I wonder if it was Wooldridge or the RJ that wanted to list his personal injury law firm instead of his criminal defense law firm? It seems to lose some credibility in the article on its face when you list an attorney as a personal injury attorney opining about a criminal matter, when in fact the attorney also has lots of experience in criminal defense.
On a somewhat related note, I get a kick out of all of the criminal defense attorneys that think they are PI attorneys. It’s not as easy as these guys (and girls) think and they make that evident to the rest of the PI world when they fumble the cases each time they try.
PI case management is not exactly brain surgery. That said, the single most important thing is to know what you don’t know and know when you are getting in over your head and finally, to know who to make that call to.
Guest
Anonymous
March 20, 2025 10:52 am
Hypothetically, if investigation into the fire at the Tesla collision center reveals that the act was committed by a frustrated Tesla owner who was fed up with having their vehicle in perpetual service limbo, would that constitute domestic terrorism? I assume not, since that would not be politically motivated. What if it was a combination of frustration over drawn out repairs and anger over the shifting public image of Tesla ownership due to Elon Musk’s political involvement and leanings?
For it to be domestic terrorism, they’d have to prove coordination with others who did other attacks (not just an angry person who read some tweets and did it).
So, if the criminal here perhaps conspired with others who also attacked Tesla dealerships–say, via Signal or Telegram–then that may be enough to charge them with terrorism and satisfy the probable cause burden. Whether it’s enough to convict is a different question. But, as they say, the process is the punishment.
Not sure which offense you’re describing. Nevada’s statute does not require coordination with others. NRS 202.4415 “Act of terrorism” defined.
1. “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
(a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or
(b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:
(1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or
(2) Any natural resource or the environment.
2. As used in this section, “coercion” does not include an act of civil disobedience.
The federal statute also differs from your definition. 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) – the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Anyone have any tips for serving a law suit on someone in another country if service in that country is not possible? I have a client who wants to divorce themselves from a spouse they have been separated from for decades. The spouse lives in Mexico upon information and belief. I sent the documents to a service that serves them via the Hague, but it has been longer than typical in Mexico (one year) and still no luck. Anyone know of a case or something that could be helpful? Thanks.
Assuming the money isn’t a concern or is comparable, small firm all the way assuming you like the people at the small firm. You will generally have more freedom and a better work life balance. Of course this varies wildly by firm. I would really say whichever allows you to work for yourself quicker. That is the best way to practice law by far. I work for myself and frequently tell my wife how sexy my boss is.
Big firm cons: Bureaucracy; bloated overhead; self-professed big shots; self-professed big shots hogging clients; extreme penny-pinching despite the bloated overhead; you’re nothing more than a cog in the wheel that can easily be replaced.
Small firm cons: Its a small firm and the owners might be – are tight-fisted; if its a family firm, you’re not family.
Bottom Line: S/he that has the gold rules.
I’m going to leave a big firm for a small firm soon, so I do think there are a lot of great things about small firms, but here are a couple more small firm cons:
* Small firms will be more reliant on one or two rainmakers. If they retire, or leave, or stop getting clients, it can be a big problem. Big firms should be more steady.
* Relatedly, you will probably have an obligation to generate some business at a small firm. If your dream is to do great work on what other people give you instead of scrounging up clients yourself, a big firm is better.
* There’s less support staff for nonlegal work a small firm, so you might have to spend more time on non-billable admin work. On paper you’re billing less hours, but you’re not working that much less.
I’ve worked at both. Either one can be a wonderful experience or a living nightmare. For example, I’d pick Campbell & Williams or Pisanelli Bice over, say, Lewis Brisbois. The size of the firm matters a little bit less than its longevity. A small firm with a track record for steady management, a stable practice, and predictable growth / progression is important. Many (although not all) small firms are fairly new, have limited points of control, and have not thought about, much less faced, those issues. This does not matter if you’re looking for a place to stay 1-2 years, but is significant if you’re planning a move that you foresee lasting for 5+ years.
If you’re brand new and don’t have a clear read on these issues, and want a stable place to learn what to do (and what not to do), as well as what you like (or dislike), holding all other variables equal, a large firm is likely to give you a better platform than a smaller one. You might not get to spread your wings to their full breadth, but you probably won’t fall into a chasm. Unless the small firm has produced the goods for a decade or more, you don’t quite know what you’re getting into, and you’ll be learning at the same time as the owners – and they’re likely going to prioritize their interests over yours.
