Re the Colorado lawyer and his verbal slip: It happens. We train ourselves as best we can but it happens. This is what when a broadcaster has a verbal slip, we need to look and see was it just a slip of the tongue or evidence of something more invidious.
Oh, since I was a teenager, I’ve just loved being addressed as “Sweetheart,” “Honey,” “Darling,” “Babe,” “Doll,” “Girl,” and “Sweetie.” It’s been such a delightful experience, especially when those terms are used in a totally non-condescending, super professional way. And of course, who could forget the opposing counsel who, despite knowing my name, still feel the need to call me by one of these charming nicknames in the courtroom? I’ve got a real positive opinion of those who prefer this kind of communication.
My spouse and I call each other “babe” and “honey” interchangeably all the time. I talk to them more than anyone else I know, so the terms get used a lot. Sometimes, terms we use a lot slip out in high stress, or off the cuff moments. I would NEVER in a million years call a colleague “babe” or say, “I love you” as I hang up on a call with my paralegal, but it sure is a fear of mine.
That absolutely seems like what happened here. Worst nightmare.
On at least a couple of occasions I have caught myself almost telling my paralegal “love you” before hanging up the phone. It can happen to the best of us, particularly if under stress, etc.
I’m sympathetic here. Having had the good fortune of making many Ninth Circuit appearances, when those questions are coming in hot and heavy from the Justices time feels simultaneously frozen and warp speed. There is a natural tendency towards utterances while we are transitioning our thoughts but that can be heavy in the moment pressure. I’m sure that will haunt him for months.
Especially if you are more familiar with a frustrated woman (wife) that you are trying to get to see reason and she refuses.
Personally, I usually precede, “Honey” with “Calm Down”.
Works like a charm.
But, yeah never in court and with Clark County headed for an all female bench, you really have to keep your brain in gear at all times when speaking.
Then say, “stop being hysterical” and she will love you forever.
Guest
Anonymous
June 26, 2025 9:01 am
Practice tip question for those of you who splash around in Justice Court. If NRS 69.030 says that the prevailing party gets their fees and costs, why would a Plaintiff ever need an OoJ in Justice Court? Seems like Defendants could use them to cut off statutory rights but Plaintiffs would never need to use them.
Because there is case law that says to be a “prevailing party” you must recover money. There is also case law that says to be a prevailing party you just need to prevail on a significant issue on your case. It’s less than clear.
No doubt in my mind that Colorado lawyer talks the same dismissive way to his wife–talking down to her when he thinks he is just “explaining.” He does this in his mind to most women subconsciously.
I think the reason, young men and women aren’t dating is because young women don’t wanna be called “honey.” They don’t want to be dismissed. They wanted to be treated as an equal. Men aren’t willing to do that yet which is obvious from this comment section.
10:48 is clearly right. A woman judge asked a pointed question and the dude responded “but honey” in the most dismissive way imaginable. He might not have meant to say it, but he meant it. This lawyer said “honey” because the disrespect was present in his mind. This isn’t a matter of mush mouth where someone says impleader when they mean interpleader.
Also, holy cow. 10:48 points out misogyny and gets met with even more misogyny. I sometimes forget how hard it must be for women, but I got reminded today. Lots of “Jacob Reynolds voters” in the comments today, I guess.
This comment is preposterous. Watch the video. The guy is mortified to the point of apoplexy and cannot apologize firmly enough. He is contrite and apologetic. He did not in any manner say it in a dismissive way. This guy is being crucified for a mistake that he knew was a mistake. If he blew threw it and never apologized and showed no contrition I would light the torches and pull out the pitchforks. But this is an unfortunate accident for which we have no evidence is a pattern.
“This lawyer said “honey” because the disrespect was present in his mind.” Where did you get your psychology degree?
Sometimes our brains just misfire. I’ve seen people giving secular, public speeches close “In the name of Jesus Christ Amen” not because they are trying to convert the audience, but because, under pressure, their brain misfired. Occam’s razor is for the most plausible explanation, not the most cynical. Too many people conflate those two.
Just watched the clip, does anyone wonder if he actually is attracted to her? Like this is a term of endearment? I am in NO WAY defending this, excusing this, or in any way mitigating how it was wrong – just trying to psychoanalyze which is a dangerous sport this dude for a second – because that is consistent with his pull back in the moment – he is also younger – from all that I read, I was imagining some 60 plus attorney speaking – this guy is young – maybe not even 40 – – – just a thought –
I strongly suspect the person in your anecdote that closed the secular, public speech with the words “In the name of Jesus Christ Amen” was a devout Christian who spoke those words often. The words and intention were in his brain, but he didn’t want to share them out loud. The brain misfired, sure, but it misfired by speaking out loud the words meant to stay in his brain.
I tend to take a more charitable approach – he was temporarily possessed by Colonel H. Stinkmeaner. Upon coming back to his senses, he was mortified. Had he continued his oral argument, Stinkmeaner may have taken additional control, proclaiming “Lady Liberty’s got balls!”
Guest
Anonymous
June 26, 2025 10:52 am
I know he’s phenomenal at criminal defense but I’m sorry: what business does Chesnoff have in the Dept of Homeland Security??? ???
Many Trump appointments are live grenades that eventually maim or kill the appointee. This one is distant enough from Trump, and low profile enough that Chesnoff is probably pretty safe.
Oh please. I know that he’s spent the past however many decades practicing criminal law in mostly state court. I assume we should give ole donny the benefit of the doubt on Linda McMahon, too, because we simply can’t know whether she has a background in education policy such that she should be appointed to run a federal agency. Embarrassing line of reasoning from (presumably) an attorney.
Last time I checked the hallmark of a solid practitioner was to never speak in absolutes and to always be objective, almost to the point of absurdity.
Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn from your statement[s] belie your biases and you decided subjectivity on the subject of presidential appointments these days.
He has the one qualification that matters to being appointed to any position in the United States federal government these days: proven loyalty to Israel.
Guest
Anonymous
June 26, 2025 1:44 pm
I am two pay days away from no more social security tax for the rest of the year. What a fuckin scam that is.
If we were allowed to invest the social security taxes we pay, it would be a FULL retirement, not merely a supplement. That’s part of why it’s a fuckin scam. People have paid in dearly and can only hope for a trickle back.
It blows my mind (don’t disbar me OBC!) that some people are this financially incompetent. Do you know what the chances of losing money in the stock market is over the course of 30 years?
No 30-year rolling period from 1926 to present has had a negative return. NONE. NOT ONE. Even starting in the Great Depression or before major crashes, a 30-year investor came out ahead. The risk literally approaches ZERO.
Honestly, it is terrifying that anyone is so financially incompetent, much less someone with an advanced degree.
If the stock market were to lose money over a 30 year period, you couldn’t count on social security anyway because a loss like that could only really happen if there was a total society collapse, total anarchy.
There is no defense for the way that Social Security robs people.
True but pulling the rug out from those on SS now, would not be the right thing to do either – if a change will come for SS, it has to be prospectively
Agreed. Investing a portion of Social Security reserves in low-cost index funds could bolster long-run solvency and share market gains with workers—but only if paired with up-front financing and robust safeguards that wall off politicians from portfolio decisions. Without that fiscal foundation, stocks look less like a lifeline and more like a gamble that could deepen the very shortfall policymakers hope to solve.
I would like to submit my application for Social Security to invest surplus funds in my thriving business. Guaranteed high returns, only mildly pyramid-shaped. Whose palms do I need to grease?
Have you not been paying attention? All decisions in the executive branch are ultimately subject to the whims of the president, an inherently policical office. Safeguards are only as robust as the cronies that will enforce them. We don’t have a merit system anymore.
Social Security loses money. So that means that for those of use who end up putting in more than we’ll ever get out, there are even more folks who take out far more than they ever put in.
Social Security is only a benefit for the unproductive. It’s a straight up tax to the productive. A tax which gives no benefit.
I’m 62 and I plan to work another 4 years. I’d gladly give up Social Security benefits and the hundreds of thousands of dollars I’ve put into Social Security since I entered the worforce at age 16 today if I could just keep the money I’m going to contribute over the next 4 years! I’ve done the math.
