We're all next on Paigow's ignore list
 

Um, you do know that the Supreme Court kinda fucked with the tenancy by the entireties thingy. Just in case you ever deal with federal law instead of just state.

It's good to know you are up on stuff like Supreme Court rulings. I am getting ever more confident in your lawyering skills.

Here's even an article that mentions PA -- oddly enough the first one that pulled up when I did the yahoo search. Hah.

http://www.pa-estateplan.com/library/asset/entirety.htm

strangest thing
 

You bitch (please), you said you'd never tell.

strangest thing
 

And we have the Bilmoer of the Day (with my edit, sorry - I dont see bilmore saying bitch (please). Congrats.

We're all next on Paigow's ignore list
 

We've all been there. You get an order in, and resign yourself to having lost. Then Client gets em's copy of the order and reads it for loopholes, then gives you instructions to follow the loopholes, not the judge's obvious intent (i.e., that you lose).

Client says, "I think we can just do X."

You say, "No way, dude, I have to practice in this town."

Client says, "But you agree with me the order isn't exactly clear, right? You said so when you called me to tell me we had lost --- the order is poorly written and the judge got it wrong, yadda yadda yadda."

You say (to yourself), "Well, it's not exactly Rule 11 sanctionable; I can say this with a straight face." You say this because you don't want Client to tell you to do something you've expressly refused to do, because then you will have to explain to a GP why your firm will have to withdraw from Client's matter, and probably lose the Client entirely. Not to mention some lost receivables.

Meanwhile, GP "advises" you that sometimes Client needs you to walk into bayonets --- you'll understand when you're older --- and that's what lawyers are paid to do --- make the Client's arguments, even shitty ones like "Your order said file by Monday, not file and serve." Or whatever.

The only lawyers who successfully avoid this conundrum are the ones who are given enough juice by their firms to say "Fuck you; I like having a ticket to practice" to Client without being blamed for having "lost" the Client. Sadly, a lot of GPs think a single GA's reputation in front of a discovery commissioner, arbitrator, or even law & motion judge is less valuable than presenting a "can do" attitude to the client.*

*This observation does not apply in federal courts or in small towns with fewer than 15 judges.

Edited to add: The above commiseration does not apply if you were getting "hypertechnical" to cover your own fuck-up. Only when you're instructed by a Client to be an ass-jack WRT an order.

And my entry for tomorrow is..
 

Yes! How schweeeeeeet it is!!!

We're all next on Paigow's ignore list
 

Maybe you ought to read articles before posting links. Unless you've utter shit for brains you can see that the cite you provided is (a) limited to claims by the Federal Government, (b) to date has only been applied in the context of TAX liens and (c) does not apply to the standard judgment creditors.

If you've actually litigated executions at all, you'd recognize that Courts in states that have tenancy by entireties will never unwind a tenancy by entireties because to do so takes away a protection the sole advantage to having a tenancy by entireties. Why would the states that recognize t by e even retain the concept? One of the main reasons you and your spouse own a home by t by e rather than merely as joint tenants is to avoid judgment creditors getting your home. And by the way, I've used t by e several times to avoid execution in a few states and fed cts, so if the law's changed -- other than some novel distinguishable tax lien case -- its news to me.

Now, please go google me some more distinguishable shlock from some estate lawyer's website.

To those who have PMed and IMed on
 

advice on how to tribute, I refer you to my personal all time favorite tribute sock Snidely Condescending.


This sockis a narrow tribute sock that hones in on one facet of my "persona". Yet there is something subtle about it and a person less familiar with em's oeuvre might just think its an ordinary sock. And it is generally quite funny. It also does not appear that often, and it does not make the classic JFUCK mistake of beating its theme to death by heavy posting in a short period, often assisted with a similarly themed, and named sock.

I suspect that Snidely Condescending could be the work of Cheval who is a pretty good sockster in my experience. His socks are clever, closely honed to their theme, narrow in scope, and only appear on occasion. Having more tribute socks than anyone, and having never tributed myself, I feel I am a good judge of these things, and therefore, I suggest you OM Cheval for tips.

To those who have PMed and IMed on
 

Yes, SC is one the greats. Not mine, but great nonetheless.

Did I say not mine. Seriously. I. quit. socking.

Penske

We're all next on Paigow's ignore list
 

Gosh, honey, I'm sorry my reading skills are deficient.

I must have forgotten to say something to the effect of "if you ever do anything besides state law."

Oh, except I didn't forget. Weird.

We're all next on Paigow's ignore list
 

Gosh, honey, I'm sorry my reading skills are deficient.

I must have forgotten to say something to the effect of "if you ever do anything besides state law."

Oh, except I didn't forget. Weird. [/QUOTE]

Interesting... so you're saying the state laws of the states wherein the Fed Districts are located do not apply in the Fed Cts? Hmmm... I seem to recall some case about this in law school... I think it had the name of a Great Lake in it or something like that...

S(If you insist on acting like a pinata...)D

We're all next on Paigow's ignore list
 

Yes, but that's not applying federal law. Dumbass. It's like the Defense of Marriage Act.

And if you were at all up on things, you would know that now "Erie" is about retiree medical and age discrimination.

litigation ethics
 

It is absolutely correct that sometimes we are required to walk into bayonets. As Rudyard Kipling* put it, you take the Queen's shilling, you do the Queen's biding. The thin red line is all that stands between civilization and savagery. In times of peace, it's "Tommy" this, and "Tommy" that, but when litigation comes ...

Ahem. I digress. Anyway, my point is that we all have to go in and take lumps for our clients on occasion. That's just the way it is in litigation. I've taken those hits as an associate and as a partner. I've taken them in state court, federal court, and from arbitrators and mediators (the nice thing about taking hits in mediation is that one can yell back at mediators).

I have to disagree with you here. Maybe it has to do with the differences between the way firms are here in the State of Bliss and Atticus Land. But I have never been involved in a case where a GA was forced against her will to make an argument that she felt was a violation of Rule 11 or whatever. Never. Nor have I heard of such a thing (and I am one of those kindly, avuncular GPs who always hear about these kind of problems from GAs).

As to arguments that don't violate Rule 11 or whatever, but which are loser arguments, there is always a way to articulate the client's position without impacting your credibility too much. Judges are not idiots. Many of them actually used to be practicing lawyers. With pain in the ass clients.

I just had a hearing where counsel for a co-defendant had to try to explain why summary judgment shouldn't be entered even though her client conceded in deposition that allegations in the answer about a contract were Not True (she had just entered the case, so she was not the lawyer who drafted the answer). She made her arguments about how high the standards were for summary judgment, and how there were still possible issues of contested material facts, and asserted that her client's position was that the allegations were not inconsistent. The judge said simply, "thank you, Ms. Smith. Motion granted."

*Well, he probably said something like this at some point, even if it wasn't in "Kim" or "The White Man's Burden." You know what I mean.

Confidential to Fringey and Sebby
 

Dears, I do not come to this board to read about the law. If I wanted to do that, I would read some of the crap on my desk or refer to some of the books on my shelves that explain what I should look for when reading some of the crap on my desk. And I really don't want to resort to that. Now quit talking about this obscure "Erie" case.

And is everybody else hiding or are they PMing and IMing with paigow on how to sock? Come out and play!

Confidential to Fringey and Sebby
 

Put him on ignore and just scroll past me for a bit.

Though if there is crap on your desk it would appear that he's been talking in your office, so maybe that makes it harder to put him on ignore.

Confidential to Fringey and Sebby
 

Damn you woman, you just revealed that I edited without improving within the three minute window!