contract case for my client. King of the world type moment. Today is a good day. For now. It's only 11.

[NCCommish 7,522]

No updates yet. Mysteriously, no one is returning my call.

On another front, I just was able to negotitate a massive win on a contract case for my client. King of the world type moment. Today is a good day. For now. It's only 11.

So quit for the day while you're ahead.

[Henry Ford 60,520]

I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.