T1B

Screw_Michigan wrote:Hope you thank your parents for shelling out for the five-figured lawyers

88, your thoughts?

I assumed it was a lawyer whose earning hit five figures. Maybe he meant "five-fingered".

88 wrote:Those "conservative" shit-stains are going to the pokey. You can fuck with a lot of people, but not U.S. Senators. They are gonzers, whether they have "five-figured" lawyers or not (What is a five-figured lawyer, by the way?).

I was assuming that he meant "fine-figured" lawyers because, after all, most of them seem to keep trim and fit.

LA just seems a hot bed of corruption in general, be they liberal progressive communists or conservative progressive patriots.

It's a war. These dudes are casualties. Don't get caught.

Screw_Michigan wrote:
I'll just refrain from posting the rest of the day.

If you would prolong that time frame we would all be thankful.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote:I was assuming that he meant "fine-figured" lawyers because, after all, most of them seem to keep trim and fit.

I read yesterday where lawyers are 6 times more likely to commit suicide than the general public, and that the attorneys that practice what I practice are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than other lawyers.

Why do you think that is? Crippling debt coming out of law school not being paid off fast enough? Making the decision between big bucks and long hours in a big firm or a normal work life/schedule and not making that much?

Did they put that debt on a credit card?

"Fun and games" sometimes has adverse consequences.

mvscal wrote:These guys aren't anywhere let alone to jail.

Huh?

Anyway...

How does recording somebody with a cell phone camera amount to aiding & abetting them in doing anything? It doesn't even appear that they actually did anything anyway- other than impersonate employees of the phone company

There's gotta be a President's Analyist reset in here somewhere

JSC is strangely silent. Maybe he got caught up in it.

88 wrote:I still think all of them are fucked.

they allegedly had some sort of listening device in their car, which would seem to indicate they may have had the intent to plant some type of "bug".....

yeah, their pretty much fucked two ways to sunday

Jsc810 wrote:I am not involved with this in any way, and I've never met the defendants; however, I do know some of the governmental officials involved, and so I'm sitting this one out, thanks.

Are you one of Matress Mary's rendevous?

Oh c'mon, why is everyone taking this so serious ? What's with the drama ? It's just a telephone system.

i went to angola once. i had diarrhea for four days afterward.

Perhaps the republican seal should include:

It's only piping, what the big deal ? What's all the drama over a little piping ?






88, it is a reference to those bold warriors of conservatism "The Plumbers"

88 wrote:

Diego in Seattle wrote:Perhaps the republican seal should include:

What do pipe wrenches have to do with telephone equipment?

Damn wet-behind-the-ears kids!

Stripes Resets ALWAYS get RACKED.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

88 wrote:I read yesterday where lawyers are 6 times more likely to commit suicide than the general public, and that the attorneys that practice what I practice are 20 times more likely to commit suicide than other lawyers.

Why do you think that is? Crippling debt coming out of law school not being paid off fast enough? Making the decision between big bucks and long hours in a big firm or a normal work life/schedule and not making that much?

That's part of it, but there's more to it than that. In my case, one of the things I take great pride in is that my clients are real people, not banks, insurance companies, Fortune 500 companies or the government. Of course, there's a downside to that as well. Dealing with real people means dealing with the foibles of real people, not to mention that the overwhelming majority of them can't afford to pay me anything close to what I should charge them. No doubt that I take a substantial financial hit as a result.

88 wrote:But I think it often has to do with . . . the changes in the laws that no longer permit lawyers to drink 3 martinis at lunch and pinch their secretary's ass upon returning to the office for an afternoon snooze.

You can still do that, dog. Just don't get caught. :wink:

88 wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:In my case, one of the things I take great pride in is that my clients are real people, not banks, insurance companies, Fortune 500 companies or the government.

Puhleeze. All of my clients are real people. Some are individual entrepreneurs and some are employees of Fortune 500 companies. But each of them gets exactly the same best effort from me. You should check that discriminatory attitude of yours at the door, counselor. You shouldn't be proud because you are only willing to serve one segment of the population. That cuts both ways, you know.

I note that the clients you talked about are real people too. You didn't talk about representing the Fortune 500 companies, did you?

Have I ever represented an employee of a Fortune 500 company? Sure. And that's certainly not a basis on which I would refuse to represent a client. That having been said, it's doubtful that I'll ever represent the Fortune 500 company itself, if for no other reason than the areas of law in which I practice are not areas in which they ordinarily would be seeking representation. I did some corporate work in the past, some of it disgusted me to the point of making me physically ill. As just one example, although I didn't represent the person on the matter in question: https://www.courts.state.ny.us/ad4/Cour ... 05-025.pdf

We all have our biases. Unless I miss my guess, you probably would refuse to represent someone accused of a crime. As you know, some bases for discrimination are prohibited, whereas others are not. I would never discriminate on a prohibited basis.

88 wrote:But not all debt collection attorneys are scum bags.

Link?

I used to evict people who stopped paying their rent.

Was that before or after you quit beating your wife?

88 wrote:My point is that someone who says they will only represent a certain class of clients (e.g., only individuals) is just as discriminatory as someone who says they will only represent Fortune 500 corporations. It may certainly be the case that if your practice is limited to mergers and acquisitions or the issuance of securities, you probably won't have many opportunities to represent individuals in your practice. But that does not make you better or worse than a guy who only practices family law or only represents the injured in tort cases.

Given where I limit my practice (primarily criminal defense, matrimonial/family law and plaintiff's personal injury work), I won't have many opportunities to represent Fortune 500 companies. And I never said that makes me any better or worse than a lawyer who works in an area such as mergers and acquisitions. What I did say is that for me, personally, there is a greater sense of satisfaction in representing real people and helping, or at least trying to help, to apply the law to make their lives better in one sense or another, than I would receive from doing the same thing for Fortune 500 companies, banks, insurance companies, etc., even though the latter might pay better. But I believe that everyone is entitled to his/her/its day in court, and I would never begrudge another lawyer based on the clients he/she represents.

I didn't understand your link. It appeared to relate to a disciplinary proceeding against a scum-bag debt collection attorney.

Yes it did. And if you read what I posted immediately before the link, it might make sense.

To expound a bit further, these people were getting sued left and right by debtors, based on FDCPA violations (and they'd invariably throw in a claim as well for intentional infliction of emotional distress, given that damages for FDCPA violations are capped at $1,000 + attorneys' fees per incident). Also invariably, these people would default on these lawsuits, there would be a default judgment entered against them for liability, and it would be my job to show up in court on inquest day and try to work out some type of settlement with the other attorney on damages. By itself, that didn't bother me. What bothered me was that over time, it became obvious that this wasn't just a handful of isolated incidents, but rather, a repeated and systemic pattern of abuse.

But not all debt collection attorneys are scum bags. And those who practice within the bounds of the law provide a necessary service.

I never disputed any of that. And in fact, I've represented both creditors and debtors at varying times in my practice.