User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:31:54 PM EDT
[#1]
Lawyers are evil!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:32:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:Scumbags the whole lot of them. Says the guy who charges people for a service you can do with a u-haul truck. Brilliant.....you're gonna make a wonderful lawyer with those amazing deductive skills.  So painters, lawn service guys, housekeepers, chauffeurs, chefs.....just to name a few......they're scumbags because they simply offer a service that you could do yourself but you'd rather pay them to do it? LOL.....how much do you plan on charging per hour brainiac? "First thing we do, let's kill all the movers!" or something like that  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:35:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Fuck lawyers, all of them. The only time you might need a lawyer, is because of some other lawyer. They keep each other employed. At your expense. Obama's a lawyer. 'Nuff said! Yeah I know, even shakespear wanted to kill all the lawyers Actually, the way Shakespeare wrote it, the two main villains in the play were suggesting that they needed to kill all the lawyers first because they were the ones who would understand what they were about to do to the regular folks. Having said that, I am typing this as I sit on a giant pile of money, having just taken a money shower and eaten a salad comprised entirely of $100 bills from my clients. You guys should rush to law school as soon as you can and hop on this money train before it leaves the station since it is such a great deal. It is nothing but sunny skies and money falling from the sky as a lawyer. 
A better question though is why so many clients are willing to pay you $250/hr for your professional advice AND THEN TOTALLY IGNORE EVERY PIECE OF ADVICE THEY BOUGHT. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:36:44 PM EDT
[#4]
My buddy is a lawyer in Miami. He is a good guy.
He does a great deal of DUI defense. Is it his fault people are stupid? He saves them money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:47:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ How about a reasonable system that forces a plaintiff to prove a law suits merit prior to it being filed? How, and to whom, would you "prove" the merits of a lawsuit prior to litigating it? You do know that litigation in the court system IS the vehicle by which a plaintiff attempts to prove claims, right? No man, you see he wants a pre-trial trial of claims to avoid costs. This is almost as dumb as the firing unionizing workers thread. Thats the whole point....it doesnt take a gaggle of lawyers and judges 1000's of man hours to determine the merits of most cases. It doesn't need to go to trial. RIght. Like I said, every client says that. It's all very obvious to them, they can't understand why there is so much fuss. Meanwhile, across town at the other side's lawyer's office, that lawyer is hearing the same thing from his client who has drawn entirely the opposite conclusion. But you're right, they should all just have a beer in Obama's backyard and hug it out, that would fix it all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:50:59 PM EDT
[#6]
"It's an eminence front.
It's an eminence front. It's put on!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 2:52:59 PM EDT
[#7]
Because the system is rigged from the get go. It is more so rigged for the need of a lawyer every day the .Gov at any level is open.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:02:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in  Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes? 
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:05:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:09:57 PM EDT
[#10]
One of the government forms we use has one of those required estimated time to learn about and complete form blurbs - says a total of 6 hours. I shit you not.
As a contrast, the FBI background check form has a estimate of 3 minutes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:15:12 PM EDT
[#11]
I just paid $5000 dollars to a lawyer today, and not for a criminal case. (honest to God, ironic I spotted this thread up here when I got home.)
