Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I have been a lawyer for 32 years come November.  People have variously hated lawyers that entire time, and I see their rates quadrupling.

People hate lawyers until they need one and the need doesn't seem to be diminishing.

We all thought online filing of things would destroy aspects of the profession, corporate charters, trademarks, so on and so forth. Yet we find laypeople find new and ingenious ways to fuck up even fairly simple things.  And then they need lawyers to unfuck them.  And the work unfucking exceeds the work that would have been required to do it correctly in the first place.

It was predicted that offshoring legal work to India and other places would destroy aspects of the profession.  Nope.

I am similarly skeptical that AI is going to get rid of the profession.  People have already filed and been discovered filing fictitious and otherwise fuct up legal briefs created by AI.  I think this ties back to the myth that law is a black box into which you insert certain inputs and receive a certain result, a logic gate, albeit a very complex one.  It's the logic gate of the Gods.

But it just aint that way.  There's just too damned many variables that have to be accommodated that an inherently backward looking technology is going to have a hard time dealing with.

Well, I freely admit that I could be wrong on this. If there is a constant in our society, it's change.  The legal profession certainly seems myopic on all this to me.  The thought that things will always be the same is exactly what has killed plenty of professions and titans of business and industry.  

What I do wonder is this, if the average American is given a choice as to what to trust in a legal matter with their options being:

A.  Attorney

B. AI

Which would win? In just a straw poll, with no real stakes on the line, I'm betting the AI would win with an alarming percentage.  I say alarming for a number of reasons, principle among them is that I know I wouldn't trust that.  Part of that is because I have regular dealings with 2 attorneys (I have them on retainer for business reasons), and I know their value.  I also didn't have to pick them in a situation while I was under some sort of duress.  However, my point stands, I believe it would be an alarming percentage of ordinary people that would choose the AI simply because of the negative perception of the profession.  Being disliked as profession is nothing new, people perhaps having a viable alternative or even the perception of an alternative should be alarming to the profession as a whole.  

A different context, but there are some parallels to be drawn from surgery.  Initially, robotic surgery seemed like it was a pipe dream, and no machine would ever be able do something complex, but that is increasingly proving to not be true.  When you talk about there being too many variables in the legal world for a machine to ever be effective, it sure sounds just like the naysayers that were in the medical field.   

[Gatorubet 30246]

32 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

BTW, what's the lawyer version of mansplaining called?

billing by the hour…

[Brisketexan 105154]

I mean, other than being funny as shit (but probably only to posters on surlyhorns.com), do you think this guy reflects well on the profession?  

I mean surely he should be disbarred, right?  Summarily, without proof of violation of an ethical rule?

Oh wait, does Adam Reposa maybe have the First Amendment right to call himself "Dickhead" on his official profile at texasbar.com?
Does the Bar, as an organization of lawyers, maybe have to respect those rights, despite it not reflecting well on the legal profession.
Hmmm.  Interdasting.

Maybe there's a bit more nuance to this regulation of the legal profession  . . . .

It depends. Is there a monkey in his briefcase? The answer to that question is very, very important.

BTW, what's the lawyer version of mansplaining called?

Fucking Gator beat me to the answer by minutes. Bastard.

[Pato del Muerto 52516]

Legal zoom didn’t put all of you contract lawyers out of business?

their website is so easy and convenient!

[Chewbacca 7780]

State bar associations are a joke.  They exist only to colect fees, harrass law studens over minor shit, and then immediately turn a blind eye to everything except stealing from IOLTA accounts the minute you're admitted to the bar.

Well, yeah...

[Chewbacca 7780]

She hasn't beaten them yet, dumbass.
The Bar lost not because of a lack of ethical standards, but because the lawyers fucked up because they're not used to trying this kind of case or are otherwise general purpose dumbasses.
The legal profession is not going to permit summary disbarment; the lawyers are going to demand, and the Bar will be obligated to provide, excessive due process in disciplinary proceedings. Because the Bar is this high-minded institution, there's actually going to be as much or more due process than criminals get.
Also, you don't seem to sabe that it is virtually a constitutional right of lawyers and their clients to file shitty, borderline frivolous lawsuits.  I guarantee you couldn't differentiate what tort reformers call a frivolous lawsuit (bullshit) from what Powell filed.  You might be able to articulate some things, but you wouldn't have the first idea how to prove them.
It's not as simple as it seems. 
 

