|
ActusRhesus posted:The only thing better than facebook is myspace. Half of our gang intel comes from facebook. And yes, it's admissible so long as its relevant and more probative than prejudicial etc. etc. The (pro tem) judge I deal with has insisted to me all facebook is inadmissible hearsay and "I won't look at it." Fortunately the end results in child support cases are difficult to alter.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:68% on the patent bar A long month of joy and relief. You just dodged a bag of poo poo that would never wash away. Always, that smell. Patent lawyer:  You still have a chance to do something meaningful and to enjoy life's pleasures. Did you know that patent lawyers crave the human contact that the family law attorneys enjoy? That we don't have mirrors in our homes because we hate that rear end in a top hat with the contemptuous sneer. That reflected guy is such a dick and wears the same expression as our ex friends when they see us sober. Bravo!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:The (pro tem) judge I deal with has insisted to me all facebook is inadmissible hearsay and "I won't look at it." Fortunately the end results in child support cases are difficult to alter. well...things that are written on facebook, he's probably right about admissibility but for the wrong reason. unless you can give sufficient evidence that it really is in fact their account...it's not a hearsay issue, if it's allegedly the statement of a party opponent, but there is a sufficiently reliable issue. HOWEVER...pictures...oh yes. Pictures. Pictures are worth 1,000 words.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:well...things that are written on facebook, he's probably right about admissibility but for the wrong reason. unless you can give sufficient evidence that it really is in fact their account...it's not a hearsay issue, if it's allegedly the statement of a party opponent, but there is a sufficiently reliable issue. yronic heroism posted:The (pro tem) judge I deal with has insisted to me all facebook is inadmissible hearsay and "I won't look at it." Fortunately the end results in child support cases are difficult to alter. I tend to agree with him but the judges here all let them in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:I tend to agree with him but the judges here all let them in. Party's own statement, man. Plus AJs do whatever the gently caress they want. Real lawyering doesn't begin until you hit district. Also I picked up a week long jury trial the first week of December uggghhhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
how the gently caress do you fail the patent bar
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:how the gently caress do you fail the patent bar I was averaging 85% on the practice exams I took last The entire morning session was material I'd literally never seen before and didn't even know where to go to look it up. (Sections that my review materials even said "these are rarely, or never tested" - probably about 10 of the questions were on this stuff) The computer was obnoxiously slow taking about 30 seconds to load any time I needed to look something up - it crashed on me twice and though I didn't "officially" lose any time, my train of though was lost. Practice exams I was finishing with about 45 minutes on the clock to review. Because of how slow the computer/MPEP was on the actual, I finished each section with less than 5 minutes to review.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
As a now fourth year biglaw associate, I'm starting to supervise first years who just passed the bar. I'm learning in a hurry that supervising other highly educated associates is really loving tough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:how the gently caress do you fail the patent bar seems pretty common, actually http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/oed/exam/past/results/
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:As a now fourth year biglaw associate, I'm starting to supervise first years who just passed the bar. I'm learning in a hurry that supervising other highly educated associates is really loving tough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Party's own statement, man. My judge scheduled a 3 week long murder trial to begin on December 8th. She specifically gave us a week for jury selection because she knows it's going to be impossible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:well...things that are written on facebook, he's probably right about admissibility but for the wrong reason. unless you can give sufficient evidence that it really is in fact their account...it's not a hearsay issue, if it's allegedly the statement of a party opponent, but there is a sufficiently reliable issue. It's a party opponent situation, and when they're right there on the stand I think I should be able to hand them a copy of the printout and ask about it. There's ways around it, but just seems more cumbersome to have to ask "Are you Noglove Freelove on facebook? What did you mean by 'I hope those kids know how to forage for their meals'? Do you remember being photographed at Gentleman Johnson's last month and what denominations were you shoving in that stripper's G-string?" yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
I put it to you sir that you ARE Packersfan420 and you DID say "Vikings can smoke a bag of dicks lol". No further questions. The Defense rests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
qwertyman posted:As a now fourth year biglaw associate, I'm starting to supervise first years who just passed the bar. I'm learning in a hurry that supervising other highly educated associates is really loving tough. Yeah its much tougher than you'd think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
Turns out that new lawyers are totally loving worthless. It takes a couple years to find a way to make yourself valuable, like smuggling in gum or turning a toilet into a distillery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
