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

[Neonmoon 38130]

21 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of the problems here is that the Powell case is different from the usual disbarment proceeding. So it's testing the competence of the bars lawyers. 

[Chewbacca 7830]

22 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

 It doesn’t.  See the currently on-going disciplinary proceeding in Texas that does not involve a felony conviction as grounds. We seem to be talking past each other.

She has already beaten the Texas bar once.  Ethical standards seem to be missing from your profession.  It's on you and the other members of the bar to have them put in place.

[Keef 892]

5 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

She has already beaten the Texas bar once.  Ethical standards seem to be missing from your profession.  It's on you and the other members of the bar to have them put in place.

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.

[WhatTheBuck 28940]

1 hour ago, Lurch said:

I’m talking about the ending in the show. Not the one you wrote for yourself where Tony dies. He didn’t die in the show. 

[scottsins 2047]

This statute is not something they use a ton.   You can charge somebody with this if you want them to flip, but the max is three years in prison, and they probably won’t get that in a case not as straightforward as this one, with many moving parts.  Fuck, even if clearly criminal. 
As to which application, think about every single civil rights abuse/ cop killer/cop beating case you read about on Surly.   That would mean that every asshole cop who watched it and did not report their fellow cop would be charged with this felony. They aren’t.   But it is one of the reasons why I say that any  LEO being a non-criminal is almost impossible to find. Every single cop who watched another cop do something wrong and didn’t report it is - by federal criminal law definition - in violation of federal criminal law, even if never indicted. 

Does conceal normally require more than just “know about it and not tell someone”?

ETA: I’m not sure that the case will even rely on this concept, since I would bet that Trump is on tape doing much more than just quietly listening and becoming aware of the plan. I’m sure that he is encouraging, assisting in planning, probably even forcefully taking credit for the whole plot, because that’s like his whole fucking deal.

[Captainant 28596]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Exactly how many members of the Texas bar do you think are out there "subverting democracy" ? 

Well you've got ted cruz and powell as members for starters, so at least two too many

[Gatorubet 30783]

37 minutes ago, Keef said:

State bar associations are a joke.  They exist only to collect fees, harrass law students 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.

Agree with first statement.  Get a DUI in Louisiana and its like you murdered babies while worshiping Baal. 

They are essentially petty small town prosecutors. Lawyers who really couldn’t quite make it in the private sector, but who are capable of winning shooting-fish-in-a-barrel cases like stealing from your IOLTA fund, not returning funds you didn’t earn…or getting DUIs.   IMO, naturally. 

 

[Red Five 41780]

29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m talking about the ending in the show. Not the one you wrote for yourself where Tony dies. He didn’t die in the show. 

[Superhero 9035]

Series finale talk not going away.

[Gatorubet 30783]

Does conceal normally require more than just “know about it and not tell someone”?

ETA: I’m not sure that the case will even rely on this concept, since I would bet that Trump is on tape doing much more than just quietly listening and becoming aware of the plan. I’m sure that he is encouraging, assisting in planning, probably even forcefully taking credit for the whole plot, because that’s like his whole fucking deal.

Misprision of felony per the common law was committed by simply knowing about a felony and not telling the authorities. But the current definition of the crime in federal law requires that the perpetrator make some affirmative act to conceal the crime that is not reported. So, in federal law, the crime has four elements:

• Someone committed a complete felony;
• The defendant has known about the felony’s commission;
• The defendant has failed to notify a law enforcement authority of the commission of the felony, and
• The defendant has taken some affirmative step to conceal the felony.

Concealing the felony would involve such acts as making false statements, hiding evidence, or harboring the criminal so law enforcement cannot locate them.

If your next-door neighbor knows some thing about a crime, he or she does not have a duty to report.   That said, if an investigator asks them something about it, and they do not answer truthfully, then they have actively concealed something. Unlike your neighbor, Law enforcement officers - or an attorney - or an elected official arguably have a duty to report what they know.    No DA will bother with a misprision case if they have evidence of obstruction.   My reference to cops is because they almost always participate in police reports and after action investigations, and very rarely tell the truth about what happened. It is not simply knowing and not telling that is the problem, it is knowing when you have a duty to disclose and fail to do it.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

1 hour ago, Chewbacca said:

She has already beaten the Texas bar once.  Ethical standards seem to be missing from your profession.  It's on you and the other members of the bar to have them put in place.