Small firms with more direct access to the partners (the ones with the experience) are ideal for learning the ins and outs of practicing and litigation especially. My time (2 years before going solo) was invaluable to helping me become the litigator that I am and I will always be grateful for those guys.
Down side of small firm? Bosses that require facetime. If you have to beat them in the office and leave after they do without regard to your billables and workload, it sucks some of the fun out of the small firm culture.
11:04 here. I agree with the argument in the dissent. You cannot say that certain gun components are protected by the 2nd amendment and others are not without jeopardizing the entire gun itself.
YouTube dissents are bad because they will allow the standards and expectations of social media, especially TikTok, to influence how the law is decided and made. Law requires nuance, detail and explanation. Now, these videos will be chopped up into 15 second clips and egregiously taken out of context. There are good reasons why SCOTUS does not allow live audio or any kind of video. It protects the Court from this kind of influence.
I wonder if it was Wooldridge or the RJ that wanted to list his personal injury law firm instead of his criminal defense law firm? It seems to lose some credibility in the article on its face when you list an attorney as a personal injury attorney opining about a criminal matter, when in fact the attorney also has lots of experience in criminal defense.
On a somewhat related note, I get a kick out of all of the criminal defense attorneys that think they are PI attorneys. It’s not as easy as these guys (and girls) think and they make that evident to the rest of the PI world when they fumble the cases each time they try.
PI case management is not exactly brain surgery. That said, the single most important thing is to know what you don’t know and know when you are getting in over your head and finally, to know who to make that call to.
Hypothetically, if investigation into the fire at the Tesla collision center reveals that the act was committed by a frustrated Tesla owner who was fed up with having their vehicle in perpetual service limbo, would that constitute domestic terrorism? I assume not, since that would not be politically motivated. What if it was a combination of frustration over drawn out repairs and anger over the shifting public image of Tesla ownership due to Elon Musk’s political involvement and leanings?
For it to be domestic terrorism, they’d have to prove coordination with others who did other attacks (not just an angry person who read some tweets and did it).
So, if the criminal here perhaps conspired with others who also attacked Tesla dealerships–say, via Signal or Telegram–then that may be enough to charge them with terrorism and satisfy the probable cause burden. Whether it’s enough to convict is a different question. But, as they say, the process is the punishment.
Not sure which offense you’re describing. Nevada’s statute does not require coordination with others. NRS 202.4415 “Act of terrorism” defined.
1. “Act of terrorism” means any act that involves the use or attempted use of sabotage, coercion or violence which is intended to:
(a) Cause great bodily harm or death to the general population; or
(b) Cause substantial destruction, contamination or impairment of:
(1) Any building or infrastructure, communications, transportation, utilities or services; or
(2) Any natural resource or the environment.
2. As used in this section, “coercion” does not include an act of civil disobedience.
The federal statute also differs from your definition. 18 U.S.C. 2331(5) – the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
Thanks for doing this. I just didn’t have the patience or any EFFs to give in educating 1124am on this.
Apparently, you’re a terrorist if you don’t have a criminal record, so they’d need to commit some additional crimes just to be safe.
https://abovethelaw.com/2025/03/trump-admin-unveils-new-legal-standard-we-have-no-proof-which-actually-proves-our-case/
Anyone have any tips for serving a law suit on someone in another country if service in that country is not possible? I have a client who wants to divorce themselves from a spouse they have been separated from for decades. The spouse lives in Mexico upon information and belief. I sent the documents to a service that serves them via the Hague, but it has been longer than typical in Mexico (one year) and still no luck. Anyone know of a case or something that could be helpful? Thanks.
you can ask the court to accept other ways of service such as text message, instagram/fb message ,etc.
Have you ever had success doing that?
Yes, absolutely, especially if you can prove the person monitors the email or social media accounts.
Me too, definitely go that route.
You can also ask to serve by publication where the spouse lives in Mexico.
You have to pay all the mordidas to get things done down there, gringo.
For those of you in the market for a law office, Eckley Keach and Rob Murdock have listed their building for sale at 521 S. 3rd for $3,442,401
Gorgeous office almost 10,000 square feet
Anyone know why they’re selling?
Well, Eckley Keach has gone back to the District Attorney’s Office.
Isn’t that the son 1:28 pm at the DA and not the older Eckley Keach?
Yes
Benefits of working for small firm v. big firm? Appreciate any insights. Thanks.
Assuming the money isn’t a concern or is comparable, small firm all the way assuming you like the people at the small firm. You will generally have more freedom and a better work life balance. Of course this varies wildly by firm. I would really say whichever allows you to work for yourself quicker. That is the best way to practice law by far. I work for myself and frequently tell my wife how sexy my boss is.
Solo rules. 20+ and still going strong.
Big firm cons: Bureaucracy; bloated overhead; self-professed big shots; self-professed big shots hogging clients; extreme penny-pinching despite the bloated overhead; you’re nothing more than a cog in the wheel that can easily be replaced.
Small firm cons: Its a small firm and the owners might be – are tight-fisted; if its a family firm, you’re not family.
Bottom Line: S/he that has the gold rules.
I’m going to leave a big firm for a small firm soon, so I do think there are a lot of great things about small firms, but here are a couple more small firm cons:
* Small firms will be more reliant on one or two rainmakers. If they retire, or leave, or stop getting clients, it can be a big problem. Big firms should be more steady.
* Relatedly, you will probably have an obligation to generate some business at a small firm. If your dream is to do great work on what other people give you instead of scrounging up clients yourself, a big firm is better.
* There’s less support staff for nonlegal work a small firm, so you might have to spend more time on non-billable admin work. On paper you’re billing less hours, but you’re not working that much less.
I’ve worked at both. Either one can be a wonderful experience or a living nightmare. For example, I’d pick Campbell & Williams or Pisanelli Bice over, say, Lewis Brisbois. The size of the firm matters a little bit less than its longevity. A small firm with a track record for steady management, a stable practice, and predictable growth / progression is important. Many (although not all) small firms are fairly new, have limited points of control, and have not thought about, much less faced, those issues. This does not matter if you’re looking for a place to stay 1-2 years, but is significant if you’re planning a move that you foresee lasting for 5+ years.
If you’re brand new and don’t have a clear read on these issues, and want a stable place to learn what to do (and what not to do), as well as what you like (or dislike), holding all other variables equal, a large firm is likely to give you a better platform than a smaller one. You might not get to spread your wings to their full breadth, but you probably won’t fall into a chasm. Unless the small firm has produced the goods for a decade or more, you don’t quite know what you’re getting into, and you’ll be learning at the same time as the owners – and they’re likely going to prioritize their interests over yours.
Every law firm is dysfunctional, it just depends on how much dysfunction you can stomach.
When considering law firms, you might want to find out if there is a high turnover. There is a reason people leave.
If the last associate walked out one day, there was probably a reason.
Unfortunately we cannot post a list of firms to avoid at all costs.
Small firms with more direct access to the partners (the ones with the experience) are ideal for learning the ins and outs of practicing and litigation especially. My time (2 years before going solo) was invaluable to helping me become the litigator that I am and I will always be grateful for those guys.
Down side of small firm? Bosses that require facetime. If you have to beat them in the office and leave after they do without regard to your billables and workload, it sucks some of the fun out of the small firm culture.
Perhaps the craziest dissent ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMC7Ntd4d4c
Youtube dissents are not a good trend for the law.
I am not sure that I agree. Its a whole new world out there and digital media is taking over.
What 11:04 really meant is that YouTube dissents are not good for the law when they disagree with them.
11:04 here. I agree with the argument in the dissent. You cannot say that certain gun components are protected by the 2nd amendment and others are not without jeopardizing the entire gun itself.
YouTube dissents are bad because they will allow the standards and expectations of social media, especially TikTok, to influence how the law is decided and made. Law requires nuance, detail and explanation. Now, these videos will be chopped up into 15 second clips and egregiously taken out of context. There are good reasons why SCOTUS does not allow live audio or any kind of video. It protects the Court from this kind of influence.
Spot on. Agree with the substance of what Judge Van Dyke says. But Youtube dissents are not the way to go.
His video “dissent” really has little to do with the substance; rather, it’s designed to be his audition for a seat on a higher court.