1107 here, thank you for the kind words and I wish you all a relaxing and enjoyable weekend!
Maybe we can get #THWACK guy to give us a #THWEEEEKEND sendoff?
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 5:55 pm
Anchor days
It's about time to bring those slacking associates to heel.
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 6:06 pm
The Gilbert/election fraud BS is the new Sovereign Citizen BS
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 6:28 pm
With regard to Joey Gilbert, is it time the court told Craig Mueller to stop filing frivolous lawsuits? In Cliven Bundy v. State of Nevada A-18-779718-C the court held Mueller jointly and severally liable for attorneys fees of over $92,000.00.
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 6:31 pm
Oh yes that was the case Mueller appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court but then failed to file an Opening Brief so the appeal was dismissed.
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 7:20 pm
Interesting snitfit on Twitter between the RJ Reporters and the NV Indy yesterday and today over Jeff German.
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 7:49 pm
Well, well, well, all of those journalists who love and care for their friend and now the RJ refusing to cooperate with the police authorities to gather evidence to help convict his murderer and now, all of the sudden, they don't want to cooperate and wrap their argument in the "Freedom of the Press" and First Amendment theory. Well, LVRJ you are just like every other corporation are just like every other entity out there who does not give a crap about their employees. Typical. I guess his life was not that important. What a shame. If I worked as a reporter for the RJ, this would tell you how very little they value your life.
They value their confidentiality more. You want the police going through your client files after you get killed? Even when they already know who did it and have all the evidence they need?
I get their argument and trying to make a principled stand. However it is evidence of other people who had motives to do German harm. They will lose this argument.
Interesting. I wonder how many of those other people who had motives to kill Jeff German had their DNA under his fingernails. Really makes ya think!
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 9:45 pm
Attorney Rick Harris(who I happen to like and admire) has a series of ads(including YouTube, etc.) that depart significantly from the approach taken by most advertising personal injury firms(which tend to emphasize how they supposedly can generate large, quick settlements).
The Harris ads consist of Rick Harris interacting with his son(who is, of course an attorney with the firm). These interactions consist of emphasizing their deep personal and professional connection to Nevada, supplemented by them trading lame, corny jokes.
This is certainly a different approach than how most personal injuries firms advertise, but is it an potentially effective approach in the eyes of those who post here?
2:56 analyzes the situation perfectly, and should branch out to being a consultant on advertising and/or public relations.
Yes, it's critical to be as precise and focused as possible about what market, or sub-market, the advertising is aimed at, and then measure the effectiveness of how the advertising appeals to such markets(methods such as test groups, measuring sales increases or decreases once a new marketing approach is taken, etc.)
Harris knows what he's doing and this personal, Nevada-based approach is probably effective with older, long-term residents(even though the "jokes' do need some work).
Marketing is such an interesting profession. There is some overlap with law (at least litigation) in that both crafts have a strong story telling component. The counter intuitive stuff in marketing is extremely fascinating.
The personal injury firms are in such steep competition with each other (at least the ones on TV). How to differentiate effectively and stand out has to be a challenge. You have to admire some of the creative and outside the box thinking that goes into some of these campaigns.
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 9:53 pm
2:45, I've seen those ads and they are different, I grant you that. I can't speak to how financially effective they are, but they are certainly not loud, abrasive and annoying like many personal injury ads are.
They are ads that no one take could any offense to, and it may be that the personal, family approach they emphasize may have a bit of appeal for some people.
And I kind of get a kick out of the somewhat lame jokes and interactions, as both father and son kind of take a self-conscious approach that they realize the banter is kind of lame, and they know that and are therefore in on the joke.
And the one joke, where they encounter a rattlesnake and compare it to an insurance adjuster, is mildly amusing.
2:53, agree that the rattlesnake/insurance adjustor quip was not bad.
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2022 10:05 pm
2:48-I must have missed that discussion. What was the input? Could be not many people even see the ads as there are now so many ways to avoid and skip commercials. All of which raises another issue–the changing face of advertising.
For example, politicians seem to realize that, which explains why we don't see quite as many t.v. ads for politicians, but now see far more varied ways of political advertising.
And, as far as how attorneys advertise, most of them never used television but instead would often put a lot of money in large yellow page ads. But that seems to be a thing of the past as well, and instead many attorneys now ignore published phone directories, and instead take other approaches, such as having decent internet exposure, etc.
Do any of the posters here still invest in half page, or full page, yellow page ads in the published directories that still get delivered to some homes in paperback form?
2:45. As to the Harris ads, it's always incredibly tough, and incredibly expensive, to mount any sort of video-based ad campaign (television, YouTube, etc) and roadside based campaigns (billboards, A Frames) are also quite expensive and of debatable value. And adding to that huge expense dilemma is the challenge of how to resonate and set yourself apart from competitors.
Many ads for P.I. firms are similar–loud, frenetic ads with hucksterish
pitchmen accompanied by a bombardment of visual images all geared to creating grossly unrealistic expectations as to speed and amount of recovery.
Comedic attempts notwithstanding, the Harris ads take matters at a much more subdued, personal approach and is an attempt to connect the firm with the viewer. So, at least something significantly different is being attempted, and they may have already determined it is effective with test groups
12:36, I wonder how firms measure the success of an advertising campaign. Even if your gross revenue, and overall client traffic increase as a result of the ad campaign, I assume one needs to look at the relative increase when compared to the costs of the ad campaign. If the amount revenue has increased (if it in fact has) is not as great as the costs of the advertising, then I suppose firms take a long, hard look at revamping the ad campaign, or dropping advertising altogether, or staying the course with the current campaign to see if it bears more fruit.
I assume firms determine how each new client was directed to the firm. But this can become more complex over time. There can be a client who was directed there from the ads, and that client can definitely be chalked up to being there due to the ad campaign. But what if another client is referred from a prior client, but that prior client (from perhaps a couple years earlier) was referred there by the ad campaign Is that new client likewise chalked up to being credited to the ad campaign when the firm analyzes the overall picture of whether the ad campaign is cost worthy and effective?
As to one of 3:05's questions, I think that although some attorneys still advertise in physical, yellow page directories, it is so minimal when compared to years ago. Only real elderly people, or people without computers or any tech. skills, still use a physical yellow page directory
Guest
Anonymous
September 24, 2022 3:04 am
@lawdawg – maybe a discussion topic for next week could be marketing – what people like/don't like, maybe ethics, etc.
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 2:27 pm
Leave it to the lawyers to talk an ad into oblivion.
Its a frickin commercial it is either annoying and sucks or mildly entertaining and ok. Its nothing more, unless you are writing ad algos or interviewing focus groups.
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 4:17 pm
7:27-Well, what you say is true, but I don't necessarily view it as a negative. Lawyers are trained to be analytical and deconstruct many things that others take for granted.
And things are not as simple as they seemingly appear. You say that it is simply an ad and it ether works or it does not. But even that simple observation did in fact(as you yourself indicate) require much time, consideration, focus groups, etc.
You don't know people's circumstances. Perhaps a couple posters are deconstructing the matter because they are considering advertising, and what works and what does not, etc.
Why do you believe that you are the one who dictates the tone and approach as to how everyone must think, discuss and post? If you think matters are not worthy of any real discussion or analysis because you are committed to "keep it all simple", that is your approach and I respect it. But why must you have such dismissive contempt, and no regard for posters who happen to think the issue of legal advertising merits a little analysis and discussion?
If you don't like how other people speak and think(simply because they don't always think and speak like you) you don't have to read it. You can just read the stuff that you find to be a simple and direct as you demand it.
If a critic reviews a movie or book should they just say whether it is good or bad? If they go beyond that, and actually offer observations,do they incur your wrath and repulsion?
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 4:19 pm
Well, it is a lawyer's blog, and since you obviously don't like how lawyers discuss matters, and since you apparently are not a lawyer, you need not post here or read here if it all annoys you.
Actually, I am a lawyer that hates most lawyers. Always have. But unfortunately, in an effort to justify one's existence, as a profession, we overanalyze to show how smart we are. I am just pointing out the inanity of it all. I am neither annoyed or repulsed.
We spend thousands of hours every year fighting over other people's money. Billing the shit out of their files and bitching about judges.
This profession is a grind, you know it and I know it. All I can do to retain some sanity is make my money and occasionally try to help someone out in the face of a system designed to fuck them. I have been doing this for well over 20 years and work 90% of my time to be able to fund a lifestyle I deeply enjoy and to afford to do the 10% that reminds me that I am human and allows me to feel like it is all worth it.