I did some looking around, I found one fresh out of law-school looking for 2000. Another for 3000 who has been at it for a few years but sounded a bit flaky. Then I called the guy I now have. 10 years in only this specialized field, excellent record. Willing to work with what I needed him to on my time frame and requirements, and a ton of experience. A "guy" he uses after trying out MANY others in the field in his early days. So a good working relationship with a guy who gets results in the field. I didn't flinch, I paid the 2500 Retainer, and will be paying him the rest in a few weeks. You get what you pay for. One that half asses it or makes mistakes or leaves me open to make my own mistakes could cost me thousands more in fixing mistakes, if fixable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:29:44 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wait, I was supposed to go to law school to practice??? Used to be in NY you could go for one year then work for an attorney who would sign an affidavit that he taught you the rest of the stuff and then you could take the bar. I worked with a guy who did that. I don't know if you still can. All the attorneys I know who did that must be in their 70s. We had a Public Defender who just lied and never went to law school. I heard he was pretty good in trial until he was caught I think you might be having flashbacks to "The Pretender" and "Catch Me if You Can". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:31:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ How about a reasonable system that forces a plaintiff to prove a law suits merit prior to it being filed? How, and to whom, would you "prove" the merits of a lawsuit prior to litigating it? You do know that litigation in the court system IS the vehicle by which a plaintiff attempts to prove claims, right? No man, you see he wants a pre-trial trial of claims to avoid costs. This is almost as dumb as the firing unionizing workers thread. Thats the whole point....it doesnt take a gaggle of lawyers and judges 1000's of man hours to determine the merits of most cases. It doesn't need to go to trial. RIght. Like I said, every client says that. It's all very obvious to them, they can't understand why there is so much fuss. Meanwhile, across town at the other side's lawyer's office, that lawyer is hearing the same thing from his client who has drawn entirely the opposite conclusion. But you're right, they should all just have a beer in Obama's backyard and hug it out, that would fix it all. You're missing my point. In a criminal court the state is required many times to prove that there is even probable cause to support the charges in the first place. I understand the difference in criminal and civil court. I understand the difference in the burden of proof. However, I also see that there is zero checks and balances in the civil process. A plaintiff can make the most absurd and baseless claim against you and you are forced to hire an attorney to defend yourself. The courts don't want to qualify the law suit first because that would limit the cases coming through the courts so it would become harder to justify their own existence. The courts hesitate to award attorney fees to the winner because if a plaintiff knew that they might lose their ass in a ridiculous and frivolous suit and have to pay back the defendants attorney fees, most plaintiffs would hesitate to even file the case. There again limiting the need for more lawyers and reducing the need for judges, clerks and the entire legal system as a whole. When the people in charge of the system get to build the system in the first place that determines their own relevance then something is wrong. Of course they will never reduce the need for wasting your money on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:33:42 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. It's still one more data point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:37:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ How about a reasonable system that forces a plaintiff to prove a law suits merit prior to it being filed? How, and to whom, would you "prove" the merits of a lawsuit prior to litigating it? You do know that litigation in the court system IS the vehicle by which a plaintiff attempts to prove claims, right? No man, you see he wants a pre-trial trial of claims to avoid costs. This is almost as dumb as the firing unionizing workers thread. Thats the whole point....it doesnt take a gaggle of lawyers and judges 1000's of man hours to determine the merits of most cases. It doesn't need to go to trial. RIght. Like I said, every client says that. It's all very obvious to them, they can't understand why there is so much fuss. Meanwhile, across town at the other side's lawyer's office, that lawyer is hearing the same thing from his client who has drawn entirely the opposite conclusion. But you're right, they should all just have a beer in Obama's backyard and hug it out, that would fix it all. You're missing my point. In a criminal court the state is required many times to prove that there is even probable cause to support the charges in the first place. I understand the difference in criminal and civil court. I understand the difference in the burden of proof. However, I also see that there is zero checks and balances in the civil process. A plaintiff can make the most absurd and baseless claim against you and you are forced to hire an attorney to defend yourself. The courts don't want to qualify the law suit first because that would limit the cases coming through the courts so it would become harder to justify their own existence. The courts hesitate to award attorney fees to the winner because if a plaintiff knew that they might lose their ass in a ridiculous and frivolous suit and have to pay back the defendants attorney fees, most plaintiffs would hesitate to even file the case. There again limiting the need for more lawyers and reducing the need for judges, clerks and the entire legal system as a whole. When the people in charge of the system get to build the system in the first place that determines their own relevance then something is wrong. Of course they will never reduce the need for wasting your money on them. Everyone has a right to be heard in a court of law. What you propose would hinder that. Yes it sucks, yes I have spent hundreds of