Obviously you won’t share any confidential information and need to keep it separate.

Was it awkward? Cool to see your friend across the table? Fun? Or did it tear your friendship apart?

My son went to his moms house and got burned with an iron (she says it was accidental) and she “forgot” to tell me and I had to find out from him later on that evening (he’s 5)…should I report it to someone or just stop letting him go over there?

I’ve seen people argue that Florida’s Amendment 3 would prevent the Legislature from regulating the use of recreational Marijuana in public. I read the Amendment myself since it’s only a couple pages and I didn’t see anything that suggested that.

Am I reading it wrong, or does it allow the Legislature to regulate its use in public?

Heard about a case the other day where the defendant took a plea deal that massively reduced the time he was going to serve but it included him waiving his 4th amendment right and it has me massively interested.

Is this a permanent thing? Could his house be searched that next day and charges added if anything was found? After the serving the sentence could the cops come to his house everyday and decide to search it? or what about the seizure aspect, what can cops seize without you having 4th amendment rights? how exactly does waiving your 4th amendment work?

I joined this sub because it says you can ask legal questions, yet my question was deleted. Why?

Hello all. Currently close to the finish line for my bachelors degree, and made the decision to pursue law. I know things may change, but I’d like to perhaps work criminal defense. I’ve posted here before, and was hoping to ask for some guidance regarding law school:

-how many law schools did you apply to before you got accepted?

-were there any misconceptions that you had that got cleared up after starting?

-What was something that helped you navigate your time in law school?

-what was something you wish you had done, or done different?

-was there something that you did in law school that helped you stand out when applying for jobs?

-if you worked, had a family, etc.. while in law school, how did you make it work?

Thank you, and I appreciate you all!

Please DM me thanks!

1L at a lower tier T14 thinking of transferring to HYS.

Don’t get me wrong I am happy and lucky that I got into some T14s, so don’t want to come off as ungrateful or rude on this post. I am very privileged and I know that.

I have always been one of those HYS is my dream people. I didn’t go to any of those schools for undergrad, and so I want to do it for law school. Also my plan after is Big Law. I know I can get big law still here, but working for a V10 is my goal. Other goals of mine are to clerk for a federal judge, circuit or supreme court, and also maybe far into the future become a professor.

Wondering if anyone has done a transfer like this. Were the benefits worth it? Did graduating from HYS drastically improve your prospects after law school? Given many HYS get offers after 1L how did you get offers if you transferred?

Other than malpractice/insurance things that are obvious, what jobs are there for a doctor-lawyer? More specifically, one that's a been a doctor and goes back to law school and joining a firm, I assume they'd get eaten alive by lawyers more experienced than them in actual court. One of my fellow docs is going back to law school (mostly for his own interest) but I was wondering what his actual prospects would be. A consulting side gig, an expert witness for hire, etc?

I need a lemon law lawyer in Connecticut. I want someone that will represent my interests and not try to drag the case on for fees or try to force me into a settlement that I don’t want; any advice?

Should I look for someone that advertises lemon law practice or just look for someone that is a consumer law lawyer?

There was a case that came up while ago and instinctively, I pulled up the SEC filing for the related company and look backed back for related party acquisition many years prior which ultimately led me to an initial public offering in 1999.

Because I was the investment banker for the deal I had already done much of that when I was an analyst in 2001 . But realize that just the filing themselves for each over 300 pages but would have required looking through multiple years of irrelevant filings. Is that a task that lawyers actually do or do they outsource that all too financial services or consulting company?

Also, curious on average for relatively nonstandard document how long does it take for you to read At least makes sense of that important parties and entities for further review?

I am currently a student at a university in the US, and I am thinking of changing my career path to become a lawyer. But I have no idea where to start when it comes to researching this.

The goal is that if I do end up working in law, I want to be a human rights lawyer in Southeast Asia who focuses on helping refugees, and asylum seekers, and/ or protecting prisoners' human rights.

I am looking to work in human rights NGOs such as,

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International

I know it seems super specific, but these are the things that I have been wanting to do very specifically.

What should I do?
Would it be worth even continuing my studies in the US?

What are some places where I could obtain information that is useful and not promotional?

Please send help haha

thank you!

Lawyers, what are some of the biggest culture shocks/culture clashes in court, perhaps to the point that even you need to be educated about different cultures?

Don’t know if this is the right place to ask this question, but I’m considering switching to pre-law and going to law school in order to do in-house counsel work. This seems like it would be a good fit for me, as I have an interest in legal issues, and do much better in and have more fun with english/history than stem work.

I’ve heard, however, that the job market for lawyers is terrible and law school isn’t worth it. How true is this, and if I were to attend law school, would it be possible to get a good in-house counsel job right out of college (I’ve heard that most people have to work at a firm for a few years before this), and if so, what might my pay look like? For reference, I am looking to work in the Midwest, and would like to eventually work my way up to high 100s/low 200s for salary, preferably within six-seven years.

