A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[sgtclub]

I know this is totally inappropriate, but are there any employment lawyers on this board? If so, PM me. Thanks

Carry on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know this is totally inappropriate, but are there any employment lawyers on this board? If so, PM me. Thanks

Carry on.

This sort of thing is entirely appropriate. I, however, am not an employment lawyer.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This sort of thing is entirely appropriate. I, however, am not an employment lawyer.

pm violens. he is employment. probably company side.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Bush: I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- they care about the security of this country, like I do. They see -- no leader in Washington is going to walk away from protecting the country. We have different views on how to do that, but their spirit is such that they want to protect America. That's what I believe.
  
  Q. "Just a few days before this election, in Texas, you said that Democrats, no matter how they put it, their approach to Iraq comes down to terrorists win, America loses. What has changed today?"
  
  Bush: "What's changed today is the election is over, and the Democrats won."...

[LessinSF]

A court in Britain has ruled that attorneys can wear full face veils - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061109...m_061109211822 - but the question to me is whether such an attorney is doing their client a disservice. They are probably not incompetent (at least under CA rules*) under legal ethics rules, but shouldn't they be for, essentially, guaranteeing an adverse verdict because of making their own publicly unpopular (let alone objectively irrational) belief dominate (and lose) their client's case?

* Rule 3-110. Failing to Act Competently.
(A) A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
(B) For purposes of this rule, "competence" in any legal service shall mean to apply the
1) diligence,
2) learning and skill, and
3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.

[Gattigap]

Look for the implementation of the manifesto.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by LessinSF
A court in Britain has ruled that attorneys can wear full face veils - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061109...m_061109211822 - but the question to me is whether such an attorney is doing their client a disservice. They are probably not incompetent (at least under CA rules*) under legal ethics rules, but shouldn't they be for, essentially, guaranteeing an adverse verdict because of making their own publicly unpopular (let alone objectively irrational) belief dominate (and lose) their client's case?

* Rule 3-110. Failing to Act Competently.
(A) A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
(B) For purposes of this rule, "competence" in any legal service shall mean to apply the
1) diligence,
2) learning and skill, and
3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.

Rule 6-666 Caveat Emptor
A client who solicits the services of counsel wearing religious garb covering the face and/or indicating what a factfinder may reasonably infer is fanatical adherence to any wildly unpopular religion or other movement deemed "fantastic" by the general public shall be barred from making ethical or legal claims aginst such counsel related to ineffectiveness of representation.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I won't forgive Gore losing his own state. It was amazing. And Tennessee is a purple state, not an outright red one.

2.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by LessinSF
A court in Britain has ruled that attorneys can wear full face veils - http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061109...m_061109211822 - but the question to me is whether such an attorney is doing their client a disservice. They are probably not incompetent (at least under CA rules*) under legal ethics rules, but shouldn't they be for, essentially, guaranteeing an adverse verdict because of making their own publicly unpopular (let alone objectively irrational) belief dominate (and lose) their client's case?

* Rule 3-110. Failing to Act Competently.
(A) A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.
(B) For purposes of this rule, "competence" in any legal service shall mean to apply the
1) diligence,
2) learning and skill, and
3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.

If they were trying cases before juries, I would agree with you. In a judge hearing or trial, I don't think so.

I believe there are no civil juries in England, though there are criminal juries and masking your face in that situation would be bad.

Of course, I've seen some lawyers whose presentation would be vastly improved by a full face veil. And breath mints.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
2.

It had been a while since he had been Senator, and he had drastically changed his public opinions on stuff (to allign himself with Clinton).

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Rule 6-666 Caveat Emptor
A client who solicits the services of counsel wearing religious garb covering the face and/or indicating what a factfinder may reasonably infer is fanatical adherence to any wildly unpopular religion or other movement deemed "fantastic" by the general public shall be barred from making ethical or legal claims aginst such counsel related to ineffectiveness of representation.

IF a court rules that wearing such garb is legal or allowed in court, how could a client claim (successfully) it's incompetent? Would the court specifically allow incompetent behavior? (I'm assuming the rule doesn't provide for exceptions in "cases in which wearing a veil would be inappropriate" or something)

[sgtclub]

http://www.drudgereport.com/

Drudge is reporting that Germany is going to prosecute Rumsfied, Gonzales, Tenet and others for Abu Garib.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/

Drudge is reporting that Germany is going to prosecute Rumsfied, Gonzales, Tenet and others for Abu Garib.

Let's correct this:

Drudge is linking to a Time article that reports that 11 Iraqis will submit a request that German authorities prosecute Rumsfeld and others.

Now, maybe I misunderstand how things work in Germany, but that doesn't sound to me like a prosecutor has actually decided to bring these charges.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let's correct this:

Drudge is linking to a Time article that reports that 11 Iraqis will submit a request that German authorities prosecute Rumsfeld and others.

Now, maybe I misunderstand how things work in Germany, but that doesn't sound to me like a prosecutor has actually decided to bring these charges.

Thank you.

Can you do this kind of clarification for the crap Slave posts, too?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IF a court rules that wearing such garb is legal or allowed in court, how could a client claim (successfully) it's incompetent? Would the court specifically allow incompetent behavior? (I'm assuming the rule doesn't provide for exceptions in "cases in which wearing a veil would be inappropriate" or something)

"Legal" and "consistent with the standard of care under the circumstances" are different. It may be perfectly fine to wear a shroud to a hearing, but before a jury it could be damaging to the client.

Think of it this way: It may be perfectly legal for me to publish an Op-Ed piece calling the judge who is about to sentence my client a Nazi war criminal. But it could also breach the duty I owe my client.

Of course, I'm not commenting on the legal standard for malpractice, and I'm leaving aside the (obvious) religious freedom issue.