|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The videos have been nuts.
|
For journalist, there are no good answers for those questions. Things have escalated quickly.
|
On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment.
Eh, my company busts our law firm's (US firm with 500+ attorneys) over fees all the time. A couple years back we were their biggest client, even after we made them write down a couple million. To be fair, a good chunk of that was for some truly subpar work by a partner who was brought in because "he was an expert on the subject". We told them straight up that we weren't going to pay for it.
We bulked up our internal legal team, so they're not too happy about it, anyways. The bottle of wine I got this year was not as nice, heh.
|
5930 Posts
To be fair to CNN and MSNBC, they've been advising him again and again that this is not in his best interest. Like Carter Page, they feel invincible for whatever reason. The guy brought up the Hillary Clinton defense multiple times.
|
On March 06 2018 10:14 Womwomwom wrote:
To be fair to CNN and MSNBC, they've been advising him again and again that this is not in his best interest. Like Carter Page, they feel invincible for whatever reason. The guy brought up the Hillary Clinton defense multiple times.
When he goes "... but but but other side is just as bad", that is an accusation.
When he goes "and yeah, Mueller is right and Trump did something I participated in", that is an admission.
Accusations and admissions aren't equivalent.
|
On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes.
I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine.
But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore.
Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg.
|
5930 Posts
On March 06 2018 10:24 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:14 Womwomwom wrote:
To be fair to CNN and MSNBC, they've been advising him again and again that this is not in his best interest. Like Carter Page, they feel invincible for whatever reason. The guy brought up the Hillary Clinton defense multiple times. When he goes "... but but but other side is just as bad", that is an accusation. When he goes "and yeah, Mueller is right and Trump did something I participated in", that is an admission. Accusations and admissions aren't equivalent.
I’m not sure where you’re going with this but the news shows mentioned that he’s probably going to jail and he shouldn’t be doing this. This defense was quite literally that Hillary Clinton wasn’t in jail because of her emails so why would he be at risk. Which is an insane defense but maybe he legitimately believes this.
|
On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg.
I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals.
|
On March 06 2018 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment. Eh, my company busts our law firm's (US firm with 500+ attorneys) over fees all the time. A couple years back we were their biggest client, even after we made them write down a couple million. To be fair, a good chunk of that was for some truly subpar work by a partner who was brought in because "he was an expert on the subject". We told them straight up that we weren't going to pay for it. We bulked up our internal legal team, so they're not too happy about it, anyways. The bottle of wine I got this year was not as nice, heh.
What happens with the billing between large law firms and large corporations is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Large law firms are notorious for abusing billable hours and charging all sorts of shit to their large corporate clients that they shouldn't.
|
On March 06 2018 10:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:14 ticklishmusic wrote:On March 06 2018 09:29 xDaunt wrote:On March 06 2018 09:27 Plansix wrote:
It isn't about being the best. Its about getting paid at all. 50% of my job is fighting over legal fees. I have spent hours fighting with clients about paying for settlement negotiations that took 20 phone calls over 2 weeks. Because they didn't feel they should have to "pay for a bunch of phone calls." I'd blame your attorneys for that problem. They should be collecting either credit cards or retainers so as to ensure payment. Eh, my company busts our law firm's (US firm with 500+ attorneys) over fees all the time. A couple years back we were their biggest client, even after we made them write down a couple million. To be fair, a good chunk of that was for some truly subpar work by a partner who was brought in because "he was an expert on the subject". We told them straight up that we weren't going to pay for it. We bulked up our internal legal team, so they're not too happy about it, anyways. The bottle of wine I got this year was not as nice, heh. What happens with the billing between large law firms and large corporations is a whole 'nother ball of wax. Large law firms are notorious for abusing billable hours and charging all sorts of shit to their large corporate clients that they shouldn't.
I’ve had some very candid discussions with clients about how we need to bill X amount to justify taking their title work and we will get paid for it someplace. The whole practice of writing down invoices can get toxic if clients do it to often.
|
On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals.
You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses.
|
The man running against Paul Ryan is pretty great and that’s the best twitter handle.
|
On March 06 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses.
We're not at the "fixing" part yet, we're at the getting professionals in the field to acknowledge the core premise of 'justice' is perverted by the system we have, regardless of how or if it can be fixed part.
|
On March 06 2018 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses. We're not at the "fixing" part yet, we're at the getting professionals in the field to acknowledge the core premise of 'justice' is perverted by the system we have, regardless of how or if it can be fixed.
We all know we work in an imperfect, flawed system. Agreeing on how to fix and improve it is the hard part.
|
On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals.