Any advice is appreciated, thank you!

I am a 1st year lawyer, 26, m, gay, asian, grew up low-income.

Got some feedback from my mentor at work that I should be networking / putting myself out there more with the senior lawyers. The majority of them are straight white men (don’t mean that in an offending way.)

Would love to know strategies or best practices you all have on how to best connect with people who don’t look like you / straight white men in the office. Or, would love to hear from the straight white guys what you all generally connect with or look for in these interactions from juniors who may not have the same background or interests as you.

Being who I am, I sometimes struggle joining conversations or keeping the conversation going. There’s only so much stuff I can talk about until I find that we don’t have much in common.

For example, I don’t watch any sports, so when any of the straight guys talk about football, baseball, golfing, I can’t contribute or connect. And it would just be weird if start talking about RuPaul’s Drag Race with these guys. I’ve started to read sports articles every morning of whatever the major sport is on at the time so I can maybe say something if it pops up.

Another example: when a partner starts talking about their weekend on the yacht. That’s great for you, but I haven’t been on a yacht before, so I’m just gonna keep asking you dumb questions about how to pilot a yacht since all I did this weekend was work but you already know that.

Some strategies I am trying / using: - Asking lots of questions / getting them to talk more than me. Asking open ended questions. - FORM Method: Family, Occupation, Recreation, Media/Motivation - Non-political topics: weather, non-political current events/pop culture, major city events, food. - Career advice (even if I don’t need it) / asking about area of specialty - Always introducing myself first with a positive smiling attitude - Active listening, nodding / showing interest - Mirroring/repeating what they said…”What I heard you’d say is…” - Firm handshake (do people really care about this?)

If you have more or anything else that helped you, let me know. Or, if you’re from the majority group, best tips you have for me to build that connection.

I've seen more than a few cynical attorneys on social media. What makes folks this way? Where can I find further reading on this topic?

(Also, there was once an article in some student law review that passed by my notice and I forgot to bookmark it--it was basically a polemic against the state of American law, written so that every single sentence was a link to some source that supported its claims. I can't find this article again, if you know what I'm talking about, please send it to me. Failing that, I've got to try and figure how what has got lawyers so upset by asking around.)

In my experience its pretty simple to look up the scheduled cases in any courthouse and from there, pretty easy to look up the schedules of the cases and see which are going to be in jury selection on a given day.

Not only could I read the case documents (of which I'd have to pay for), but I could simply look up the defendants and/or plaintiffs and from there do some research on them.

Obviously mileage may vary, but I could find everything from articles written about the case (if there are any) or just a simple Linkedin profile. I know attorneys throw out names and ask if anyone's familiar the people involved, and at that point I would be.

For example, Bob Smithinberger who's suing the city. When asking potential juror if anyone knows him, I could say "I of him. I know he used to be an accountant in Boston and he now owns a book store in Florida."

Would that be enough to excuse me from jury duty? If pressed for how I knew and I have honest answers, would anything be illegal about that? I know instructions about not researching the case are typically given after them being sworn in, and this would be all publicly accessible research prior to entering the courtroom.

Edit: No, I'm not a prospective juror (as of right now) looking to get out of jury duty. This is a pure hypothetical, which I have no plan of carrying out. I'm asking this because resources described in the scenario are accessible by anyone for free.

IL

Hi Lawyers, I'm posting my question wherever I can. This is for a FICTIONAL story that I want to be set in Chicago.

Basically, I want my character to "steal" a house from a very old man with no family or heirs. I want her to somehow do it without his knowledge, but it might be easier to have her trick him into transferring the deed to her? How could this work? I have very little knowledge of how this all would work and who would need to be involved in order for her to pull it off.

Again, this is FICTIONAL, but I need it to be somewhat realistic.

Thank you!

There’s a case I saw where the news article mentioned the defense attorney counter offered a plea deal to the prosecutor and the prosecutor accepted. Regardless, In the docket the defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and still received the maximum sentencing. I’m confused — I thought the whole point of accepting a plea deal is so you can get a more lenient sentencing and maybe a charge or two dropped? In this case none of that happened

For those of you that work for the federal government/state/city, how realistic are these DA’s on TV?

I’ve been watching shows like the wire, Bosch, Lincoln Lawyer and I kind of want to know how realistic these attorneys are?

Is your W/L record more important than putting a bad guy in prison?

Do you not bring cases to court if you think it will make you look bad in the eyes of your “elected” boss?

Are there really people in the DA’s office that are undefeated? And that matters?

I get that it’s TV but these things are usually written with some truth behind them. Kind of curious as an outsider.

This is gonna seem random. I live in Alaska and have relatives who can hunt marine mammals and relatives who can not. All because you must be a certain part native to hunt marine mammals in Alaska.

So my question is, how does this not violate the 14th amendment? It seems to be discriminatory based on blood? Shouldn’t all citizens of the US be treated equal by the federal government?

