|
Nah, I think it's ok probably. Most of the firms in the area that do construction seem to be looking for 3rd+ year associates and I just really needed a change. Speaking of, I love reading the stories in this thread from actual Trial Lawyers, but how many law firm dummies like me just lurk and imagine being in court?
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
I would probably eat a bullet if I didn't have court and oral arguments and poo poo to punctuate the hellish monotony of this job
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
I just started my third year, so it's only the hope of those that's keeping me going
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
ThirdPartyView posted:"I want to run a business where I don't have to pay FICA (and state equivalent payroll) taxes and have other benefits requirements, but I don't want to spend money to draft something that will otherwise leave me violently violated if the (federal and state) DOL, IRS or Franchise Tax Board/Employment Development Department come in, which they inevitably will at some point. So, anyone want to do it for free? Good night and God bless." It doesn't have anything to do with "not wanting" to pay FICA taxes and other benefits. In the specific industry I'm starting in, skilled professionals already work as independent contractors. I couldn't sign them on as employees even if I wanted to because it doesn't fit their lifestyles and work styles. They prefer the freedom to work from wherever they want and also prefer working part-time for multiple clients. That's why the only realistic option for me is to go the 1099 route. I also did not say I'm looking for someone to do it for free. But thanks, Shinto. Anyway, I found a lawyer friend and we reached a non-monetary agreement (his legal expertise in exchange for my company's services) so it's all good. Thanks for the advice, thread. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:It doesn't have anything to do with "not wanting" to pay FICA taxes and other benefits. In the specific industry I'm starting in, skilled professionals already work as independent contractors. I couldn't sign them on as employees even if I wanted to because it doesn't fit their lifestyles and work styles. They prefer the freedom to work from wherever they want and also prefer working part-time for multiple clients. That's why the only realistic option for me is to go the 1099 route. I can't see how this is anything but a cathouse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
Subterfrugal posted:I can't see how this is anything but a cathouse. *nods* Could also be meth lab, bbut they generally don't worry about taxes
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
joat mon posted:/\ /\ /\ Oh, it's quite the scandal. Birtheresque, except possibly real. Apparently the commandant may have lied about completing tbs. From what i understand in his era certain specialties got waived which ok fine, whatever, but on more than one resume he's claimed to have graduated. Then claimed kt was via corrrespondence course. typing on a tablet right now so linking is difficult but if you google sempre lie you'll get the jist. (:this comes right after all the "the weirick" peeing on taliban uci drama. Good times for Amos!) And i can think of nothing more derrogatory than simply being called army. *shudder*
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 10:53
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Anyway, I found a lawyer friend and we reached a non-monetary agreement (his legal expertise in exchange for my company's services) so it's all good. Thanks for the advice, thread. Barter exchanges are fully taxable to both parties, FYI - you're welcome!
Horseshoe theory fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:I would probably eat a bullet if I didn't have court and oral arguments and poo poo to punctuate the hellish monotony of this job Eventually I will have to take an assignment outside the military justice area and that kind of bums me out. The Army is weird with its lawyers. They want us to be "generalists" in our six areas (justice, operational law, administrative law, fiscal/contracts law, legal assistance, and claims) so in order to progress in your career you need to take a variety of assignments. What that means in practice is that you have individuals who under no circumstances should ever be in a court law having to serve as trial counsel, while guys like me and a few other folks I know who have a natural ability for it have to take desk jockey assignments every couple of years. It's an odd thing to do and I've always maintained they should allow us to specialize and still progress as officers. I want to serve as a Defense counsel or Special Victim Prosecutor next but I'm about to go do an operational law assignment for a couple years which is going to have me rusty as heck when I get back to justice 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Nah, I think it's ok probably. Most of the firms in the area that do construction seem to be looking for 3rd+ year associates and I just really needed a change. The wheeling and dealing and dick-on-the-table of my job is fun. Court is even more fun because of the dick-on-the-table stuff. Paperwork, discovery, and dealing with attorneys make me want to slit my wrists. Seriously. Court is the best part of this job. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Oh, it's quite the scandal. Birtheresque, except possibly real. Apparently the commandant may have lied about completing tbs. From what i understand in his era certain specialties got waived which ok fine, whatever, but on more than one resume he's claimed to have graduated. Then claimed kt was via corrrespondence course. typing on a tablet right now so linking is difficult but if you google sempre lie you'll get the jist. quote:The Marine Corps is acknowledging that the retiring commandant, Gen. James Amos, did not attend the Corps‘ officers training school, though he told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a signed resume that he had graduated in 1972.