It's only immoral and unethical if you're a communist and wholly reject capitalism. The entire Western way of life is predicated upon competition and the ability of those with the means to buy the best to go out and buy the best. Why stop at law with your radical egalitarianism? Why not give everyone the same shitty health care, the same shitty residences, the same shitty cars (or bicycles), the same shitty food, etc.? Are you really looking to turn the US into Venezuela?
|
On March 06 2018 11:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses. We're not at the "fixing" part yet, we're at the getting professionals in the field to acknowledge the core premise of 'justice' is perverted by the system we have, regardless of how or if it can be fixed. We all know we work in an imperfect, flawed system. Agreeing on how to fix and improve it is the hard part.
I've seen very few people in the legal field approach it from the position that the core goal of "justice" is systematically undermined by the way we pursue it. 'Flawed', sure, 'fundamentally unsound', not much buy-in to that from legal professionals.
On March 06 2018 11:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. It's only immoral and unethical if you're a communist and wholly reject capitalism. The entire Western way of life is predicated upon competition and the ability of those with the means to buy the best to go out and buy the best. Why stop at law with your radical egalitarianism? Why not give everyone the same shitty health care, the same shitty residences, the same shitty cars (or bicycles), the same shitty food, etc.? Are you really looking to turn the US into Venezuela?
roflmao I totally thought this was p6 when I started reading it and was like "whoa, that was fast".
This is what I'm talking about though with rejecting the fundamentally flawed part of our justice system.
xDaunt argues (with the appeal of 'entire Western way of life' *gag*) that a system that rewards wealthy criminals with better legal representation than poor criminals is an "impartial" system, or that it's obvious partiality is justified and/or calling it impartial is.
That is a type of moral/ethical flexibility I simply can't keep up with.
|
This is just exquisitely appropriate for the madness that has been today.
|
On March 06 2018 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 11:00 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses. We're not at the "fixing" part yet, we're at the getting professionals in the field to acknowledge the core premise of 'justice' is perverted by the system we have, regardless of how or if it can be fixed. We all know we work in an imperfect, flawed system. Agreeing on how to fix and improve it is the hard part. I've seen very few people in the legal field approach it from the position that the core goal of "justice" is systematically undermined by the way we pursue it. 'Flawed', sure, 'fundamentally unsound', not much buy-in to that from legal professionals.
Most people in the legal field are generally more educated than on the subject and difficulties surrounding the justice system, so I’m not surprised. But if you find a quick fix, let us know.
|
On March 06 2018 11:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. It's only immoral and unethical if you're a communist and wholly reject capitalism. The entire Western way of life is predicated upon competition and the ability of those with the means to buy the best to go out and buy the best. Why stop at law with your radical egalitarianism? Why not give everyone the same shitty health care, the same shitty residences, the same shitty cars (or bicycles), the same shitty food, etc.? Are you really looking to turn the US into Venezuela?
So you're saying that capitalism requires that justice (or the evasion thereof) should have a price on it and be for sale?
|
On March 06 2018 11:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2018 11:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 11:00 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:43 Plansix wrote:On March 06 2018 10:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 10:25 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2018 09:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2018 09:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
Public defenders are typically solid, if overworked. I would factor caseload into the quality of legal representation. There's basically no question that public defenders are shit, not by way of incompetence, but by way of unrealistic expectations. No private lawyer would ever consider the type of caseload a public defender sees. In my eyes, that's not justice, just going through the motions. I'm not really seeing any moral or ethical justifications either, outside of "money is god". EDIT: That's why I'm of the opinion our legal system is a farce run by brutes. I just don't see an alternative. You want an incentive for people to get good at their job and thus earn more than an "average" or "bad" lawyer, whatever that may be to you. So that's fine. But if I'm understanding your system correctly in that you have to pay your fees no matter if you win or lose that'd be a nice point to start changing something. At least make it so the one losing has to pay so that you can't just get spammed out by someone willing to pay a lot until you can't afford to fight it anymore. Again, just hearsay and no idea if it really works that way or if it's an exaggerationg. I can acknowledge fixing it isn't an easy job, but recognizing it's immoral and unethical core seems beyond nearly all of it's professionals. You would have to go state by state changing it to loser pays. All of our laws and basic civil procedures operate under the assumption that both sides pay. Damages too. Trying to do the entire system at once would do more harm than good. And sweeping reforms are less productive without continual oversight for abuses. We're not at the "fixing" part yet, we're at the getting professionals in the field to acknowledge the core premise of 'justice' is perverted by the system we have, regardless of how or if it can be fixed. We all know we work in an imperfect, flawed system. Agreeing on how to fix and improve it is the hard part. I've seen very few people in the legal field approach it from the position that the core goal of "justice" is systematically undermined by the way we pursue it. 'Flawed', sure, 'fundamentally unsound', not much buy-in to that from legal professionals. Most people in the legal field are generally more educated than on the subject and difficulties surrounding the justice system, so I’m not surprised. But if you find a quick fix, let us know.
I think xDaunt speaks a lot more for the top rated minds of the legal fields on this than you do. Like I said, no one is arguing there's a quick or easy fix, but that the idea that the legal system can't achieve justice as it stands isn't one endorsed by the majority of the legal field even though it seems rather plain on it's face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