thousands defending myself from some of the stupidest stuff you could imagine, but limiting access to the courts would be terrible. Oh the .gov took my guns, liberal judge refuses to even establish the case as having no merit so you cannot even appeal. Yeah, your way sounds awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:38:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ How about a reasonable system that forces a plaintiff to prove a law suits merit prior to it being filed? How, and to whom, would you "prove" the merits of a lawsuit prior to litigating it? You do know that litigation in the court system IS the vehicle by which a plaintiff attempts to prove claims, right? No man, you see he wants a pre-trial trial of claims to avoid costs. This is almost as dumb as the firing unionizing workers thread. Thats the whole point....it doesnt take a gaggle of lawyers and judges 1000's of man hours to determine the merits of most cases. It doesn't need to go to trial. RIght. Like I said, every client says that. It's all very obvious to them, they can't understand why there is so much fuss. Meanwhile, across town at the other side's lawyer's office, that lawyer is hearing the same thing from his client who has drawn entirely the opposite conclusion. But you're right, they should all just have a beer in Obama's backyard and hug it out, that would fix it all. You're missing my point. In a criminal court the state is required many times to prove that there is even probable cause to support the charges in the first place. I understand the difference in criminal and civil court. I understand the difference in the burden of proof. However, I also see that there is zero checks and balances in the civil process. A plaintiff can make the most absurd and baseless claim against you and you are forced to hire an attorney to defend yourself. The courts don't want to qualify the law suit first because that would limit the cases coming through the courts so it would become harder to justify their own existence. The courts hesitate to award attorney fees to the winner because if a plaintiff knew that they might lose their ass in a ridiculous and frivolous suit and have to pay back the defendants attorney fees, most plaintiffs would hesitate to even file the case. There again limiting the need for more lawyers and reducing the need for judges, clerks and the entire legal system as a whole. When the people in charge of the system get to build the system in the first place that determines their own relevance then something is wrong. Of course they will never reduce the need for wasting your money on them. Everyone has a right to be heard in a court of law. What you propose would hinder that. Yes it sucks, yes I have spent hundreds of thousands defending myself from some of the stupidest stuff you could imagine, but limiting access to the courts would be terrible. Oh the .gov took my guns, liberal judge refuses to even establish the case as having no merit so you cannot even appeal. Yeah, your way sounds awesome. But the lawyers are scumbags because they won't work below cost. Free law-care for everyone! Everyone MUST buy into the single payer law insurance program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:41:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
[ How about a reasonable system that forces a plaintiff to prove a law suits merit prior to it being filed? How, and to whom, would you "prove" the merits of a lawsuit prior to litigating it? You do know that litigation in the court system IS the vehicle by which a plaintiff attempts to prove claims, right? No man, you see he wants a pre-trial trial of claims to avoid costs. This is almost as dumb as the firing unionizing workers thread. Thats the whole point....it doesnt take a gaggle of lawyers and judges 1000's of man hours to determine the merits of most cases. It doesn't need to go to trial. RIght. Like I said, every client says that. It's all very obvious to them, they can't understand why there is so much fuss. Meanwhile, across town at the other side's lawyer's office, that lawyer is hearing the same thing from his client who has drawn entirely the opposite conclusion. But you're right, they should all just have a beer in Obama's backyard and hug it out, that would fix it all. You're missing my point. In a criminal court the state is required many times to prove that there is even probable cause to support the charges in the first place. I understand the difference in criminal and civil court. I understand the difference in the burden of proof. However, I also see that there is zero checks and balances in the civil process. A plaintiff can make the most absurd and baseless claim against you and you are forced to hire an attorney to defend yourself. The courts don't want to qualify the law suit first because that would limit the cases coming through the courts so it would become harder to justify their own existence. The courts hesitate to award attorney fees to the winner because if a plaintiff knew that they might lose their ass in a ridiculous and frivolous suit and have to pay back the defendants attorney fees, most plaintiffs would hesitate to even file the case. There again limiting the need for more lawyers and reducing the need for judges, clerks and the entire legal system as a whole. When the people in charge of the system get to build the system in the first place that determines their own relevance then something is wrong. Of course they will never reduce the need for wasting your money on them. Everyone has a right to be heard in a court of law. What you propose would hinder that. Yes it sucks, yes I have spent hundreds of thousands defending myself from some of the stupidest stuff you could imagine, but limiting access to the courts would be terrible. Oh the .gov took my guns, liberal judge refuses to even establish the case as having no merit so you cannot even appeal. Yeah, your way sounds awesome. But the lawyers are scumbags because they won't work below cost. Free law-care for everyone! Everyone MUST buy into the single payer law insurance program. No the .gov is not the way to go, the .gov never uses lube, at least my lawyers give me a nice folio to bite on and lube before sticking it to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:50:38 PM EDT
[#18]
And the equivalent of probable cause affidavit in civil court is the complaint.