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. 

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[YGIFS 19458]

Speaking of series finales, There's a reality TV show that's been running for quite awhile.  Y'all should give it a watch.  It's called "President of the United States of America" or "POTUS."  It's in its 46th season and I'm gonna spoil-alert it for some of you.  The guy trying to come back for the 47th season as a returning champion meant to boost ratings is going to be fucking dead or incarcerated in the near future.  And the people that caused his death and/or jailing are RINO/deep state operators and every one of you loyal to MAGA nation should start killing RINO/deep state operatives starting tomorrow.  Get your 2A instruments of liberty at the ready and start shooting anybody involved with any of the other GOP  candidates for President.  Everybody that Trump appointed to the FBI, intelligence community, judiciary, etc.  Anybody that he put in there that's still in government is selling him out for their own personal gain.  Start killing them immediately.  It's the only way to get Trump back into office and save the Republic.  We do this right,  and we can evacuate 500,000 undesired Americans without lifting a finger or loading one train car.  

They're filled with rage and ammo, just need to figure a way to get them to point it all at the right target.  Imagine the possibilities.  

[TwiceHorn 32104]

40 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Well you've got ted cruz and powell as members for starters, so at least two too many

Ok then, well tell me what disciplinary rules they violated.  https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&ContentID=27271&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

It's only 116 pages, but it is obviously so simple that you and Chewbacca should just be able to point em right out and tell us all how to prove them.

[Pato del Muerto 53581]

[TwiceHorn 32104]

54 minutes ago, scottsins said:

Does conceal normally require more than just “know about it and not tell someone”?

ETA: I’m not sure that the case will even rely on this concept, since I would bet that Trump is on tape doing much more than just quietly listening and becoming aware of the plan. I’m sure that he is encouraging, assisting in planning, probably even forcefully taking credit for the whole plot, because that’s like his whole fucking deal.

Yeah, I think it's going to defy credibility that Trump sat ldly by watching his people plan a conspiracy and did nothing more than fail to alert the authorities.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

37 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Agree with first statement.  Get a DUI in Louisiana and its like you murdered babies while worshiping Baal. 

They are essentially petty small town prosecutors. Lawyers who really couldn’t quite make it in the private sector, but who are capable of winning shooting-fish-in-a-barrel cases like stealing from your IOLTA fund, not returning funds you didn’t earn…or getting DUIs.   IMO, naturally. 

 

DUI is a bar problem in Louisiana?  It's still not in Texas until you either reach the felony level or couple it with other evidence of addiction and addiction-related misconduct.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

7 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

You can harm the profession and intentionally defraud the system it serves, but if you don't return phone calls it's your ass. 

A lawyer's first duty is to his or her client.  The "system" and profession are a distant second and third, respectively.

Neglect of a legal matter usually means malpractice and loss of rights.  The phone calls that aren't returned are the ones explaining that the lawyer fucked up and lost the client's case, or a big chunk of it.  Or that the lawyer already spent the retainer and fee deposits and doesn't feel like putting in the work to file the case and filing fee, probably because the lawyer is high as a kite and balls deep in his secretary.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Bullneck 19560]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Where's this fucking guy when you need him?

[TwiceHorn 32104]

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  . . . .

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Biff Tannen 46200]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

Where's this fucking guy when you need him?

I'm not endorsing this by quoting this.  Definitely not.

[Francisco 2.0 32609]

 

 

 

 

[Gatorubet 30783]

DUI is a bar problem in Louisiana?  It's still not in Texas until you either reach the felony level or couple it with other evidence of addiction and addiction-related misconduct.

Yep.  Once they find out about an arrest, let alone a conviction, then they will do an evaluation to see if you have a substance/alcohol problem.    And of course, it depends on whether you cooperated with the investigation, your prior disciplinary record, and if you just got a DUI in a roadblock check or you got a DUI after causing personal injury or property damage in a wreck. As always, all types of factors. 
But the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that suspension is a baseline for a DUI. Naturally, they sometimes give warnings or admonitions.  Or suspensions with all or part of the time deferred.    A recently retired Supreme Court Justice noted before she left the bench that disciplinary penalties imposed in Louisiana had no consistency or logic - just ad hoc individual decisions giving different penalties for the exact same conduct. 
They protect us from bad lawyers, don’t you know. They drive around looking for a lawyer billboards and then check to see if that particular billboard got pre-approved.   It does not matter if everything on the Billboard meets their rules and is non-misleading, they just love those technical violations where they can win and up their conviction rate. 

[Biff Tannen 46200]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 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.

[TwiceHorn 32104]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Yep.  Once they find out about an arrest, let alone a conviction, then they will do an evaluation to see if you have a substance/alcohol problem.    And of course, it depends on whether you cooperated with the investigation, your prior disciplinary record, and if you just got a DUI in a roadblock check or you got a DUI after causing personal injury or property damage in a wreck. As always, all types of factors. 

But the Louisiana Supreme Court has stated that suspension is a baseline for a DUI. Naturally, they sometimes give warnings or admonitions.  Or suspensions with all or part of the time deferred.    A recently retired Supreme Court Justice noted before she left the bench that disciplinary penalties imposed in Louisiana had no consistency or logic - just ad hoc individual decisions giving different penalties for the exact same conduct. 

They protect us from bad lawyers, don’t you know. They drive around looking for a lawyer billboards and then check to see if that particular billboard got pre-approved.   It does not matter if everything on the Billboard meets their rules and is non-misleading, they just love those tentacle violations where they can win and up their conviction rate. 

Well, I can't say I disagree with the evaluation part anyway.

I have done some litigation on behalf of addict lawyers with the bar and one of the points we made was that a DUI conviction is as good evidence of an addiction and all that follows as a possession of a controlled substance without intent to distribute, but you get nothing with the former and disbarred over the latter simply because misdemeanor vs. felony.

Active addicts as practicing attorneys are overrepresented in the legal profession and can be a real problem, a scourge even.  But, I am pleased to say that quite a few elements of the State Bar of Texas have gone into assistance mode, rather than punishment mode, as long as you haven't already screwed the pooch.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Dnaguy 12712]

6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

also

 

That's it.

I've had it.

It's HBO MAX time. I'm rewatching the wire.

[Biff Tannen 46200]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

 

That's it.

I've had it.

It's HBO MAX time. I'm rewatching the wire.

I tried.  I don't get it.  I just like that gif.

[Dnaguy 12712]

3 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I tried.  I don't get it.  I just like that gif.

 

Dang. I think you're going to get voted off the lib / white / millennial island if you're not careful... even with your ledge / hopelessness.

That's hard to do my friend. Rep.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Dnaguy

[Biff Tannen 46200]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

 

Dang. I think you're going to get voted off the lib / white / millennial island if you're not careful... even with your ledge / hopelessness.

That's hard to do my friend. Rep.

 

I'm Sergeant at Arms of The Ledge motherfucker.

[Js1 87281]

9 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I tried.  I don't get it.  I just like that gif.

[atomheartbevo 90670]

5 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

dumbest series finale ever

[atomheartbevo 90670]

10 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Last year, a former Trump official testified under oath to the House January 6 select committee that plans to access voting systems in Georgia were discussed in meetings at the White House, including during an Oval Office meeting on December 18, 2020,  that included Trump. 

Six days before pro-Trump operatives gained unauthorized access to voting systems, the local elections official who allegedly helped facilitate the breach sent a “written invitation” to attorneys working for Trump, according to text messages obtained by CNN. 

6 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

also

 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

You don'l like The Wire either?

Wtf, man, I'm surprised.

That gif actually embodies so much of The Wire.

[ChiTownDoc 21347]

Holy shit, team dotard is so god damn fucked.  I mean I knew it had to be some really bad shit when Barr stepped down...he's an evil POS, but by no means is he an idiot.  But I had no idea it was this fucking bad.  I don't think orange fuckstain sees prison but a hell of a lot of people in his orbit will.  Lock her up...indeed, they just had the wrong 'her'.  Sidney is fucked unless she sings like a canary vs dotard.  Win/win.  And rudy is looking at jail too, but he'll likely go the way of JoePa before he sees the inside of a cell.  

 

 

OK, now one of you attorney types tell me why it's all actually not THAT big a deal and I'm a moran. 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

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.

[BamaATL 16593]

The only thing I would point out to the bar associations is that whether or not they realize it, the profession is under serious threat from technology.  Many money makers, like will creation, basic estate law, etc are going to be increasingly challenged by AI.  The profession as a whole faces serious financial challenges with what I would consider to be a big marketing challenge.  By failing to adequately deal with obvious stains on the profession, the industry as a whole is only compelling the general public to avoid legal professionals as much as possible.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if in the near future many arbitration matters are also settled using AI; to start probably non-binding settlements.  From there, I can't imagine it would be long that much of corporate law follows the same trajectory (assuming that isn't already happening).  It's all a gateway to the reduction of the amount of people in the profession, and by even giving off the mere appearance of circling the wagons to protect their own, the profession as a whole is only hastening their own demise.  

So while I respect and understand procedures, and even get the legal realities of that; the truth of the matter, at least to me, is that it's time to adapt or die.   The bar associations, and their members can't afford to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and not evolve, both as a profession and as a membership.  That may well mean passing new guidelines and having new ethics rules in order to more strongly police itself.  As I said earlier, failure to do will only serve to hasten the demise of the profession; at least as we know it.  At the same time, one can argue that everything I pointed out is inevitable anyway, but if it were me, I'd at least want to meet the challenge head on, rather than wither and die with a whimper.  

But hey, that's me, I have no stake in this personally, and I'm certainly wrong as much as I am right.  

[TwiceHorn 32104]

14 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

The only thing I would point out to the bar associations is that whether or not they realize it, the profession is under serious threat from technology.  Many money makers, like will creation, basic estate law, etc are going to be increasingly challenged by AI.  The profession as a whole faces serious financial challenges with what I would consider to be a big marketing challenge.  By failing to adequately deal with obvious stains on the profession, the industry as a whole is only compelling the general public to avoid legal professionals as much as possible.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if in the near future many arbitration matters are also settled using AI; to start probably non-binding settlements.  From there, I can't imagine it would be long that much of corporate law follows the same trajectory (assuming that isn't already happening).  It's all a gateway to the reduction of the amount of people in the profession, and by even giving off the mere appearance of circling the wagons to protect their own, the profession as a whole is only hastening their own demise.  

So while I respect and understand procedures, and even get the legal realities of that; the truth of the matter, at least to me, is that it's time to adapt or die.   The bar associations, and their members can't afford to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and not evolve, both as a profession and as a membership.  That may well mean passing new guidelines and having new ethics rules in order to more strongly police itself.  As I said earlier, failure to do will only serve to hasten the demise of the profession; at least as we know it.  At the same time, one can argue that everything I pointed out is inevitable anyway, but if it were me, I'd at least want to meet the challenge head on, rather than wither and die with a whimper.  

But hey, that's me, I have no stake in this personally, and I'm certainly wrong as much as I am right.  

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.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Bullneck 19560]

14 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

The only thing I would point out to the bar associations is that whether or not they realize it, the profession is under serious threat from technology.  Many money makers, like will creation, basic estate law, etc are going to be increasingly challenged by AI.  The profession as a whole faces serious financial challenges with what I would consider to be a big marketing challenge.  By failing to adequately deal with obvious stains on the profession, the industry as a whole is only compelling the general public to avoid legal professionals as much as possible.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if in the near future many arbitration matters are also settled using AI; to start probably non-binding settlements.  From there, I can't imagine it would be long that much of corporate law follows the same trajectory (assuming that isn't already happening).  It's all a gateway to the reduction of the amount of people in the profession, and by even giving off the mere appearance of circling the wagons to protect their own, the profession as a whole is only hastening their own demise.  

So while I respect and understand procedures, and even get the legal realities of that; the truth of the matter, at least to me, is that it's time to adapt or die.   The bar associations, and their members can't afford to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and not evolve, both as a profession and as a membership.  That may well mean passing new guidelines and having new ethics rules in order to more strongly police itself.  As I said earlier, failure to do will only serve to hasten the demise of the profession; at least as we know it.  At the same time, one can argue that everything I pointed out is inevitable anyway, but if it were me, I'd at least want to meet the challenge head on, rather than wither and die with a whimper.  

But hey, that's me, I have no stake in this personally, and I'm certainly wrong as much as I am right.  

[dieucla98 2963]

We're one chicken fried steak discussion short of being the '24 recruiting thread.

[Bozo_Casanova 26905]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

A lawyer's first duty is to his or her client.  The "system" and profession are a distant second and third, respectively.

Neglect of a legal matter usually means malpractice and loss of rights.  The phone calls that aren't returned are the ones explaining that the lawyer fucked up and lost the client's case, or a big chunk of it.  Or that the lawyer already spent the retainer and fee deposits and doesn't feel like putting in the work to file the case and filing fee, probably because the lawyer is high as a kite and balls deep in his secretary.

Yes, understood all that, but abiding by the rules of professional conduct or the law is required, is it not? Meaning a layer cannot aid and abet a criminal act or violate either the boundaries of the law or procedure, right? Like if that's a distant second, it would explain a lot. 

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

[Neonmoon 38130]

9 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

The only thing I would point out to the bar associations is that whether or not they realize it, the profession is under serious threat from technology.  Many money makers, like will creation, basic estate law, etc are going to be increasingly challenged by AI.  The profession as a whole faces serious financial challenges with what I would consider to be a big marketing challenge.  By failing to adequately deal with obvious stains on the profession, the industry as a whole is only compelling the general public to avoid legal professionals as much as possible.  It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if in the near future many arbitration matters are also settled using AI; to start probably non-binding settlements.  From there, I can't imagine it would be long that much of corporate law follows the same trajectory (assuming that isn't already happening).  It's all a gateway to the reduction of the amount of people in the profession, and by even giving off the mere appearance of circling the wagons to protect their own, the profession as a whole is only hastening their own demise.  

So while I respect and understand procedures, and even get the legal realities of that; the truth of the matter, at least to me, is that it's time to adapt or die.   The bar associations, and their members can't afford to continue to stick their collective heads in the sand and not evolve, both as a profession and as a membership.  That may well mean passing new guidelines and having new ethics rules in order to more strongly police itself.  As I said earlier, failure to do will only serve to hasten the demise of the profession; at least as we know it.  At the same time, one can argue that everything I pointed out is inevitable anyway, but if it were me, I'd at least want to meet the challenge head on, rather than wither and die with a whimper.  

But hey, that's me, I have no stake in this personally, and I'm certainly wrong as much as I am right.  

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. 

[Bullneck 19560]

3 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, 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.

[atomheartbevo 90670]

10 hours ago, Hermanator said:

Sydney Powell went from a federal prosecutor who co-workers and work acquaintances have said showed no real interest in politics either way and worked a lot for women's rights to a complete nut job trying to overthrow the government for Donald Trump and a party that has hammered women's rights for decades. 

The power of the cult on the lost mind. 

My Qanon sis-in-law voted for Obama.  Her dad is a doctor and her step-mom an RN/nurse practioner/whatever, and she used to listen to them when it came to medical matters.  COVID broke her or something, and she refused to believe anything they said, trusting the advice of anonymous idiots on the internet.

8 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

 

8 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

I still can’t figure out why, if the courts and various state and local governments won’t take a look at all of this evidence and proof, that they don’t just release it to the public for us all to see how corrupt the system is that is protecting all of this election interference/fraud. 

6 hours ago, Red Five said:

Wait, he has "conclusive" proof that he actually won the 2020 election, and that he should still be president? And two and a half years later hasn't shown it to anyone yet?

This is why I challenge relatives on this shit - I get it if maybe people won't challenge their relatives because they are worried about some kind of violence or being kicked out of a will or uninvited to reunions or family get-togethers or whatever.

But otherwise, you need to hammer away at them about the election stuff - ask them straight up that if the election was stolen and Trump has proof as he claims, then why didn't he publish it on the White House website back when he was still in the WH, why won't he release the info on his campaign site, why won't he give an interview or do a rally where he actually produces the proof.

I'm not saying get in their face about it, well, I kind of am actually - make them defend him claiming it was stolen but refusing to produce the evidence. At the very least, you're going to make them uncomfortable, and they might even remember your words the next time Trump is out there screaming about stollen elections.

[atomheartbevo 90670]

29 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Holy shit, team dotard is so god damn fucked.  I mean I knew it had to be some really bad shit when Barr stepped down...he's an evil POS, but by no means is he an idiot.  But I had no idea it was this fucking bad.  I don't think orange fuckstain sees prison but a hell of a lot of people in his orbit will.  Lock her up...indeed, they just had the wrong 'her'.  Sidney is fucked unless she sings like a canary vs dotard.  Win/win.  And rudy is looking at jail too, but he'll likely go the way of JoePa before he sees the inside of a cell.  

I love that it involves a county that Trump won.  And that there was a written invitation.

I'm wondering if Barr did step down in part of this particular incident, since the timing was right.  At that time, Trump couldn't piss him off, since he would know Barr had extremely sensitive information (assuming Barr was around for that meeting).

 

[TwiceHorn 32104]

21 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

Yes, understood all that, but abiding by the rules of professional conduct or the law is required, is it not? Meaning a layer cannot aid and abet a criminal act or violate either the boundaries of the law or procedure, right? Like if that's a distant second, it would explain a lot. 

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

Of course, and the rules prohibit those things.  It is relatively easy to prove that someone has been convicted or received deferred adjudication for an intentional crime, as set forth in that rule, easy peasy two page order of disbarment.

It's also pretty easy to prove that a client gave a lawyer some money, the lawyer spent it without properly billing for it; or the lawyer received money intended for a client and didn't turn it over or account for anything the lawyer kept. Follow the money. Those are the kind of client abuses that lawyers are routinely disciplined for.

It is not so easy to prove the knowing and intentional lying to a court.  The sanctions order in Michigan doesn't help because it applies a different standard where the lawyer vouches for everything in a pleading when they sign it or otherwise endorse it by advocacy.

No one is saying Powell shouldn't be disciplined.  She should.  It's just not as cut and dried as everyone seems to think it is.  Much like many thought Trump would never be indicted because HE LIED ON TV WHY NOT DONE!  It's more subtle than that.

It goes back to the green cheese problem.  We all know that the moon isn't made of green cheese.  But only a few people actually have personal knowledge of that fact.  If someone says "The moon is made of green cheese" and you want to convict them of perjury, or intentional lying to a court, that task is more difficult than it initially appears.  That's not a perfect analogy, but the more outrageous the untruth, often the more difficult it is to prove its untruth.  And, in many or most cases, the untruth has to be material to something under the court's consideration.  The green cheese assertion would rarely be material, it's a lie about nothing important.

 

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32104]

19 minutes 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. 

Yep, well said.  The law governs human endeavors and humans are, well, human.

Because people are fucking incomprehensible, that's why.

Edited August 14, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[C-Man 27820]

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.

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.

[YGIFS 19458]

9 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.

24 years or so ago, when I was in law school...they told us that the then somewhat new interwebs was going to change everything about the law from how laws are written to how briefs were filed to how people found attorneys to help them.  Later that year, a wise judge who was an adjunct professor at our little school told us no computer could reason like a human could.  And I still believe him and wish he was still on the SCOTUS, Justice Anthony Kennedy.  I don't think the profession is going away, it will continue to flourish.  But my belief that we are existing inside of a "software simulation" grows stronger and stronger every single day. 

Justice Kennedy's lead clerk one summer who introduced me to him and helped me get into law school, sent me something interesting the other day.  He is arguably the most renowned legal mind on elder care law in California.  Probably about TwiceHorn's age.  It was a "petition" of sorts.  Something they were asking a number of Order of the Coif attorneys in California to sign off on, to the effect of pledging to make sure vulnerable populations would not be fooled by AI solicitations to do free/discounted legal work for people who couldn't otherwise afford proper legal counsel.  I figured, "Okay, kinda greedy to keep your positions in tact but I get if you're doing pro bono work on the side, helps keep your skill set from being muddied by some half-assed software or website."  This lawyer agreed, it was meant to say basically, "This new technology exists, it will get more expansive and robust.  Your right to use it, but we are still here to serve you and please know the differences and make the best choice you can.  We are not perfect but the software/AI tradeoff may not be all its cracked up to be."  The petition was very well written and propped up to be the good guy in a sea of murkiness.  He is leading the charge on it to make sure elderly folks and migrant workers in California understand how to get proper legal advice from people and clinics and institutions and not from AI spam emails and texts that prey on their vulnerability.  Something we can all agree is a sound principle.  

