- Quickdraw McLaw
- Job Tips
- 28 Comments
- 260 Views
- Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez is going to coordinate the handling of seven lawsuits seeking to get the state to disclose how marijuana licenses are awarded. [KTNV]
- The Washington State Bar Association governing board is in turmoil. [Seattle Times]
- You probably already saw yesterday’s comments, but help a fellow attorney out: Is it okay to rescind your acceptance of a new firm’s offer when your current firm counteroffers to try and keep you there?
At all the firms which I have worked, I have found that in every instance the partners are 100% self-interested. Sure, there might be the occasional partner that actually, altruistically cares about helping a younger attorney develop and grow, but at the end of the day, EVERY partner I have met puts his/her self-interest ahead of anything else. As such, the attorney in the question needs to be self-interested. Don't worry about loyalty to the firm, because the firm will drop you like panties at prom if it is in the firm's/partners' best interest.
Watch out for Gonzalez. She likes to ignore evidence. Get transcripts for your hearings.
I would be interested in seeing the case in which she ignored your evidence. Give me the case number, and I will look it up.
@11:39: I like your style.
Yes, Gonzalez, 11:39 and 11:53. We must do what you want us to do. After all, you do discuss cases on here, which is why people to do not provide cites.
Gonzalez has become angry and overworked. She denies all motions for summary judgment without consideration of the law. She treats lawyers she likes, like her bff's in high school. For the rest of us, she rolls her eyes and treats us like children. I used to really enjoy her, now I will be punting her on all my new cases where she's assigned.
Those may all be valid criticisms except the part about denying summary judgements without consideration of the law.
Problem is, even when fully considering the law, almost all of them need to be denied based on the state of what the existing law currently is.
So, it has always been my view that it does no good blaming trial judges, and instead what we need are solid appellate decisions which move the goal post a bit as to what constitutes questions of material fact.
As it stands now, it seems all one need do, to defend such a motion, is to raise this issue of material fact. If they are challenged that they do not have proof to support that question of material fact, they simply argue that they will be able to once discovery is conducted.
But it surprises no one when even after discovery is completed, little or nothing has been successfully done to eventually establish this issue of material fact. But by then, a new motion for summary judgment is often not pursued because the attorney was discouraged that the earlier one was not granted, and is convinced the judge will not grant a new one.
So, a few things, in an ideal world, should change:
1. Judges should be a bit more rigorous and demanding as to what constitutes questions of material fact. This will require appellate decisions in the area.
2. Attorneys who pursue summary judgment motions should wait till much further in the process to file them. I actually once attended a seminar that was devoted to summary judgements, and the speakers all agreed that the number one mistake is that these motions are often pursued too early, whereby the attorneys set themselves up for failure as the judge will latch to the opposing side's positon that we can't truly know if there are validly issues of material fact until the entire discovery period has closed.
When attorneys and parties complain about a judge "ignoring evidence" that could mean different things, such as:
1.The judge actually did ignore strong and relevant evidence, or;
2.The judge decided the opposing side's evidence was stronger and more compelling; or
3(And this one is the most common explanation of what occurred when an aggrieved party insists a judge ignored evidence). The "evidence" which was ignored was not actually "evidence" after all, but was mainly attorney argument and case theme.
So, we all tend to be a little loose at times, and self-justifying, as to what is "evidence". It makes our situation, of losing a case or a motion, a lot easier to swallow if we exalt the credibility of out positon. If we simply say the judge ruled against our arguments, this suggests that our arguments may not have been very good or persuasive. But the word "evidence" has such noble-sounding credibility and established validity, that if we argue that the judge ignored the "evidence" it's as if the misguided jurist ignored the printed word of God or something.
Same thing as to way both major political parties use the word "science". One party will invariably argue that some matter should not be a partisan issue, and that their positon should be adopted as it is the one supported by "sound science". But when we then peal it away a little, the so-called "science" is eventually exposed as nothing more that the original partisan argument on such issue, before it was enhanced with the credibility bolstering label of being "supported by sound science."
@12:28. Gonzalez is way to busy to respond to your cry-baby post. However, my question to you is, How are your billable s looking these days? You must have a ton of time to kill to be on here crying about Judges.
To: 2:25:She may be too busy to respond to the posts, but she cannot be "to busy".
Today's 5th grade lesson in grammar is for all adults,(many of who are professionals, and, aside form this shocking error, write a million times better than I ever could)who destroy the credibility and persuasiveness of a well-written piece by demonstrating that they cannot distinguish between "to" and "too."
How the word "to" is correctly used: I am going TO the store…TO the movies, or wherever. I am going TO read the newspaper…I am going TO watch television…I am going TO work…I am going TO sleep, and on and on.
How the word "too" is used correctly: He is "TOO" old for me to date..he is "TOO" fat… this car is "TOO" expensive… this poster is "TOO" obnoxious, and "TOO" much of a loser for correcting people about an innocuous grammatical error.
So, please call me any names you wish for my obnoxious behavior as to this point. I don't mind. But please don't tell us again about how the judge is "to busy" to care.
