Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/15/2004 8:30:39 AM EST
any of you guys lawyers?? if so...what is your specialty?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:39:59 AM EST
I'm not. Thank God.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:41:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 8:41:49 AM EST by Happyshooter]
I am an attorney.

I talk to people and write documents 90% of the time, and other 10% I sue or defend on behalf of businesses.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:42:19 AM EST
I hate to say this but, not enough (gun loving lawyers that is).
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:44:01 AM EST
I am not a lawyer but I almost sold my soul once.

SO I was close........


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:46:01 AM EST
JD, Univ. of Colorado School of Law, 1998

Civil Litigation, appeals, construction, intellectual property.

(Oh, and gun law! -- I'm working on a "Pelican Brief" style document for submission to the SCOTUS as an Amicus when the critical 2nd Amend. issue finally makes its way before the Court).

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:52:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:53:21 AM EST
Another lawyer here. Specialty? Kissing partner's ass.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:54:45 AM EST
what does a lawyer and a sperm have in common?

They both stand a 1 in 10,000 chance of becoming human.....
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 8:59:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Me! Me! Me!

I am a lawyer, with most of my work related to real estate law - I own a small title company.

Eric The(BigFrickingDeal)Hun



"Doctors are the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you too." - Mark Twain
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:37:08 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 12:11:27 PM EST by Ben70]
I am not an attorney.

You asked about gunlawyers, though. I humbly submit

www.attorneycohen.com

Massachusetts gun law. Focuses on getting people their Class A, All Lawful Purposes licenses; petitions for judicial review; rights restoration, etc. He's also doing criminal defense and real estate.

http://www.massgunlaw.com
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:49:18 AM EST
Count me in. Been doing work comp, but am moving to in-house counsel for a a "major US company" in about 2 weeks. All defense work.

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:54:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 9:58:08 AM EST by Tortfeasor]
Present. General practice.

And after reading all the prior responses which go out of their way to apologetically preface their responses with "I do defense work" or " work for business" I have a general practice, and am proud to be a trial lawyer, which means I will whip any ass which needs whippin. My favorite kind of case is where I can represent gun owners against the state, against insurance companies which want to cancel their homeowners b/c they have private shooting range, etc. Unlike a small majority of trial lawyers including Ron Motley, I abhor cases against gun manufacturers...
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 9:56:14 AM EST
I have a spine thank you very much.

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 10:27:28 AM EST
I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express once
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 10:55:11 AM EST
I'm not,but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:09:34 AM EST
Who is that transgender (woman to guy?) lawyer in NY city who kept winning all the gun rights cases?
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:14:36 AM EST
What happens when a Lawyer takes Viagra?


They stand up.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:17:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Me! Me! Me!

I am a lawyer, with most of my work related to real estate law - I own a small title company.

Eric The(BigFrickingDeal)Hun



No kidding? Me too!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:18:57 AM EST
Mother is a lawyer, got her degree specialty in Admiralty, but she is currently in a private practice doing mainly bankruptcies and divorces. She's done some malpractice suits, harrasment suits, and criminal cases, though.

I'm currently thinking along that path, although I think I'd prefer Criminal law.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:23:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
Present. General practice.

And after reading all the prior responses which go out of their way to apologetically preface their responses with "I do defense work" or " work for business" I have a general practice, and am proud to be a trial lawyer, which means I will whip any ass which needs whippin. My favorite kind of case is where I can represent gun owners against the state, against insurance companies which want to cancel their homeowners b/c they have private shooting range, etc. Unlike a small majority of trial lawyers including Ron Motley, I abhor cases against gun manufacturers...




+1 (solo practitioner).

KATN when necessary.

Business litigation is my forte (real estate agent fuck ups/deals gone bad, breach of contract, etc).

I will sue who needs suing IF there is a good claim that needs prosecuted. I won't waste my time with frivolous stuff.

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:28:34 AM EST
My wife its. Not me. I am a poor webdesigner. So I married smart!

She works for the US Dept of Labor - in the pension and benefits dept. She helps people when their 401K or health care get jacked - so shes on the good side.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 11:36:39 AM EST
Yep, and proud of it.
I sue insurance companies.
And before all of you whiny bastards start talking about frivolous lawsuits, Answer this question....Are you personally aware...not from the newspaper, tv,etc.. of any case where a person was awarded too much money from a jury?

And don't talk about the McDonalds case unless you were there.

I've never had an injured client who thought their own case was frivolous.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:09:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By texashark:
And before all of you whiny bastards start talking about frivolous lawsuits, Answer this question....Are you personally aware...not from the newspaper, tv,etc.. of any case where a person was awarded too much money from a jury?

And don't talk about the McDonalds case unless you were there.



Well, I'm not a whiny anything, but I will talk about the McDonald's case, or anything else I please, anytime I want too. I am a free American.

And I didn't have to be sitting in the car to know that the McDonald's case was a great example of bad law. An old lady buys a cup of hot coffee, spills it in her lap, and sues because it was hot.

Only an evil lawyer would think that she bears no responsibility and that the folks selling the hot coffee are at fault. That's just stupid.

People ought to be held responsible for their own actions. If you spill hot coffee in your lap, I'm sure sorry for your pain, but the entire responsibility is yours. Not Micky D's. Not anyone else. Just yours.


I've never had an injured client who thought their own case was frivolous.


Well, no joke.

Joseph Stalin thought he was innocent, but he was wrong. So are these thieves that steal money from people that are not responsible for their injuries.

(And just for the record, I don't hate lawyers. I just hate stupidity.)
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:14:19 PM EST

Originally Posted By Mister44:
My wife its. Not me. I am a poor webdesigner photographer. So I married smart!




My wife does construction litigation. Surety bonds defaults and such. On big deals like staduims, casinos, etc. Fun stuff.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:18:18 PM EST

"Doctors are the same as lawyers; the only difference is that lawyers merely rob you, whereas doctors rob you and kill you too." - Mark Twain


and we can bury our mistakes!
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:22:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:23:26 PM EST
Cousin Eric--Trusts and Contracts Orange, CA
Cousin Jac--Asst. County Counsel SLO CA
Cousin Denise-Criminal Defense Attorney, Santa Ana
Niece "Jet" Harris, U.S. Asst. District Attorney, Atlanta GA.

I just practice arguing with the wife and cat.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:28:58 PM EST
Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law. Plaintiffs' side.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:33:17 PM EST
Old Painless is right on target with being accountable for your own actions. How many times do you read about people racing to beat trains. The gates are down, lights flashing, & bells ringing. The morons go around the gates, get crunched, and then everybody in the family wants to sue the railroad.

If you do something stupid should you be rewarded for it? Unfortunately some people think so. And there are plenty of ambulance chasers out there to help.

That's why when somebody has a legitamate injury, they usually end up getting the shaft.hock.gif
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:37:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rocketeer:
Old Painless is right on target with being accountable for your own actions. How many times do you read about people racing to beat trains. The gates are down, lights flashing, & bells ringing. The morons go around the gates, get crunched, and then everybody in the family wants to sue the railroad.




And then they go see a lawyer, and he tells them that they don't have a case. You can't make money on a contingent fee if you're going to get bounced on summary judgment.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:39:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:
Arfkom rule # 7888.21 (a) All lawsuits are frivolous even if you know nothing about them, unless some tiny imagined slight happened to you, then sue the bastards into the poor house!

"Frivolous lawsuits" are the "hip fired bullet hose" of the judicial system, sounds nasty if you don't know a lot about it, but it's really about people trying to take your rights away (for the most part, there are also some legitimate problems, but that's not what the insurance industry and businessses are after, they wanna be free to squash you and poison you without you being able to do anything about it)

Oh and I'm a former insurance company mouthpiece who defended personal injury actions for years before becoming a small town general practice do almost everything shyster, thought mostly trial type stuff of one kind or another-which is kinda like baseball, lots of sitting around for every few minutes you actually get to go out on the field and play.





ANd you kick kids!


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:43:10 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 12:44:09 PM EST by Happyshooter]

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
Present. General practice.

And after reading all the prior responses which go out of their way to apologetically preface their responses with "I do defense work" or " work for business" I have a general practice, and am proud to be a trial lawyer, which means I will whip any ass which needs whippin. My favorite kind of case is where I can represent gun owners against the state, against insurance companies which want to cancel their homeowners b/c they have private shooting range, etc. Unlike a small majority of trial lawyers including Ron Motley, I abhor cases against gun manufacturers...




I do not in any way belittle you, I explain that unlike you I do a small subset of law only, one that I am very good at and can clean your clock at any day of the week, while hung over. You, however, can do a little bit of everything. For example, I bet you can defend a criminal case, while my knowledge of criminal law (besides some white collar) is limited to watching Law & Order with the hot blonde lawyer.

Please do not characterize my explaining what I do as an apology.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 12:58:08 PM EST
Texashark,

"Yep, and proud of it." You should be.

Just a couple of questions. Do you sue insurance companies or the insureds of insurance companies? Or both?

I have done, am doing and will do plaintiff's work. But the majority of my practice is civil defense. Primarily hired by insurance companies to represent their insured in defense of a lawsuit. I have seen plenty of cases where the plaintiff received more than they deserved. By any reasonable standard. I have seen my fair share of situations where the Plaintiff received less than they deserved. Just as you have never had an injured client who felt their lawsuit was frivolous, I have never defended a client who felt plaintiff's claim was as meritorious as plaintiff seemed to believe. Often, my clients were wrong. Were yours?

Being from Albuquerque, I do know a little about the McDonald's case. With what I do know about the case, I don't have nearly the "sympathy" for McDonald's others may have. However, I do think that, other than the Plaintiff and the attorneys involved in the case, the insurance companies have been the biggest "winners" as a result of that case. While I can't prove it and am not aware of any studies done, juries remember the "insane" verdict rendered in the McDonald's case. And it affects their verdicts.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 1:06:04 PM EST
Arizona checking in. I am a real estate attorney in Scottsdale, Arizona, doing both transactional work and litigation (fraud, breach of contract, construction law). And it is true, there are not enough gun loving attorneys.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 1:10:35 PM EST
No apology in my response either. Let us see if this gets a response: "trial lawyers are the marines for domestic society." Or try this one, "trial lawyers are the ones who have fought to get American civil justice where it is today."
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 1:12:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By texashark:
Yep, and proud of it.
I sue insurance companies.
And before all of you whiny bastards start talking about frivolous lawsuits, Answer this question....Are you personally aware...not from the newspaper, tv,etc.. of any case where a person was awarded too much money from a jury?

And don't talk about the McDonalds case unless you were there.

I've never had an injured client who thought their own case was frivolous.

I've never seen a trial lawyer who thought their case was frivolous. Of course, they always had money riding on it....
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 2:04:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/15/2004 2:06:07 PM EST by maximumbob_tx]
STCL graduate 1986
Prosecutor since 1992.
I specialize in juvenile prosecution and in one memorable year, tried more juvenile Murder cases than the regular prosecutors. I don't make a great deal of money, but I have a very interesting life.
There is at least one ARFcommer criminal lawyer that I work with on a regular basis; (he just reads, doesn't contribute much... ) If there are others, come on outa the closet, guys!
The McDonalds Case - seems to be a hot button issue with just about everybody. And while I think that McDonalds DOES serve their coffee way too hot, I just don't order coffee there. I don't sue over it and I wouldn't accept a case like that UNLESS I saw an injustice there and thought I could fix it. (Like if the counterperson threw it in someone's face for no reason)
- I think McDonalds affects a lot of folks the way I feel when I see some idiot on TV telling us we can buy UZIs and AK47s now: I don't even want to talk any more, just start punching.
- I'm fortunate to work in a good judge's court and don't see many bad results, at least IMHO. But when I do, lots of times, it's the DIRECT result of bad lawyering.
And when I hear about crazy results like McDonalds (or apparently crazy), MY first reaction is somebody had an idiot for a lawyer.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 2:28:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By maximumbob_tx:
The McDonalds Case - seems to be a hot button issue ...



No. I believe it is a hot twat issue.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 2:40:42 PM EST
Im sure someone will volunteer to cure THAT injustice...
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 2:46:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By StykUrHedUp:
How Many Of You Guys Are Lawyers?



No...But I slept at the Holiday Inn Express.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 5:33:25 PM EST
I don't speak for anyone else but me on this one, but as an insurance defense counsel I feel that any case that wins can't be frivilous. I may disagree with the law on a number of points, but I get tired of the friends and family decrying "frivilous and meritless" lawsuits. When you ask them they always cite a case where the plaintiff WON. Now at least when I went to law school if your case was a winner you certainly did not have a meritless or frivilous claim. If you dislike the outcome you need to get the law changed, not prevent some one from suing under the current law.

YMMV

Link Posted: 9/15/2004 6:15:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 1:37:03 AM EST by GLOCKshooter]
.
Link Posted: 9/15/2004 7:24:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tortfeasor:
Present. General practice.

And after reading all the prior responses which go out of their way to apologetically preface their responses with "I do defense work" or " work for business" I have a general practice, and am proud to be a trial lawyer, which means I will whip any ass which needs whippin. My favorite kind of case is where I can represent gun owners against the state, against insurance companies which want to cancel their homeowners b/c they have private shooting range, etc. Unlike a small majority of trial lawyers including Ron Motley, I abhor cases against gun manufacturers...



+1
Additionally I am on the rotation for stand-in PD and GAL for two counties
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 5:05:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Allen-in-NM:
Texashark,

"Yep, and proud of it." You should be.

Just a couple of questions. Do you sue insurance companies or the insureds of insurance companies? Or both? Both

I have done, am doing and will do plaintiff's work. But the majority of my practice is civil defense. Primarily hired by insurance companies to represent their insured in defense of a lawsuit. I have seen plenty of cases where the plaintiff received more than they deserved. By any reasonable standard. I have seen my fair share of situations where the Plaintiff received less than they deserved. Just as you have never had an injured client who felt their lawsuit was frivolous, I have never defended a client who felt plaintiff's claim was as meritorious as plaintiff seemed to believe. Often, my clients were wrong. Were yours? Sure. Clients are often unrealistic in their assessments of their own position, and that's where we earn our money. I've found that juries are usually pretty good at cutting through the muck.

Being from Albuquerque, I do know a little about the McDonald's case. With what I do know about the case, I don't have nearly the "sympathy" for McDonald's others may have. However, I do think that, other than the Plaintiff and the attorneys involved in the case, the insurance companies have been the biggest "winners" as a result of that case. While I can't prove it and am not aware of any studies done, juries remember the "insane" verdict rendered in the McDonald's case. And it affects their verdicts.




I do some defense work for local clients and my wife did insurancework for 15 years. I can see both sides of the arguement, but the defense verdicts are often unrealistic. In a local jurisdiction there are repeated verdicts of no negligence in rear end collisions.
The Tort reformers and Lawsuit Abuse people are winning.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 5:12:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By Old_Painless:

Well, I'm not a whiny anything, but I will talk about the McDonald's case, or anything else I please, anytime I want too. I am a free American. And as a firm believer in the First Amendment I'll defend your right to say it even if you and i disagree on the details.

(And just for the record, I don't hate lawyers. I just hate stupidity.)



Then hang around here. All Lawyers are smart.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:48:52 AM EST
Texashark,

I agree, tort reform and "lawsuit abuse" people are "winning", in some areas. Not everywhere. New Mexico recently recognized a claim for third-party bad faith against an insurance company for failure to settle a claim. Which I personally think is a pantload.

Enough legal chat from me. On a happier note, I like my new XD40.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 9:52:51 AM EST
JD, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, 1999

Environmental and disability law.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:06:23 AM EST
JD, University of Tennessee College of Law 1991

Working in Emergency Services providing medico-legal and rescue LEO risk control.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:20:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2004 10:21:04 AM EST by Edge767]
I am going to be one, God willing.

I'm finishing up my undergrad (at age 37) and going to take the LSAT in the summer (after a prep course). Then, it's off to UH Law School, where hopefully I can do well, pass the Texas Bar, and then practice law here.

I'm not sure what kind of law I want to practice, as I hear the market conditions have a lot to do with what you find after law school, but I would prefer corporate/intellectual property, civil, or criminal. I have some insight from life experience in those three areas (software engineer/former law enforcement).



Edited to change a typo.
Link Posted: 9/16/2004 10:21:53 AM EST
Princeton Review, the PR books, and lots of time and practice exams, got me into a (then) top five school.

Thanks to that school I had options.


Originally Posted By Edge767:
I am going to be one, God willing.

I'm finishing up my undergrad (at age 37) and going to take the LSAT in the summer (after a prep course). Then, it's off to UH Law School, where hopefully I can do well, pass the Texas Bar, and then practice law here.

I'm not sure what kind of law I want to practice, as I hear the market conditions have a lot to do with what you find after law school, but I would prefer corporate/intellectual property, civil, or criminal. I have some insight from live experience in those three areas (software engineer/former law enforcement).

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top