|
Nice piece of fish posted:Ooooh, I gotcha. We do retainers too, esp. for court fees. I was picturing you just loitering around the court house like some sort of lost house elf then getting called into court by some judge who'd saddle you with a client right then and there which you'd have to defend on the spot. Maybe I'm prejudiced because when I think about it now that seems very anti-semitic against US lawyers. Oh, this happens, especially in criminal court. You wouldn't be jumping straight into a trial, but you might end up walking into an arraignment with basically zero knowledge.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Omerta posted:Lol at anything other than federal court. I'm so happy I have, at most, 2 state court cases a year. state court is only slightly more modern than trial by ordeal, pretty much regardless of what state you're in
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Fun adventures in being a young attorney: lovely, condescending emails from older attorneys. quote:
Roger, if you think about which attorney we both respect and loathe, you'll know who sent it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Fun adventures in being a young attorney: one of the partners i work with talks about his thirty years of experience with one opposing attorney all the time and it drives the other attorney up the loving wall, so much that i think a reference to it even showed up in one of his settlement demand emails i haven't figured out yet if he's doing it intentionally to gently caress with the guy or not
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
A guy I worked with when I was just out of law school, only about 7 years older than me, liked to make references about poo poo that happened in the 80s and 90 and smugly say, "You're probably too young to remember this but..." At first it annoyed me but then I started doing the same thing, except I would say "You're probably too old to remember this..." and then he stopped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Fun adventures in being a young attorney: gently caress her for being so good.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:gently caress her for being so good. I asked her once why she wasn't a partner at KoonsFuller and she smiled and said "You think they haven't offered?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
I hope lawyer afterlife is getting to be one of those fat guys in hell that pokes clients with a pitchfork when they get too close to crawling out of the lava pit
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 04:03
|
|
|
how the gently caress is there nothing in the MPEP or CFR that requires claims to each be on their own line?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:I hope lawyer afterlife is getting to be one of those fat guys in hell that pokes clients with a pitchfork when they get too close to crawling out of the lava pit Incidentally that's lawyer heaven.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:how the gently caress is there nothing in the MPEP or CFR that requires claims to each be on their own line? lol what so all the claims are just in a giant paragraph?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
Just interviewed for a job in my office. My interviewers were my direct boss and two guys I drink and play softball with. Not bad odds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Zo posted:lol what so all the claims are just in a giant paragraph? they just forgot to put a line break between two claims but I'm looking for a basis to object and whatever I just did it without any basis
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
I have the day off today for Statehood Day. Have fun at your desks, clowns!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:they just forgot to put a line break between two claims but I'm looking for a basis to object and whatever I just did it without any basis So just being a normal patent examiner then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
gret posted:So just being a normal patent examiner then. Making Patent Examination Pointless
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:state court is only slightly more modern than trial by ordeal, pretty much regardless of what state you're in Only thing that's worse is the NLRB. Everything is a non-exclusive 15-factor test. The factors change depending on the season and humidity. The deciding factors are what the Board had for lunch and whether the entrails auger a reversal of precedent. The test may be ignored based on public policy considerations. The most important consideration is whether the Board gets to do what it wants, which strongly weighs in favor of whatever the Board decides. If a new test is created, the decision must be at least 50 pages, never use the word "test" or list the factors, and have no citations to the record. All new tests must be applied retroactively because gently caress you, that's why.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
"Hey - we have some mutual friends, I know [X] and [X] - I have solid grades, am in the top 10% of [TTT], but was on vacation during OCI, so I missed it - do you have opportunities at [Big Law] outside of the OCI process - I'd love an opportunity to interview at [Big Law]." Good lord law student - just show up. Edit: who else is Saturday billing, maybe that person is the smartest among us who will never have to work the big law salt mines. Sab0921 fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Aug 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:Edit: who else is Saturday billing, maybe that person is the smartest among us who will never have to work the big law salt mines. Big ups
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:
Yeah. No. I'm loving dumb as hell for having to do a twelve-hour today for my loving nightmare of a case next week. I am stupid as gently caress and I need to get a real job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
Sab0921 posted:Edit: who else is Saturday billing, maybe that person is the smartest among us who will never have to work the big law salt mines. Billed a solid 7 hours today. Hoping that my case goes to trial. Trial owns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
