LawTalkers
Page 51 of 75 « First 414950 51 525361 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Big Board (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   It was the wrong thread (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=573)

Adder 01-23-2009 07:12 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 378855)
Win: Jenner & Block associate's first oral argument is before the SCOTUS. Epic fail: It was her "first" even though she's a fifth year. (Spree: It's not news; it's Above the Law.)
Having failed in my duties to do pro bono work, I have never done and oral argument (although I came close last year). And I am more senior than her.

Atticus Grinch 01-24-2009 12:26 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378857)
Having failed in my duties to do pro bono work, I have never done and oral argument (although I came close last year). And I am more senior than her.
Jesus, dude. I litigate a lot against pro pers. It's shit work and sometimes agonizingly stupid, but at least I can take pride in having more courtroom experience than my opponent. Interesting to know I might have to trade that in if I wanted $100K more per year.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-24-2009 11:21 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378857)
Having failed in my duties to do pro bono work, I have never done and oral argument (although I came close last year). And I am more senior than her.
Do one. They're fun. Best part of the job. Only part I like.

Hank Chinaski 01-24-2009 11:51 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378867)
Do one. They're fun. Best part of the job. Only part I like.
that's why adder's GPs won't give them up. my first few years I worked only with IP litigators. Patent cases are too big and drawn out, so court stuff doesn't come up too often. The GPs wouldn't let us do anything, not even deps. Working with civil litigators was a very cool part of my first job shift.

Adder 01-24-2009 12:18 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378868)
that's why adder's GPs won't give them up. my first few years I worked only with IP litigators. Patent cases are too big and drawn out, so court stuff doesn't come up too often. The GPs wouldn't let us do anything, not even deps. Working with civil litigators was a very cool part of my first job shift.
First, I wouldn't describe myself as primarily a litigator. Second, the above is basically right. There have only been something like four or five arguments total in thecases I have worked on.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-24-2009 12:35 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378869)
First, I wouldn't describe myself as primarily a litigator. Second, the above is basically right. There have only been something like four or five arguments total in thecases I have worked on.
I understand. All I was saying is, if you can get yourself assigned to a case where you'll get to do one, do it. It's a fun experience.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-24-2009 12:38 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378868)
that's why adder's GPs won't give them up. my first few years I worked only with IP litigators. Patent cases are too big and drawn out, so court stuff doesn't come up too often. The GPs wouldn't let us do anything, not even deps. Working with civil litigators was a very cool part of my first job shift.
I had the opposite experience. Partners hated having to go to court so they'd send associates as much as possible. Why I'll never understand. Prepping for and doing an oral argument or hearing is a million times more interesting than sitting behind a desk. Makes the day go buy at 10X the speed it would sitting in the office.

Penske_Account 01-24-2009 12:47 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378857)
Having failed in my duties to do pro bono work, I have never done and oral argument (although I came close last year). And I am more senior than her.
You should take some of the time that you waste posting here and give back to your community, i.e. pro bono.

eta: ftr, fd: I did about 250 hours of pro bono last year. None of it in a courtroom, I can't stand the insufferable pricks who infest the bench.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 01-24-2009 06:19 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378874)
Partners hated having to go to court so they'd send associates as much as possible.
Opposite experience. If they hated it, they hated even more the proposition of telling a client that they lost a motion and an underling did the argument. The client of course thinks the two are related, even though as we all know 90% of big firm motions are bullshit, designed more for tactical advantage and increasing the opposition's costs. And, no, I did not work at K&E or Williams and Connolly.

Hank Chinaski 01-24-2009 07:02 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378874)
I had the opposite experience. Partners hated having to go to court so they'd send associates as much as possible. Why I'll never understand. Prepping for and doing an oral argument or hearing is a million times more interesting than sitting behind a desk. Makes the day go buy at 10X the speed it would sitting in the office.
it the size of cases. our stuff you are maybe on two files, your stuff many more so there is a lot more motion/argument/deps to go around.

the best instincts from an IP guy I"ve seen was this guy who switched from insurance defense to IP after 4 years. he always could point to potential land mines and what not to do to piss Judges off. Although we always just believed him. He might have been full of shit.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-24-2009 07:43 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378881)
it the size of cases. our stuff you are maybe on two files, your stuff many more so there is a lot more motion/argument/deps to go around.

the best instincts from an IP guy I"ve seen was this guy who switched from insurance defense to IP after 4 years. he always could point to potential land mines and what not to do to piss Judges off. Although we always just believed him. He might have been full of shit.
ID guys try a lot of shit, so he probably knew what he was talking about. Those guys will fuck you up in court if you're not paying attention.