I really dig having minions. I've got two baby lawyers doing my bidding right now, and I troll nearby universities for interns every summer. Just remember - they can't afford nice lunches yet, so feed them as often as possible. And make sure they have plenty of water and crumpled newspapers for bedding.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Party's own statement, man. Moreover 99% of Facebook is a meticulously recorded present sense impression down to clicking the "like" button. Did you all happen to notice the bar pass rates this year? My UBE state had a sub 60% pass rate and I've got some  theories.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 12:11
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:It's a party opponent situation, and when they're right there on the stand I think I should be able to hand them a copy of the printout and ask about it. There's ways around it, but just seems more cumbersome to ask "Are you Noglove Freelove on facebook? What did you mean by 'I hope those kids know how to forage for their meals'? Do you remember being photographed at Gentleman Johnson's last month and what denominations were you shoving in that stripper's G-string." And there's where my practice are bias creeps in. Our party opponents don't usually take the stand unless they have an exceptionally dull defense counsel or are truly stupid, so we have to authenticate via other means. Still, it's more an issue for typed statements than photos. The photos we are almost always able to get in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 12:56
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Turns out that new lawyers are totally loving worthless. It takes a couple years to find a way to make yourself valuable, like smuggling in gum or turning a toilet into a distillery. I guess I'm just unclear about what exactly it is that a lawyer picks up over the first few years that makes them valuable. Is it the day-to-day ability to function independently because you know how to handle each stage of any given client matter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I guess I'm just unclear about what exactly it is that a lawyer picks up over the first few years that makes them valuable. What seems like common sense after you've been working for a few years, basically. When you're working with very new lawyers you need to figure out all the steps you want them to take ahead of time and make sure they come back to you on anything they're puzzled about - people who have been doing it for even a year or two will handle a terse "I need X, for Y" much better. Obviously you should be doing the former whenever you can anyway, but usually when you're passing on work it's because you're really busy and want someone else to just make a certain problem go away. You don't get the real-world experience to fit a request into the context of the case and be able to figure out without asking what's needed (even some things the assigning person might not have thought of when they passed it along). It's a lot more work working with new lawyers. You've got to remember thoug that many of their fuckups are most likely your fault and not theirs. Assigning out work to people, especially new lawyers, is a real skill and it takes effort, and the first few times it's probably not going to go that well and you need to remember what it was like when you had no loving idea what was going on and figure out how to do it better next time. You definitely can't blame some first-year lawyer for not knowing the case and/or reading your mind when they started three months ago, even though every time you get back something that wasn't what you needed is frustrating and I'm guessing that's what zoozle is dealing with right now. That said though, every so often a new lawyer pulls a doozie that shows they have no regular common sense or judgment at all and that's never a good sign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's a lot more work working with new lawyers. You've got to remember thoug that many of their fuckups are most likely your fault and not theirs. Assigning out work to people, especially new lawyers, is a real skill and it takes effort, and the first few times it's probably not going to go that well and you need to remember what it was like when you had no loving idea what was going on and figure out how to do it better next time. You definitely can't blame some first-year lawyer for not knowing the case and/or reading your mind when they started three months ago, even though every time you get back something that wasn't what you needed is frustrating and I'm guessing that's what zoozle is dealing with right now. That said though, every so often a new lawyer pulls a doozie that shows they have no regular common sense or judgment at all and that's never a good sign. It's like you worked at my old firm or something. First job out of JAG land was with a biglaw white shoe type place. Was asked to write a motion for summary judgment. Was given an outline written by an associate who was leaving the firm. Outline had been worked on for over 6 months (file churning, anyone?) and approved by both partner in charge of case and client's in house counsel. I wrote motion based on outline. And was then torn a new one for not including an additional argument that was not on the outline, and I had not been asked to include. Apparently I "should have known to include it." Whereas I thought "hi, here's an outline we spent six months working on and have already had approved by our client's counsel, so please write a motion based on this outline" was a fairly straightforward tasking. Long story short: biglaw blows. Epilogue: I ended up leaving the firm, the case went to trial, resulted in one of the largest jury verdicts in our state's history against our client, and I got a good chuckle listening to seasoned members of the local bar asking "why didn't they do this, or that?" where "this" and "that" were all suggestions I had made but was told to shut up because I had no civil litigation experience. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It's like you worked at my old firm or something. First job out of JAG land was with a biglaw white shoe type place. I actually haven't had this sort of experience and that's the sort of thing I think is being really loving terrible at the administrative part of the job - you've got to be aware what caused a problem and screaming at a new guy for something that's almost certainly your own fuckup is not going to get things done right the next time. I actually really like my firm because of this - the people I've worked with are mostly quite good about it. It is harder than you'd think though, and so I can see how places that have a bad culture fall into the trap of assigning blame instead of figuring out what the actual problem was (and if it's really a serious problem or a "yo, remember this next time"). It's an area law firms have a somewhat deserved reputation for not being great at - managing people is a skill and often there's not a lot of attention paid to how well people do it vs. just the results. The churn most biglaw jobs have masks that there's some genuinely terrible managers who drive people away that would be a benefit to the firm (you hear stories about the people who like dropping work on people on late Friday afternoon after not giving people any heads-up or even stuff that was on their desk Friday morning and they just didn't care enough to get it to someone so that they could get it done that Friday instead of over the weekend).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The churn most biglaw jobs have masks that there's some genuinely terrible managers who drive people away that would be a benefit to the firm (you hear stories about the people who like dropping work on people on late Friday afternoon after not giving people any heads-up or even stuff that was on their desk Friday morning and they just didn't care enough to get it to someone so that they could get it done that Friday instead of over the weekend). why_i_just_accepted_a_lateral_offer.txt A classic that actually happened to me on a Thursday: "Hey, we got these RFPs/rogs/RFAs in like two or three weeks ago, can you draft responses and be ready to serve on Monday? By the way I know you haven't worked this case even once and you don't even know the file number or even which party is our client, but I'll be out of town until Sunday night so maybe ask the overworked nonequity partner if you have any questions. Good look thanks!" Part of the documents the client sent us for production was ~1500 pages of attorney-client privileged emails, as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I guess I'm just unclear about what exactly it is that a lawyer picks up over the first few years that makes them valuable. What evilweasel said for the biglaw experience. For your "3 man general practice firm in Utica" that handles DUI's and divorces, new lawyers are worthless because they literally know nothing of value. Biglaw can afford to pay an evilweasel to train them like Michael Vick raises dogs, but that time investment is a bigger hit for a small firm. Let's say I hire the #1 student from Harvard to perform no-fault divorces for me. That person can write a thesis called "Should fault-bases effect equitable distribution in the new millenium?", but they're worthless to me. They cannot answer more than 10% of the top 100 questions their clients will ask. I'll spend more time helping them with the forms then had I just done the drat divorce myself. I'm not smarter or anything, it's knowing that the T9 form is filled out except for this part, and the older clerk wants your coversheet to be like this, and staple here but NO NOT THERE gently caress, etc etc. The only reason firms hire associates is to make them money. Once a new lawyer is semi-trained, the firm takes a cut of their fees as they muddle through. Eventually the initial investment of training time is covered and finally the baby attorney is profitable. If they leave before they're profitable, because I'm an rear end in a top hat and biglaw pays double, then I lost money. I imagine it's different in biglaw, as gussied up training exercises are billed normally but they probably need you to not screw up the jillion dollar transaction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Case-in-point: at my first job (two attorney firm), we hired a 'legal assistant' who had passed the Texas Bar, but who went to law school out of State. She only got the job because we were looking for a secretary and her resume came across our desk. She didn't even want to practice, at first. She only went to law school(on a full ride) and took the bar... because? She worked as basically a secretary for 6 months, then as a paralegal-type for 6 months, then stared doing little law things, here and there. It took her about 18 months to start "practicing." If she hadn't been willing to work for peanuts until she had her own book of business, and hadn't been willing to do whatever, we could have never afforded to hire and 'train' her. She was one-in-a-million, and those were basically the only circumstances where a small firm like that, hiring a baby lawyer, made any sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's an area law firms have a somewhat deserved reputation for not being great at - managing people is a skill and often there's not a lot of attention paid to how well people do it vs. just the results. The churn most biglaw jobs have masks that there's some genuinely terrible managers who drive people away that would be a benefit to the firm (you hear stories about the people who like dropping work on people on late Friday afternoon after not giving people any heads-up or even stuff that was on their desk Friday morning and they just didn't care enough to get it to someone so that they could get it done that Friday instead of over the weekend). One of my co-workers had specifically negotiated a part time schedule in which she did not work Fridays in exchange for being paid 20% less than other associates at her year level. The head of the litigation department would, despite this, regularly call her in on Fridays to perform work on "last minute emergencies" which he would not review until the following Thursday. Lather, rinse, repeat. Yeah. I don't miss that place at all. Edited: Just looked up other associate. She no longer works there either. Shocking! ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I guess I'm just unclear about what exactly it is that a lawyer picks up over the first few years that makes them valuable. Scenario 1) A carpenter frames one house a week, earns $2,000 and pays himself $1,000. It took him 1 year to learn. If he hires another carpenter with a year's experience, he can frame 2 houses per week, earn $4,000 and pay himself $2,000. Scenario 2)If he hires someone with no experience, he has to teach them how to hold a hammer, how to drive a nail, how to measure a board, how to cut a line. His weekly output is reduced by 50%, while his new hand only adds 25% output. He now does 3 houses every 4 weeks, for one year. thats a loss of $250/week. His $52,000 salary just dropped to $40,000, minus what he had to pay his new hand (lets say $20,000). He made $104,000 in scenario 1. He made $20,000.00 in scenario two. Biglaw is the only institution that can stomach the $84,000 swing on a regular basis, on the promise of 3-10 years on $104,000 down the road. Smaller firms can't eat that kind of loss.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:She was one-in-a-million, and those were basically the only circumstances where a small firm like that, hiring a baby lawyer, made any sense. Bingo, I need that lady. It's like you need a wounded animal. If they have big ambitions or dreams, then they sure as hell ain't working with me. But if they're too dumb or lazy, they'll quickly be more trouble than they're worth. There's a sweet-spot of surrendered competence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Bingo, I need that lady. It's like you need a wounded animal. If they have big ambitions or dreams, then they sure as hell ain't working with me. But if they're too dumb or lazy, they'll quickly be more trouble than they're worth. There's a sweet-spot of surrendered competence. Without getting into the details of her personal history and disposition, you are SPOT ON.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
This discussion has a weirdly predatory undertone I say that not to be judgmental, but because I find it hilarious
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Bingo, I need that lady. It's like you need a wounded animal. If they have big ambitions or dreams, then they sure as hell ain't working with me. But if they're too dumb or lazy, they'll quickly be more trouble than they're worth. There's a sweet-spot of surrendered competence. If all of my business ventures don't succeed in giving me the gently caress around money I want by the time I'm done with law school and pass the bar that's exactly the type of job I'm looking to get. I don't have big ambitions. I just need something to do to kill the time and supplement the rest of the income I have coming in. I don't need some bigtime job. Something where I'm just working part time, maybe doing some bitchwork, occasionally doing something of merit when needed, I don't have to get paid much, and I'm a tax break for my employer. It's me. I'm the wounded animal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
grow weed
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Go back in time and don't get a JD, you can get a job doing terrible busywork with or without dropping 150k on law school.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Law School: for people lacking any real ambition, but too lazy to steal
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:If all of my business ventures don't succeed in giving me the gently caress around money I want by the time I'm done with law school and pass the bar that's exactly the type of job I'm looking to get. I don't have big ambitions. I just need something to do to kill the time and supplement the rest of the income I have coming in. I don't need some bigtime job. Something where I'm just working part time, maybe doing some bitchwork, occasionally doing something of merit when needed, I don't have to get paid much, and I'm a tax break for my employer. I have job openings for you in Texas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Got a call from an Austin area code today thinking it was the BLE calling me to tell me my July bar exam score was available. Nope, it's loving Mike Huckabee telling me to vote for Dan Patrick in the Lt. Governor elections. What the hell is it that takes Texas so long to get results out? I want to stop being miserable about whether or not I passed and start being miserable about finding a job before I finish my LL.M. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
So I got a pro se complaint alleging all kinds of ridiculous stuff today--just the garden variety nonsense conspiracies--but there was a wonderful kicker. The plaintiff is a law student at Cooley.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Long story short: biglaw blows. ActusRhesus posted:One of my co-workers had specifically negotiated a part time schedule in which she did not work Fridays in exchange for being paid 20% less than other associates at her year level. The head of the litigation department would, despite this, regularly call her in on Fridays to perform work on "last minute emergencies" which he would not review until the following Thursday. Lather, rinse, repeat. Holy crap. It sounds like you worked at my first firm out of JAG, from the getting their rear end chomped on by ignoring my 'uuh, this is a problem' to the 'let's try to create a wounded animal' style gently caress-gently caress games. Except it was medium law and not silk stocking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
quote:Over the course of the last week or two, the OIG has placed fifteen auditors and investigators on site here at the USPTO to begin investigating the USPTO Telework program and procedures, time and attendance record keeping and who knows what else. The OIG has not shared the scope of this investigation or any other information regarding this investigation with POPA. We are simply aware of its existence and it causes us great concern because it can be very easy for an experienced investigator to twist questions and employee answers into any convoluted story the investigator may wish to tell. We have already seen this with the leaked 32-page report in the Washington Post. We expect that it will not be long before examiners and other POPA bargaining unit members get “invited” to meet with an IG representative to discuss these issues. We believe there is a reasonable likelihood that the IG will use information provided by employees in these meetings against the employee and/or the USPTO. lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Could you guys stop cheating on your time sheets so I can actually schedule a goddamn interview?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 03:28
|
|