But don't try to impress me with your ability to deconstruct something that only matters to one of the most wealthy legal dynasties in the city. I just DGAF.
10:03, I share a lot of your views about many of my fellow lawyers–particularly those in your second paragraph.
But their tendency to analyze matters is not one of the things that offends me. In fact, many other professions include much more emphasis on analysis, such as critics, as mentioned by one poster.
10:03,Such as the attorneys who give their word(about extensions or whatever) and then, because we took their word, and didn't get it in writing, they submarine us at the next hearing.
Our profession always bemoans the decline of professional courtesy, but this is nothing recent. I got licensed decades ago and there will always be a handful of sandbagging, lying jerks.
When I started out, about 40 years ago, and I was a lot less restrained and diplomatic than I am now, my youthful anger boiled over at one of my very first hearings. Opposing counsel had earlier agreed to a continuance or some similar professional courtesy, but then at the upcoming hearing he lied about that and continued to yip and howl about how I was late with this or that.
After the hearing, being the young hot-head I was, I tried to mix it up with him, but he was not about to take the bait and get involved in an altercation which could potentially become physical.
So, I told him something like, "Okay, I'll walk away from this, but you are s**t, and if that's what most lawyers are like in this town I will get everything in writing, and warn all my colleagues not to trust scum lawyers like you."
As time went on, I was profoundly relieved that these clowns are not as plentiful in the legal profession as I initially suspected. But they are still here to some extent, and always will be.
But what good does it do for them to treat their colleagues this way? Consider: (1) They can only sandbag each lawyer once, and perhaps not even once as most a lawyers will get warned by other attorneys not to trust that jerk; (2) They have burned all their bridges and will never obtain a courtesy in return; and(3) Most judges quickly figure out who these people are and will put little or no stock in what they say when it comes to a dispute over an agreement between counsel.
If you deal with ten lawyers over a week period, and nine of them fit within various ranges or reasonableness, but the other is a hyper-aggressive, win-at-all costs dishonorable jerk, that one jerk drains far more of your energy and effort than the nine reasonable ones combined.
"Actually, I am a lawyer that hates most lawyers."
-10:30
Turns out, 10:30 is all of us
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 4:21 pm
9:19-I had the same reaction about 7:27. I think it's great if non-lawyers read the blog, for those non-lawyers who post derision for how lawyers analyze matters, they should probably post elsewhere.
10:05, sure we all roll our eyes at other lawyers a lot of the time for their convoluted over-analysis.
But analysis, in and of itself, can be a good thing. Like the one poster suggested, I kind of want to know why the movie is good or bad, not just that it was good or bad.
Kind of reminds me of my late father. When he saw a film, or read a book, and I wanted his input, as I was considering watching the movie or reading the book, all he would say is that the movie or book was "good" or "no good."
Follow up questions asking for details did no good. But, ultimately, he was always right about whether it was good or bad.
Because a lawyer would never malign another lawyer for overanalyzing. LMAO!
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 4:29 pm
Why is RJ doing a piece on telles' family? Who gives a shit. I care about Jeff German"s family.
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 4:57 pm
9:29, that sounds a little myopic and insensitive. Why do you assume that only the family and friends of the victim suffer? Your statement bluntly indicates that the suffering of Telles wife and children is of no concern.
I certainly agree that the primary focus should be on German, his family, friends and journalism colleagues, and that is where almost all the focus has been. So, among the gazzillion articles written about this story there eventually appears a story that puts some focus on the horrors, shock and desperation of Telles wife and children, and you are offended about that?
Guest
Anonymous
September 26, 2022 5:14 pm
9:29–What is this, a sins of the father type of thing? You don't care about them, and insist that no one else should?
Let's assume Telles wife is a good woman, and lets assume his children are decent kids. You assume they have any culpability in the fact that their father turned out to be a cold-blooded butcher?
What they are going through is unfathomable. Same for German's family. Correction: Even more so for German's family as he is the victim. But as to German's friends, acquaintances and co-workers, you can't be seriously suggesting that all of his friends, acquaintances and co-workers will be as scarred and devastated for life as Telles wife and children, who will forever be enduring something that is inconceivable and it is unimaginable that they could ever recover from that and have any normalcy.