LessinSF 01-25-2009 12:23 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378871)
I understand. All I was saying is, if you can get yourself assigned to a case where you'll get to do one, do it. It's a fun experience.
When I worked for the Nevada Supreme Court, we (staff and clerks) would often watch argument from the viewing room (window down and sound piped in) so we could kibbitz. And make fun of bad toupees.

Hank Chinaski 01-25-2009 12:29 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 378882)
ID guys try a lot of shit, so he probably knew what he was talking about. Those guys will fuck you up in court if you're not paying attention.
true story: my dad drunk driving hits a Canadian guy in Michigan. He is sued in Ontario, we have no fault. Thee is a dep notice mailed to him from "his lawyer" in Ontario. My dad had not been in Canada for 15 years. I say to skilled ID guy, "I'm writing the Canadian firm a letter telling him my father will never go to Canada since he'll waive the clear personal Jurisdiction defense he has." "Never refuse to do what your insurance company tells you to do. that can give them a way out of coverage. write a letter telling the firm you assume they have considered the impact of the waiver of jurisdiction, and that they still want daddy to show."

smart mother.

Adder 01-25-2009 01:47 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 378880)
even though as we all know 90% of big firm motions are bullshit, designed more for tactical advantage and increasing the opposition's costs. .

Not once was that the case on a motion I have been involved in. Although I have worked as co-counsel with K&E enough to know why they have their rep.

Had the odd experience once of litigating a case against a good friend from law school. Post-hac I was surprised how much credibility we gained by not challenging class cert, even though we didn't primarily because we thought we wouldn't win.

To this day I don't know whether the partners know that I basically settled the case over beers at Buffalo Billiards.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-25-2009 11:19 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 378893)
Not once was that the case on a motion I have been involved in. Although I have worked as co-counsel with K&E enough to know why they have their rep.

Had the odd experience once of litigating a case against a good friend from law school. Post-hac I was surprised how much credibility we gained by not challenging class cert, even though we didn't primarily because we thought we wouldn't win.

To this day I don't know whether the partners know that I basically settled the case over beers at Buffalo Billiards.
It's pretty common practice to file all sorts of specious shit in Philly. It's a "people gotta eat" thing, I think. The regionals realize that good whales who'll pay their bills in the area are few and far in between, so when they get one, if they can, they break out all the stops and run the meter. That and the disputes in the town are always nasty. There's a whole subculture of hyper-aggressive business litigation shops that seem to know nothing but scorched earth technique.

sebastian_dangerfield 01-25-2009 11:23 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 378888)
true story: my dad drunk driving hits a Canadian guy in Michigan. He is sued in Ontario, we have no fault. Thee is a dep notice mailed to him from "his lawyer" in Ontario. My dad had not been in Canada for 15 years. I say to skilled ID guy, "I'm writing the Canadian firm a letter telling him my father will never go to Canada since he'll waive the clear personal Jurisdiction defense he has." "Never refuse to do what your insurance company tells you to do. that can give them a way out of coverage. write a letter telling the firm you assume they have considered the impact of the waiver of jurisdiction, and that they still want daddy to show."

smart mother.
I had an ID beat me like a gong in court a couple years ago. It was a shit case with no chance of success, but the dude schooled us. Nice guy, too. No hardass shit or ego. He just relentlessly drilled my client into the ground. Fucking embarrassing. I thought the jury was going to attack me she lied so goddamn much.

Tyrone Slothrop 01-27-2009 02:44 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
According to page 1 of yesterday's Wall Street Journal:

Quote:
For years, the law firm Heller Ehrman LLP used a goofy coat of arms inside its offices: a laurel wreath, the scales of justice and a Latin quotation, elvem ipsum etiam vivere. Rough translation: Elvis lives.
Can this possibly be true? I've been in Heller offices but don't remember seeing this. Surely there's a copy on the internet somewhere....