If a litigant files a complaint that doesn't pass muster, then you file a 12(b) (or the state equivalent) motion to dismiss. I don't know if you know this, but a prosecutor can bring charges and go to court with crappy probably cause affidavits. Ever heard of George Zimmerman? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:55:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 3:58:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:00:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. I've been avoiding writing a US Supreme Court brief so that's my excuse for posting here so much lately.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:05:20 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes? Quoted: I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. I'm aimless's troll account |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:05:27 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. I've been avoiding writing a US Supreme Court brief so that's my excuse for posting here so much lately. What's the topic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:10:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. I've been avoiding writing a US Supreme Court brief so that's my excuse for posting here so much lately. What's the topic? Federal preemption of a state law where there is an acknowledged and entrenched split between state and federal case law on the issue. Or, in other words, about paint drying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:11:11 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. I've been avoiding writing a US Supreme Court brief so that's my excuse for posting here so much lately. Well anybody can write an Amicus Brief or slime their way in as an Intervenor (or whatever the hell the term is). That's two semesters (Grad and undergrad) business law in yout face. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:12:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Martindale Hubble has me graduating from a college I never stepped foot in Why is it their fault that you blew off all of your classes?
Quoted:
I've never needed a lawyer before but I could see it happening some day. So the question is, how do I go about finding a good lawyer who charges reasonable rates and establishing a relationship with said lawyer so that I can call them if my ass ever needs legal saving? Check the local brothels and back alley bars. Also look under rocks. Or you could try http://www.avvo.com/ as well as the other sources mentioned. Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. This. Honestly, when I am scouting opposing counsel for intel I always looks to Martindale, then a personal website and then on to reported cases to see the types and complexity of cases they handle. Avvo means zippo. Martindale is tricky. I know a lot of AV rated attorneys who are complete schlubs. But I do tend to give it slightly more credence if the AV rating is in a bigger legal market. That being said, I am AV rated so how much can that really say? We need a lawyer thread with all your guys specialties. If you have all day to post on Arfcom, you are either really good or really bad at it. I'm aimless's troll account Well then, you might just be the worst internet troll lawyer ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:21:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Well anybody can write an Amicus Brief or slime their way in as an Intervenor (or whatever the hell the term is). That's two semesters (Grad and undergrad) business law in yout face. Very true. I have been hounded by various law professors to try and worm their way into my side of the case. I suspect they will be showing up with amicus briefs soon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:22:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
You are crazy. I'm a lawyer. Very lucky or very good year to crack $100k. Plumber here, I can crack 100k without even trying.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:27:07 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well anybody can write an Amicus Brief or slime their way in as an Intervenor (or whatever the hell the term is). That's two semesters (Grad and undergrad) business law in yout face. Very true. I have been hounded by various law professors to try and worm their way into my side of the case. I suspect they will be showing up with amicus briefs soon. Ha and people said if I drank and didn't go to class I wouldn't learn anything in college. Sadly I have now espoused 87% of what I remember. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:37:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Avvo is even less reliable than Martindale-Hubbell. Their numerical ratings are nonsense and they list some disbarred lawyers in my area as having no disciplinary record. It's still one more data point. It's about as reliable as fake climate change data. In addition to the fact that they list disbarred lawyers as having no disciplinary record, they also spam lawyers and basically ask them to pay to get a better Avvo profile. They're even worse than the "Who's Who" and "Best in America" publications in that regard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:52:52 PM EDT
[#31]
It is not only supply and demand, but the lack of suitable substitutes.