For every person who works 30+ years of their life and earns an average income or above, Social Security fucking sucks dogshit. For the shiftlesss, unemployed, unproductive, and low-paid, it’s a Godsend.
The quote “Welfare is a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” was attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt by Ronald Reagan in his 1986 State of the Union Address.
I had a crappy pro bono case from Legal Aid where the parties were fighting over custody because the “winner” would receive the $50.00 per month social security benefits for the special needs child. It was so awful I considered giving them each $50 per month for 5 years if they stopped fighting and did what was best for their child. OMG.
I agree with this sentiment, but I want to clarify and rebut this: “Social Security loses money. So that means that for those of use who end up putting in more than we’ll ever get out, there are even more folks who take out far more than they ever put in.”
The most obscene financial losses in Social Security aren’t from redistribution. I can live with, and actually support, redistribution as a social safety net. The indefensible loss of money comes from inflation and the time value of money.
Go do the math. If you saved nothing for retirement other than what you put into SS, and that money had been invested in an index fund, you’d be able to fund a (very modest) retirement. Instead, we receive a monthly check that barely covers a mortgage payment, if that.
Just turned 65. I’m more than happy with my Medicare and SS issues. Just a lowly ID lawyer, who by the way has quit the practice. Nevada tort litigation is a cess pool.
I think the scam perspective reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security. It is not a retirement account that you pay into while you work and then draw from after you retire, it’s a social safety net that is intended to reduce poverty in the elderly.
There’s a progressive tax aspect where high earners subsidize lower earners but also aspects like the cap mentioned above intended to encourage those who are able to earn more while they’re physically able to do so. It’s broken in a lot of ways but putting the program in context helps frame the conversation in a more honest way.
I consider it to be a scam, and I am well aware of the distinction you make that this is a social safety net.
These funds are taken by the government and immediately spent. It wasn’t always that way. Because the funds are not saved or invested, they are decimated by inflation (as to future benefits) while losing unfathomable value because of the time value of money.
If we had privatized social security, as W proposed before 9/11, there would be more money for both the disadvantaged to whom we redistribute AND for those of us who are high earners.
The fact that this is a social safety net does not excuse the absolutely horrendous way these funds are utilized. Inflation and the time value of money hurt everyone, especially the poor who would otherwise receive greater benefits. It’s a terrible program. I resent every penny I pay into it. I am gonna be fuckin livid if the cap is ever lifted. I’ve paid WELL into six figures into this program, and if that money had been invested, I would be better off and we could have helped FAR MORE poor people. It’s a fuckin travesty. Fuck Social Security.
Guest
Anonymous
June 26, 2025 5:36 pm
Re honey, I always called my gf “hun” then in gym I asked a guy for a dumbbell by him “hey can u hand that to me hun.” Sometimes brain just goes autopilot.
I accidentally once grabbed my sister in laws hand to hold while walking because my brain was on autopilot. . . .
She, unlike some of the hunny’s on this blog was a good sport about it.
In Greek mythology a “harpy” is a creature with a bird body and woman’s head. In the context of this thread a “harpy” is meant as a bitchy, opinionated, and/or outspoken woman
Guest
Anonymous
June 26, 2025 7:14 pm
Has anyone switched from insurance defense to Plaintiff’s PI? If so, are you happy with your decision?
Yes. Most good PI lawyers were all former ID lawyers. Eglet, Vannah, etc are all former insurance defense lawyers. I know I will never go back to ID grind and you should leave asap too.
Do you believe in the plaintiff cause and actually helping people? If not, you will suck, unless you are a sociopath that is into it purely for the competition. Defending a case is much easier than pursuing a case. The defense always has the same arguments. The Plaintiff has to overcome something unique in every case. Juries dislike the plaintiff out the gate because they are asking for money, so they are not trusted. People think it is easy money, but if you want to do trials, it is much harder. To get fair settlements you will need to do trials.
Is defending a case really that much easier? It seems like reputable PI firms do at least some vetting of their cases. On the defense side, you don’t really get to vet your cases and a lot of times are assigned cases that are complete crap on both on liability and causation/damages. It also seems like no matter how well you work the case up on the defense side, the cases still settle for much more than they should.
The good thing about defense work is that you dont have 100+ cases like you do as a Plaintiff’s lawyer. It allows you to dive into your files and learn them/litigate them.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2025 9:19 am
I always forget to go to the Civil Bench/Bar Meetings but if one of you who does attend who interject a question for me: 2 weeks to issue a Summons and 4 weeks to issue a Writ indicates a Clerk’s Office that is falling apart. Can someone find out what is going on that is hamstringing us from getting these issued?
Re the Colorado lawyer and his verbal slip: It happens. We train ourselves as best we can but it happens. This is what when a broadcaster has a verbal slip, we need to look and see was it just a slip of the tongue or evidence of something more invidious.
Oh, since I was a teenager, I’ve just loved being addressed as “Sweetheart,” “Honey,” “Darling,” “Babe,” “Doll,” “Girl,” and “Sweetie.” It’s been such a delightful experience, especially when those terms are used in a totally non-condescending, super professional way. And of course, who could forget the opposing counsel who, despite knowing my name, still feel the need to call me by one of these charming nicknames in the courtroom? I’ve got a real positive opinion of those who prefer this kind of communication.
“Babe” would send me into orbit.
My spouse and I call each other “babe” and “honey” interchangeably all the time. I talk to them more than anyone else I know, so the terms get used a lot. Sometimes, terms we use a lot slip out in high stress, or off the cuff moments. I would NEVER in a million years call a colleague “babe” or say, “I love you” as I hang up on a call with my paralegal, but it sure is a fear of mine.
That absolutely seems like what happened here. Worst nightmare.
On at least a couple of occasions I have caught myself almost telling my paralegal “love you” before hanging up the phone. It can happen to the best of us, particularly if under stress, etc.
I’m sympathetic here. Having had the good fortune of making many Ninth Circuit appearances, when those questions are coming in hot and heavy from the Justices time feels simultaneously frozen and warp speed. There is a natural tendency towards utterances while we are transitioning our thoughts but that can be heavy in the moment pressure. I’m sure that will haunt him for months.
Easy and understandable slip.
Especially if you are more familiar with a frustrated woman (wife) that you are trying to get to see reason and she refuses.
Personally, I usually precede, “Honey” with “Calm Down”.
Works like a charm.
But, yeah never in court and with Clark County headed for an all female bench, you really have to keep your brain in gear at all times when speaking.
Lol
Then say, “stop being hysterical” and she will love you forever.
Practice tip question for those of you who splash around in Justice Court. If NRS 69.030 says that the prevailing party gets their fees and costs, why would a Plaintiff ever need an OoJ in Justice Court? Seems like Defendants could use them to cut off statutory rights but Plaintiffs would never need to use them.
Because there is case law that says to be a “prevailing party” you must recover money. There is also case law that says to be a prevailing party you just need to prevail on a significant issue on your case. It’s less than clear.
You can ONLY recover money in Justice Court. There is no equitable relief available.
Pedantic note – you can also get possession of property.
Touche
No doubt in my mind that Colorado lawyer talks the same dismissive way to his wife–talking down to her when he thinks he is just “explaining.” He does this in his mind to most women subconsciously.
@10:48 you’re single, ain’t ya honey?
If you are representative of the choices available, I’m sure most single women are happily so.
This right here is why so many young men are refusing to date/marry women raised in this country.
Based
I think the reason, young men and women aren’t dating is because young women don’t wanna be called “honey.” They don’t want to be dismissed. They wanted to be treated as an equal. Men aren’t willing to do that yet which is obvious from this comment section.
If only this issue were so simple that we could impose the tired narrative of misogyny upon it.
Yes, charming fellas, those incels.
AnD tHeN i CaLlEd HiM aN iNcEl
It’s weird how often women call me an incel online.