Penske_Account 01-27-2009 03:04 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 379137)
According to page 1 of yesterday's Wall Street Journal:



Can this possibly be true? I've been in Heller offices but don't remember seeing this. Surely there's a copy on the internet somewhere....
I know someone who once worked there, but that person is blinde and was unable to confirm or deny the coat of arms thing.

Replaced_Texan 01-30-2009 11:58 AM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
This ruling bugs the shit out of me

Quote:
Ars first covered the case of Avery Doninger—at the time a recent graduate of Lewis S. Mills High School—this past summer. Following a dust-up with school administrators about the possible cancellation of a repeatedly-postponed student concert, Doninger fumed on her Live Journal about the "douchebags in central office" and urged her fellow students to call or e-mail said douchebags in order to express their displeasure. (The post asserted that the concert had, in fact, been canceled, though school officials say Doninger was wrong about this.) When the school retaliated by barring Doninger from running for reelection to her seat on the student council, Doninger sought to force a rerun, claiming violation of her First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit declined to do so, however, noting that schools enjoy greater discretion in limiting participation in extracurricular activities than in (say) inflicting punishments like expulsion, and ruling that the post was subject to school authority because it had "a reasonably foreseeable risk [of coming] to the attention of school authorities."

Now, most of a lawsuit in which Doninger sought to recover damages from school officials has been thrown out by a lower court, which held that administrators enjoy a qualified immunity from suit for official conduct that does not clearly violate a well-established right. Citing the blurry line between "on-campus" and "off-campus" speech in the Internet era, the court acknowledged that current law gives no clear answers to the question of where students' rights to free online speech end and the authority of schools to enforce discipline begins.

Forty years ago, the Supreme Court's seminal ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines rejected the idea that students "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate," affirming the right of students to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. But the court also made clear that the First Amendment did not prevent schools from punishing speech that "materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others," while a later ruling made a similar exception in the case of vulgar or offensive language.

Schools' authority to restrict student speech has since been extended to cover school sponsored events that take place away from campus. But courts are still struggling to figure out how to deal with private student speech that, via the magic of the Internets, easily makes its way into the classroom. Referring to a 30-year-old case in which the Second Circuit affirmed the right of students to publish an offensive off-campus newspaper, the court wrote:

Quote:
[W]e are not living in the same world that existed in 1979. The students in Thomas were writing articles for an obscene publication on a typewriter and handing out copies after school. Today, students are connected to each other through email, instant messaging, blogs, social networking sites, and text messages. An email can be sent to dozens or hundreds of other students by hitting "send." A blog entry posted on a site such as livejournal.com can be instantaneously viewed by students, teachers, and administrators alike. Off-campus speech can become on-campus speech with the click of a mouse.
This month's ruling did not do much to clarify those boundaries—it simply noted that officials could not reasonably be held liable for their decisions given the confused state of the law, whether or not future courts might hold such decisions to conflict with the First Amendment. But the line of reasoning endorsed by both the district and appellate courts would, in effect, erase that boundary with respect to online speech about a school, whether or not it occurs in a school.

Penske_Account 01-30-2009 12:30 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 379662)
Another reason I cannot suppourt public schools. I am thinking of withholding my local real estate taxes to protest......thoughts?

Adder 01-30-2009 01:38 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan (Post 379662)
As to punishment, absurd. Not so as to damages though.

Atticus Grinch 01-30-2009 03:21 PM
Re: It was the wrong thread
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 379683)
As to punishment, absurd. Not so as to damages though.
2. People too quickly forget that qualified immunity doesn't mean that the conduct was okay; just that it's very hard to find public servants willing to come to work when their personal livelihoods are put at risk by the push-pull policymaking of constitutional law. An individual should only be denied qualified immunity when their behavior was clearly an abuse of authority.

Best example of this is Morse v. Frederick, where the 9th Circuit found a right was so "clearly established" that a high school principal should know the law better than the USDC (which granted a Rule 56 motion) did.

Penske_Account 02-06-2009 07:19 PM
Secret Agent Man 2
 
Welcome Newber!!!!

We expect big things from you. Good on ya, mate!~

Cheers,

P

Atticus Grinch 03-04-2009 02:49 PM
Law school hypos come to life, Pat XIV
 
Should the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply to the post-arrest condition of an arrestee's testicles?

SlaveNoMore 03-06-2009 01:16 AM
Re: Secret Agent Man 2
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Penske_Account (Post 380534)
Welcome Newber!!!!