Going to traffic court without a lawyer, no problem. Handling felony charges without one is suicide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:55:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Because theyre a bunch of low down shit heels.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 4:55:49 PM EDT
[#33]
I was told, "We have expensive toys to pay for".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:29:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've never had a good experience with moving companies. They refuse to listen to me when I tell them how to do their jobs. And from the rates they charge it is clear they are all in cahoots with each other. They clearly manipulate and control the system, making it so difficult to navigate and afford, that a person can't rent her own u-haul and do it herself. Not only that, they answer to no one for their corrupt and greedy practices. And I bet they make $87 billion dollars a year. They must all be scumbags. Bunch of bottom feeding shysters. What kind of fucking nerve do they have charging people for lifting things up and setting them down. Shit, I can do that right now for free. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6kx3Qog-J7U/TZNnTENInEI/AAAAAAAADnY/Q8nXssUVRag/s400/planet-fitness-I-lift-things-up-ad.jpeg Sorry. That's what came to mind. Me too, I couldn't find the pic.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:32:03 PM EDT
[#35]
I did a divorce with a smart and very arrogant non-lawyer professional on the other side, representing himself. He did not know how Michigan Family Courts divide retirement savings when some portion thereof was earned before the marriage. He made an offer based upon his mistaken belief, and I accepted it without countering. His mistake cost him about $400K. He does not know and will probably never know what a hit he took. In fact, he mocked his wife's decision to hire me to mutual friends, claiming she was an idiot and that I had ripped her off by charging her to proofread his paperwork, as nothing was even contested.
I could tell a hundred stories like this. When I was a law student, I clerked for a Judge and watched pro se criminal defendants refuse court appointed counsel, reject cake plea deals, and show up on the day of trial and plead as charged because they had no idea what to do next. It happened literally every week. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:40:43 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
I did a divorce with a smart and very arrogant non-lawyer professional on the other side, representing himself. He did not know how Michigan Family Courts divide retirement savings when some portion thereof was earned before the marriage. He made an offer based upon his mistaken belief, and I accepted it without countering. His mistake cost him about $400K. He does not know and will probably never know what a hit he took. In fact, he mocked his wife's decision to hire me to mutual friends, claiming she was an idiot and that I had ripped her off by charging her to proofread his paperwork, as nothing was even contested. I could tell a hundred stories like this. When I was a law student, I clerked for a Judge and watched pro se criminal defendants refuse court appointed counsel, reject cake plea deals, and show up on the day of trial and plead as charged because they had no idea what to do next. It happened literally every week. Meh. I'm sure LegalZoom can fix all that these days. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:55:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:Scumbags the whole lot of them.
Says the guy who charges people for a service you can do with a u-haul truck. Brilliant.....you're gonna make a wonderful lawyer with those amazing deductive skills.