Heed my lesson or a judge or law clerk will winch next time you write that Plaintiff's brief is "to rife with errors" to have any real credibility. Make sure you write that the brief is "too rife with errors…"
Wow. Not 2:25, but that made me winch. You just wasted .4 of your life with that post.
Not wasted time if you learn the distinction between "to" and "too".
Yes, Gonzalez is on here posting numerous times, because she would only defend herself.
3:29, you are assuming that the .4 hours(24 minutes) spent by 3:16(with that lecture concerning the distinction between "to" and "too") is wasted time.
How do you know the poster will not bill some client for that .4 hours(24 minutes)?
The justification may be that the client, in a status request communication to the attorney, complained that the case was taking "to long" as opposed to it taking "too long." So, the attorney felt it helpful to the client to correct their grammar.
So, before we assume that 3:16 wasted .4 hours of their life, I would suggest that 3:16 may well practice creative billing.
Irony is 3:16 giving a grammar lesson and then (one sentence later) writing "Today's 5th grade lesson in grammar is for all adults,(many of who are professionals, and, aside form this shocking error, write a million times better than I ever could)…."
Such as distinguishing between "form" and "from." People in glass houses do not throw grammar books.
Betsey is the bomb. Attend one of her bench meetings. Bring a snack
@3:54 Judge Gonzalez is the bomb. And you can take that TOO the bank. FROM one Grammar Nazi to another. SUCK IT.
But a glass house is the best place to throw a grammar book form. Just make sure you winch in case the shards of glass fly too your eyes.
I always chuckle when I read the typical bitching about a judge ignoring the evidence or screwing up a "slam dunk" decision.
Having been around for decades, I have learned except in very rare occasions, most decisions have chances that range between 60/40 in favor to 60/40 against. People that go into these battles believing they have a 100% chance of prevailing are almost always deluding themselves.
There are almost always at least sides to every story…
3:52, don't let that distract you form the artfully written "many of who are professionals." I wept tears of joy when I read that. Also, there is a space before and after opening parentheses (you did that too times), and learn how how spacing works with ellipses and when to use them. Heed my lesson you heartless winch.
Everybody look at 3:16 and how bad they write.
"Heed my lesson you heartless winch."
REALLY? I have never known any "winch" with a heart…
"Everybody look at 1:13 and how bad they write."
3:52, but 3:16 transposing "form" and "from" is, presumably, merely a typo.
That does not change the fact that a lot of people do use "to" when they should be using "too." I make that mistake myself, and I am not pleased when I do so in a legal writing.
But perhaps the most common problem is we all tend to use "your" at times when we should use "you're."
4:02– Allowing 3:16 the benefit of the doubt that her/his mistake is merely typographical in order to allow 3:16 to shrewishly skewer "to/too" as ignorant (and not merely typographical) is to give 3:16 the benefit asking quarter while hypocritically allowing 3:16 to give no quarter. Furthermore there are so many mistakes in 3:16's post as to make one wonder precisely why 3:16 would ever consider it prudent to criticize the writings by someone else.
Just as with professional courtesies, I give as much leeway as you will give to me. Live by the strict sword; be foisted on your own petard after having your sword do its due damning damage in the dew upon you.
Fair enough. But the problem is that "too" vs. "to" is seldom a typo., while "from" vs. "form" would by its very nature conclusively establish that it is a typo. as the two words are pronounced completely differently and mean two distinctly different things.
"To" vs. "too" is one of the more common errors which we should all strive to avoid, just as is "your" vs. "you're" as the one poster pointed out.
So, I have reached a point in life where I don't resent having errors pointed out to me, if in fact it is beneficial for me to correct something. I try not to let anger cloud me to improving, nor do I resist improving simply because I dislike the attitude(or even the obnoxiousness and sanctimonious nature of those who pointed out the errors to me, or the fact they actually make more errors than I do).
So, if I can be reminded not to use "to" instead of "too",all the
better. I concentrate on the message, not the messenger.
I winch every time I see the wrong to or too.
I think if you are looking for another job then you were looking for something beyond just money. Receiving a counter offer will not address the issues you have/had with your current employer and instead basically puts a temporary bandaid over the problem. My guess is your dissatisfaction will reappear again in a few months. When it does reappear, you have burned bridges with the prospective employer who was counting on you. Also, if you do get a counter offer with more money, how come it took you giving your resignation to get the firm to pay you what they are counter offering now?
You've also played your hand and shown your current employer that you have a foot out the door. Trust is gone. This may impact future case assignments, promotions and future raises. Why give important cases or promotions to someone who will probably be leaving soon?
I also think it will negatively impact your reputation at both firms.
Lastly, I think you will regret your decision. There were probably clear reasons you accepted an offer at a new firm and now you don't have that opportunity anymore and you may have also screwed over the recruiter or person who put in a good word for you at the new firm.
Is it OK to rescind an acceptance? Yes, but…
I would have to say I agree with 10:39 AM on this. What I've always told my candidates about counter-offers is this: why did you have to quit your job to get the working conditions you wanted?
I do not speak about specific cases, because I will be accused of that being that person, which is bs. Generalities for me as well.