10:48 is clearly right. A woman judge asked a pointed question and the dude responded “but honey” in the most dismissive way imaginable. He might not have meant to say it, but he meant it. This lawyer said “honey” because the disrespect was present in his mind. This isn’t a matter of mush mouth where someone says impleader when they mean interpleader.
Also, holy cow. 10:48 points out misogyny and gets met with even more misogyny. I sometimes forget how hard it must be for women, but I got reminded today. Lots of “Jacob Reynolds voters” in the comments today, I guess.
This comment is preposterous. Watch the video. The guy is mortified to the point of apoplexy and cannot apologize firmly enough. He is contrite and apologetic. He did not in any manner say it in a dismissive way. This guy is being crucified for a mistake that he knew was a mistake. If he blew threw it and never apologized and showed no contrition I would light the torches and pull out the pitchforks. But this is an unfortunate accident for which we have no evidence is a pattern.
No one is saying he wasn’t mortified after the fact. Just pointing out his unconscious bias.
It’s wild that you conclude “unconscious bias” is the only plausible explanation for this.
Occam’s Razor
“This lawyer said “honey” because the disrespect was present in his mind.” Where did you get your psychology degree?
Sometimes our brains just misfire. I’ve seen people giving secular, public speeches close “In the name of Jesus Christ Amen” not because they are trying to convert the audience, but because, under pressure, their brain misfired. Occam’s razor is for the most plausible explanation, not the most cynical. Too many people conflate those two.
“But honey.” https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8Y4RfEGuE3E
I don’t think you can conclude anything other than he was talking down to her as if she didn’t understand what was at issue.
I think we can simultaneously acknowledge the unconscious bias/unconscious sexism and feel sorry for this guy. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Because women never use disrespectful names in the course of arguments. Only men do that. https://www.ktnv.com/13-investigates/family-court-judge-facing-discipline-for-pattern-of-misconduct
Just watched the clip, does anyone wonder if he actually is attracted to her? Like this is a term of endearment? I am in NO WAY defending this, excusing this, or in any way mitigating how it was wrong – just trying to psychoanalyze which is a dangerous sport this dude for a second – because that is consistent with his pull back in the moment – he is also younger – from all that I read, I was imagining some 60 plus attorney speaking – this guy is young – maybe not even 40 – – – just a thought –
His tone is one of condescension. At least that’s how I read him.
I strongly suspect the person in your anecdote that closed the secular, public speech with the words “In the name of Jesus Christ Amen” was a devout Christian who spoke those words often. The words and intention were in his brain, but he didn’t want to share them out loud. The brain misfired, sure, but it misfired by speaking out loud the words meant to stay in his brain.
Same as the Colorado guy
Oh give me a break. Love you.
I tend to take a more charitable approach – he was temporarily possessed by Colonel H. Stinkmeaner. Upon coming back to his senses, he was mortified. Had he continued his oral argument, Stinkmeaner may have taken additional control, proclaiming “Lady Liberty’s got balls!”
I know he’s phenomenal at criminal defense but I’m sorry: what business does Chesnoff have in the Dept of Homeland Security??? ???
I like some of the gaga songs, wtf does she know about cameras???????? https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HZOa0yI7dOY
Plus, he went to law school in Boston. How can he possibly support MAGA?
Many Trump appointments are live grenades that eventually maim or kill the appointee. This one is distant enough from Trump, and low profile enough that Chesnoff is probably pretty safe.
Right… that still doesn’t mean he’s remotely qualified or has any experience in homeland security!
Spoiler alert: he doesn’t have experience nor do 99% of Trump’s other appointees.
He has more experience than the guy whose credentials for the panel were “President, Bikers for Trump”
and that’s our standard now???
It doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have the requisite experience. You don’t know anymore than I do.
Oh please. I know that he’s spent the past however many decades practicing criminal law in mostly state court. I assume we should give ole donny the benefit of the doubt on Linda McMahon, too, because we simply can’t know whether she has a background in education policy such that she should be appointed to run a federal agency. Embarrassing line of reasoning from (presumably) an attorney.
Last time I checked the hallmark of a solid practitioner was to never speak in absolutes and to always be objective, almost to the point of absurdity.
Unfortunately, the conclusions drawn from your statement[s] belie your biases and you decided subjectivity on the subject of presidential appointments these days.
You certainly sound like the type of effective counsel I’d want in my corner.
Chesnoff is not running a government agency (unlike McMahon). This is a board and by appearances just a ceremonial board.
Well that addresses all of my concerns, thanks!
Is he paid out of public funds to be a board member? Travel paid? Per diems?
He has the one qualification that matters to being appointed to any position in the United States federal government these days: proven loyalty to Israel.
I am two pay days away from no more social security tax for the rest of the year. What a fuckin scam that is.
SS is supposed to be a supplement and not your entire retirement income.
If we were allowed to invest the social security taxes we pay, it would be a FULL retirement, not merely a supplement. That’s part of why it’s a fuckin scam. People have paid in dearly and can only hope for a trickle back.
Except when the market crashes.
“Except when the market crashes.”
It blows my mind (don’t disbar me OBC!) that some people are this financially incompetent. Do you know what the chances of losing money in the stock market is over the course of 30 years?
No 30-year rolling period from 1926 to present has had a negative return. NONE. NOT ONE. Even starting in the Great Depression or before major crashes, a 30-year investor came out ahead. The risk literally approaches ZERO.
Honestly, it is terrifying that anyone is so financially incompetent, much less someone with an advanced degree.
If the stock market were to lose money over a 30 year period, you couldn’t count on social security anyway because a loss like that could only really happen if there was a total society collapse, total anarchy.
There is no defense for the way that Social Security robs people.
True but pulling the rug out from those on SS now, would not be the right thing to do either – if a change will come for SS, it has to be prospectively
In other words, screw gen x?
That has been the Boomer plan all along!
Boomers have taken enough. Time to cut them off.
Agreed. Investing a portion of Social Security reserves in low-cost index funds could bolster long-run solvency and share market gains with workers—but only if paired with up-front financing and robust safeguards that wall off politicians from portfolio decisions. Without that fiscal foundation, stocks look less like a lifeline and more like a gamble that could deepen the very shortfall policymakers hope to solve.
I would like to submit my application for Social Security to invest surplus funds in my thriving business. Guaranteed high returns, only mildly pyramid-shaped. Whose palms do I need to grease?
Have you not been paying attention? All decisions in the executive branch are ultimately subject to the whims of the president, an inherently policical office. Safeguards are only as robust as the cronies that will enforce them. We don’t have a merit system anymore.
Some people.
Social Security loses money. So that means that for those of use who end up putting in more than we’ll ever get out, there are even more folks who take out far more than they ever put in.
Social Security is only a benefit for the unproductive. It’s a straight up tax to the productive. A tax which gives no benefit.
I’m 62 and I plan to work another 4 years. I’d gladly give up Social Security benefits and the hundreds of thousands of dollars I’ve put into Social Security since I entered the worforce at age 16 today if I could just keep the money I’m going to contribute over the next 4 years! I’ve done the math.
For every person who works 30+ years of their life and earns an average income or above, Social Security fucking sucks dogshit. For the shiftlesss, unemployed, unproductive, and low-paid, it’s a Godsend.
The quote “Welfare is a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” was attributed to Franklin D. Roosevelt by Ronald Reagan in his 1986 State of the Union Address.
I had a crappy pro bono case from Legal Aid where the parties were fighting over custody because the “winner” would receive the $50.00 per month social security benefits for the special needs child. It was so awful I considered giving them each $50 per month for 5 years if they stopped fighting and did what was best for their child. OMG.
I agree with this sentiment, but I want to clarify and rebut this: “Social Security loses money. So that means that for those of use who end up putting in more than we’ll ever get out, there are even more folks who take out far more than they ever put in.”
The most obscene financial losses in Social Security aren’t from redistribution. I can live with, and actually support, redistribution as a social safety net. The indefensible loss of money comes from inflation and the time value of money.
Go do the math. If you saved nothing for retirement other than what you put into SS, and that money had been invested in an index fund, you’d be able to fund a (very modest) retirement. Instead, we receive a monthly check that barely covers a mortgage payment, if that.