So painters, lawn service guys, housekeepers, chauffeurs, chefs.....just to name a few......they're scumbags because they simply offer a service that you could do yourself but you'd rather pay them to do it? LOL.....how much do you plan on charging per hour brainiac? I'm not the one running my cockholster about how some group is full of scumbag mcmotherfuckers You cry like those who bash cops because they got arrested. Lawyers are like mechanics, or roofers, pick a shitty one and look at what happens. What you describe is something a first year law student should have been able to handle. Don't get butt hurt because you sucked at being a customer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:56:27 PM EDT
[#38]
Why didn't you handle your lawsuit yourself MovinMan?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 5:59:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did a divorce with a smart and very arrogant non-lawyer professional on the other side, representing himself. He did not know how Michigan Family Courts divide retirement savings when some portion thereof was earned before the marriage. He made an offer based upon his mistaken belief, and I accepted it without countering. His mistake cost him about $400K. He does not know and will probably never know what a hit he took. In fact, he mocked his wife's decision to hire me to mutual friends, claiming she was an idiot and that I had ripped her off by charging her to proofread his paperwork, as nothing was even contested. I could tell a hundred stories like this. When I was a law student, I clerked for a Judge and watched pro se criminal defendants refuse court appointed counsel, reject cake plea deals, and show up on the day of trial and plead as charged because they had no idea what to do next. It happened literally every week. Meh. I'm sure LegalZoom can fix all that these days. Oh, don't get me started. My last "Legal Zoom" JOD did not award the marital home to either party. So, they were divorced, still owned the property as joint tenants, and the Family Court does not have jurisdiction...........wait for it...........BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MARRIED!!!!!!!!!! The Judge would not entertain a motion to amend the JOD because property settlements are not modifiable once the appeal period has run. Even though the divorce was not contested, they had since had a falling out and wife would not sign a QCD. Ever see a Circuit Court Judge (non-family court) literally have to Google "action to quiet title? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another $5000 legal zoom divorce! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:04:08 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I did a divorce with a smart and very arrogant non-lawyer professional on the other side, representing himself. He did not know how Michigan Family Courts divide retirement savings when some portion thereof was earned before the marriage. He made an offer based upon his mistaken belief, and I accepted it without countering. His mistake cost him about $400K. He does not know and will probably never know what a hit he took. In fact, he mocked his wife's decision to hire me to mutual friends, claiming she was an idiot and that I had ripped her off by charging her to proofread his paperwork, as nothing was even contested. I could tell a hundred stories like this. When I was a law student, I clerked for a Judge and watched pro se criminal defendants refuse court appointed counsel, reject cake plea deals, and show up on the day of trial and plead as charged because they had no idea what to do next. It happened literally every week. Meh. I'm sure LegalZoom can fix all that these days. Oh, don't get me started. My last "Legal Zoom" JOD did not award the marital home to either party. So, they were divorced, still owned the property as joint tenants, and the Family Court does not have jurisdiction...........wait for it...........BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT MARRIED!!!!!!!!!! The Judge would not entertain a motion to amend the JOD because property settlements are not modifiable once the appeal period has run. Even though the divorce was not contested, they had since had a falling out and wife would not sign a QCD. Ever see a Circuit Court Judge (non-family court) literally have to Google "action to quiet title? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Another $5000 legal zoom divorce! And this is when I would talk about doing my own sutures and rebuilding my own transmission so those greedy wrenchers and doctors couldn't fleece me, but I realize that I don't get involved in shit that's out of my lane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:05:40 PM EDT
[#41]
I got to agree with MovinMan to a degree. It's spun out of control, lawyers are needed but overused to a extreme.
Many civil cased would probably be cheaper to just burn your money and call it even than jump through the hoops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:08:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Why???? Because you as a regular citizen don't know shit about the law (regardless if it US law, the law of your State or local law). Nothing new here citizen - the 'law' is crafted by lawyers (in the disguise of politicians), made so complicated (al la Roman law) that no one can fully understand or know the full 'law' and made so procedural complicated that you can not 'defend' yourself in court. Sadly, you (we) have again been set up and placed in a position of both servitude and beholden (via the pocket-book if you have the funds) to those who have the knowledge base to operate in a (hate to say the phrase) court of law.
Best to go with the flow, hope no one notices you and keep your mouth shut (don't make waves). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:12:59 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
I got to agree with MovinMan to a degree. It's spun out of control, lawyers are needed but overused to a extreme. Many civil cased would probably be cheaper to just burn your money and call it even than jump through the hoops. Most business people do a cost benefit analysis and proceed accordingly. I however, do family law. Your proposal sounds nice, but try convincing 90% of non custodial parents that that paying child support is something they should do, or 90% of scorned women that if their husband disagrees with them, it is not "emotional abuse" or that not wanting to be married to you anymore does not mean he should never see his kids again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:17:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I got to agree with MovinMan to a degree. It's spun out of control, lawyers are needed but overused to a extreme. Many civil cased would probably be cheaper to just burn your money and call it even than jump through the hoops. Most business people do a cost benefit analysis and proceed accordingly. I however, do family law. Your proposal sounds nice, but try convincing 90% of non custodial parents that that paying child support is something they should do, or 90% of scorned women that if their husband disagrees with them, it is not "emotional abuse" or that not wanting to be married to you anymore does not mean he should never see his kids again. Am I allowed to waterboard them to convince them? How often do people get away with not paying child support? And conversely how often do those people pay entirely too much? Much cut off the head to spite the face thinking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:22:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
I got to agree with MovinMan to a degree. It's spun out of control, lawyers are needed but overused to a extreme. Which is the fault of the parties who hire them. You can rest assured that we don't go around looking for trouble on our own. Nobody will pay us to do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:22:41 PM EDT
[#46]
Mandatory thread intermission for lawyer joke
"what's the difference between a lawyer and a hooker? A hooker will stop fucking you after you are dead" With that said, lawyers practice law. Law comes from the legislature. We get to elect the legislators. To fix lawyers and the law, ELECT BETTER LEGISLATORS |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:24:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Why???? Because you as a regular citizen don't know shit about the law (regardless if it US law, the law of your State or local law). Nothing new here citizen - the 'law' is crafted by lawyers (in the disguise of politicians), made so complicated (al la Roman law) that no one can fully understand or know the full 'law' and made so procedural complicated that you can not 'defend' yourself in court. Sadly, you (we) have again been set up and placed in a position of both servitude and beholden (via the pocket-book if you have the funds) to those who have the knowledge base to operate in a (hate to say the phrase) court of law. Best to go with the flow, hope no one notices you and keep your mouth shut (don't make waves). What complicates the law is the protections given to people who stand to lose something. It could be simple but then everyone gets fucked, not just the ignorant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:24:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Legal questions never have straightforward factual answers, they are always debatable scenarios subject to advocacy and creative legal reasoning. A contest, a fight, with a winner and a loser.
Good (as in successful at winning) lawyers continue to raise their rates when their time is sold out, partly in hopes of keeping their docket something less than 120% of capacity, and even maybe to have a little free time as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:31:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Legal questions never have straightforward factual answers, they are always debatable scenarios subject to advocacy and creative legal reasoning. A contest, a fight, with a winner and a loser. Good (as in successful at winning) lawyers continue to raise their rates when their time is sold out, partly in hopes of keeping their docket something less than 120% of capacity, and even maybe to have a little free time as well. You're right on the second part. On the first part, though, the truth is that 90% of legal issues/questions that arise and that the law addresses have pretty clear answers/results. It's the other 10%, along with complete crazies and crusaders, that generate all my fees the litigation. The other sources of litigation aren't really legal issues but are simply subjective factual questions, like fixing damages in a personal injury or defamation case where there isn't some clear, hard metric or number to be presented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 6:40:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Legal questions never have straightforward factual answers, they are always debatable scenarios subject to advocacy and creative legal reasoning. A contest, a fight, with a winner and a loser. Good (as in successful at winning) lawyers continue to raise their rates when their time is sold out, partly in hopes of keeping their docket something less than 120% of capacity, and even maybe to have a little free time as well. You're right on the second part. On the first part, though, the truth is that 90% of legal issues/questions that arise and that the law addresses have pretty clear answers/results. It's the other 10%, along with complete crazies and crusaders, that generate all my fees the litigation. The other sources of litigation aren't really legal issues but are simply subjective factual questions, like fixing damages in a personal injury or defamation case where there isn't some clear, hard metric or number to be presented. Well, it seems like everything I work on is a struggle anymore. I recently hiked my rates another $40/hour and no one blinked. I just want to clear my docket enough to take a vacation in June. I'm turning clients away pretty regularly now too. Don't get me wrong, I feel blessed, but it wears a guy out after a while. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
