Objectively intelligent.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Can someone recommend billing software that doesn't completely fucking suck? For a small firm. MyCase? Clio?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

One of my Trump supporting friends fits this to a tee - https://theweek.com/articles/964006/...-conservatives

I think he's on to something, but he hasn't done a great job of articulating what it is.

[LessinSF]

How was I unaware of this magnificient opinion - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...7/668/2409194/? It should be read in its entirety, but I provide a snippet as an enticement to click on the link:

Before proceeding further, the Court notes that this case involves two extremely likable lawyers, who have together delivered some of the most amateurish pleadings ever to cross the hallowed causeway into Galveston, an effort which leads the Court to surmise but one plausible explanation. Both attorneys have obviously entered into a secret pactcomplete with hats, handshakes and cryptic wordsto draft their pleadings entirely in crayon on the back sides of gravy-stained paper place mats, in the hope that the Court would be so charmed by their child-like efforts that their utter dearth of legal authorities in their briefing would go unnoticed. Whatever actually occurred, the Court is now faced with the daunting task of deciphering their submissions. With Big Chief tablet readied, thick black pencil in hand, and a devil-may-care laugh in the face of death, life on the razor's edge sense of exhilaration, the Court begins.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Can someone recommend billing software that doesn't completely fucking suck? For a small firm. MyCase? Clio?

We use ProLaw. It's fine.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

One of my Trump supporting friends fits this to a tee - https://theweek.com/articles/964006/...-conservatives

Wouldn't those people be closer to classical liberals than conservatives?

I've started calling myself a classical liberal these days.

Pro-choice
Pro-gay marriage
Pro-legalization
Pro-saving the environment
Pro-privacy (extreme suspicion of the security state and internet barons)
Pro-law enforcement reform
Pro-justice reform

Neutral on religious rights (as long as they don't seek to impinge upon others, the religious are free to oppress each other in a consensual manner all they like)
Neutral on guns (background checks and bans on ludicrous assault weapons are fine)

Anti-most wokeism (people insisting where race is an issue it is the primary if not only significant issue, people who think 1619 holds water)
Anti-radicalism (rioters on right and left)
Anti-anti-science (people claiming there are 37 genders, climate change is a hoax, masks don't work, [insert other new age pseudoscience here])
Anti-anti-logic/reality (screwballs claiming one can have his or her "own truth," identity politics fanciers generally, those asserting empathy is the most important issue, conspiracy theorists of all sorts)

Conservatives insist on bullshitting each other and hewing to silly rules that are often built on rejection of science, logic, and fact. An old school liberal tries to see everything dispassionately, but with an eye toward greater inclusion, tolerance, and jettisoning the silly old rules. Barstool Conservatives seem to be an un-self aware and brash form of classic liberals.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Wouldn't those people be closer to classical liberals than conservatives?

I've started calling myself a classical liberal these days.

Pro-choice
Pro-gay marriage
Pro-legalization
Pro-saving the environment
Pro-privacy (extreme suspicion of the security state and internet barons)
Pro-law enforcement reform
Pro-justice reform

Neutral on religious rights (as long as they don't seek to impinge upon others, the religious are free to oppress each other in a consensual manner all they like)
Neutral on guns (background checks and bans on ludicrous assault weapons are fine)

Anti-most wokeism (people insisting where race is an issue it is the primary if not only significant issue, people who think 1619 holds water)
Anti-radicalism (rioters on right and left)
Anti-anti-science (people claiming there are 37 genders, climate change is a hoax, masks don't work, [insert other new age pseudoscience here])
Anti-anti-logic/reality (screwballs claiming one can have his or her "own truth," identity politics fanciers generally, those asserting empathy is the most important issue, conspiracy theorists of all sorts)

Conservatives insist on bullshitting each other and hewing to silly rules that are often built on rejection of science, logic, and fact. An old school liberal tries to see everything dispassionately, but with an eye toward greater inclusion, tolerance, and jettisoning the silly old rules. Barstool Conservatives seem to be an un-self aware and brash form of classic liberals.

He who cheers divided governance is not meaningfully pro any of those things.

He who thinks 1619 doesn't hold up...

He who thinks science says there are only two genders is scientifically literate.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

How was I unaware of this magnificient opinion - https://law.justia.com/cases/federal...7/668/2409194/? It should be read in its entirety, but I provide a snippet as an enticement to click on the link:

Is it a bad thing when a judge starts off an off-the-record virtual oral argument by saying "We are in the midst of the most significant pandemic in recorded history and you two fucking idiots couldn't settle this thing?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Is it a bad thing when a judge starts off an off-the-record virtual oral argument by saying "We are in the midst of the most significant pandemic in recorded history and you two fucking idiots couldn't settle this thing?"

Ouch. How did it go from there?

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Ouch. How did it go from there?

Not bad in theory. He said "Before you idiots say anything else, Icky won because he's more of an idiot than you and these are legitimately the Special Olympics, but you idiots can talk to feel important."

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Not bad in theory. He said "Before you idiots say anything else, Icky won because he's more of an idiot than you and these are legitimately the Special Olympics, but you idiots can talk to feel important."

Who else when reading an electronic decision, first thing, hits scroll, scroll scroll until you get to the last word, "granted" or "denied"?

Fun fact in one jurisdiction where I practice, the judge enters "Granted" as a form of "So Ordered" or "ENTER" whether the motion is granted or denied so a little poo turtle head peeked out the first time I read it.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Is it a bad thing when a judge starts off an off-the-record virtual oral argument by saying "We are in the midst of the most significant pandemic in recorded history and you two fucking idiots couldn't settle this thing?"

Another fun fact, just got a different decision by this judge where he ruled in my favor, after he had basically body-slammed everyone else at my firm time and time again.

Was I wrong to send the decision around saying "Y'all can just call me Tom Brady going forward, all the winning"?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

We use ProLaw. It's fine.

Gracias!

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Not bad in theory. He said "Before you idiots say anything else, Icky won because he's more of an idiot than you and these are legitimately the Special Olympics, but you idiots can talk to feel important."

I got benchslapped in the District of Kansas for filing 5 separate summary judgment motions on five separate issues to get around the page limit. Before filing it we ran it by local counsel, who thought it was a great idea. [NARRATOR: "It was not a great idea."]

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I got benchslapped in the District of Kansas for filing 5 separate summary judgment motions on five separate issues to get around the page limit. Before filing it we ran it by local counsel, who thought it was a great idea. [NARRATOR: "It was not a great idea."]

There’s a narrator on these boards? How did I not know this?





[NARRATOR: "He did know this."]

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

There’s a narrator on these boards? How did I not know this?

Yes. It's Ron Howard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNvXoohLEMQ