• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is There A Criminal Lawyer In The House?

MaggieD said:
If lawyers took their bar associations' advice and provided retainer agreements to every client, they wouldn't have that reputation.

Most importantly, people hate paying people for what they know.
Click to expand...

. . . . huh?
 
MaggieD said:
If lawyers took their bar associations' advice and provided retainer agreements to every client, they wouldn't have that reputation.

Most importantly, people hate paying people for what they know.
Click to expand...

Mags, as I was a government employed lawyer, my paying client did not need to sign a retainer agreement. But EVERY ONE of my pro bono clients were provided one and had it explained, advised to get a 2nd legal opinion before signing and did in fact sign. I don't know anyone in private practice who doesn't use a retainer agreement BEFORE any fees are incurred.

I still occasionally work for a fee these days. My policy is "fee up front" unless it's a repeat customer. Too many people want the advice/research/drafting but then change their mind about paying me after it is finished.

**** that noise. I killed myself to get to be a good (actually, great) lawyer, and ONLY I will be the one who decides when I give away my knowlege, expertise and time for free -- not some deadbeat client.

And yes, I still do a little pro bono. But not much..I no longer litigate.

 
Last edited:
Maggie wrote in part:

Most importantly, people hate paying people for what they know.
Click to expand...

My asshole ex once told me that law school/practicing law couldn't possibly be hard, as all I had to was read and write, something any 2nd grader can do.

:cuckoo:
 
Aderleth said:
Holy crap. That's worse than what I had to deal with (for the ethics test; my understanding is that the California bar is one of the two hardest in the country). I had enough trouble remembering the 8-10 different places that I lived in during the 10 year period stipulated. If I had to go back to earlier households, I'd have been screwed. And given your background, you were in an even worse position.
Click to expand...

California and New York have always had the rep of being the two hardest bars in the country. I took my first bar exam in Ohio and afterwards, I almost died of crying, believing I had flunked it. Ohio (at least then) had the odious practice of "notifying" you as to whether or not you passed -- in a few months' time -- by publishing in the major Ohio papers who had passed.....so of course, we all also knew who had failed.

They never bothered with a private snail mail letter, and they never gave you your score. I had no idea whether I had passed by a country mile or just squeaked by.

A year later, when I sat for Florida's bar, I was much more sanguine. Turns out, Florida does send you a letter if you pass, and when mine arrived, they also asked me to read for the next exam (grade essay questions) because I had scored so highly.

I joyously told them to go **** themselves, in legalese. IMO, bar examiners are assholes. And the questions! There's so little on any bar exam I took that had any bearing on what I learned in law school (and even less on what I still needed to learn to practice law), the damned things may as well be tests on zoology.
 
Last edited:
Pinkie said:
California and New York have always had the rep of being the two hardest bars in the country. I took my first bar exam in Ohio and afterwards, I almost died of crying, believing I had flunked it. Ohio (at least then) had the odious practice of "notifying" you as to whether or not you passed -- in a few months' time -- by publishing in the major Ohio papers who had passed.....so of course, we all also knew who had failed.

They never bothered with a private snail mail letter, and they never gave you your score. I had no idea whether I had passed by a country mile or just squeaked by.

A year later, when I sat for Florida's bar, I was much more sanguine. Turns out, Florida does send you a letter if you pass, and when mine arrived, they also asked me to read for the next exam (grade essay questions) because I had scored so highly.

I joyously told them to go **** themselves, in legalese. IMO, bar examiners are assholes. And the questions! There's so little on any bar exam I took that had any bearing on what I learned in law school (and even less on what I still needed to learn to practice law), the damned things may as well be tests on zoology.
Click to expand...

Most people say the same thing about the CPA Exam and Real Estate Exam. I think most of them are exclusionary. We wouldn't want too many lawyers, ya' know. ;)
 
Harshaw said:
That movie was preposterously bad.

Even if the "double jeopardy" angle were correct, which it's not, she went on a cross-country crime spree, stealing cars, destroying property, and who knows what else I purged from my memory in that suckage of a film. She's still going back to prison for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

I like Ashley Judd and I adore Tommy Lee Jones. I am capable of suspending belief briefly to enjoy a good movie....aren't you?
 
MaggieD said:
Most people say the same thing about the CPA Exam and Real Estate Exam. I think most of them are exclusionary. We wouldn't want too many lawyers, ya' know. ;)
Click to expand...

Florida uses its ridiculously extensive background check to prevent as many older lawyers as possible from moving there and practicing part-time after they "semi-retire". They don't even pretend it serves any other purpose.

One thing abut lawyers....as a profession, we are not one another's friends. We'll shaft the the other guy in a New York minute. We're not like MDs or cops, who stick together. I have certainly chuckled over a few disbarments, and I suspect most lawyers have as well.

I dunno about the RE exam, but rumor has it the CPA exam actually asks questions about accounting, and is given in parts (6, I think). You can retain any portion you pass for time period and just keep taking those you failed until you achieve CPA-nirvana.

I know of no state that does any such thing with its lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
It's not against common sense. The gunshot to the head was cause of death. Every element of at least some level of murder is satisfied.

He can also be sued succesfully for wrongful death, as his gunshot is the proximate cause of death. There probably wouldn't even be much mitigation.
Click to expand...

You like this game, donca, Harshaw?

Here's another: I shoot a pile of dirty laundry, mistakenly thinking I'm shooting my husband. What, if anything, am I guilty of?

Answer: Attempted murder (because of my intent).
 
MaggieD said:
Most people say the same thing about the CPA Exam and Real Estate Exam. I think most of them are exclusionary. We wouldn't want too many lawyers, ya' know. ;)
Click to expand...

Truthfully, I think we sank ourselves when the state bars began to permit advertising. This happened in Ohio whilst I was still in law school, and the change was dramatic.

Just this afternoon, I watched a personal injury lawyer's ad on tv, as he stood next to an electronic banner that showed the many millions his firm had collected for clients...and the counter of monies collected kept rising throughout his 30 second spot.

If that isn't deceptive, I dunno what is.

I like tort lawyers, as a rule, but O Lordy! Their ads are such smelly bull****tery.
 
Pinkie said:
I like Ashley Judd and I adore Tommy Lee Jones. I am capable of suspending belief briefly to enjoy a good movie....aren't you?
Click to expand...

Oh, I do like Tommy Lee. Sometimes I can ignore it (like I can with Under Siege), but not for that one.
 
Pinkie said:
You like this game, donca, Harshaw?

Here's another: I shoot a pile of dirty laundry, mistakenly thinking I'm shooting my husband. What, if anything, am I guilty of?

Answer: Attempted murder (because of my intent).
Click to expand...

May vary from state to state, and according to case law, but typically, sure.

Sec. 8-4. Attempt. (a) Elements of the Offense. A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.

(b) Impossibility. It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted.
Click to expand...
 
Pinkie said:
Anyone else see "Double Jeopardy" with Ashley Judd? Remember when her fellow prisoner aka former lawyer tells Ashley she can shoot her husband in the head in Times Square without any criminal liability, as she is already been convicted of murdering him?



(Spoiler alert: Ashley's husband fakes his death and her conviction is erroneously, as no "murder charge" can lie unless the defendant was in some way responsible for an ACTUAL human death.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
Oh, I do like Tommy Lee. Sometimes I can ignore it (like I can with Under Siege), but not for that one.
Click to expand...

Meh, movies are like art, Harshaw.

None of us must defend our preferences. They are personal, and not up for debate.

You can hate "Double Jeopardy"; it's no skin off my nose.
 
Pinkie said:
Meh, movies are like art, Harshaw.

None of us must defend our preferences. They are personal, and not up for debate.

You can hate "Double Jeopardy"; it's no skin off my nose.
Click to expand...

? Didn't ask you to defend anything.
 
People love to hate lawyers until they need one and he/she is able to get them what they need, be it money via lawsuit, off the hook for a crime, or a favorable settlement in a divorce.
 
Dittohead not! said:
People love to hate lawyers until they need one and he/she is able to get them what they need, be it money via lawsuit, off the hook for a crime, or a favorable settlement in a divorce.
Click to expand...

My clients certainly loved me....except for the politicians who were upset I had won, and thusly offended one of their contributors. IMO, politician = asshole.
 
Pinkie said:
Florida uses its ridiculously extensive background check to prevent as many older lawyers as possible from moving there and practicing part-time after they "semi-retire". They don't even pretend it serves any other purpose.
Click to expand...

When I lived in Florida I did not want start a practice, get admitted and go through a lot procedural stuff as I knew it was for a limited basis. I was admitted pro hoc vice for specific matters. I also was involved on the periphery with many attorneys.

This is a interesting link regarding the states and their reciprocity provisions. Juristech Associates Ltd Home I have waived into several bar admissions or had the opportunity to based on the state's provisions.

One thing abut lawyers....as a profession, we are not one another's friends. We'll shaft the the other guy in a New York minute. We're not like MDs or cops, who stick together. I have certainly chuckled over a few disbarments, and I suspect most lawyers have as well.
Click to expand...

This is what I have found no matter what state or location I move to when I identify myself as a former cop there is a feeling of fellowship and comradeship with the police there.

When I teach there is sense of community with my contemporaries, especially knowing I am not looking for a tenured position.

When I move to another state I get a distinct feeling of aloofness when I meet other attorneys. I usually join the Lawyers' Concerned for lawyers and get involved in the fellowship of other attorneys as well. It also allows me to give back to the profession, which I enjoy. In this bunch I have met the some of the best and many of those with the worst situations.
 
Tip o'the hat, Connery.

SmartHell2.gif
 
Pinkie said:
Anyone else see "Double Jeopardy" with Ashley Judd? Remember when her fellow prisoner aka former lawyer tells Ashley she can shoot her husband in the head in Times Square without any criminal liability, as she is already been convicted of murdering him?



(Spoiler alert: Ashley's husband fakes his death and her conviction is erroneously, as no "murder charge" can lie unless the defendant was in some way responsible for an ACTUAL human death.)

It was a terrific plot device...but was it also an accurate interpretation of the Double Jeopardy provision of the US constitution?
Click to expand...


No. She did not actual kill him so when she does actually kill him she is guilty of murder. The plot idea was stupid once you know this.
 
Connery said:
Of course I was, the idea that all members of any given profession are crooked is absurd. I looked at the OP and that was what reminded me of a hackneyed senseless stab at people who worked hard to reach that level of professionalism.
Click to expand...

Except for politicians ;)
I jest. I am sure the one honest politician exists somewhere...probably in a movie or book...but somewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom