- Quickdraw McLaw
- 91 Comments
- 196 Views
Let’s talk about cars. What kind of car do you drive? Why? Do you let the fact that you are an attorney play a role in the decision on what car you get? Do you worry what clients think when they see you pull up? Should you? Any tips for young lawyers dealing with fears of inadequacy with regard to their cars while they have student loans still to pay?
Maybe typical story – When I first made some money, in my 30s, I went out and bought a Porsche, cruised around, single at the time. Now I'm older and drive a new Tundra. It's way more comfortable and the wife and kids like it. But not as many girls look at me – I attribute that to the truck.
I heard the Porsche is the most popular!
I drive a paid off 2018 suv. Hate me I can also retire in my early 40s.
Yep, had a couple of nice cars in my mid-30's to mid-40's. Now I don't care so much. Drive a middle of the road SUV that I've had for awhile, and it is fully paid off.
Minivan. I got kids to move around, it's comfortable as hell, has plenty of cargo capacity for weekend projects, and it's got plenty of power.
Minivan is totally underrated. Best long drive rental vehicle by far. Cheaper and more comfy than an SUV with kids and pets.
Another vote for the minivan. The most wrongfully stigmatized vehicle in our history. #freetheminivans
I always ask for the mini van on vacation, but can't pull the trigger on one when it comes time to buy. Always go with an SUV or truck just in case I need 4wd or truck bed (whichever seems more important the day I'm buying).
Honda Odyssey can give you room enough for a 4×8 sheet of plywood laid flat. I will grant you that it's not great for moving furniture (too low of clearance), but for most things that I don't want to bust out the trailer for anyway, it's great. If you're looking to tow your massive boat (Callsign: SueMe) or the toy hauler, yeah, buy that truck.
You minivan lovers should look into the Ford Flex. its the unicorn
I’m sure minivans are fabulously convenient, useful etc. but they are just soooooo uncool I could never have one no matter how many children I have. And I am not someone who generally cares about looking cool or appearances. But minivans are so otherworldly uncool it’s a hard nope for me.
Honda Odyssey, hands down. It helps that I have a very nice penis, so nothing to compensate for.
My richest client who makes around $16 million a year (seen his taxes), drives an 8-year-old pickup daily and has an Audi something I saw him in one time.
I was co-counsel with a wildly successful attorney from the midwest, he moved on from his Porsche phase years ago, and drives a Hyundai. I, myself, just bought a new Honda Pilot and LOVE it.
Tesla 3 – charging at home and never going to the gas station in town has been life altering in a great way. It's a long-range and has handled roadtrips to Reno with no problems and only 45 minutes longer with charging stops than trips in a gas vehicle.
Tesla 3 is amazing. Life changing.
Where are there charging stations in between here and Reno? Not doubting you, I'm just amazed that they exist considering that the biggest "town," if you can call it that, would be Tonopah.
I don't have an electric vehicle but do know there are charging stations in Beatty – and there seems to be quite steady use of them
There are superchargers in Beatty, Tonopah, and Hawthorne. Plenty of charges for trips to northern Arizona, southern California, and much of southern Utah. They just opened some a lot of fast ones in Cedar City. Ely doesn’t work quite so well, but maybe soonI don’t know about non-Tesla chargers – I see them along the way but I haven’t used them.
Just bought a brand new Hyundai Sonata hybrid. Damn I love this car. Every bit as nice as my old BMW 750iL and has more tech. Not as fast or as big, but just as nice and cost 1/3.
Had a nice car that died on me during the pandemic, almost no cars available because of chip shortage, but I found a nice Toyota that was a couple of years old. It's fine.
You should check out Genesis vehicles. I got a Hyundai Sonata about 4 years ago right when Genesis was breaking away from Hyundai and they were in the process of building a brand new Genesis dealership right next to the Hyundai one. They still had a Genesis model in the Hyundai dealership then and it was just amazing.
1100 am here. I have checked them out. Waiting and watching for the next ride. Availability in May when I was shopping was limited.
Boomer here. 2010 VW Bug with 40,000 miles on it. Looking at EVs
Piece of life advice: Young attorneys, with large student loans, should not purchase vehicles they can't afford.
Now, most of the time advice of that sort, offered by their family and friends, is totally ignored. So, when one ignores such advice, and purchases such vehicle, please at least do so because you really want the vehicle. Don't purchase it to impress a bunch of people who may not even really like you, and who probably resent your perceived success and what you own and even flaunt(even if they happen to act pleasant to your face).
As to the debate yesterday about unbundled representation in Family Court, there is certainly a need to create options to make legal representation more affordable for those in need. But the way the unbundled process is abused by some attorneys is too numerous to recount for this blog.