Last week, they learned the petition to preserve the integrity of sound legal advice for vulnerable populations was written and sent out by an AI program.  And it re-wrote itself after the leading attorneys of the state bar wrote notes on the initial draft.  The profession is going to write laws to protect itself from functional obsoletion.  As it always has.  This time, it would seem, those monopolistic laws are being written for them.  By the very thing they're trying to avoid.  

Be careful, Donald, whose throat you call for.  It may very well be your own...

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26905]

 

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I actually like lawyers quite a bit and am encouraging my older daughter to consider law school. That said, similar to medicine, the field seems to be in an ethical and competency crisis at the same time it's facing what appear to be unprecedented challenges and competitive forces in the market. 
So w/r/t the above let me give you some advice I'm actually qualified to give as a no-kidding expert on the adoption and diffusion of technology - you and everyone else who does it are making a giant category error if you think the challenges posed by AI and machine learning in terms of challenges posed by the adoption of online filing, the automation of routine work, offshoring, word processing, the printing press, photocopying, or any other thing that came before. AI is qualitatively different.

AI will indeed not get rid of the profession, but the profession should guard itself carefully because it is a cost center, and one premium you can offer that is worth paying a premium for is the rigorous maintenance of a high professional standard. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by Bozo_Casanova

[TwiceHorn 32104]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

24 years or so ago, when I was in law school...they told us that the then somewhat new interwebs was going to change everything about the law from how laws are written to how briefs were filed to how people found attorneys to help them.  Later that year, a wise judge who was an adjunct professor at our little school told us no computer could reason like a human could.  And I still believe him and wish he was still on the SCOTUS, Justice Anthony Kennedy.  I don't think the profession is going away, it will continue to flourish.  But my belief that we are existing inside of a "software simulation" grows stronger and stronger every single day. 

Justice Kennedy's lead clerk one summer who introduced me to him and helped me get into law school, sent me something interesting the other day.  He is arguably the most renowned legal mind on elder care law in California.  Probably about TwiceHorn's age.  It was a "petition" of sorts.  Something they were asking a number of Order of the Coif attorneys in California to sign off on, to the effect of pledging to make sure vulnerable populations would not be fooled by AI solicitations to do free/discounted legal work for people who couldn't otherwise afford proper legal counsel.  I figured, "Okay, kinda greedy to keep your positions in tact but I get if you're doing pro bono work on the side, helps keep your skill set from being muddied by some half-assed software or website."  This lawyer agreed, it was meant to say basically, "This new technology exists, it will get more expansive and robust.  Your right to use it, but we are still here to serve you and please know the differences and make the best choice you can.  We are not perfect but the software/AI tradeoff may not be all its cracked up to be."  The petition was very well written and propped up to be the good guy in a sea of murkiness.  He is leading the charge on it to make sure elderly folks and migrant workers in California understand how to get proper legal advice from people and clinics and institutions and not from AI spam emails and texts that prey on their vulnerability.  Something we can all agree is a sound principle.  

Last week, they learned the petition to preserve the integrity of sound legal advice for vulnerable populations was written and sent out by an AI program.  And it re-wrote itself after the leading attorneys of the state bar wrote notes on the initial draft.  The profession is going to write laws to protect itself from functional obsoletion.  As it always has.  This time, it would seem, those monopolistic laws are being written for them.  By the very thing they're trying to avoid.  

Be careful, Donald, whose throat you call for.  It may very well be your own...

 

Twice my age is officially old as fuck.  I mean like beyond ArmyBrat old.

[Gatorubet 30783]

Well, I can't say I disagree with the evaluation part anyway.
I have done some litigation on behalf of addict lawyers with the bar and one of the points we made was that a DUI conviction is as good evidence of an addiction and all that follows as a possession of a controlled substance without intent to distribute, but you get nothing with the former and disbarred over the latter simply because misdemeanor vs. felony.
Active addicts as practicing attorneys are overrepresented in the legal profession and can be a real problem, a scourge even.  But, I am pleased to say that quite a few elements of the State Bar of Texas have gone into assistance mode, rather than punishment mode, as long as you haven't already screwed the pooch.

We are well represented with folks addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, and exceed the general populations, proclivity to commit suicide by a bunch.     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.
So far, my two best friends who were  lawyers committed suicide. All I can draw from that as you do not want to be my friend.