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:The wheeling and dealing and dick-on-the-table of my job is fun. Court is even more fun because. My favorite part is winning. My least favorite part is not winning. I also like the parts where I get to drive somewhere and do "lawyer work" outside. Last month, I got to sneak around and take pictures of houses in a historical district.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My favorite part is winning. My least favorite part is not winning. I have paralegals friend defendants on Facebook using a fake "sexy lady" account then screenshot the dumb poo poo they say on their walls. Haven't tried to introduce anything from these efforts yet, BUT SOMEDAY
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I have paralegals friend defendants on Facebook using a fake "sexy lady" account then screenshot the dumb poo poo they say on their walls. Haven't tried to introduce anything from these efforts yet, BUT SOMEDAY 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. Just did a murder trial where we pulled tons of pictures from facebook to prove "associations" between various fine upstanding youths. (Of course with the proper limiting instruction that the jury was not to consider the gang symbols being flashed by the defendant in any of these photos blah blah blah) Though if your paralegal actually communicates with them, that might be a problem...better stick to the publicly available info. ewr2870 posted:This almost certainly violates your state's rules of professional conduct. Yup. Tread lightly there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I have paralegals friend defendants on Facebook using a fake "sexy lady" account then screenshot the dumb poo poo they say on their walls. Haven't tried to introduce anything from these efforts yet, BUT SOMEDAY This almost certainly violates your state's rules of professional conduct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
ewr2870 posted:This almost certainly violates your state's rules of professional conduct. Yeah, I would definitely not do that. I wouldn't be too excited about trying to explain how friending someone on facebook is different than communication with a represented adverse party.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:16
|
|
|
the milk machine posted:Yeah, I would definitely not do that. I wouldn't be too excited about trying to explain how friending someone on facebook is different than communication with a represented adverse party. especially when so many of them are stupid enough to have public profiles anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
ewr2870 posted:This almost certainly violates your state's rules of professional conduct. Yeah, you can't do that even if the paralegal uses their real name. Fair game to look at public profiles though. http://www.philadelphiabar.org/WebObjects/PBAReadOnly.woa/Contents/WebServerResources/CMSResources/Opinion_2009-2.pdf http://www.nysba.org/CustomTemplates/Content.aspx?id=5162
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
And if you really believe there's incriminating evidence behind a locked profile, facebook is actually wonderful about complying with warrants, subpoenas and court orders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
I had no idea these opinions existed, but after some thought it is definitely one interpretation of how things go. Overzealous mistake I guess. There is no communication going on other than the initial "friend" request, but better safe than sorry. There isn't anything specifically on-point on this in the Illinois ethics opinions, but I certainly don't want to be the test case. Guess I better forward those opinions to the individuals who suggested this to me as well! Thanks for the links guys. ActusRhesus posted:And if you really believe there's incriminating evidence behind a locked profile, facebook is actually wonderful about complying with warrants, subpoenas and court orders. Did you have success with that while in the military? I never have been able to get FB to comply with our subpoenas, normally because we don't ever really have "specific and articulate facts" under the SCA. We just wanna have a look around. Defleshed fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Oct 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
"Check Parties' Social Media" is on my list of pre-litigation steps. We found and screencapped a tumbler blog of this girl who was suing her mother, pro se, for a bunch of crazy, made-up poo poo. We found, specifically on page 47: "Welp, not like I can get a fair trial when the judge is screwing my mother's attorney on the side." So we printed it out and handed it to the Judge. The Judge was not happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:"Check Parties' Social Media" is on my list of pre-litigation steps. This is a must, I unfortunately learned the hard way. One of our experts was getting deposed and the other side found a 5 year old tweet of his that was not good. Nobody had bothered to look that far back through his twitter account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Defleshed posted:I had no idea these opinions existed, but after some thought it is definitely one interpretation of how things go. Overzealous mistake I guess. There is no communication going on other than the initial "friend" request, but better safe than sorry. only time i needed a subpoena for a non-military person, I had the USAO do it for me. Networking...it pays.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