so I work in "biglaw," mid-size city (big mid-law). I'm going to talk to a recruiter next week because lol why not. (to cement that I am in mid-law, this is the first actual call I've gotten; all other recruiters have been lovely lazy emails) what should I ask? I'm envisioning the conversation to be about 5 minutes and to be not informative at all. But someone once told me to always keep my ear to the ground. So, I'm going to take their call that I pushed off to next week. I like A) the people I work with, B) my paycheck, and C) the city I work in. In that order. So I'm not particularly keen on moving, but I would if I could get SUPER STUPID PAY in NYC (not DC because lol gently caress DC it suuuuuuuuuuucks) or some equivalent pay of what I'm currently getting for an appellate botique (I have a clerkship just not SCOTUS so *fart*). Basically plz tell me what I should be doing when I talk to this recruiter. Is it really just lay the cards out on the table, or something less soul bearing? My firm cohorts tell me recruiters aren't worth it and you should just work your current contacts, but hey if I could get a stupidly awesome paying job in NYC on my own I would, bro! Are recruiters a waste of time?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:so I work in "biglaw," mid-size city (big mid-law). Recruiters can be great or they can suck. If you're making less than market they can probably find you lateral openings at market. Have a conversation with the recruiter and try to work out whether they know the market(s) and the employers and will be able to offer you meaningful opportunities. You dont need to share all your hopes and dreams with them, just what you're comfortable with/interested in sharing. Biggest things are how many years of experience you have and what specific areas you work in. Also, your willingness to take another bar if you move around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 10:50
|
|
|
Trip Report: Week 3 of working for someone. Have taken over 20 cases from previous attorney who had no idea what he was doing or just didn't give a drat. Explaining bills to clients is fun. "Didn't I already pay to have the other attorney do this?" "Yeah but he hosed it all up" "I don't want to pay for it twice" "Do you want to win or lose your case?" "Ok, transfer me to accounting"
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
What kind of litigation are you into now Roger?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:What kind of litigation are you into now Roger? Majority of my cases are family but the majority of my billing and time are spend on my civil litigation cases.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Recruiters can be great or they can suck. If you're making less than market they can probably find you lateral openings at market. Have a conversation with the recruiter and try to work out whether they know the market(s) and the employers and will be able to offer you meaningful opportunities. You dont need to share all your hopes and dreams with them, just what you're comfortable with/interested in sharing. Recruiters mostly can’t do anything you couldn’t do yourself. However, they will do it and you don’t have to. Which is nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Recruiters mostly can’t do anything you couldn’t do yourself. That's why I've been told, hence my skepticism. But then again maybe I'm bad at selling my amazingness so whatever. Thanks for the input, Vox.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
I think you misunderstood my point. They don’t do anything you couldn’t do - but YOU DON’T HAVE TO DO THE WORK. And they’re free (to you) so why the gently caress not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
I got you. Any dismissiveness was towards recruiters, not your post.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
.
Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Roger_Mudd posted:Majority of my cases are family but the majority of my billing and time are spend on my civil litigation cases. Right now I've got four multi-million dollar estates I'm dividing up. I've got doctors coming in for their divorces. And I'm seriously just one guy and my overhead is $0. And every god drat week I freak out because I think I'm not going to get paid this week. Ugh. I'm envious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Recruiters mostly can’t do anything you couldn’t do yourself. I mean, if you have pre-existing connections with a bunch of law firm partners, I guess. Some openings aren't even publicly posted. I would not have known about the opening for my current job without a recruiter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Took wife and preschooler son to Nashville for the eclipse from Austin. Just a 35 hour trip. My loving boss was in the same flight out as me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 02:13
|
|
|
In house life: Tomorrow, after fulfilling the /second/ weirdest request for the year, I will be able to add voice acting to my resume.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 04:56
|
|
|
Ugh. Anyone offhand know if you can use records from an expunged trial against the co-defendant who pled out and testified against the guy whose record got expunged?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Ugh. Anyone offhand know if you can use records from an expunged trial against the co-defendant who pled out and testified against the guy whose record got expunged? Was it expunged for factual innocence or because he got it knocked off his record for good behavior over X years? No for the former (maybe. A transcript shouldn't exist as all records were supposed to be physically destroyed.), yes for the latter in California. Technically our "expungements" (the latter kind) aren't actually 'expungements" so take that with a grain of salt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
nm posted:Was it expunged for factual innocence or because he got it knocked off his record for good behavior over X years? Governor pardoned the co-defendant because he was a buddy, and as per a new statute the case was expunged. The non-moving co-defendant is now doing the same poo poo he testified doing earlier, and we were going to use it against him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 07:05
|
|
|
Abugadu posted:Governor pardoned the co-defendant because he was a buddy, and as per a new statute the case was expunged. The non-moving co-defendant is now doing the same poo poo he testified doing earlier, and we were going to use it against him. Well, that's a new one. I'd look at the statute, text of the pardon, and any legislative record (I promise you they never discussed this). If I was on the prosecution and had nothing else, I'd argue something like the co-defendant doesn't have standing to object because the pardon applies only to the named person. Kind of like a search of someone else's car. Kind of a hail mary, but you wouldn't look like rear end in a top hat. Actually, what I'd do is make the defense argue that it is inadmissible, because they won't have any caselaw either. "Thankfully" in california we have proposition 8 which makes any evidence admissible unless it isn't. nm fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Aug 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 07:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
nm posted:Well, that's a new one. I'd look at the statute, text of the pardon, and any legislative record (I promise you they never discussed this). If I was on the prosecution and had nothing else, I'd argue something like the co-defendant doesn't have standing to object because the pardon applies only to the named person. Kind of like a search of someone else's car. Kind of a hail mary, but you wouldn't look like rear end in a top hat. That's similar to what our chief prosecutor just told me, so we'll go with it. We're also going to try to get a written waiver by the guy who got the pardon, since he's probably not a big fan of the guy who testified against him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2017 07:26
|
|