I dated a few lawyers. They were outsider types, with the exception of Lee Alexander's nephew, a big pot head who drove a Spyder. Some may remember Syracuse Mayor Alexander, who went to jail for graft, etc. back in the 70s, I think. These lawyers always told me that you don't have to be especially smart, you just had to memorize.
Be that as it may, in school you learn things such as how to behave, how to handle yourself, rituals of deference and demeanor, yadda.
That's what I mean by learn. Informal learning.
They also apparnetly learn along the way to ignore anything a client has to say. The other guy, the one who can take this to federal court and has already creamed an employer for this very same kind of lawsuit, called me to day, too. I won't get into the details, because it would involve explaining the ex-exploiter's motives and that might leave me open to lord knows what other lawsuit. But let me just say this: the other attorney also wanted to tell me I was right about the motivations. And having a clue about that gives you a lot of leverage and a big fat klew by four as to how best to proceed.
I realize they may be used to dealing with people who have all kinds of theories and ideas and they are usually just spouting crap and they have to shut them out, lest they get caught up in a time sink.
But, cheeeeeriminy. We could have saved ourselves a load of time and expense had they just listened.
And what is this crap where they don't poke around at the case at all? I mean, seriously, they just spew out whatever they want, never look at a slip of paper you hand them?
This would explain why one attorney after another met with us, held open their paws for the consult fee, and none of them pointing out the two obvious things that would hit any decent atty who spent more than two minutes reading the material:
the pleading was a piece of crap there was no summons
Not noticing that, of course, they then held out their paws for $10-15k.
Anyway, S is telling me today that we MUST remove this to Federal court and spend a load.
Now, the reason he says this is that once it gets into federal court, the whole thing will be tossed out the door. The pleading is crap. The groundwork is laid. They have no registered ocpyrights and it's a little late to get them now -- if they could. But they can't: the clients own the stuff (thanks for telling me! glad i'm finally learning about who owns what now. phew. that explains allllllllllll the crap that went on in that company for years. On the cluetrain now!)
well, I've got a book cover to design, so I'll finish this later.
kelley
> There is
>virtually no procedure. You don't learn about how to do a trial. You learn
>how to write a brief, maybe. And how to look up case law and interpret it.
>That's it. You pass the bar on memory.
>
>Being a lawyer is something you learn on your own later.
>
>Sorry
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org
>[mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]On Behalf Of snitsnat
>Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:48 PM
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Subject: [lbo-talk] Bonfire of the Inanities
>
>
>And I do love how, once they start chatting it up with the attorney on the
>other side, they start calling him by his first name and even call him by a
>nickname rather than formal first name. YOu know, call 'im Chuck instead of
>Charles.
>
>Repeatedly, these guys did that. I wanna know what's up with that. I'm sure
>it escapes most people's attention. But it did not escape mine. Ohhhhh.
>chummy chummy are we? I'm notpaying you to get chummy chummy. Or maybe I
>am. Do I send them a pack of golf tees or something and tell 'em to have a
>round on me at the 19th hole?
>
>So, today, Brilliant is on the phone saying, "Oh! I said to myself, 'Self,
>you're a legal genius -- and, Kell, I AM a legal genius [1] -- there's
>something wrong with this. There's no summons here."
>
>(K asks, am i livin' in the twilight zone here, or what?' He's talking
>about himself and calling himself a legal genius. He's GOT to be pushing my
>foot, right? This does NOT happen. This happens on L.A. Law. This does NOT
>happen. Somebody tell me this doesn't happen?)
>
>I am listening quietly, slowly steaming. I close my eyes, lean my head
>back, then I look at the ceiling. I ponder the cobweb near the overhead
>kitchen light and look for faces in the swirls of ceiling paint. Anything
>at all to stave off thoughts of reaching through the phone, grabbing him by
>the throat, and wringing his neck.
>
>One. Breeeeeeath.
>Two. Breeeeeeath.
>
>Lousy. Muh- No. Breath. Breath.
>
>Three. Breeeeath.
>Four. Breeeeeath.
>
>Legal genius? NO! Breath breath breath. BREATH.
>
>Five. Breeeeeath.
>Six. Breeeeth
>
>Legal genius my ass.
>
>I snap back, remove my gaze from the gibbous moon shapes I was
>contemplating in the ceiling swirls and listen to Brilliant -- because I
>want to savor this.
>
>I open the fridge. Is there a forgotten beer in here? Please? Anything at
>all?
>
>De nada.
>
>I want to understand. I really do. I want to see, up close and personal,
>just how brilliantly stupid you have to be to make the big attorney bucks
>like this guy probably does.
>
>I want, desperately, to give him a dressing down, reminding him that we had
>ALREADY pointed out -- REPEATEDLY -- that there was no summons.
>
>I don't. Clearly, Brilliant needs to 0wn this one. OK. 0wn it sweetie, 0wn
>it. I'll listen. I'll listen reeeeeeeeeeeal good. I want to see, up close
>and personal, just how utterly stupid I have to be if I ever hope to earn,
>say, $150K/year and more. I already know how to play golf, 'k? Clearly, the
>problem is, I'm not stupid enough.
>
>Brilliant continues, "'Cause I'm a legal genius, K. There I am this morning
>thinking about this and, all of a sudden, I hit upon the solution....
>There's no summons here. None of the defendants received a summons! That's
>the answer! We'll file a motion to have this dismissed without prejudice on
>the grounds that it's a technical violation. And we'll remove it to Federal
>Court when they hit us with the lawsuit."
>
>OK. Should I start breathing again? Where's a beer when you need it? The
>gibbous moon in the ceiling paint. Where is it?
>
>"And then I remembered that, when we first talked, you'd said there was no
>summons."
>
>(There is NO frickin' beer in the fridge!)
>...........
>
>Well, when I have time, I'll finish this short story. I wonder, Mike B, was
>Alice Munro pissed of when she wrote? *grin*
>
>Meanwhile, it is stupidity, is it not?
>
>Duplicity? What?
>
>I'd _really_ like to hear from the attorneys on this one. Do you guys learn
>this in law skool? When you're apprenticing -- or whatever it is that you
>do? Do you clerk somewhere and learn how to be dumb? Duplicitous?
>
>I'm having a hard time chalking this up to anything else. If they were
>smart and knew the law, then they'd have to be engaged in some sort of
>malicious duplicity.
>
>I understand that no one can know everything. What I don't understand is
>this: Let's say it was just a matter of not knowing everything. This cliff
>hanging episode, this urgent need to remove the case to Federal Court,
>would _never_ have happened had this guy looked at the paperwork in the
>first place. He would have seen it, absorbed it, played legal genius,
>thunked himself on the head and admitted that I'd told him this from the
>get go, and filed a motion to have it removed to Federal Court. Then, when
>we could.
>
>
>
>
>"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
>
> -- rwmartin
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"Finish your beer. There are sober kids in India."
-- rwmartin