It was the wrong thread

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, well, smart ones don't put that on paper because it looks terrible in front of the judge.

Judge, schmudge, I don't believe in contrived shows of deference just because someone is wearing a robe, unless she's really good looking and robe is prelude to unrobing.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

But see, if Snyder's lawyer was working for Penske, he'd still have a job because he'd be doing what the client wanted to, and that's all that matters.

right-do you do litigation?

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

right-do you do litigation?

I did. I actually did a shit ton of law and motion briefing and arguments back in the day, apparently as many as Sebby. Perhaps you've never experienced this, but occasionally, the client wants you to do something that's stupid. And at the risk of losing the client, I'm still going to explain why we shouldn't do that thing if it's in fact really stupid and not so great for the client. Most clients don't like to hear that, in particular, the ones who know everything there is to know about everything. I often wonder why these smart clients just don't do it themselves if they know so much.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

I did. I actually did a shit ton of law and motion briefing and arguments back in the day, apparently as many as Sebby. Perhaps you've never experienced this, but occasionally, the client wants you to do something that's stupid. And at the risk of losing the client, I'm still going to explain why we shouldn't do that thing if it's in fact really stupid and not so great for the client. Most clients don't like to hear that, in particular, the ones who know everything there is to know about everything. I often wonder why these smart clients just don't do it themselves if they know so much.

translation: no, I've never done litigation.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

translation: no, I've never done litigation.

Correct!

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

I did. I actually did a shit ton of law and motion briefing and arguments back in the day, apparently as many as Sebby. Perhaps you've never experienced this, but occasionally, the client wants you to do something that's stupid. And at the risk of losing the client, I'm still going to explain why we shouldn't do that thing if it's in fact really stupid and not so great for the client. Most clients don't like to hear that, in particular, the ones who know everything there is to know about everything. I often wonder why these smart clients just don't do it themselves if they know so much.

The decision tree goes like this:

1. Is this thing that the client wants me to do really stupid?

2. If "no," do it. If "yes," can I talk the client out of it without getting my ass fired?

3. If "yes," whew. If "no," is it unethical or something that will expose my firm to liability?

4. If "yes," time to refuse -- hopefully in a way that doesn't get my ass fired, but if not then c'est la vie. I don't have enough clients , but I have even fewer careers to spare.

5. If "no," then explain to client that he will be getting the mother of all cya letters first.


I've only reached Step 5 once. Penske would listen to my advice on this one. The "We can spend your sorry ass into the ground" message would be delivered, but in a way that would not come back to haunt us.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The decision tree goes like this:

I've only reached Step 5 once. Penske would listen to my advice on this one. The "We can spend your sorry ass into the ground" message would be delivered, but in a way that would not come back to haunt us.

Yes, probably. As a client I like to be on a need to know basis and let the outside counsel do his/her job. The guy I'm firing today-woo hoo- has a lot of complicated issues and while I may be open to sex with psycotherapists, I am not one. Itms.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Yes, probably. As a client I like to be on a need to know basis and let the outside counsel do his/her job. The guy I'm firing today-woo hoo- has a lot of complicated issues and while I may be open to sex with psycotherapists, I am not one. Itms.

He brings his issues to you? Jeez. That's what I use the PB for.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Yes, probably. As a client I like to be on a need to know basis and let the outside counsel do his/her job. The guy I'm firing today-woo hoo- has a lot of complicated issues and while I may be open to sex with psycotherapists, I am not one. Itms.

All joking aside, I hope you take the opportunity to sit back and enjoy this. Yes, it's probably hard, and you may well have a friendly relationship with him, and all that - but isn't it kind of fun to can a lawyer? Isn't there a sense not just of relief but even of justice.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

All joking aside, I hope you take the opportunity to sit back and enjoy this. Yes, it's probably hard, and you may well have a friendly relationship with him, and all that - but isn't it kind of fun to can a lawyer? Isn't there a sense not just of relief but even of justice.

Actually, it is hard.....its complicated, as these things always are. Otoh, I can't stand the guy. He marries an aggressive narcissistic personality disorder with a martyr complex. He is ill. ILL. Good litigator but impossible to deal with. Exhausting to manage. Dismissive of everyone, including the client. Disparaging of everyone, including the client.

I sent the email tonight. He will come back swinging.

The more satisfying email will be later, after the matter is fully transferred. That one will be to his managing partner. Detailing his psychosis, with email correspondence evidencing it.

All that said, the ultimate negative is, its all a big time suck and does nothing to further my growth strategy.......

[Hank Chinaski]

soooo our friends the microsofts has been hit very hard the last few years on a couple of patent cases and has convinced the supreme court to take one- it goes to burdens in proving a patent invalid- no more inside baseball talk-

so far there are 25 amicus briefs, and that's just the entities supporting MS- as many more for the opposite side are expected to be filed in March-

1) anyone have a sense of what a Judge (or clerk) does with that many briefs? goes through 2 a day, 1 to shit on 1 to cover it up? other than read the main briefs, then plow through the amicus briefs looking to see if there are any good answers to questions that the main briefs leave, I can't imagine what a judge could do.

2) why write a brief saying "X fully supports microsoft's position?" I mean that is the height of conceit, yes? "oh, I was going t find against MS's argument, but X says it's the correct argument, so that changes my mind!"

(unless X is Apple, then I would take it's word- I know MS copies shit)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Flinty_McFlint

I did. I actually did a shit ton of law and motion briefing and arguments back in the day, apparently as many as Sebby. Perhaps you've never experienced this, but occasionally, the client wants you to do something that's stupid. And at the risk of losing the client, I'm still going to explain why we shouldn't do that thing if it's in fact really stupid and not so great for the client. Most clients don't like to hear that, in particular, the ones who know everything there is to know about everything. I often wonder why these smart clients just don't do it themselves if they know so much.

Stupid I can handle. The client who lies to you is the worst. A guy I used to work with actually went as far as to tell clients with tendencies toward dishonesty, "If you bullshit, don't tell me afterward. Because then I have a duty to correct."

The easiest way around the problem is to tell clients the thing they want to file requires a detailed affidavit supporting its assertions. It's the ultimate CYA - transfers all risk to the client. When they have to sign one of those, they'll usually pull back from from the reckless or false allegations they'd otherwise demand you make.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, well, smart ones don't put that on paper because it looks terrible in front of the judge.

You clearly don't go in front of many settlement oriented judges. Highlighting the economics of a case is an easy way to get the court to focus on the numbers, which moves the case along faster.

Judges don't primarily care about the law or what looks tawdry. Their biggest initial focus is getting cases resolved. Always look ahead to the end game, which is always a discussion of dollars.

Case issues - what goes on in Court - just a "fourth wall." Arguments, motions, etc... are just proxy weapons used in place of the sorts of back and forth two businessmen would have negotiating a dispute across a table.

A shrewd magistrate judge managing discovery would listen to the City Paper's lawyers argue that Snyder was pursuing a break-the-opponent's-wallet approach and say, "That's true. And you know what else? Legal. I suggest you talk settlement if that's a concern. In the interim, here's a discovery schedule. I want this off my docket in 12 months. Have a nice day."

(I remember complaining to a judge in Philly that a case was a shakedown years ago. His reply? "That's the local 'litigation tax.' Nobody likes it. But you're going to have to pay him. Fighting will cost twice as much. Do the right thing.")

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

soooo our friends the microsofts has been hit very hard the last few years on a couple of patent cases and has convinced the supreme court to take one- it goes to burdens in proving a patent invalid- no more inside baseball talk-

so far there are 25 amicus briefs, and that's just the entities supporting MS- as many more for the opposite side are expected to be filed in March-

1) anyone have a sense of what a Judge (or clerk) does with that many briefs? goes through 2 a day, 1 to shit on 1 to cover it up? other than read the main briefs, then plow through the amicus briefs looking to see if there are any good answers to questions that the main briefs leave, I can't imagine what a judge could do.

2) why write a brief saying "X fully supports microsoft's position?" I mean that is the height of conceit, yes? "oh, I was going t find against MS's argument, but X says it's the correct argument, so that changes my mind!"

(unless X is Apple, then I would take it's word- I know MS copies shit)

I don't think the justices each go through that many briefs -- at least not until after the clerks have gone through them and written bench memos summarizing them. I suspect the briefs get split up among the clerks -- if not just among a single judge's clerks maybe among the clerks of a couple different justices who tend to think/rule alike.

Don't discount the value in getting a number of slightly different perspectives on the isues and case law. Sometimes the main parties are so into their own position, they don't do the best job in their briefs of helping the judge see how to get there. And sometimes the parties miss important cases in their briefs -- one would hope not so much at the Supremes level but they definitely do at the Court of Appeals level -- so more amicus briefs increases the chance of all the relevant cases being cited in at least one of the briefs.

And even if they don't say anything new, I suspect there is the idea that the more support each side can show for its position the more likely the judge will be swayed to that side.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Fugee

I don't think the justices each go through that many briefs -- at least not until after the clerks have gone through them and written bench memos summarizing them. I suspect the briefs get split up among the clerks -- if not just among a single judge's clerks maybe among the clerks of a couple different justices who tend to think/rule alike.

Don't discount the value in getting a number of slightly different perspectives on the isues and case law. Sometimes the main parties are so into their own position, they don't do the best job in their briefs of helping the judge see how to get there. And sometimes the parties miss important cases in their briefs -- one would hope not so much at the Supremes level but they definitely do at the Court of Appeals level -- so more amicus briefs increases the chance of all the relevant cases being cited in at least one of the briefs.

And even if they don't say anything new, I suspect there is the idea that the more support each side can show for its position the more likely the judge will be swayed to that side.

did you clerk? it sounds like it, and if so where?

p.s. the "numbers of briefs" element can't phase them, can it? I could see who signed the same argument helping- like if Sidd and I signed onto the same position, but not raw numbers.