mikeraskol posted:This is a must, I unfortunately learned the hard way. One of our experts was getting deposed and the other side found a 5 year old tweet of his that was not good. Nobody had bothered to look that far back through his twitter account. Things I have learned to check before hiring experts: Criminal record. Social media. Lecture notes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Lecture notes. Stories?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Not a Children posted:Stories? Lecture notes is the most boring one - technical expert gave his opinion, turned out to have said pretty much the opposite thing in a lecture he gave his students.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Lecture notes is the most boring one - technical expert gave his opinion, turned out to have said pretty much the opposite thing in a lecture he gave his students. One of my co-workers crossing a defense expert: You're getting paid for your testimony today, right? Yes. How much? whatever the amount was...it was a lot. If I gave you (Amount +1) would you testify for me? THAT WOULD BE UNETHICAL!!!!! *witness proceeds to have indignant melt down on stand.* *awkward silence* What about (amount +50)? This of course is the same co-worker who, upon receiving notice that he was going to be laid off at the end of the day due to a statewide budget issue, walked into traffic court and nolled the entire motor vehicle docket. I don't even want to know how much that cost the state. Probably enough to have kept him on the payroll for at least a few more months. (epilogue, the budget issue resolved itself and all the laid off attorneys were promptly rehired.) Needless to say, I consider this man one of my most valuable mentors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 21:40
|
|
|
Bwahahahahahahaha. That's kinda fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 21:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:One of my co-workers crossing a defense expert: We prep our experts on how to answer that (the answer is "No, of course not. I am working for client because I believe they're correct.") (Also it can backfire if your expert is cheaper, and they will get asked about their rate - sometimes juries will say "well that guy is getting paid more so he must be smarter" because god drat juries.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
Kalman posted:We prep our experts on how to answer that (the answer is "No, of course not. I am working for client because I believe they're correct.") (Also it can backfire if your expert is cheaper, and they will get asked about their rate - sometimes juries will say "well that guy is getting paid more so he must be smarter" because god drat juries.) I'm sure they did too. They underestimated this particular attorney's ability to really piss people off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Things I have learned to check before hiring experts: “Accreditation of expert’s alma mater” should also be on that list.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 00:49
|
|
|
My partner subpoenaed my kids pediatrician this week. She hit on him while on the stand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If we can find a zoomie and a coastie and we'll have the full set! OFF WE GO...into the wild blue yonder...climbing high, into the sun! Here they come, zooming to meet our thunder...at 'em boys, give'm the gun! GIVE EM THE GUN!!!!!!!!!! Law firms should make their associates sing songs together - it would totally improve morale. Particularly if the song was about murdering the opposing side or going down in a blaze of flaming glory. HiddenReplaced fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Nov 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
I made all of the attorneys in my practice group dance this year for Halloween (also last year). Does that count?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
*Read Expert's CV* also on the list. Plaintiff's counsel deposing our expert witness: "So, have you EVER prepared a valuation for an oilfield services company?" Our Expert: "No." OC[soooo smugly]: "So, then tell the jury how on earth you're qualified to testify about economic effects in an oilfield setting?" Our Expert: "I prepared the report on the Economic Impact of the invasion of Kuwait on the Middle East Oil Industry for the United Nations."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
I don't understand was there not a deposition? That's where you get embarrassed where no one can see!
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
Yeah, I would never not depose an expert for that very reason. What a putz
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
It's going to be increasingly common in Utah. Our new rules of civil procedure let you choose to either depose an expert OR get the expert's report. If you go for the report they're limited to testifying based only on stuff in the report, which cuts down on the "oh, well the other reason for that is..." But missing out on a depo...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Those rules suck. We get depositions that are practically unlimited in length and our production rule is so broad that it gets us basically every piece of paper in the expert's file. Which is always fun to catch someone who does 99% federal court work basically drafting the expert's report in emails back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
68% on the patent bar  it's going to be a long month
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 00:52
|
|