Lulz, you are totally defending her behavior. But you have a legitimate profession. Totes.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

4 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

 

 

Lulz, you are totally defending her behavior. But you have a legitimate profession. Totes.

 

Are you brain damaged?

Point to me for one second where I am defending Sidney fucking Powell.

You're just flinging shit on the walls at this point.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Chewbacca 7780]

Are you brain damaged?
Point to me for one second where I am defending Sidney fucking Powell.
You're just flinging shit on the walls at this point.

You've given us all the reasons why she still has a law license. Although now that I know you're a Boomer, it makes sense.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

2 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Are you brain damaged?
Point to me for one second where I am defending Sidney fucking Powell.
You're just flinging shit on the walls at this point.

You've given us all the reasons why she still has a law license. Although now that I know you're a Boomer, it makes sense.

Yeah and that's not the same

GenX motherfucker.

As I recall you were one of the flapping twats saying Trump would never get indicted either.

[Gatorubet 30246]

19 minutes ago, C-Man said:

In many instances, attorneys are at worst a necessary evil and at best, absolute lifesavers. But it also seems that attorneys have also unnecessarily over-complicated the system to the point you often can’t even do the simplest of things without hiring one.

Counterpoint: things are complicated.

I just shot a guy.
Where was it?
At my house.                                        Why did you shoot him?                   

I was afraid of him

Why were you afraid of him?

He wore a green jacket and green is scary….or maybe he threatened to kill me

Let’s go with threatened to kill you. So he came at you with a knife?

No, he ran out of the house like a jackrabbit and was running down the driveway almost to the street. 

This example is not even nuanced. There are so many situations where you change one small fact, and everything that you think about the law’s outcome is wrong.  Clients like to keep all kinds of facts from us - and then they get mad when it turns out the things they didn’t tell us wind up, changing the results of the litigation.

[Chewbacca 7780]

Yeah and that's not the same
GenX motherfucker.
As I recall you were one of the flapping twats saying Trump would never get indicted either.

I was wrong on the indictment, but i still think he never sees the inside of a cell. Will you admit your profession has no ethical standards?

[Willfully Horn 8026]

I am certain that technology will never replace the best whores. Nor will AI silence the best writers. And on and on. Someday most folks will be able to 3D print a refrigerator, a stove, even dinner, but there will always be a niche for humans who can do those things even better. Be best. Or adapt, or die.

[Gatorubet 30246]

17 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

You've given us all the reasons why she still has a law license. Although now that I know you're a Boomer, it makes sense.

And……no True Scotsman!!

[TwiceHorn 31495]

24 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

32 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah and that's not the same
GenX motherfucker.
As I recall you were one of the flapping twats saying Trump would never get indicted either.

I was wrong on the indictment, but i still think he never sees the inside of a cell. Will you admit your profession has no ethical standards?

No I will not.  They may not be as high as you think they ought to be. or some other jackleg, and maybe there's a point there.

But "no ethical standards."  Fuck no I won't.

The main issue here is timing.  You don't like the timing.  There wouldn't even be a court case or an appeal if the bar had no ethical standards.  The fuckup by the bar lawyers that let Powell temporarily win the case has nothing to do with ethical standards, except maybe the bar lawyers should never have been licensed.  Except there aren't really ethical standards that apply to labeling and attaching exhibits.  They don't test that on the bar exam.

While we're at it, CPAs arguably have a higher duty to the public than lawyers, whose first duty is to their client.  In fact lawyers and CPAs can't join together for the practice of law because of CPA's duty of candor and lawyers' attorney-client privilege. CPAs have to disclose what lawyers are forbidden to disclose.

So, since CPA's have such gloriously high ethical standards, and I am sure there are more than a few Trumptard CPAs bloviating lies in public, I'll await your report of a CPA having their license revoked for undermining democracy.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Neonmoon 38129]

Attorneys didn’t over-complicate the system. People are crazy, and then a ton of money got involved. And we all decided that fighting over the meaning of the phrase “point of sale” for 10 months in a courtroom is better than people killing each other. 

[TwiceHorn 31495]

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Attorneys didn’t over-complicate the system. People are crazy, and then a ton of money got involved. And we all decided that fighting over the meaning of the phrase “point of sale” for 10 months in a courtroom is better than people killing each other. 