Not to mention the windfall that currently retired PERS employees just got big fat dick refunds from SSA because of the law changes.
Just turned 65. I’m more than happy with my Medicare and SS issues. Just a lowly ID lawyer, who by the way has quit the practice. Nevada tort litigation is a cess pool.
You are ok with all the time value of money that was stolen from you? Are you nuts?
What’s the scam? Social security or the tax to fund it?
I think the scam perspective reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of Social Security. It is not a retirement account that you pay into while you work and then draw from after you retire, it’s a social safety net that is intended to reduce poverty in the elderly.
There’s a progressive tax aspect where high earners subsidize lower earners but also aspects like the cap mentioned above intended to encourage those who are able to earn more while they’re physically able to do so. It’s broken in a lot of ways but putting the program in context helps frame the conversation in a more honest way.
I consider it to be a scam, and I am well aware of the distinction you make that this is a social safety net.
These funds are taken by the government and immediately spent. It wasn’t always that way. Because the funds are not saved or invested, they are decimated by inflation (as to future benefits) while losing unfathomable value because of the time value of money.
If we had privatized social security, as W proposed before 9/11, there would be more money for both the disadvantaged to whom we redistribute AND for those of us who are high earners.
The fact that this is a social safety net does not excuse the absolutely horrendous way these funds are utilized. Inflation and the time value of money hurt everyone, especially the poor who would otherwise receive greater benefits. It’s a terrible program. I resent every penny I pay into it. I am gonna be fuckin livid if the cap is ever lifted. I’ve paid WELL into six figures into this program, and if that money had been invested, I would be better off and we could have helped FAR MORE poor people. It’s a fuckin travesty. Fuck Social Security.
Re honey, I always called my gf “hun” then in gym I asked a guy for a dumbbell by him “hey can u hand that to me hun.” Sometimes brain just goes autopilot.
In my pre-lawyer days, I smacked a married co-worker’s fine ass because my brain was on auto-pilot.
I accidentally once grabbed my sister in laws hand to hold while walking because my brain was on autopilot. . . .
She, unlike some of the hunny’s on this blog was a good sport about it.
Lots of harpies in this thread.
What’s a harpie?
In Greek mythology a “harpy” is a creature with a bird body and woman’s head. In the context of this thread a “harpy” is meant as a bitchy, opinionated, and/or outspoken woman
Has anyone switched from insurance defense to Plaintiff’s PI? If so, are you happy with your decision?
Yes. Most good PI lawyers were all former ID lawyers. Eglet, Vannah, etc are all former insurance defense lawyers. I know I will never go back to ID grind and you should leave asap too.
Keyword: good. There are lots of ID people who thought they were Vannah or Eglet and quickly learned that it is not that easy.
Do you believe in the plaintiff cause and actually helping people? If not, you will suck, unless you are a sociopath that is into it purely for the competition. Defending a case is much easier than pursuing a case. The defense always has the same arguments. The Plaintiff has to overcome something unique in every case. Juries dislike the plaintiff out the gate because they are asking for money, so they are not trusted. People think it is easy money, but if you want to do trials, it is much harder. To get fair settlements you will need to do trials.
Is defending a case really that much easier? It seems like reputable PI firms do at least some vetting of their cases. On the defense side, you don’t really get to vet your cases and a lot of times are assigned cases that are complete crap on both on liability and causation/damages. It also seems like no matter how well you work the case up on the defense side, the cases still settle for much more than they should.
The good thing about defense work is that you dont have 100+ cases like you do as a Plaintiff’s lawyer. It allows you to dive into your files and learn them/litigate them.
I always forget to go to the Civil Bench/Bar Meetings but if one of you who does attend who interject a question for me: 2 weeks to issue a Summons and 4 weeks to issue a Writ indicates a Clerk’s Office that is falling apart. Can someone find out what is going on that is hamstringing us from getting these issued?
Similarly the Probate Commissioner just announced that they lost a staff member and know that they are weeks behind on issuing orders.