So, let them have that one article.
Interesting that German's colleagues don't share your view, as they believe the suffering of Telles family is well worth a feature story.
So, to answer your question of "who gives a shit"-many caring, sensitive people do, including Jeff German's dear friends and colleagues who conducted the research and interviews, and who composed this most necessary, sensitive piece.
10:52, yeah it was more about his family growing up, but I think that article(or perhaps it was a couple other articles) did put some focus on his wife and children, which is appropriate as 10:14 suggests.
At this time(and this may change over time) his wife, quite understandably, does not appear yet to be in a position where she is comfortable discussing matters.
That article, about the history of the Telles family in El Paso, pretty extensively quote a cousin of Telles, and these two cousins are apparently estranged from each other.
There really seemed to be some bad blood. The cousin found it necessary to offer the observation that when Rob Telles was in High School that he was never a jock, never dated pretty girls, and was essentially a jittery socially-awkward nerd.
There may be no real truth to it, but that was merely how this cousin(who apparently still dislikes Rob Telles) chose to phrase the situation.
Doesn't matter what someone was like in High School. I myself may have been viewed by some as a jittery nerd.
No one has ever brought up who Telles was in law school, which was the Student Bar Association president, until he was "recalled" and voted out following credible allegations of getting drunk and feeling up incoming 1Ls at a party.
Newbie Question: How do I get a copy of the MGM complaint? Is it in PDF anywhere?
https://www.classaction.org/media/scherer-v-mgm-resorts-international.pdf
Thank you 11:03, it is so nice to actually receive help from someone without the constant political chatter – thanks!
No prob homie. https://www.courtlistener.com/ is also a great place to follow along with cases.
E.g., https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64911367/trump-v-united-states/ this is the case where Trump requested a special master
11:07 is witty. I approve.
1107 wins the blog for the day.
1107 here, thank you for the kind words and I wish you all a relaxing and enjoyable weekend!
Maybe we can get #THWACK guy to give us a #THWEEEEKEND sendoff?
Anchor days
It's about time to bring those slacking associates to heel.
The Gilbert/election fraud BS is the new Sovereign Citizen BS
With regard to Joey Gilbert, is it time the court told Craig Mueller to stop filing frivolous lawsuits? In Cliven Bundy v. State of Nevada A-18-779718-C the court held Mueller jointly and severally liable for attorneys fees of over $92,000.00.
Oh yes that was the case Mueller appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court but then failed to file an Opening Brief so the appeal was dismissed.
Interesting snitfit on Twitter between the RJ Reporters and the NV Indy yesterday and today over Jeff German.
Well, well, well, all of those journalists who love and care for their friend and now the RJ refusing to cooperate with the police authorities to gather evidence to help convict his murderer and now, all of the sudden, they don't want to cooperate and wrap their argument in the "Freedom of the Press" and First Amendment theory. Well, LVRJ you are just like every other corporation are just like every other entity out there who does not give a crap about their employees. Typical. I guess his life was not that important. What a shame. If I worked as a reporter for the RJ, this would tell you how very little they value your life.
Clearly has not warched The Wire.
They value their confidentiality more. You want the police going through your client files after you get killed? Even when they already know who did it and have all the evidence they need?
I get their argument and trying to make a principled stand. However it is evidence of other people who had motives to do German harm. They will lose this argument.
Quaint.
Interesting. I wonder how many of those other people who had motives to kill Jeff German had their DNA under his fingernails. Really makes ya think!
Attorney Rick Harris(who I happen to like and admire) has a series of ads(including YouTube, etc.) that depart significantly from the approach taken by most advertising personal injury firms(which tend to emphasize how they supposedly can generate large, quick settlements).
The Harris ads consist of Rick Harris interacting with his son(who is, of course an attorney with the firm). These interactions consist of emphasizing their deep personal and professional connection to Nevada, supplemented by them trading lame, corny jokes.
This is certainly a different approach than how most personal injuries firms advertise, but is it an potentially effective approach in the eyes of those who post here?
We already went over this exact topic a week or two ago.
I missed the discussion 248 refers to, but I'd say sure, there's probably a slice of the population that such an ad appeals to.