Oh, I'm not so sure about that.  There are a few areas where lawyer-legislators probably did some self-interested things.  A good example is where lawyers are required for real estate closings.  That's pretty archaic and needs to go away, but may not be all that different from title companies and policies.

But, your point is extremely valid that people fucking things up in new and amazing ways is primarily responsible for the proliferation of legal involvement.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 77006]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yknow, it occurs to me, Chutkan kind of danced around it, but someone needs to ask Trump point blank:

Yknow, you're going around saying how flimsy and insubstantial these cases are, you'd think a man in your position would want a trial ASAP to clear his name, even before the elections occur, so you could vindicate your assertions.  Yet, that's not what you're doing.  Why is that?

And, someone needs to articulate to the courts or in the courts that the American people deserve to have a trial and verdict before an election.  Those that claim his innocence and those that insist on his guilt.

 

trump's entire strategy is to delay until he's elected into office, then he'll pardon himself 

[Pato del Muerto 52516]

Lawyers beget lawyers. When someone lawyers up, everyone has to because now it’s a law fight.  And the law isn’t always straight forward, hardly is common sense, and can be arcane and backwards so you need a supposed expert on your side to not get fucked by it. 
 

and of course, how many lawyers end up getting involved in making the legislation that requires them?

it’s a nice little ecosystem.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

trump's entire strategy is to delay until he's elected into office, then he'll pardon himself 

Of course, but someone needs to push him on why, if these cases are such pure-dee bullshit, he doesn't want a trial to vindicate himself.  During a debate, a court hearing, something.  He won't answer, of course, but the question needs to be put, again, and again.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Lawyers beget lawyers. When someone lawyers up, everyone has to because now it’s a law fight.  And the law isn’t always straight forward, hardly is common sense, and can be arcane and backwards so you need a supposed expert on your side to not get fucked by it. 
 

and of course, how many lawyers end up getting involved in making the legislation that requires them?

it’s a nice little ecosystem.

And often the first person to lawyer up is the one that never got legal advice in the first place and thus fucked everything up for himself and then for everyone else.

[Pato del Muerto 52516]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

And often the first person to lawyer up is the one that never got legal advice in the first place and thus fucked everything up for himself and then for everyone else.

And governments and corporations are always in a lawyered position, so there’s no other path when dealing with those entities. 

[Goredho 17408]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yknow, it occurs to me, Chutkan kind of danced around it, but someone needs to ask Trump point blank:

Yknow, you're going around saying how flimsy and insubstantial these cases are, you'd think a man in your position would want a trial ASAP to clear his name, even before the elections occur, so you could vindicate your assertions.  Yet, that's not what you're doing.  Why is that?

And, someone needs to articulate to the courts or in the courts that the American people deserve to have a trial and verdict before an election.  Those that claim his innocence and those that insist on his guilt.

Corollary to this is why I want the trials televised live -- OJ style.  For the BIG LIE to be possible, your followers need to be cut off from outside information and influence.  You need them to only get their information from sources you control.  They need to be fed your truth, and deprived of the truth.

An unaltered view of events in the courtroom, as they happen in real-time and without pundit lensing, is the only way to ensure any of us get the truth, the only way to break the big lie.  Make people see in real-time what the government has as evidence, and what Trump has as a defense.  Make sure everyone has to witness it Ludovico-style, no matter how uncomfortable their cognitive dissonance may be.  Make their brains bleed from the effort to reconcile the false truth they've bought into and the real truth they just had to witness.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Well, I freely admit that I could be wrong on this. If there is a constant in our society, it's change.  The legal profession certainly seems myopic on all this to me.  The thought that things will always be the same is exactly what has killed plenty of professions and titans of business and industry.  

What I do wonder is this, if the average American is given a choice as to what to trust in a legal matter with their options being:

A.  Attorney

B. AI

Which would win? In just a straw poll, with no real stakes on the line, I'm betting the AI would win with an alarming percentage.  I say alarming for a number of reasons, principle among them is that I know I wouldn't trust that.  Part of that is because I have regular dealings with 2 attorneys (I have them on retainer for business reasons), and I know their value.  I also didn't have to pick them in a situation while I was under some sort of duress.  However, my point stands, I believe it would be an alarming percentage of ordinary people that would choose the AI simply because of the negative perception of the profession.  Being disliked as profession is nothing new, people perhaps having a viable alternative or even the perception of an alternative should be alarming to the profession as a whole.  

