I'm on a 49inch curved screen that allows me to fit 3 different applications up at once and I will never go back.
Well the depo of my onlyfans star client came back and my paralegal noticed in the depo exhibits that the carrier /OC has subscribed to Plaintiff's onlyfans account. So we've renewed our discussion about whether we need to subscribe to it to see what is potentially in it.
Allowing employees to work on their personal laptops seems reckless. I don’t think they should even be able to have their work emails on their personal cellphone unless you have a program that separates the two. Even then you should provide a stipend for their cell phone bill.
I was bringing this up at the depo or right afterwards with my team. Below is what Chatgpt says about fishing for stuff on social media etc and whether it violates the ABA rules. I think they were deceptive and mislead the litigant into giving access to private information. Maybe I should send them a letter attaching their exhibit and recounting the ABA/Mississsippi rules on it. I have no way of showing it was the carrier vs the lawyer. But the lawyer used it so he basically is complicit. But they should probably cease and desist. Also anything they got from it would be fruit of the poisonous tree to quote a criminal defense concept. Beyond that , I'm not sure how far I can get with it. I don't think I can get like their answer struck. What Is Not Permissible: Deception: Lawyers cannot use fake profiles, lie about their identity, or mislead the litigant into giving access to private information. Contacting a Represented Party: Lawyers cannot communicate with a represented party via Facebook or other social media without the consent of the opposing counsel. Unauthorized Access: A lawyer cannot request or compel the disclosure of private social media data without following proper legal procedures, like formal discovery. In conclusion, a lawyer cannot ethically go "fishing" for a litigant's personal data on Facebook if it involves deceit or unethical conduct. However, they are permitted to review publicly accessible information in a manner consistent with the rules of professional conduct.
It depends. Did they use a fake account with a fake name to sign up or did they use the law firm's email/name?
sure, but I'm still laughing at the possibility of [email protected] signing up for only fans with his work email.
Without doing any research whatsoever… I don’t see a problem with the defense lawyers doing this. If she’s twerking on OF and claiming lasting injuries I think that’s just good lawyering if you subscribe and don’t tell her that feels similar to trying to fuck a client once again I’ve done no research and this is purely vibes
We had an employee that was claiming workers comp. Found out she was a stripper on the side. They would not let me do recon to confirm if she was lying. Also couldn’t confirm when the twerki g videos were filmed. Believe the case settled.
Oh I would definitely tell her. LOL I would definitely not snoop around her OF and not tell her. Actually the way his ethical stuff got on my radar is I remembered a discussion in professional responsibility in law school about social medial and lurking around going on a fishing expedition. If it's a public page then you have no room to complain. But a private subscription based site is something different.
I just under-settled a CMV case because they caught my client twerking in a dress up alien suit with a tail on Instagram a few days after the incident. I wish I was joking.
we found other cases where this guy claimed racism against IME / Expert docs and endorsed this bias / racism expert and had a motion prepared to strike this expert before he even endorsed her. We filed the motion like 40 hours after the endorsement. It freaked him out and we got a great settlement at mediation a week or so later. He wanted to put all this confidentiality language in the release regarding our ability to talk about his endorsement of this racism expert. did not agree to it. he is definitely on shaky ground with this playbook. Hopefully he gets got one day. Feel like the doctor / experts could have an action against counsel for facilitating these baseless claims that could impact the doctor's professionally since they are often reviewed by boards to continue to practice / be certified. oh well.
OnlyFans seems inherently invasive. What does seeing them naked have to with a car wreck? It might be worth getting a bar opinion.
I may be showing my ignorance on how onlyfans works here, but isn’t the whole point that it’s not public? Subscribing/buying content is a lot more like voyeurism than surveillance.
to make it non-salacious - say plaintiff claims debilitating injuries but is an instructor at some gym class like orange theory. Is it improper to sign up for a class to observe her physical limitations or lack thereof? (A genuine question as I have no idea what the answer would be)
there's ethical opinions on adding the plaintiff on facebook...I think? this seems very similar to that
From what I understand the rules to say, yes for a lawyer. I think an investigator could probably do it.