[Lawyer with expensive cars] probably appeals to people who think an apparently rich lawyer will get them the best result
[Lawyer with amazing hair] probably appeals to people who may look like him and/or appreciate impeccable personal hygiene
[Lawyers with cute puppy] might appeal to people who like puppies
[Lawyers with witty sayings] might appeal to people who think lawyers are generally slimy and unpersonal (is that a word?)
So Harris' ad appealing to family, Nevada roots, and trying to show them as regular, decent people could definitely appeal to people. It would to me!
2:56 analyzes the situation perfectly, and should branch out to being a consultant on advertising and/or public relations.
Yes, it's critical to be as precise and focused as possible about what market, or sub-market, the advertising is aimed at, and then measure the effectiveness of how the advertising appeals to such markets(methods such as test groups, measuring sales increases or decreases once a new marketing approach is taken, etc.)
Harris knows what he's doing and this personal, Nevada-based approach is probably effective with older, long-term residents(even though the "jokes' do need some work).
Marketing is such an interesting profession. There is some overlap with law (at least litigation) in that both crafts have a strong story telling component. The counter intuitive stuff in marketing is extremely fascinating.
The personal injury firms are in such steep competition with each other (at least the ones on TV). How to differentiate effectively and stand out has to be a challenge. You have to admire some of the creative and outside the box thinking that goes into some of these campaigns.
2:45, I've seen those ads and they are different, I grant you that. I can't speak to how financially effective they are, but they are certainly not loud, abrasive and annoying like many personal injury ads are.
They are ads that no one take could any offense to, and it may be that the personal, family approach they emphasize may have a bit of appeal for some people.
And I kind of get a kick out of the somewhat lame jokes and interactions, as both father and son kind of take a self-conscious approach that they realize the banter is kind of lame, and they know that and are therefore in on the joke.
And the one joke, where they encounter a rattlesnake and compare it to an insurance adjuster, is mildly amusing.
2:53, agree that the rattlesnake/insurance adjustor quip was not bad.
2:48-I must have missed that discussion. What was the input? Could be not many people even see the ads as there are now so many ways to avoid and skip commercials. All of which raises another issue–the changing face of advertising.
For example, politicians seem to realize that, which explains why we don't see quite as many t.v. ads for politicians, but now see far more varied ways of political advertising.
And, as far as how attorneys advertise, most of them never used television but instead would often put a lot of money in large yellow page ads. But that seems to be a thing of the past as well, and instead many attorneys now ignore published phone directories, and instead take other approaches, such as having decent internet exposure, etc.
Do any of the posters here still invest in half page, or full page, yellow page ads in the published directories that still get delivered to some homes in paperback form?
2:45. As to the Harris ads, it's always incredibly tough, and incredibly expensive, to mount any sort of video-based ad campaign (television, YouTube, etc) and roadside based campaigns (billboards, A Frames) are also quite expensive and of debatable value. And adding to that huge expense dilemma is the challenge of how to resonate and set yourself apart from competitors.
Many ads for P.I. firms are similar–loud, frenetic ads with hucksterish
pitchmen accompanied by a bombardment of visual images all geared to creating grossly unrealistic expectations as to speed and amount of recovery.
Comedic attempts notwithstanding, the Harris ads take matters at a much more subdued, personal approach and is an attempt to connect the firm with the viewer. So, at least something significantly different is being attempted, and they may have already determined it is effective with test groups
12:36, I wonder how firms measure the success of an advertising campaign. Even if your gross revenue, and overall client traffic increase as a result of the ad campaign, I assume one needs to look at the relative increase when compared to the costs of the ad campaign. If the amount revenue has increased (if it in fact has) is not as great as the costs of the advertising, then I suppose firms take a long, hard look at revamping the ad campaign, or dropping advertising altogether, or staying the course with the current campaign to see if it bears more fruit.
I assume firms determine how each new client was directed to the firm. But this can become more complex over time. There can be a client who was directed there from the ads, and that client can definitely be chalked up to being there due to the ad campaign. But what if another client is referred from a prior client, but that prior client (from perhaps a couple years earlier) was referred there by the ad campaign Is that new client likewise chalked up to being credited to the ad campaign when the firm analyzes the overall picture of whether the ad campaign is cost worthy and effective?