One common example. The unbundled attorney, when appearing at the hearing, indicates their representation ends with that hearing and that opposing counsel must absolutely NOT contact them, or serve them with anything. You are instead directed to contact the litigant directly.
You then send some necessary communication to the litigant to compel compliance and cooperation with the orders. Such communication is totally ignored. Then at the next hearing the litigant re-hires the unbundled attorney to represent them at that new hearing, and the attorney then condemns you and your ethics for, during the weeks separating the two hearings, for attempting direct communications with "my client". So, a lose/lose proposition to be sure.
11:48, I had that exact same experience with unbundled attorneys on the other side, and it is a lose/lose as you suggest. If you contact the attorney, they will refuse to respond and indicate they only represented the party at the prior hearing, but now they are out of the loop. If you instead contact the litigant, they will ignore you, and then when they re-hire the attorney for the next hearing the attorney attacks you for trying to contact their supposed client.
Honda Civic owner here. Mine is about 6 years old I think and I did buy it new because I got some end of the year deal but wanted to upgrade to bluetooth so I could more easily take calls when I drive. I'm a total fan of owning and not wasting money on cars (I'm probably an unfun dude). I have a general question for EV fans – is our heat sapping your battery sooner than expected? I was an early fan of hybrids but noticed that the expensive "big" battery had to be replaced faster than expected, which I unscientifically attributed to our heat (but dealer agreed). Just curious
New Hyundai guy above.
10/120k warranty
Mike Drop.
Tesla 3 I from above – my range has dropped a small amount in 3 years, but not too much, maybe 10%. My car is in the garage most of the time, so that make some difference. I use cabin overheat protection, which activates if the cabin gets over 105 when parked. I don't know if this has an impact on the battery life. A friend has a Model S with about 150,000 miles and it still has some decent battery life left.
How long is the warranty on a Tesla battery, and how expensive is it to replace? Seems like this would be a major drag on resale value for anything more than four or five years old.
Ram 1500 Express pick up. 4 door, Hemi. 2015. Paid. I'm a wanna be cowgirl; this lawyer stuff is too overrated.
My wife wants to be a barrel racer. F-150, sweetness.
It's a hard no on the minivan, Hyundai, and Civic for me. In my opinion, one doesn't necessarily need to drive a Porsche, Mercedes, or Range Rover, just like one also doesn't need to wear a Hugo Boss suit, nor sport a Rolex. That being said, I firmly believe attorneys should drive and present an appearance that shows clients (and even judges, opposing counsel, bosses, etc.) that you are successful, as this implies that you are also good at your job and take it seriously. Would you want to have surgery from the doctor who took the bus to the hospital or invest your money with the stockbroker who buys his suits at Goodwill? I wouldn't. I want my professionals, who I'm aware are paid hundreds of dollars per hour to do their job, to look professional and polished, which includes driving a nicer, newer, vehicle.
Nonsense. For 23 years, I have let my skills and my referrals (zero advertising) do the talking for my solo practice. I have driven all types of cars both econ and high end german performance sedans and even a couple of lifted full size trucks, depending on my mood and my needs.
I drive them for me. Not for the impression some client or god forbid some judge (LMAO) might get.
So driving a minivan or Honda is the same as having to take the bus to work or buy Goodwill suits? GTFO.
12:21 has clearly not priced out minivans.
1:38 I don’t think it’s the price of minivans. It’s just that they are horrid.
And definitely not cheap.
I have a Matchbox car, or Hot Wheel version, of each luxury or sports car I ever dreamed of owning. Seems like by far the most economic way to go.
And while I'm on this topic of one of the most pressing issue of our time, please weigh in: which did you enjoy more as a child and why–Matchbox or Hot Wheels?
C'Mon man – Hot Wheels!
Matchbox – why have Ginger or Mary Anne when you can have Jeannie?
I grew up in the legal profession in LA/Bev Hills. Cars were a status thing, new clients measured you by the car you drove. One boss had a full time chauffeured limo diver.
Older and wiser now, I drive a Jeep and a VW, next vehicle will be a pickup truck.
I ride an electric bike.
20 years ago or so, Glen Lerner showed up at my office in a chauffeured Rolls.
Honda Accord Hybrid. Great gas mileage and good for the environment. I am a partner but I am not vain. Practicality is the thing
Is it?
Really?
Good for the environment? I just bought mine for the 53mpg. Let the landfills handle the battery disposal.
1:50 is a winner. Consider a Odyssey hybrid when it finally comes out.
Its been a very long time since I worked for Dan Polsenberg. But, I am betting that this is him.