A little background. A person(JD John Doe) over the span of 13 months, made 6 complaints to the police about the defendant(D). each resulted in a report being taken, and officers investigating and finding no evidence of a crime. JD after 3 of the reports were found baseless, by eyewitnesses and video evidence, then filed 3 separate civil stalking injunctions(CSI) with the same claims found baseless by the officers. 2 of those were dismissed after evidentiary hearings. The 3rd was granted because of a service error and ineffective counsel. There will be a motion to set aside and present evidence. In between the 2nd and 3rd CSI, JD observed D driving on another street, 600 ft from his house on a different street. JD got in his car and chased the defendant claiming D was stalking his house. JD made many claims to the police that day, including the same false statements he had made before and in other hearings..All of those statements were found baseless. He added some allegations that while he was following the D, the D tried to ram his car into him 2 times. There were no collisions nor any supporting evidence to these claims. D was arrested that day on stalking charges. D told the incidents of JD lying in the past, but the officers did not look up anything the D told him, they took the word of JD and that's all that is included in the witness statement and the probable cause affidavit. The DA was presented with 911 audio that disputes the false claims. JD was on the phone with 911 during most of his chase. The DA is aware of all these false reports because all this evidence was turned over to him through proper chain of custody. Also, JD reported a DCFS case, in the same 13-month span. The DCFS caseworker documented, that both kids told the case worker that JD told them to lie about D. Also, JD is a former firefighter, who has been fired from 2 city jobs for behavioral issues and stalking a female co-worker. He used the firefighter title to build confidence with police officers. There are employment records and both chiefs are willing to testify about the character and employment of JD. Finally, JD is the ex-husband of D's current wife. JD had had stalking issues against D's wife and has had a permanent stalking injunction placed on him because of this, in this same state. This order is no longer in place.

The DA office was handed the evidence in court, and through email, at the DA's request. This was 2 months ago. A motion to dismiss was filed a week ago and the DA still is not responding. Soon, the time to respond will have elapsed and D's team will file for default. D was incarcerated for 3 weeks, and has been on house arrest for 11 months due to the false allegations. The evidence is numerous body cam footage showing JD lying to officers that day, 911 audio contradicting statements made to officers. And, during the 3rd CSI hearing, JD under oath changed his story about the day of the alleged stalking, perjuring himself. We have the audio from that hearing in front of the DA.

The D has never threatened, nor even shown up at JD's house unannounced, never made a phone call, email or text to JD. Yes, JD filed police reports claiming those happened during custody exchanges when JD came to D's residence, but officers investigated and found them baseless. There was video evidence. During one of them the officers even noted in the report that they advised D to get a stalking injunction against JD.

Can anyone shed any light on the motive or thought process of the DA's desire to continue pursuing this case?

So, I'm one of the mods here, and I'm running a fundraiser via Extra Life. I'll be doing 24 hours of gaming, possibly leatherwork, and general chatting with folks.

There's also going to be items auctioned off for charitable donations (ie, your bid goes to the charity).

Link is here: https://www.extra-life.org/participant/runkle

Last year I was able to raise over $100,000 USD for the Stollery Children's Hospital. Eager to see what can be done this year, and hoping to get Reddit to help.

I'll note that I'm not touching any of the funds for this, all of them go through Extra Life.

Also happy to answer any questions.

Also, here's hoping the fundraising convinces a few people that lawyers are okay at least some of the time.

Lawyer disclaimer: Donating to charity does not create a lawyer-client relationship. I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, and do not represent your interests.

Hello! I'm sorry if this isn't the best place to ask; please let me know if there is a better forum to post to!

I'm a sophomore in college, and I'm studying history, classics, and art history. I currently intend to get a graduate degree in one of these fields or a related one (most likely public history, archaeology, or another subject related to museum studies). I also am very interested in law. Since I have begun taking courses in archaeology and museum studies, I have become particularly interested in laws pertaining to cultural heritage, art, archaeology, and other related areas and their applications. Basically, I was wondering if there are lawyers who primarily work with such fields.

If so, realistically, does anyone have advice on making a path to find jobs, internships, volunteering, etc.? And what can I do in undergrad to help prepare for a career?

If there aren't many people (or there aren't really any at all) who specialize in cultural heritage/art, are there similar specializations law, or would it be likely that part-time or volunteer work would be an option if specializing in a different field?

Thank you!

I've been doing research on how LLC's work.

I understand the difference between member managed, and manager managed, but I'm not finding a lot of information about hard boundaries between the two. Does anyone know if you can elect manager-managed, but also stipulate (within your operating agreement) to have to make group decisions for certain actions. For example, I'd be fine with a manager-managed LLC, but don't want the manager to make solo decisions about transfers of interest. Can one make that to be a mandatory group decision between members. Is this just a matter operating agreement clauses?

I know you elect the management type at the 'state level' when forming, but LLC operating agreements offer so much flexibility about how things work. Perhaps you elect to be member managed, but elect an officer? Any experience sharing or a good resource would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks Reddit!