As to one of 3:05's questions, I think that although some attorneys still advertise in physical, yellow page directories, it is so minimal when compared to years ago. Only real elderly people, or people without computers or any tech. skills, still use a physical yellow page directory
@lawdawg – maybe a discussion topic for next week could be marketing – what people like/don't like, maybe ethics, etc.
Leave it to the lawyers to talk an ad into oblivion.
Its a frickin commercial it is either annoying and sucks or mildly entertaining and ok. Its nothing more, unless you are writing ad algos or interviewing focus groups.
7:27-Well, what you say is true, but I don't necessarily view it as a negative. Lawyers are trained to be analytical and deconstruct many things that others take for granted.
And things are not as simple as they seemingly appear. You say that it is simply an ad and it ether works or it does not. But even that simple observation did in fact(as you yourself indicate) require much time, consideration, focus groups, etc.
You don't know people's circumstances. Perhaps a couple posters are deconstructing the matter because they are considering advertising, and what works and what does not, etc.
Why do you believe that you are the one who dictates the tone and approach as to how everyone must think, discuss and post? If you think matters are not worthy of any real discussion or analysis because you are committed to "keep it all simple", that is your approach and I respect it. But why must you have such dismissive contempt, and no regard for posters who happen to think the issue of legal advertising merits a little analysis and discussion?
If you don't like how other people speak and think(simply because they don't always think and speak like you) you don't have to read it. You can just read the stuff that you find to be a simple and direct as you demand it.
If a critic reviews a movie or book should they just say whether it is good or bad? If they go beyond that, and actually offer observations,do they incur your wrath and repulsion?
Well, it is a lawyer's blog, and since you obviously don't like how lawyers discuss matters, and since you apparently are not a lawyer, you need not post here or read here if it all annoys you.
Actually, I am a lawyer that hates most lawyers. Always have. But unfortunately, in an effort to justify one's existence, as a profession, we overanalyze to show how smart we are. I am just pointing out the inanity of it all. I am neither annoyed or repulsed.
We spend thousands of hours every year fighting over other people's money. Billing the shit out of their files and bitching about judges.
This profession is a grind, you know it and I know it. All I can do to retain some sanity is make my money and occasionally try to help someone out in the face of a system designed to fuck them. I have been doing this for well over 20 years and work 90% of my time to be able to fund a lifestyle I deeply enjoy and to afford to do the 10% that reminds me that I am human and allows me to feel like it is all worth it.
But don't try to impress me with your ability to deconstruct something that only matters to one of the most wealthy legal dynasties in the city. I just DGAF.
10:03, I share a lot of your views about many of my fellow lawyers–particularly those in your second paragraph.
But their tendency to analyze matters is not one of the things that offends me. In fact, many other professions include much more emphasis on analysis, such as critics, as mentioned by one poster.
1003 here.
Over analysis is only one of the qualifications that I make light of. Mostly, I am just mad at the assholes in this profession.
10:03,Such as the attorneys who give their word(about extensions or whatever) and then, because we took their word, and didn't get it in writing, they submarine us at the next hearing.
Our profession always bemoans the decline of professional courtesy, but this is nothing recent. I got licensed decades ago and there will always be a handful of sandbagging, lying jerks.
When I started out, about 40 years ago, and I was a lot less restrained and diplomatic than I am now, my youthful anger boiled over at one of my very first hearings. Opposing counsel had earlier agreed to a continuance or some similar professional courtesy, but then at the upcoming hearing he lied about that and continued to yip and howl about how I was late with this or that.
After the hearing, being the young hot-head I was, I tried to mix it up with him, but he was not about to take the bait and get involved in an altercation which could potentially become physical.
So, I told him something like, "Okay, I'll walk away from this, but you are s**t, and if that's what most lawyers are like in this town I will get everything in writing, and warn all my colleagues not to trust scum lawyers like you."
As time went on, I was profoundly relieved that these clowns are not as plentiful in the legal profession as I initially suspected. But they are still here to some extent, and always will be.
But what good does it do for them to treat their colleagues this way? Consider: (1) They can only sandbag each lawyer once, and perhaps not even once as most a lawyers will get warned by other attorneys not to trust that jerk; (2) They have burned all their bridges and will never obtain a courtesy in return; and(3) Most judges quickly figure out who these people are and will put little or no stock in what they say when it comes to a dispute over an agreement between counsel.