We expect big things from you. Good on ya, mate!~

Cheers,

P
If we chant "Kum Bah Yah" really loud, do you think we can we get an Adder 2?

notcasesensitive 03-06-2009 01:40 AM
so
 
Anyone have thoughts on job search ideas for a recently laid off large-firm lit staff attorney in Southern California? Class of 2000-2002 era. I have a close friend who was hit in the latest round and I'm trying to be helpful (as opposed to hepful).

John Phoenix 03-06-2009 09:36 AM
Re: so
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 383146)
Anyone have thoughts on job search ideas for a recently laid off large-firm lit staff attorney in Southern California? Class of 2000-2002 era. I have a close friend who was hit in the latest round and I'm trying to be helpful (as opposed to hepful).
I bet that Howard Rice will be looking for people soon. (Although others who know the field suggest that might be an overstatement.)

Other ideas would be to let the listings come to your friend - have your friend set up RSS feeds for various job sites, and interesting listings will get pushed.

LessinSF 03-06-2009 02:42 PM
Re: so
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by notcasesensitive (Post 383146)
Anyone have thoughts on job search ideas for a recently laid off large-firm lit staff attorney in Southern California? Class of 2000-2002 era. I have a close friend who was hit in the latest round and I'm trying to be helpful (as opposed to hepful).
Obama bonanza director and grant herder.

Tyrone Slothrop 03-12-2009 12:49 PM
Lawyer Disbarred for Switching Vote as a Juror Solely in Order To Return To His Busy
 
Eugene Volokh (who has a link to the decision I'm too lazy to reproduce):

Quote:
Lawyer Disbarred for Switching Vote as a Juror Solely in Order To Return To His Busy Law Practice: The case is In re Fahy (Cal. Bar Ct.); here's an excerpt from an affidavit signed by the lawyer to support a motion for a new trial:

Quote:
I was convinced from the outset [of the medical malpractice trial] that [the defendant] had violated the standard of care in his care and treatment of the [p]laintiff.... During the trial that was supposed to last only 2-3 weeks, I maintained a busy law practice. As the trial continued into its 4th week, problems at work continued to mount as most of the day was devoted to my being a juror. Deliberations were a nightmare.... It was becoming very apparent that even if the other jurors were to vote in favor of the [p]laintiff on the issue of liability, that lengthy discussion would take place on other issues ...

As a result, I advised my fellow jurors that I would change my vote if Judge Ballati failed to declare a mistrial after he was advised that the jury was deadlocked because there was no way I could afford to spend another week away from the office ...

When I arrived on Monday, I changed my vote to favor [the defendant] even though he was liable for what happened to the [p]laintiff. I changed my vote so that the deliberations would finally come to an end and I could return to the office....
The court's legal conclusion:

Quote:
[T]he harm to the parties and to the fair administration of justice is clear and serious when respondent disregarded his duty to vote as the facts and judge's instructions guided him, and instead voted as the convenience of his law practice swayed. To be sure, jury service for busy citizens of all occupations or with family responsibilities can be difficult, even burdensome, at times. Yet it is the accepted duty of citizens to serve, subject to the statutory provision for excuse for undue hardship. Moreover, the Judicial Council has recognized that jury service is an “important civic responsibility,” requiring court and staff use of all necessary and appropriate means to ensure that citizens fulfill this duty. Surely, respondent, as a practicing attorney at the time, was keenly aware of the role which an effective jury system serves in the fair administration of justice.

Respondent's violation was not a technical one. As the Court of Appeal and the State Bar Court hearing judge each found, respondent's vote was decisive in breaking the jury's deadlock. Patently, his change of vote to avoid continuing to serve as a juror voided the verdict he rendered and required the parties, their counsel and the courts to bear the additional costs, time and burdens of appellate and further trial court proceedings.
Because of this misconduct, because of Fahy's apparently deceitful responses to the court when questioned about this, and because of Fahy's recent disciplinary record, and because of Fahy's lack of acceptance of responsibility, he was disbarred. For more, see this S.F. Recorder article.

Of course, if Fahy had only remained quiet about his true motivation (something he initially revealed to his fellow jurors during deliberation) he would have gotten off scot-free (though that of course does not excuse his behavior).