I've never had him on a case before this one. He starts the depo off by establishing she's under oath which is when most folks move on. But he didnt. He started asking her what she understood that oath to mean. That pissed me off right out the gate . I told him she already said she was under oath and everyone knows what that means , told her not to answer the question, and told him he's harassing the witness. That's like 1 minute into the depo But he had the entire crash on dash cam and never disclosed it, never produced it, even though I sent him discovery which requires you to produce it prior to the depo. So he tried to ambush me with it and show it to her and me for the first time during the depo, and he had screen shots from it which he wanted to use. I instructed her not to answer any questions based on a video and evidence of the event that I've never seen prior to right then and said this is clearly a discovery violation . He wanted to go out in the hall. In the hall I told him I had 0 respect for him as a professional and a lawyer for trying to ambush me with this bullshit. Then later he has this onlyfans stuff. So idk, in my opinion that makes him a huge fucking dick. He also admitted earlier in the case he wanted to get the case settled but wanted to take her depo and do some work on it because he wanted to bill some hours. He also is trying to argue the carrier might deny coverage if I "pick at the scab " too much because the driver is not covered by the policy. Which I think is a big crock of shit. If that was a real thing they would have done a ROR and wouldn't be talking about paying a bunch of $. So I'm finding BS left and right here.
Anyone ever engaged a third party to handle the mechanics of a shareholder vote for a private company and willing to share cost information? Ballpark cost is perfectly fine. Something along the lines of this. Have to issue a legal opinion on a nonprofit merger, and as part of that I need to make sure I can opine on voting integrity. 800-1,000+ voters. I don’t think a Zoom poll will suffice (but I could be wrong about that).
I know it was me at some point, so I try not to judge too harshly, but sitting through a first-year associate reading off a script taking a Pltf's deposition is absolute hell.
My associate had a 5 hour plaintiffs depo on a rear ender with $20k in meds last week. Associate must be trying to get his hours for bonus time. Said she wanted to murder him
I have a case I signed up right after joining my firm, dad and 2 kids. Less than $5K in medicals for each, never should've filed but I was just starting PI so taking everything I could get. First of three depos today. Fucking shoot me. Dude was trying to ask "why did your wife divorce you?"
I’ve got a med mal case involving a quad who was treated negligently after a car accident. The associate on the case has set every member of the traffic investigation squad for depo because he claims they’re raising the seatbelt defense. LMAO
How about this for a fact pattern? New client owned a dentistry practice. His associate dentist, a recent dental school grad and aspiring hip hop sensation, got in a shootout with a patient he claims tried to rob him. Shattered glass and bullet holes everywhere. In response, the landlord evicted the practice. My client was on the verge of retiring anyway and was going to hang it up, but he decided to help get this young former associate back on his feet. He agreed to start a new practice with the associate through a PLLC that would be majority owned by the former associate My client, as minority owner, would put up essentially all the money to get the practice started, contributed the FFE from his old practice, and bring his patients over. My client would provide limited dental services in the new practice. Until more associates were hired, most dentistry work would be performed by the young partner. All of this is documented in an operating agreement. Fast forward two years. Business is booming and my client has never received a single distribution from the practice -- but apparently the young partner gets paid regularly. My client wasn't overly concerned about it because he's already pretty well off. My client shows up to the office one day for work and was told to leave. Young partner tells my client he transferred the lease, assets, patients, employees, etc. to a new entity owned 100% by him and that my client doesn't own shit, and basically GTFO. Opposing counsel's argument is that my client never actually became a member of the PLLC because he failed to contribute some money he had agreed to contribute. I told her, first off, contribution of money was not a condition to membership. Even if it was, my client contributed every penny required under the operating agreement plus FF&E, and showed the deposit receipts. She argues that, after the operating agreement was signed, my client verbally agreed to contribute or loan an additional $200k, which he failed to do. I told her the statute of frauds prevents enforcing any such promise, and even if there were no statute of frauds, the verbal deal was too indefinite to be an enforceable agreement (was it a loan or contribution, terms, what does my client get in return, time of performance?). I told her the breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent conveyances, conversion, and breaches of the operating agreement were patently obvious, but my client doesn't want a fight. Just buy him out, and we'll be on our way. He'll even take a discount on the purchase price calculation (which was stipulated in the operating agreement). His main concern is just getting released from personal guaranties to third parties. She counters with my client sign over everything, remain a guarantor, and get nothing in return, or her client will sue to enforce the unfunded contribution.