|
evilweasel posted:If that were my entry and it made the Washington Post and ATL I'd have mentioned it every time too. Sure, but I wouldn't have mentioned it when I first put it up. I think my issue is that the Washington Post mention is cool... the previous posts about it? Kinda spoiled it for me when it actually got mentioned in a newspaper.
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Hahahaha ok clearly I am just jealous that my entries on urban dictionary never went viral. My b. Grats on the post mention, that is pretty cool! You should print it out and frame it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/us/texas-judge-warning/index.html?hpt=hp_t2quote:An elected county judge in Texas is warning that the nation could descend into civil war if President Barack Obama is re-elected, and is calling for a trained, well-equipped force to battle the United Nations troops he says Obama would bring in. quote:Attorney Rod Hobson jokingly put up U.N. flags outside his Lubbock office, KJTV reported. "When I saw the story I thought, once again, Lubbock is going to be the laughingstock of the entire nation," said Hobson. "What makes it so sad is he is our elected county judge, who is in charge of a multi-million dollar budget. That is scary. It's like the light's on, but no one is home... I'd just like to think he's off his meds." Texas Bar Rule 8.02: quote:Rule 8.02 Judicial and Legal Officials Hobson's comment probably doesn't trigger 8.02(a), but am I the only attorney who thinks that practicing attorneys should not publicly criticize judges (even if the judges are being stupid)? I think its unseemly to publicly criticize a judge or court. Maybe I'm just prudish, I dunno. entris fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Aug 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Uh yeah, the Foreign Service is probably a terrible suggestion for Sly. He has kids and a wife. Working for the Foreign Service, while cool for younger people without kids or a spouse, would probably completely disrupt the lives of his family members. I dunno, maybe they would be up for it? I know my wife would probably be totally into that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2012 15:27
|
|
|
Millennial posted:I'm interested in feedback from all lawyers of various jurisdictions. Basically all through law school and my legal practice training I've been told not to give free legal advice in any way shape or form. If a social situation arises or a friend or family member needs advice, I should refuse them any advice. For one, I can be sued to the relevant standard of negligence for the advice I give. And second, I'm freely giving of my wares for no monetary compensation when it's hard-earned knowledge. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3266659 - pretty good evidence that at least some of us think it's fine to give non-advice for free.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 13:15
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:Why does this year even exist Do you have an alternative that you'd like to suggest?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 15:12
|
|
|
Oh I thought Solid Lizzie was just referring to 2012 in general, and to "this year" as a referent to the temporal space that we conceptually define as 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Dogen posted:I was taking the fact that school has started to infer that 3L was meant, but who knows Well I haven't been in law school for a while now, so I forgot about that. Feces Starship posted:yes entris, a normal human adult was complaining about the occurrence of a particularly numbered calendar year falling in relational sequence to other numbered years I can't help it, I was a philosophy major before law school. At least I'm not Izzy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 18:24
|
|
|
^^^^That's hilarious. I've said this before and I'll say it again: Dinosaur attorneys: Don't try to shoot the poo poo with me when you are literally shooting poo poo. I don't like talking to you when you have to raise the sound of your voice to overcome the sounds coming out of your rear end. I know it's a generational thing but god drat.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
My supervising partner is a Michigan alum and huuuuge football fan... And he's at the Michigan v Bama game right now. Good thing he isn't back on the office until Tuesday, he must be so pissed off right now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Regular exposure to the legal questions ask/tell megathread has consistently convinced me that I have zero interest in practicing landlord-tenant law, ever. It seems to me that 70% of the questions in that thread are landlord-tenant, and I find this incredibly dull.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
dos4gw posted:It can be fun, I do the odd case from time to time. Had one where I was acting for the shadiest landlord you could imagine - he had rented a house to an all female Irish theatre troupe who were staying there for 3 months while they did a performance of a play in London. Ha, that is a great story, and it further reinforced my convinction not to get into L&T.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 13:54
|
|
|
hahahaha get paid up front, woozle.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Omerta posted:Matter number 12345: researched whether Obama is a "Natural Citizen" of the United States and potential implications for validity of court authority. 6.2 hours. Maaaan I am so freakin' jealous. I wish I had a case that I could bill seemingly endless hours to.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 04:03
|
|
|