A different context, but there are some parallels to be drawn from surgery.  Initially, robotic surgery seemed like it was a pipe dream, and no machine would ever be able do something complex, but that is increasingly proving to not be true.  When you talk about there being too many variables in the legal world for a machine to ever be effective, it sure sounds just like the naysayers that were in the medical field.   

Thinking some more on this, I think where AI does offer a lot of promise is in areas of law where people are underserved.

Meaning, simple wills, divorces, adoptions, and things of that nature.

People are underserved in those areas because of ignorance and also the fact that much of that work is simply below the economic radar of many or most attorneys. And below the economic horizon of the clients, who are not indigent either.  And the likelihood of these matters exploding into something complex is relatively slim.

And those are the people most likely to use LegalZoom or something similar, and probably also to pick "AI" over hiring an attorney.  Because AI probably won't charge the pitiful rate of $125/hour for the work.

Over my lengthy period of observation, lawyers are quite flexible and adaptable.

The one huge exception is how the trial lawyers let the tort reformers get over on them.  These are wealthy, politically connected people who are pretty well organized and whose business is persuasion.

And they let themselves get completely ass-blasted.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Chewbacca 7780]

No I will not.  They may not be as high as you think they ought to be. or some other jackleg, and maybe there's a point there.
But "no ethical standards."  Fuck no I won't.
The main issue here is timing.  You don't like the timing.  There wouldn't even be a court case or an appeal if the bar had no ethical standards.  The fuckup by the bar lawyers that let Powell temporarily win the case has nothing to do with ethical standards, except maybe the bar lawyers should never have been licensed.  Except there aren't really ethical standards that apply to labeling and attaching exhibits.  They don't test that on the bar exam.
While we're at it, CPAs arguably have a higher duty to the public than lawyers, whose first duty is to their client.  In fact lawyers and CPAs can't join together for the practice of law because of CPA's duty of candor and lawyers' attorney-client privilege. CPAs have to disclose what lawyers are forbidden to disclose.
So, since CPA's have such gloriously high ethical standards, and I am sure there are more than a few Trumptard CPAs bloviating lies in public, I'll await your report of a CPA having their license revoked for undermining democracy.

Dude, the Kraken lawyer still can practice law in Texas. If she was a CPA, that would have been stepped long ago.

[miguelito 11266]

What the fuck did you assholes do to this thread?  I see it's advanced a few pages, but it's nothing but lawyer talk. Fuck.

[TwiceHorn 31495]

Just now, miguelito said:

What the fuck did you assholes do to this thread?  I see it's advanced a few pages, but it's nothing but lawyer talk. Fuck.

It's the weekend, 'mano.  Law don't go round here on the weekends.  Lot like the offseason.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Legal zoom didn’t put all of you contract lawyers out of business?

their website is so easy and convenient!

I have to say that I used legal zoom both to incorporate and to get a trademark. That was nine years ago. Easy peasy.  Both have stood up over the last nine years just fine.  Both times I thought about some poor lawyer who got out of law school two years before with a fuckton of debt and how that money could have gone to him, but why should I pay more for the same service?

Edited August 14, 2023 by Horn Under a Bad Sign

[Pato del Muerto 52516]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The one huge exception is how the trial lawyers let the tort reformers get over on them. 

Which parties wanted tort reform, and what do their pocketbooks and lawyers look like?

[ChiTownDoc 21154]

2 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I have to say that I used legal zoom both to incorporate and to get a trademark. That was nine years ago. Easy peasy.  Both have stood up over the last nine years just fine. 

Surly attorneys plotting your demise…

[TwiceHorn 31495]

1 minute ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I have to say that I used legal zoom both to incorporate and to get a trademark. That was nine years ago. Easy peasy.  Both have stood up over the last nine years just fine. 

Hope you got some decent bylaws and follow them, and if you have mulltiple shareholders a buy-sell agreement of some sort at least.  The act of incorporation is simple.  Following the formalities and resolving internal disputes is where some real legal help can be worth its weight in gold.

Howd the renewals of the trademark go?  I just helped a surlster with that, and he didn't fuck it up, but the situation was a little hairy and he probably would have benefitted from some legal advice over the years.

[Pato del Muerto 52516]

Robert Shapiro needs money too

[Biff Tannen 45691]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

This is why I just quote movies and have no original thoughts. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

You’re wishcasting. AI isn’t going to do shit to law jobs, except add a CE course. Computers have been reading contracts for a decade. Now AI can create them. That still leaves the dealing with crazy fucking people part. AI can’t do that. People have been saying realtors will go away for awhile now. Filling out a purchase offer takes a 3rd grade IQ level. Open Door allows you to see any house with a code. But the dealing with crazy people part will never go away. 

Yes, but when I sold my house I paid a realtor a small fee to list it, got a standard contract myself from the TREC, filled it out, had a lawyer look at it for five hundred bucks to make sure I was good, and saved myself 12k on the 3% listing realtor fee. Of course, I still had to pay the buyer's realtor, but the 12k that I saved didn't go into a realtor's pocket. Nope, it went toward me following the Tour de France around for a month. staying in some very nice places, and wining and dining a fine Belgian woman I met when I followed the tour, went to Belgium with afterward, and have been to visit three times in the 12 years since.  Best ROI on any money I've ever saved. I will never use a realtor to sell a house again. I don't see the value added. 

[dcbc 14487]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

In many instances, attorneys are at worst a necessary evil and at best, absolute lifesavers. But it also seems that attorneys have also unnecessarily over-complicated the system to the point you often can’t even do the simplest of things without hiring one.

To the extent that attorney's have made things more complicated, they likely were aided and abetted by clients who brought them some weird cases, either because the clients managed to really complicate it in strange ways or, quite often, tried to handle it themselves, really screwed things up, and left the lawyer with a lot of mop up duty, which itself made the case more complicated than it would have been.  We lawyers aren't blameless, but some clients are complicit in the fuckery.  I'm talking generally, not with regard to Trump and his lawyers.  That's definitely a team effort.

 

Back when I was practicing, there were opportunities to represent clients who were likely to drag me into the grey area of right and wrong.  To quote a good friend and mentor: "There's some money you don't need to make."

Edited August 14, 2023 by dcbc

[shakahorn 1645]

23 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Meatball Ron is by far the best nickname trump ever came up with. It's his one stroke of success in his shit filled life. I mean one look at this guy and it's clear if "Meatball Ron" was pictured in the dictionary it would be that fucking goober head. 

I especially like the racist angle of calling an Italian-American 'meatball.'

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20402]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

Howd the renewals of the trademark go?  I just helped a surlster with that, and he didn't fuck it up, but the situation was a little hairy and he probably would have benefitted from some legal advice over the years.

I haven't had to renew the trademark yet. It was good for 10 years.  It looks pretty pro forma to me but I'll use legal zoom for that, too. Of course, that's still using  a lawyer, but it's using a very inexpensive one. In all honesty, I really feel like I could file it with the Patent office myself.  

 

[Brisketexan 105154]

Yes, but when I sold my house I paid a realtor a small fee to list it, got a standard contract myself from the TREC, filled it out, had a lawyer look at it for five hundred bucks to make sure I was good, and saved myself 12k on the 3% listing realtor fee. Of course, I still had to pay the buyer's realtor, but the 12k that I saved didn't go into a realtor's pocket. Nope, it went toward me following the Tour de France around for a month. staying in some very nice places, and wining and dining a fine Belgian woman I met when I followed the tour, went to Belgium with afterward, and have been to visit three times in the 12 years since.  Best ROI on any money I've ever saved. I will never use a realtor to sell a house again. I don't see the value added. 

You’ll think that right up until the Belgian chick goes nuts and cuts your balls off.

Also, Belgium isn’t even a real country.

Trust me on this, I’m a lawyer.

[Genco 3041]

7 minutes ago, shakahorn said:

I especially like the racist angle of calling an Italian-American 'meatball.'

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I can't believe we are here again in 2023 after the initial lies of the 2017 inauguration, but here we are.  I'm very tempted to send this to my in laws because I think they, after supposedly (I actually think they did) voting for Biden in 2020 are going to flip back to Trump in 2024.  I just want them to feel dumb.  That's my only goal.

Why do they hate the people of Ukraine?

