She randomly sent me this for my birthday last year. Another guy got one of the big yeti mugs. She also drops off cookies probably once a month.
It's 7 am on a Friday and I'm already at 53 hours of work this week. 10 today plus around another 12-14 or so this weekend. It will be the most I've ever worked I think. I'm the only associate here and my bosses are realizing that I can't handle it all. We're going to start contracting-out some writing, bring on a law student for the summer, and hopefully hire a new grad who was on law review or something in the fall to be a dedicated writer. It's good to be busy but damn.
Ha, good to see yours went about as well as ours did. Total waste of time. We had told them we weren't prepared to mediate if they didn't understand that we think this case has a very high value. Attorney for the corporation flew in from Pennsylvania, and we left within about 2 hours. Hope he enjoyed his flight and stay.
am i wrong in thinking that investigators at car wreck factories like morris bart/shunarrah will actually go to the prospective clients house after PC calls firm and bring a contract to them and sign them up? I'm torn on this as I can see the value in that you go ahead and get them signed up/under contract and they are less likely to defect at that point. However, I like actually seeing and meeting my client in person in the flesh and knowing what I'm dealing with. I have an investigator that I could get to go take pictures of property damage and take a contract to PC, but I think I'd rather have them come in so I know what I'm working with. Now catastrophically injured ppl that can hardly move is obviously a different situation and you usually have to go to them in the hospital and sometimes they can't pick up a pen to sign a contract so its not an issue
With places that cast that wide of a net with advertising, I would imagine that's the case. They probably aren't organized enough to back channel.
I know when we talk to a prospective client over the phone, it's often times not feasible to have them come in right away to sign up (they may not have a car, they may be in the hospital, or whatever). On those occasions, I'll send someone to just sign them up and go through the intake paperwork. I don't have time to drive an hour or two to meet a potential client, and I'd much rather pay someone a hundred bucks to do it for me. Not worth losing a case just because you demand that they come in to your office one way or another when you know damn well that there are a couple dozen firms that will send someone to their house. I actually learned this the hard way when I had a really good case tell me they were gonna sign up with me, and we had an appointment for the following day. Then they called me an hour before the appointment and said they were canceling because another firm sent someone to their house to sign them up. Lost out on an easy 25k because I didn't want to spend $100 to send someone out there.
The more I get away from South Florida, the nicer everyone is in the practice of law. It's refreshing but there's times I feel like a fish out of water.
We are just decent human beings in Central and North Florida. To be fair though, some of the biggest shit heads I've worked with have been from Tampa, and I've had some very pleasant, knowledgeable opposing counsel from SoFla.
Yeah. Fact that nobody will file a complaint against people they know pretty much protects them though.
Frankly, the south Florida clients of those south Florida lawyers typically are complete jackasses too.
Have never worked with Florida attorneys but have from 10-20 other states or so and I've really only ever had 2 conversations that have been total shit shows. One was because it was the attorney's good friend. The other was one was some lady from New York () hell bent on yelling over me and trying to pull a power move the entire conversation. I always wonder if people being entirely unreasonable or only interested in getting in a shouting match actually do that habitually or if it's just a bad day for them.
I probably have a DUI bench trial tomorrow morning, any of you more seasoned vets have any DUI pro tips? I really think we'll work out a plea, their proof isn't very good (no bloodwork, no breathalyzer, half a FST, no video) and the guy who will have to prosecute it is brand new (I coached him in mock trial last year). Even so I always like to be over prepared, no such thing as a sure thing.
Plaintiff claims that Defendant's counsel violated Iowa R. Civ. Pro. 1.708(b) when counsel instructed his client's representative not to make further drawings. Plaintiff is wrong. As set forth in the section of the Rule cited by Plaintiff, “A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under rule 1.708(2).” (emphasis added). 2. Here, the deponent was not instructed not to answer a question, he was instructed not to make a drawing. Plaintiff's counsel's stated, “... can you put a red - you can put a check mark or whatever you want, circle or whatever you want to do,” and “... could you put a mark where you just put your finger.” Defendant's counsel did not instruct Defendant's representative not to answer the question Plaintiff's counsel asked, which was whether Defendant's representative was able to or could make a mark. Defendant's representative stated that he would not - an answer to the question.1 At no point in the deposition did Defendant's counsel instruct Defendant's representative not to answer the question. 3. Whether Plaintiff's counsel and the attorneys he has consulted have ever seen an attorney instruct a witness not to make a drawing does not necessarily mean that the instruction was improper. There does not appear to be any Iowa case law on the subject. 4. Courts in at least one other jurisdiction have held that a deponent may not be compelled by an examining attorney to draw a diagram in a deposition. In Udkoff v. Hiett By & Through Hiett, 676 So. 2d 522, 522 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996), the plaintiff's attorney asked defendant to draw her automobile's steering wheel and a diagram of the accident scene. Defendant's attorney instructed her not to draw anything, and plaintiff's counsel ended the deposition. Id. The trial court entered an order compelling the witness to draw the diagrams during her renewed deposition, and the defendant's counsel filed a petition for writ of certiorari. Id. The Florida Appellate Court held that the trial court could not compel the defendant to make a drawing, stating, “although a witness may choose to draw something to help explain his or her testimony, a trial court is without any authority to compel the deponent to create a drawing.” Id.2 5. There is also support for Defendant's counsel's position in legal journals. An article in The Practical Litigator, a publication of the American Law Institute and American Bar Association, states as follows: One other issue deserves mention at this point. It is not uncommon for an examining attorney to ask the deponent to mark on a photograph or to draw a diagram of the scene. If an attorney asks a deponent you are presenting for a deposition to do that, object and instruct the deponent not to mark anything. Deponents should be instructed during pre-deposition preparation that they will not be allowed to mark on anything or draw anything. If the questioning attorney asks why you will not allow the deponent to draw or mark on anything, you calmly explain to the attorney that the rules require the deponent to answer questions under oath - they do not require a deponent to draw pictures or mark on documents. Bradley C. Nahrstadt, Preparing Clients (And Yourself) For Depositions, The Practical Litigator, May 2010, at 38.