Feces Starship posted:I had my first day as an associate yesterday. I feel like I'm supposed to post something cynical but in actuality it was extremely exciting and they made me feel very welcome I wish that every month had the same level of excitement, happiness, and enthusiasm as my first month.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2012 15:00
|
|
|
As a trusts and estates attorney, I consider LegalZoom to be my natural enemy. I imagine that the LegalZoom attorney (what, you think there's more than one?) sits in a huge office, with floor to ceiling windows, at the top of a skyscraper in Monaco overlooking the beach, where he is getting fellated by multiple women (because he has multiple penises after extremely expensive surgery), smoking cuban cigars hand-rolled by Fidel Castro before his death, cackling maniacally as the money pours in. Everyone now and then he pulls out a new legal form and scrawls across it, usually while orgasming so his writing is pretty frantic, and this is converted into the new template. Which idiots buy and use. So, obviously, what I'm saying is that working for LegalZoom as an attorney is probably pretty good work if you can get it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Dogen posted:Also Fidel is still alive unless you know something I don't I just guessed, based on the fact that he's out of power. I assumed that Fidel Castro was really just a lich powered by his raw authority over the Cuban peoples, and once he lost that authority, I figured that his life force was extinguished.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
My favorite crazy client story was a mixed-race lady. She had been adopted as a baby (40+ years ago) but later reconnected with her father. Her father died and allegedly he did not have a will, and she wanted a share of his estate. The other children resisted this, because she had only come back into their lives within a few years of their father's death. She came to us to help her get a share of the estate. When someone dies without a will, their estate passes in some fashion to their surviving spouse and/or children. As far as I know, the definition of a decedent's "children" in every state does not, by default, include any of the decedent's children who were adopted by someone else. This is because an adopted child is treated as a child of his/her adoptive parents, and the adopted child inherits through them. It messes with the system if an adopted child can inherit from his/her bio parents AND adoptive parents, and similarly it would be bad if an adopted child did not inherit through either. So we knew that my crazy client, as an adopted child, had inheritance rights under her adoptive parents and not her bio parents... unless we could somehow invalidate the adoption. We also knew that the client could inherit under her father's will, if a will could be found, and if he provided for her in his will. Our client was convinced that her father had left her either a) everything or b) something significant, and that he had a will. So we spend weeks trying to find this will - a task complicated by the fact that one of her bio siblings had control of the father's personal items and safety deposit box, and wouldn't let our client anywhere near any of it. So we had to fight about that. Eventually, no will is found. So we're stuck with an intestate estate. Our only chance is to argue that the adoption was invalid, so I request the old-rear end adoption records from the clerk's office in Nowhere, Idaho or whatever, and we look at the records. There's nothing on the face of them that we could use to attack the adoption order, except that apparently our client's father never gave his consent to the adoption. Typically, a parent has to consent to the adoption of his child - and this was definitely true thirty years ago or however long it was. An adoption order that is not supported by both parents' consent can usually be attacked, so we had that option.. ...or so we thought until I checked the statute of limitations. Basically, our client's father could have contested the adoption... over thirty years ago. The statute of limitations had long, long passed. There was no other way to attack such an old adoption order. So we told our client that she was out of luck. Our client, who self-described herself as a "Navajo warrior" and was very high-up-on-herself, didn't like this answer. She told us to file a motion contesting the adoption, and she even suggested a bunch of "legal" arguments for us to use. I scrutinized the professional rules of ethics, and concluded that the issue was so clearly settled that we couldn't contest the adoption order in good faith. Yeah, I literally told my boss that I refused to file anything further in the case because we would be violating the ethical rules. My boss agreed with me, after a little hemming-and-hawing, and we told our client such. She was furious, and sent ALL CAPS EMAILS about HOW WRONG WE WERE and how WE ARE TRYING TO OPPRESS HER BUT SHE IS A NAVAJO WARRIOR AND SHE WILL FIGHT FOR HER RIGHTS AND HOW DARE WE TELL HER THAT SHE ISN'T THE CHILD OF HER FATHER etc etc etc. Anyway, so she calls up the office and screams at me for twenty minutes, and I end up saying "Ma'am, we are not your enemies here. We have tried to help you. Unfortunately, the blame in this matter rests with your father. He was the only person who could have included you in his estate - by drafting a will - and he failed to do that. If you want to be angry at someone, I suggest that you direct your anger at him." Let me just say that I do not recommend telling a person whose father recently died that she should be angry at him because he hosed up. It seemed like a reasonable thing to say at the time, but man did crazy client get upset. 