If you deal with ten lawyers over a week period, and nine of them fit within various ranges or reasonableness, but the other is a hyper-aggressive, win-at-all costs dishonorable jerk, that one jerk drains far more of your energy and effort than the nine reasonable ones combined.
"Actually, I am a lawyer that hates most lawyers."
-10:30
Turns out, 10:30 is all of us
9:19-I had the same reaction about 7:27. I think it's great if non-lawyers read the blog, for those non-lawyers who post derision for how lawyers analyze matters, they should probably post elsewhere.
I post where and when I want. Thanks. But any lawyer that doesn't roll his / her eyes at other lawyers, at least occasionally, is part of the problem.
10:05, sure we all roll our eyes at other lawyers a lot of the time for their convoluted over-analysis.
But analysis, in and of itself, can be a good thing. Like the one poster suggested, I kind of want to know why the movie is good or bad, not just that it was good or bad.
Kind of reminds me of my late father. When he saw a film, or read a book, and I wanted his input, as I was considering watching the movie or reading the book, all he would say is that the movie or book was "good" or "no good."
Follow up questions asking for details did no good. But, ultimately, he was always right about whether it was good or bad.
It's a YouTube ad, not a Coppola, Spielberg or god forbid a Tarantino. no body GAS if they are winning any emmys.
Because a lawyer would never malign another lawyer for overanalyzing. LMAO!
Why is RJ doing a piece on telles' family? Who gives a shit. I care about Jeff German"s family.
9:29, that sounds a little myopic and insensitive. Why do you assume that only the family and friends of the victim suffer? Your statement bluntly indicates that the suffering of Telles wife and children is of no concern.
I certainly agree that the primary focus should be on German, his family, friends and journalism colleagues, and that is where almost all the focus has been. So, among the gazzillion articles written about this story there eventually appears a story that puts some focus on the horrors, shock and desperation of Telles wife and children, and you are offended about that?
9:29–What is this, a sins of the father type of thing? You don't care about them, and insist that no one else should?
Let's assume Telles wife is a good woman, and lets assume his children are decent kids. You assume they have any culpability in the fact that their father turned out to be a cold-blooded butcher?
What they are going through is unfathomable. Same for German's family. Correction: Even more so for German's family as he is the victim. But as to German's friends, acquaintances and co-workers, you can't be seriously suggesting that all of his friends, acquaintances and co-workers will be as scarred and devastated for life as Telles wife and children, who will forever be enduring something that is inconceivable and it is unimaginable that they could ever recover from that and have any normalcy.
So, let them have that one article.
Interesting that German's colleagues don't share your view, as they believe the suffering of Telles family is well worth a feature story.
So, to answer your question of "who gives a shit"-many caring, sensitive people do, including Jeff German's dear friends and colleagues who conducted the research and interviews, and who composed this most necessary, sensitive piece.
It wasn't an article about his wife and kids, it was about his ancestors in El Paso Texas including political ties and his felon disbarred father.
10:52, yeah it was more about his family growing up, but I think that article(or perhaps it was a couple other articles) did put some focus on his wife and children, which is appropriate as 10:14 suggests.
At this time(and this may change over time) his wife, quite understandably, does not appear yet to be in a position where she is comfortable discussing matters.
That article, about the history of the Telles family in El Paso, pretty extensively quote a cousin of Telles, and these two cousins are apparently estranged from each other.
There really seemed to be some bad blood. The cousin found it necessary to offer the observation that when Rob Telles was in High School that he was never a jock, never dated pretty girls, and was essentially a jittery socially-awkward nerd.
There may be no real truth to it, but that was merely how this cousin(who apparently still dislikes Rob Telles) chose to phrase the situation.
Doesn't matter what someone was like in High School. I myself may have been viewed by some as a jittery nerd.
No one has ever brought up who Telles was in law school, which was the Student Bar Association president, until he was "recalled" and voted out following credible allegations of getting drunk and feeling up incoming 1Ls at a party.
Its been discussed at length on this blog, at least twice.
And the entire Channel 13 story
Is this an article being composed or has it already appeared? I did not yet see a feature story on his family.