Kumho Tyres

Kumho Tyres

Business Finance

Business Finance

Driving Game

Driving Game

Your blog is very interesint

Your blog is very interesint

Karl – not always true. A lot of people take 1983 cases because they see big injuries. I got called in on one where the plaintiff (a very good trial lawyer, but not a constitutional litigator) had sued the state under 1983. (If you can’t at least two things wrong with that, then you should not even think about taking a 1983 case.)

Karl – not always true. A lot of people take 1983 cases because they see big injuries. I got called in on one where the plaintiff (a very good trial lawyer, but not a constitutional litigator) had sued the state under 1983. (If you can’t at least two things wrong with that, then you should not even think about taking a 1983 case.)

I want one of these: Cellphone jammers.

I wonder when police will tell us they “need” these, too. The only thing stopping a lot of people from getting the shat beat out of them is that the police know they are on their cellphones.

I want one of these: Cellphone jammers.

I wonder when police will tell us they “need” these, too. The only thing stopping a lot of people from getting the shat beat out of them is that the police know they are on their cellphones.

Federalist:

The problem with sec. 1983 & crim law that so screws everything up is that lawyers generally don’t want to represent poor people – how can you get that new Mercedes, the house in the Hamptons & the affair with the woman half your age (if just in your head) if you are taking on the cases where there is no real pay out? Sure you get a few young attorneys who are still idealistic to do these cases, but on the whole indigents (outside of a core group of public defenders & specialty nonprofits where you often get better lawyers than big firms despite general perceptions to the contrary) are far to often represented by lawyers who are on the bottom rung of our profession, not by choice but by skill.

By working hard, researching hard, educating yourself, and trying to be a better lawyer, anyone can master any field of law (OK almost any save ERISA, capital habeas, and a few others), but what “poor people’s law” is too often left with are those who won’t do those things.

Federalist:

The problem with sec. 1983 & crim law that so screws everything up is that lawyers generally don’t want to represent poor people – how can you get that new Mercedes, the house in the Hamptons & the affair with the woman half your age (if just in your head) if you are taking on the cases where there is no real pay out? Sure you get a few young attorneys who are still idealistic to do these cases, but on the whole indigents (outside of a core group of public defenders & specialty nonprofits where you often get better lawyers than big firms despite general perceptions to the contrary) are far to often represented by lawyers who are on the bottom rung of our profession, not by choice but by skill.

By working hard, researching hard, educating yourself, and trying to be a better lawyer, anyone can master any field of law (OK almost any save ERISA, capital habeas, and a few others), but what “poor people’s law” is too often left with are those who won’t do those things.

Hi, Fed84.
I hope it won’t surprise you that I agree with virtually everything you’ve said here (even if I might have said it with a few less “f”s).  Carolyn knows that I think she’s often a little more optimistic than I. However, I must point out that she does tell the solos to Learn Learn Learn, admonishing them “Once you find a potential lead into a new field, learn as much as you can about it.”
Most “law practice advice” that I have seen on the internet, at seminars, or in magazines, fits into one of the following categories:

stuff only a dummy wouldn’t already know
stuff no one with a busy life is ever likely to do
stuff that is waaaaay too optimistic about human nature, human intelligence, or lawyer diligence
stuff meant to steer business to the advisor
For some reason, this discussion is reminding me of this post.
p.s. I added a few blurbs to this posting.  A couple could use your “insight” and “incite.”

Hi, Fed84.
I hope it won’t surprise you that I agree with virtually everything you’ve said here (even if I might have said it with a few less “f”s).  Carolyn knows that I think she’s often a little more optimistic than I. However, I must point out that she does tell the solos to Learn Learn Learn, admonishing them “Once you find a potential lead into a new field, learn as much as you can about it.”
Most “law practice advice” that I have seen on the internet, at seminars, or in magazines, fits into one of the following categories:

stuff only a dummy wouldn’t already know
stuff no one with a busy life is ever likely to do
stuff that is waaaaay too optimistic about human nature, human intelligence, or lawyer diligence
stuff meant to steer business to the advisor
For some reason, this discussion is reminding me of this post.
p.s. I added a few blurbs to this posting.  A couple could use your “insight” and “incite.”