entris fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Sep 7, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Alaemon posted:The real problem I have with the multiple pants issue is the actual practical application. Do you put one leg in each pair, so they're flapping around? Do you just wear them one on top of the other? And if so, doesn't that start to cause problems with buttoning them? TTT grad spotted.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
BigHead posted:Does anyone else see a baboon screaming in terror in the right shoe? Hahaha I do now. Seriously though nm, if you can pair those appropriately with the right suit, you would look wicked badass.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 12:28
|
|
|
nm posted:Guys couldn't be prosecuted anyhow. They are sovereign flesh human beings, and admiralty court has no jurisdiction over them. Also something something capitol letters something something. That is NOT an ACCURATE REPRESENTATION of the CONSTITUITIONAL BRIEFS that are filed in so-called "courts". Your MOCKERY AND IGNORANCE of the SOVEREIGN RIGHTS OF MY FLESH AND BLOOD BODY proves that you are a "MAN OVERBOARD" as proven by the SUPREME COURT in Neffs v. Penneyort, 38 Fl. Cir. Ct. 304 ( Adm. Div.). And furthermore I DO NOT CONSENT to your UNCONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM OF EMINENT DOMAIN over MY FLESH AND BLOOD BODY as it is a VIOLATION of my third, seventh, and ninth amendment RIGHTS.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Sulecrist posted:I don't know if you've ever drank twenty beers or raided Molten Core or survived protracted dry spells but basically my undergrad rewarded endurance and by God I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and saved every DKP I had for that Might armor and OEB and nobody can tell me I didn't earn my empyrean splendor. Hahahaha what the gently caress is wrong with you. Molten Core is the WoW reference you drop? Molten Core? Might armor? Hahahahaha.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
What is this "split profession" thing??
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2012 02:48
|
|
|
Canescans posted:I'm a grown, athletic man and I've almost started sobbing in class a few times now. I don't know where its coming from and thankfully no one has noticed. Regardless of whether you drop out or stay in, go see a therapist to resolve this issue. You may think that it's related to law school, but it may not be. Law school may be bringing out some underlying issues. Better to examine this now than drop out of law school and assume it will go away. You may find that your feelings have nothing to do with law school - and maybe you'll start to enjoy it. As for dropping out or staying in, I vote that you get out. You obviously don't want to be a lawyer, and this profession is tough enough for people who want to be in it. That right there is enough justification to get out of law school. Coupled with the fact that your emotional state is destabilizing? Yeah, get out. Wait till the end of the semester, I suppose, see how your grades are, but even if you get great grades, I feel like you should still get out. The fact that you have a full ride is negated by the negative effects on your mental health - if you stay in law school for all three years, but you leave with your mental health in tatters, you've just hosed yourself (and your career success) for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 18:41
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I honestly think even if you made top 5% of your class, could transfer, and get the super job: you'd loving hate it. Like hate it with the burning passion of a thousand suns. You've been in this 20 year ratrace of school, and come out of law school like a cannon shot to be rewarded with a job you hate. That's a really tough pill to swallow, especially when you have the built in greener pastures of your hobby job potential (which you must share with us, btw). I agree with this picture. Also, Canescans you have to share your hobby job with us. Please, let us vicariously imagine doing a job that is fun and rewarding and life-affirming. edit: ALSO, Canescans - you are a recovering alcoholic? You are now in law school, you are beginning to experience strong, unexplained negative emotional responses, and you don't like the profession of law. If your parents give you poo poo about quitting law school, they are quite literally trying to ruin your life. Because if you stay in law school, I'd say the probability of relapse is near 100%, and then you really will be hosed. (BTW congrats on four months of sobriety!)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
I think we have a new Izzy in Canescan. In other news, I organized my office the other day - filed all my files in my file cabinet, put all the loose papers in the right spots, had a whiteboard installed, had a corkboard installed, etc. I did this two days ago. Every person who has come in my office is shocked at how clean it is - literally shocked, not "ha ha WOW you are so clean ha ha". Today, one of the secretaries joked that "the word on the street" is that my office is suspiciously clean (read: I am leaving the firm or don't have enough work to do). She then jokingly suggested that maybe I should fill a few redwelds with random papers and leave them strewn on my desk. Now I'm worried that this secretary is really trying to help me out, and her "jokes" are veiled warnings that I'm drawing unwanted negative attention/speculation. Ugh I need a clean desk though, or my productivity goes down. I don't want to keep up appearances of a messy office, messy offices are very distracting for me.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2012 14:25
|
|
|
Yeah I don't know why you guys are ragging on MoFaux, you may not know this, but his urban dictionary entry on legitimate rape was mentioned in the Washington Post.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2012 22:49
|
|
|
Solid Lizzie posted:
Do you know anything about this area of law?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 02:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
Hey guys, it's been fun but I'm finding that BigLaw billable requirements and these forums don't mix - mainly because I really enjoy reading these forums and have trouble stopping. So I'm out, you guys are awesome, this thread is awesome, I hope all of you get your dream jobs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2012 17:46
|
|