Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 446190)

Judge, schmudge,

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 446437)

this week on stern we learned that medicated pete was an eagle scout, but that the Boy Scouts have a special program for special people. did you get your law degree along a similar path? your job?

Originally Posted by LessinSF (Post 443929)

Seriously. It may not be privileged if they use their work computer - http://calapp.blogspot.com/2011/01/h...nt-co-cal.html

ETA: The more I think about this, this more wrong it seems. That said, I think diligent representation of my clients now requires me to demand all e-mails between the other side and their counsel, along with the office policy on the use of the computers on which those e-mails were sent or received.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 446436)

did you clerk? it sounds like it, and if so where?

p.s. the "numbers of briefs" element can't phase them, can it? I could see who signed the same argument helping- like if Sidd and I signed onto the same position, but not raw numbers.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 446451)

Still think the best help for amicus briefs is the chance that one or more nonparty lawyers manages to lay the case out in a way that rseonates for the judges better than the party briefs.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 446451)

Still think the best help for amicus briefs is the chance that one or more nonparty lawyers manages to lay the case out in a way that rseonates for the judges better than the party briefs.

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 446446)

I got an Executive JD. 16 month-weekend program with most of the courses via fax.

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 446451)

though you may be correct that who (industry not lawyers) files them is probably more important than just the numbers.

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 446422)

Actually, it is hard.....its complicated, as these things always are. Otoh, I can't stand the guy. He marries an aggressive narcissistic personality disorder with a martyr complex. He is ill. ILL. Good litigator but impossible to deal with. Exhausting to manage. Dismissive of everyone, including the client. Disparaging of everyone, including the client.

I sent the email tonight. He will come back swinging.

The more satisfying email will be later, after the matter is fully transferred. That one will be to his managing partner. Detailing his psychosis, with email correspondence evidencing it.

All that said, the ultimate negative is, its all a big time suck and does nothing to further my growth strategy.......:(

Originally Posted by Icky Thump (Post 446454)

Translation: Getting a brief written by someone who went to Harvard helps one understand what the Cardozo-schooled brief writer meant to say.

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 446422)

Actually, it is hard.....its complicated, as these things always are. Otoh, I can't stand the guy. He marries an aggressive narcissistic personality disorder with a martyr complex. He is ill. ILL. Good litigator but impossible to deal with. Exhausting to manage. Dismissive of everyone, including the client. Disparaging of everyone, including the client.

I sent the email tonight. He will come back swinging.

The more satisfying email will be later, after the matter is fully transferred. That one will be to his managing partner. Detailing his psychosis, with email correspondence evidencing it.

All that said, the ultimate negative is, its all a big time suck and does nothing to further my growth strategy.......:(

Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 446458)

Not necessarily. For me, a well-written brief is one that helps connect the dots to get the reader from the stated argument to the desired conclusion. Too often people know their own position so well that they don't lay out the analysis clearly enough and assume everyone will make the same mental leaps they do.

Some people are better at that than others and I don't think it has a correlation with school or even class rank.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 446459)

All the client focused traits would take him out of the good litigator category in my book.

I need litigators who, ultimately, at some level, understand they are our clients' tools. I watch way too much litigation increase the damage we're trying to mitigate because a litgator had no perspective.

Originally Posted by Adder (Post 446465)

Delicious.