i think the law is going to be on my side. he quoted one case which is criminal and doesnt really support his position and no rules of procedure. that florida case sammy gave me is actually as far as i've seen thus far the only case directly on point and its on my side and many other briefings on westlaw quote it. also i like the idea that i didn't actually tell him not to answer a question, i just told him not to draw. that's different. and depositions are about answering questions, not drawing. after i told him not to draw OC proceeded to ask him all these questions like "are you capable of drawing this" etc and i instructed him not to answer any of those questions. i think i'm going to argue that he was harassing the witness and trying to get witness to go against what witnesses own counsel had advised and harassing a witness is grounds to instruct not to answer or stop depo under rule 30. i've seen where ppl have filed briefs asking that the depo but completely cut off if they win because he was the one that stopped it so he should be sanctioned and the depo is over and isn't being reopened. i doubt the judge will do that but i might ask for it. would be awesome if i got my fees paid for and won counter sanctions.
Hello, friends. Can one of you guys PM me regarding visitation rights for a brother with a younger sibling (if such a thing exists)? My friend's mother is refusing to allow him to see his little sister (a young child) because of a personal grudge and I wanted to see if there is any sort of legal recourse.
I'm based in South Florida but cover cases all over the state from Orlando on south. Without question the single biggest piece of shit I've ever had a case with is from Clearwater.
having to cover a hearing for my boss tomorrow. lady is trying to get domestic abuse protection order against our client. they have an ongoing custody battle. she claims that when she went to police station for transfer of custody of their minor child a pick up truck drove past her repeatedly taking pictures. that's basically the grounds for her petition. that could meet the grounds for stalking which is a type of abuse covered by those petitions. but then it gets to whether surveillance is stalking or abuse. some juggsian research shows that surveillance isn't considered stalking if its done for a legitimate purpose. here it could be argued that surveillance of the pick up and drop off of custody when she is arguing that he is violating court orders by not doing these transfers properly-surveillance of that is a legitimate purpose to protect him against such allegations. also i don't think with ongoing custody litigation that having someone take some pictures in a police station parking lot would make a REASONABLE PERSON fear for their safety. I think a reasonable person says-welp there's the PI my ex hired to take pictures cause we're in litigation.
County Court. There are Justice Courts which are lower courts then County Court then Circuit Court. She's gotten one in the past from the justice court. I just spoke with the PI i'm going to get him to come to the hearing and testify. I first thought about making her prove that the pick up truck was connected to our client which she can't prove other than asking our client point blank did he hire someone to do surveillance on her and he'd have to say yes or lie Plus I think we win on the case law straight up and its not stalking. He's been doing PI work for 38 years and is a licensed PI all the best firms use him, he's going to kill it.
also she had counter surveillance there-who is in fear for their life with counter surveillance which tells you they expected it to happen
moved to dismiss after he case in chief. motion granted cost assessed to petitioner. asked for cost for PI who charged $800 to come to court and judge went on 10 minute rant about domestic violence and said she wished she could have granted petitioners motion. Lesson for today: if you win sit down and shut up, know when to stop pressing. I just can't help myself-always pushing.
if the trucking companys dispatcher who is under federal subpoena to a deposition doesnt show up to depo next week-can that trigger a revocation of coverage by the insurer for non cooperation? That's the last thing I want.
I am in a hell of an evidentiary quagmire with a judge and opposing lawyer who have no clue how evidence works. My client drives an 18 wheeler and has property damages. There's no dispute about liability. He doesn't have the cash to make minimal repairs so he loses wages for about 10 weeks. He eventually sells the truck because he has to work, so we're making a claim for lost value and lost wages. A month after the collision, the defendant trucking company makes an offer for his repairs and for two weeks of truck rental in the future while his truck is getting repaired. He declines the settlement offer because it does not include 4 weeks of lost wages. The issue is mitigation of damages. Opposing lawyer tries to introduce evidence of settlement negotiations after my client declined the offer. This includes settlement letters from the previous counsel. I say no way. That's not relevant and it's excluded by 408. It's only relevant if your argument is "the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by declining our settlement offer." That's clearly a BS argument and no law supports it. I also say the letters from any lawyer other than me is classic hearsay. That's a letter or email from an unavailable declarant. Both the judge and opposing counsel say it's admissible under the business records exception. I about blow a gasket. How the fuck is that a business record exception of the defendant, when it's an email from an unavailable declarant who is not the defendant? If that's the case then anything in my own records, whether we created it or not, falls under the business records exception. I get overruled and the judge lets it in. I'm at a complete fucking loss and don't want to appeal a case over $40k in damages.