[Willfully Horn 8026]

42 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Also, Belgium isn’t even a real country.
 

You’re more right than wrong.

Quote

Belgium has been without a government after parliamentary elections in June failed to produce a workable coalition. The split is between Belgium's two linguistic communities: Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north and French-speaking Wallonia in the south.
 

https://www.npr.org/2007/11/08/16105384/belgium-split-over-language-economy
 

[Pato del Muerto 52516]

Stupid Flanders 

[Gatorubet 30246]

52 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

You’re more right than wrong.

https://www.npr.org/2007/11/08/16105384/belgium-split-over-language-economy
 

Damn Walloons.   

[TwiceHorn 31495]

11 hours ago, Chewbacca said:

If she was a CPA, that would have been stepped long ago.

I invited you to demonstrate this.  I'm sure theres a revocation you can cite.

Just for shits n giggles, here is the Maryland site showing CPA discipline over the last 13 years.  https://www.dllr.state.md.us/license/cpa/cpadisc.shtml Two cases ytd 2023.  None in 2022.  Another two in 2021.

And here is the Maryland bar discipline site.  https://www.courts.state.md.us/attygrievance/sanctions  Sixteen lawyers disciplined ytd in FY2023.  Something like 75 lawyers sanctioned in FY 2022, I lost count.

The July/August issue of the Texas Bar Journal documents more cases of attorney discipline in just that issue than the last 13 years of CPA discipline in the State of Maryland, but that's not apples to apples, but the above is.

So yeah, keep on talking your horseshit about how the legal profession has no code of ethics and no enforcement.

NB It is quite difficult to find public records of CPA discipline.  I picked Maryland because I could find that information for both professions.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31495]

8 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

I haven't had to renew the trademark yet. It was good for 10 years.  It looks pretty pro forma to me but I'll use legal zoom for that, too. Of course, that's still using  a lawyer, but it's using a very inexpensive one. In all honesty, I really feel like I could file it with the Patent office myself.  

 

Oh you probably could.  A federal registration requires a first renewal at 5-6 years, then you settle in to the every 10 years cycle.  Maybe this is a Texas registration? And it is pretty simple, but like I said people find new and interesting ways to screw it up.

The surlster didn't screw it up, per se, but got himself in a situation where I had to do something for him I've never done before in 31 years of trademarking.

I don't mind people using LegalZoom or whatever, but I do like to make sure they're informed in ways the various lay-legal tools may not inform them.

[hpslugga 4062]

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Stupid Flanders 

 

[G650 14263]

11 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

People hate lawyers until they need one and the need doesn't seem to be diminishing.

Probably not something I'd advertise.

[G650 14263]

10 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I am very jealous of people who leave work and go home and don’t have to worry about one thing work-wise until they return to work the next day.

I mean, there; very few of those people. Try being in charge of a large enterprise, it's 24/7 anxiety.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19103]

57 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I invited you to demonstrate this.  I'm sure theres a revocation you can cite.

I can tell you that according to the California consumer code, which governs CPAs licensed in the state of California, she absolutely would have had her license stripped.  Incompetance and lack of due care is a reason for a CPA to be stripped of their license.  It is pretty obvious she did not practice due care at all.

Signed, a CPA in the state of CA.

Edited August 14, 2023 by PenelopeWitherspoon

[TwiceHorn 31495]

11 minutes ago, G650 said:

I mean, there; very few of those people. Try being in charge of a large enterprise, it's 24/7 anxiety.

Right, and the vast majority of those people in the large enterprise leave their jobs at work.  Just a handful of people at the top are stressballs.

Every lawyer, pretty much, from the Chairman of Skadden down to the first-year associate at Buttweed Law Group, first wants to do right by their client.  Then they're being judged, or even actively undermined, in that endeavor by a) their client, b) their bosses and a combination of c) a judge, d) an opposing lawyer and e) some opposing institution or administrative body.

But, I think the main reason lawdogs have problems with mental health is that the profession attracts people with an idealistic streak, if not outright idealists.  Then they get into it and find that it's often tedious, mindless work, and hideously long hours, but with high stakes, fraught with delay, and few opportunities to achieve any meaningful ideals.  They often have perfectionist and mild (or severe) OCD traits.

[Biff Tannen 45691]

So anyway. 
 

Is this week the week?