Tyrone Slothrop 03-13-2009 12:37 PM
Maybe ever.
 
This is the best judicial decision about salad dressing that I have read in a long time.

sebastian_dangerfield 03-13-2009 12:39 PM
Re: Lawyer Disbarred for Switching Vote as a Juror Solely in Order To Return To His B
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 383655)
Eugene Volokh (who has a link to the decision I'm too lazy to reproduce):
The Princess Leia jury avoidance bit on 30 Rock needed to be extended. That bit could have run for two minutes. So much material.

Not Bob 03-13-2009 01:15 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 383787)
Holy shit. Posner really tore that AUSA a new one, no?

eta:
Quote:
The government’s appellate lawyer told us that the prosecutor’s superior would give her a talking-to. We are not impressed by the suggestion.

Hank Chinaski 03-13-2009 02:00 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 383797)
Holy shit. Posner really tore that AUSA a new one, no?

eta:
link doesn't work

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-13-2009 02:04 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 383799)
link doesn't work
Try this:

08-1839 USA v. Farinella, Charles criminal 03/12/2009 Opinion POSNER

If not, go to homepage and opinions, then find this case in list of this week's opinions.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit easier to give the prosecutor a "talking to" for inflaming the passions of the jury when that's not the sole basis for reversal.

Hank Chinaski 03-13-2009 02:34 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 383800)
Try this:

08-1839 USA v. Farinella, Charles criminal 03/12/2009 Opinion POSNER

If not, go to homepage and opinions, then find this case in list of this week's opinions.

Anyway, I guess it's a bit easier to give the prosecutor a "talking to" for inflaming the passions of the jury when that's not the sole basis for reversal.
I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

He found there was no showing consumers were misled? Seriously? they got the crap for cheap because it was soon not sellable by the manufacturer. then they post date it? What is the purpose of the date?

Tyrone Slothrop 03-13-2009 03:10 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 383807)
I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.

He found there was no showing consumers were misled? Seriously? they got the crap for cheap because it was soon not sellable by the manufacturer. then they post date it? What is the purpose of the date?
Judge Posner suggests, at some length, that the dressing would still be OK after that date, and what reasons the manufacturer might have to put those dates on the dressing.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-13-2009 03:15 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 383809)
Judge Posner suggests, at some length, that the dressing would still be OK after that date, and what reasons the manufacturer might have to put those dates on the dressing.
Putting aside the facts of the case, which are pretty weak on which to base a prosecution, I wonder why a dressing maker would specify a "best if purchased by" date. That suggests somehow it's doing worse sitting on a store shelf. But surely that's not the case. So of what relevance is the purchase date, other than as a quasi-guarantee that up to that date it's in good shape, after maybe not. But if that's what the "best by" date means, it should be a consumption date.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 03-13-2009 03:15 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 383807)
I know criminal law has its own standards, but this decision seems wacky.
Why, because the IP holder didn't win?

Cletus Miller 03-13-2009 03:36 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) (Post 383810)
Putting aside the facts of the case, which are pretty weak on which to base a prosecution, I wonder why a dressing maker would specify a "best if purchased by" date. That suggests somehow it's doing worse sitting on a store shelf. But surely that's not the case. So of what relevance is the purchase date, other than as a quasi-guarantee that up to that date it's in good shape, after maybe not. But if that's what the "best by" date means, it should be a consumption date.
I had thought that the relatively-recent proliferation of "best by" dates on non-perishable food was a result of state law in one or more states (New Jersey is what I remember) and the desire of the food companies to have consistent packaging nationwide. The example I know of is canned soup--until the last few years, there were no "best by" dates, then suddenly there were; not certain if there are still, as I also recall something about the state law(s) being repealed.

Hank Chinaski 03-13-2009 03:59 PM
Re: Maybe ever.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 383809)
Judge Posner suggests, at some length, that the dressing would still be OK after that date, and what reasons the manufacturer might have to put those dates on the dressing.
but the public should be able to look at the date and give what weight they care to about it. the guy didn't scrape the date off, he changed it for some reason.

and yes burger the manufacturer should have a very straightforward claim. you don't think removing the reason these bottles might be at the Dollar Store won't hurt sales of the higher priced stuff at the local Pig's?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:37 AM.
Page 51 of 75 « First 414950 51 525361 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com