Maybe just subpoena an individual at the company to testify at trial as to the matters in your 30(b)(6) and hope they bring the same guy?
Doesn't that get me into a fix with a foreign subpoena? Since they turned over some stuff after depo, I may re-notice it and just fly out to Dallas to take it.
Well if the defendant corporation is a party, then wouldn't Alabama necessarily have jurisdiction over that entity already? So you'd just be subpoenaing the defendant and it would have to have someone testify as to the matters in your trial subpoena. I think?
That would actually be fine though--all the documents produced were directly related to my notice. I had quite a blow-up when it happened. I just wasn't familiar with the logistics of requiring a 30(b)(6) witness to testify live at trial. Somehow that has never come up in a single case of mine.
I'd notice it again, move to compel it if they object (on grounds that they didn't produce those things), and then take the depo. If they have a corporate representative present at trial, you can call him and cross him on the 30(b)(6).
Thanks. That's the plan. They want to delay this trial, so I've got to work it hard to make sure it gets done by April. I just wasn't sure if I could compel them to have a 30(b)(6) present at trial.
You might be able to get your costs for the travel. Depending on what was withheld, you could probably just compel the second deposition and ask for them. In federal court, you'd almost certainly win fees, too.
I don't think that you could compel to have a 30(b)(6) present at trial. The rule is silent to that, and I don't know of any case law that says you can.
Yeah, that was my worry. I've got an open and shut case of liability. I don't need to pursue anything that could hurt me on appeal. I imagine they'll have somebody there, they've filed cross-claims against other Defendants, but I don't want to risk not having it. Wish I had videoed the initial 30(b)(6). It was early in the case and didn't know how well it was going to go.
Well just got my first case in the N.D. Ala. What’s in store for me, besides ample amounts of home cooking?
You're not going to get home cooked. For the most part, the judges are solid in the Northern District. PM me who you've got if you want judge-specific info.
Nah, Tegg’s right. The majority of my practice is in the Northern District and, for the most part, we have good judges.
Bit of a random question, but has anyone ever traveled with a bunch of suits? At the cle in May, I'll probably need to pack 5+ suits. I have no clue how to even approach that endeavor, so figured I'd check with the board to see if anyone has tips or suggestions.
There are methods to pack a suit so it does not wrinkle but I always just bring a garment bag for the jackets.
How long are you going to be gone? I’d say for less than 2 weeks, you could easily get away with 3. Pack 2 and wear 1 there/back. Or 2 suits and a sport coat/slacks.
But I have packed I think 4 suits before (travel for work during week, wedding on weekend, and fly back to client for work the following week), and I used a massive Orvis rolling garment bag my parents gave me a long time ago. Was a great bag that unfortunately got ruined when a pipe burst a few months ago.
I have a great rolling hanging bag. If you’re doing more than three jackets, press and fold is the way to go. They’ll put them in boxes and you check a bag and everything is perfect. Ballerst move I’ve ever seen is mailing everything to the hotel and asking them to steam them and hang them. It works out to like $100.
It was a lady lawyer a foot and four inches shorter than me. Her carry on was her computer, iPad, and purse shit. Strong.
Been practicing for a few years now, and still have trouble adhering to a budget if it involves sending partners/clients shitty documents. By way of example, I’m doing the leg work in setting up a tax advantaged investment fund. I was told by 2 partners to use a specific PPM that was drafted 6-10 months ago by another firm for this new and specific tax provision, and to only revise it for the regulatory changes since then. Ok, no problem. Open it up and it’s garbage IMO either because the document went through multiple iterations, was never great to begin with, or because the tax provision was so new when it was drafted there wasn’t time to make it entirely accurate and sophisticated. Probably a combo of the 3. So I’ve been told to get a draft of the document to the client tomorrow, but I’m almost ashamed to send such shoddy work to the main partner (who will review it and will just send it to the client). On the other hand, it’ll take a lot of work to overhaul the document. The partner is only going to look at the redline and will send it out, so my options are to push shitty work to the client without making substantial changes, or to take over the whole thing and either hope the partner doesn’t care or writes the time off. I will never meet this client in person and would like to fire them anyway, so it’s not pride driving this. Similarly, not a perfectionist because I let things slide when they are minor. But when it’s a 100 page document of garbage, then I have a problem. /blog
Do the work, bill your work. It may one day be your client, or the client may leave your firm. Still, be a good lawyer and show your worth to your firm. Once you’re a partner, save the client money.
Completely agree, that’s why I struggle with it. The partner often wants it done quick and fast until he sees the end result. Adequate communication with the partners would help, but that’s not always possible
That’s tough. We do different work. My firm does none of what you do. So, take this for what it’s worth. I like for associates to bill every second of their work. It’s on me to cut where it needs to be cut.
100% bill all my time, but I know the billing partner and client hate seeing 7 hours billed to a single matter in a day. Oh well
that's definitely what I have been told. Bill your hours no matter how long it takes, and we will cut it as necessary, and then discuss any specific issues we have about your billing with you later.
For sure, but I also feel that I'm at a point where being mindful of what I am billing is important. I have a few of my own clients, so I've started to get a feel for what "looks good" on a bill and what doesn't and what seems to be a reasonable amount of time spent on a particular issue. In any event, told the partners "hey this is quite a bit of work that will take a lot of time if you want it done accurately and thoroughly" and they were fine because they want it to be correct. Of course I am leaving the country for my honeymoon at 5am Saturday, so I will be working and packing pretty much until then.
Anyone in here do focus groups at your office? If so what AV equipment do you use? Defense lawyers-has a focus groups' assessment of anything ever carried any weight in settlement recommendations/authority from you/carrier?
I've done both private focus groups in the past, as well as court-ordered summary jury trials that are basically advisory juries made up from the pool of regular jurors who were left over after real cases completed their own jury selections. Save tor money, IMO.
court ordered summary jury trials....that doesn't happen in MS But what I'm talking about is this....plaintiff lawyers keep telling me they do focus groups and send the recordings to defense prior to mediation or at mediation and it makes a difference......I'm trying to figure out if this is BS
I think it's BS. Earlier in my career I had about a two-year foray into plaintiff's work before I got lured back to the defense side. The form I was with did a few of these focus groups on some of their bigger cases. No matter how much you try to present an "unbiased" case to these focus groups, they're never unbiased. And as you probably know from jury selection once a thread of an idea takes hold in a group discussion then group-think takes over. Additionally, regardless of whatever you might be doing in good faith to present these focus group results as the thoughts of a prospective jury, the defense (ad insurance companies) will always disregard them as propaganda. IMO, this is a classic case of people who already have good cases to begin with thinking that they got good results in a negotiation for reasons other than the nature of the case itself.
That is what I was thinking. The problem is the type of person that actually responds to a focus group ad. You're getting prospective jurors who have nothing better to do than get paid $100 and a free lunch. These people are inherently more biased towards plaintiffs. I'm in a conservative jurisdiction made up primarily of hard working blue collar folks that are extremely skeptical of plaintiffs and think they are out for a handout.
I just can't see that making any difference. Seems too clever by a half. How are they selected? Is the group used going to be carefully chosen to look very similar to what would probably the make-up of a selected jury? Have they been quizzed on potential biases and those that have been weeded out before hand? I'm a big fan of just laying out my reasoning in my demand. I'm pretty candid about why I think a case has a particular value.
Ok, so I really don't know what to make of this: I have a LSAT course beginning this Monday and I just took my first diagnostic test that we were assigned to take before the first class. I have not studied for a solitary minute and I hadn't even seen a logic games question prior to taking this test. I randomly guessed every single logic games question because I didn't think it was even worth trying because I was so unprepared for them. Even with randomly guessing on every question of that section I still got a score that aligns with the median score at most of the schools I am looking at.
If I were you I'd skip the wasted time of law school and just put that in a cover letter to firms along with your resume and wait to see who offers you the most money
Law school is a tremendous waste of time and money. I would have made way more money by just going for an econ PhD or finance masters
You can learn how to do logic games. With practice, that’s the easiest part of the LSAT. With that said, the practice of law sucks. I like what I do, but I really wanted to be a lawyer. Everyone I went to school with who didn’t really want to be a lawyer does something else now. I know you’re older and have a lot of life experience, so you may know what you’re getting into. If that’s the case, go to the cheapest law school you can go to and make the best grades you can.
I appreciate the advice from everyone. I haven't had a conventional life post-undergrad. Long story short: nearly my entire 20s were spent either bodybuilding (you read that right) or heavily abusing and/or recovering from heroin and fentanyl. I haven't accomplished shit. The job market isn't terribly forgiving to someone with a BA and their 20s wasted. I just turned 31, I have a wealthy family but they don't spoil me and I don't live anywhere close to the lifestyle I want to in terms of $. I want to be a respected member of society and I want to have an advanced degree. I also think I would make a very good attorney in some sectors. I don't need to practice law forever and I don't need to make a fortune. I don't know.