In the late 90s, early 2000s he drove an older Accord. I didnt always like him, but I respected that fact because he carried himself at the office and in court as a guy that gets chauffer driven in a Rolls Royce Phantom.
Dan did drive reasonable cars (other than the "Pols" vanity plate). However this is also the guy who put a cover picture of himself on the cover of the Nevada Lawyer when became president of SBN so lets not mislead ourselves into thinking Dan is long on humility. And I like Dan from our Beckley days.
753am here: I wasnt commenting on his humility. See the last sentence of my post.
I didn't hate on the Pols vanity plate, because it was the OLD school real blue Nevada plate, indicating that he had had it for many many years. I Hope that he still does.
I didnt like working for him, but I always liked him personally. That continues to this day. Watching him and Betsy banter back and forth was priceless.
I ride your wife to work
Most be a block away your work.
Must
I think that a person's choice of car is very personal to them. It does not have to do with "appearances," but rather, with the person's own priorities. Amazing attorneys such as Polsenberg have driven Camrys and Accords (from what I recall). Other attorneys have chosen the German car route. Personally, I am a car guy. Having a "nice" car excites me. I change cars almost every 12 months, and I enjoy the thrill of fast cars. I do not do this to impress people, but because I enjoy it. The chase for fun new cars motivates me to work harder. For those who may criticize my choices, I can afford my purchases, e.g., I do not finance my cars. Additionally, my car purchases allow me to seek Section 179 deductions for nearly 100% depreciation to the extent I use my car for business use. To reiterate, one should not judge anyone based upon car choice. Having a "nice" car versus having a go to Japanese car does not make anyone better or worse. Just my humble opinions. In any event, I have EVs and gas propelled cars. I am a huge fan of the torque in EVs.
The Section 179 depreciation for 100% generally applies for vehicles that have a GVWR of over 6,000 lbs.
Correct about Sec 179 GVWR. Buy a big gas guzzling SUV or pickup truck to qualify. When the IRS is fully staffed expect this to be an audit item. In the past (when the IRS used to be fully staff) attorneys were high on the list of businesses to be audited.
"I think that a person's choice of car is very personal to them."
Yes, 3:26 PM. My priorities and preferences are different to yours. Different. Not better. I derive a lot of peace from living WELL within my means. I already have so much stress from this job. I don't need stress from my finances. Plus, cars aren't a thing that excites me. I drive a modest, late model sedan without any upgrades and basic trim. I do not care what assumptions people make about me, if any at all, based on what I drive. I have had plenty of broke clients pull up to my office in expensive cars. I have clients with eight figures net worth who drive cars like mine. I personally know one billionaire. He drives a car like mine. When I was a Mormon missionary, I was impressed by the number of people we got to know quite well who were in financial hardship yet drove expensive cars. Not judging them, just saying that I don't assume anything about anyone based on what they drive.
I drive a truck. Super comfortable and extremely useful for hauling all kinds of stuff.
My car is 17 years old and I dont care. My wife gets the SUV to drive the kids around and to keep her happy. Both cars have over 200,000 miles. We service the cars regularly and treat them well. We have chosen to be house rich rather than car poor. Do not begrudge those who love cars but they have never been a love for me.
Excellent Rant. As explicated in a reply elsewhere: A warrant that requests every document for a four year frame, leads to the seizure of passports, attorney-client and otherwise privileged records is the sina qua non of a warrant that lacks particularity. The warrant was not signed by a "federal judge" appointed Constitutionally through Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, but rather a magistrate whose authority to issue such warrants should be in doubt. The claim the documents "were required to be turned over to the National Archives" is directly refuted by a Democratic judge in the Clinton case that made clear such authority to determine what is a Presidential Record remains the exclusive, non-reviewable, completely discretionary decision of the President. This law was intended to govern federal employees, not the President.
Do warrant supporters realize their support implicitly accuses every President since Nixon, including Carter, Clinton and Obama of massive crimes? None of the documents were classified, since Trump declassified them, as is his non-reviewable completely discretionary right, while President. The unelected don't rule over the elected. Trump was, by law, entitled to be in possession of these documents, as he alone made the non-reviewable, completely discretionary decision as to their personal and non-classified status, as prior case-law specifically adjudicates. The search was anything but legal, and the seizure anything but Constitutional, as the partial return of documents seized already proves. Anyone claiming otherwise under the pretense of professorship of law confesses partisan prejudice, not learned scholarship.
11:20 seems non-partisan.
11:20 is simply wrong in every respect. From the first sentence to the last, 11:20 could not be more wrong. For example, Presidential records are defined by law. The authority of a magistrate to issue search warrants can not be called into question by any serious person. The possession of the records was a crime whether or not they had been declassified, etc.
But he used the phrase "sina qua non" so must be smart, right? Besides, declaring that "prior case-law specifically adjudicates" it to be so, so that proves it.
@656 – Which law deems possession of unclassified documents a crime?
11 USC………. I will wait.
Add to this that the magistrate is not constitutionally appointed. He is a partisan government employee that represented Jeffrey Epstein in private practice.
You do realize magistrates are appointed. Not sure how they are partisan. Who cares who he represented in private practice. Your hero Trump was hanging out and partying with Epstein.
Fake news. Appointed is mostly a fallacy. They are HIRED, after applying for a 14 year term.
Magistrate judges are appointed by a majority vote of the district court. 28 USC 636 permits delegation of authority over almost anything to magistrate judges.
I never commented on the appropriateness of a Magistrate issuing a warrant. But the "appointment" process is nothing of the sort.
The point is that the process for the magistrate judge appointment is far less partisan than the process for a district judge.
"Publicly" Partisan. No shortage of grift in the appointment of Magistrates.
> The unelected don't rule over the elected.
I thought that was like, the whole point?
The ranter's interpretation of the law appears correct. Case on point regarding Bill Clinton is Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 845 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D.D.C. 2012).
The Epstein angle is deeply disturbing. The Mag left his job as a prosecutor of Epstein to defend Epstein? How did this guy get juiced into his Mag position? The deal he got Epstein (presumably with inside information gleaned from his time on the prosecution side) allowed the creep to molest who-knows-how-many girls for years after.
I know a local magistrate judge and the process that person went through to get appointed. The claim that there is something partisan about the process is utterly ridiculous. And what evil geniuses they must be to have had it all set up that this supposed partisan hack magistrate that has something to do with Epstein (although it’s not clear what that has to do with the search warrant) would be the one who was assigned the case and asked to sign the warrant. Just please stop with the conspiracy theories.
Good grief, the Judicial Watch case involved recordings of conversations Clinton had with a historian. There is no correlation between the holding(s) in that case and the documents Trump took.
As Trump says, if you don't have anything to hide why worry? He is a big boy and can defend himself.
#FreeTheAffidavit
7:46,
Well, you can begin with the two of the three statutes that formed the basis of the search warrant: 18 USC 793(d)-(f) Willful retention of National Defense Information and Grossly Negligent handling of information (10 year prison per document), 18 USC 2071 Removal / Mutilation of Government Records (3 years prison). Neither of those statutes require the document be classified.
Fair enough. I guess we will see if there is an indictment or further proceedings.
More than 100 documents, comprising of over 700 pages, classified up to Special Access Project (aka code word clearance, a highly restricted subset of Top Secret clearance), stolen initially and not returned for months. When they were recovered, and DJT's lawyers said "there aren't any more," lo and behold, there were more.
The search warrant was pursuant to the FBI and Intelligence community's investigation into how screwed the US is because of DJT's incompetent and possibly traitorous handling of national secrets. But to the GOP, it's just another issue to try and rally the Fox Faithful.
But @10:25 – if they could get a search warrant for a former president who unlawfully kept classified (TS/SCI/SAP) documents at his house – think about what they could do to you or me! They could also get a search warrant and search my house for unlawfully possessed documents!
Yes. That is exactly why the FBI is investigating him. Sure…..
It has been reported that DJT has a standing order that everything he took home was declassified. So. There ya go.
Your inflammatory word choice makes your political bias clear.
Did you read the rest of the reporting about the standing order? That like 2 dozen former officials said they had no knowledge of it and that the notion that he had some standing declassification order is patently absurd. They weren't declassified. There's no record of it.
Moreover, he's not legally permitted to retain the documents under the Presidential Records Act, so even if the (obviously false) story about the standing order was true, he's still breaking the law.
Also, lol at the excuses from this guy, just so weak and pathetic
"The FBI planted documents at my house"
"I gave those documents back in June"
"I'm allowed to bring work home just like everyone else"
"I had a standing declassification order with no regard for procedure or national security"
The Archivist explained all of this in a letter sent to DJT in May. Because the Trump legal team was recruited straight out of Barnum & Bailey School of Law, they thought it was a good idea to release that letter. The letter also makes clear the only defense mounted was a laughable claim that the Former President gets to assert Executive Privilege against the current Executive branch. No mention of a phony-baloney standing order.
From that letter:
"In its initial review of materials within those boxes, NARA identified items marked as classified national security information, up to the level of Top Secret and including Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Program materials. NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask the President to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them. . .
There are important national security interests in the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community getting access to these materials. According to NARA, among the materials in the boxes are over 100 documents with classification markings, comprising more than 700 pages. Some include the highest levels of classification, including Special Access Program (SAP) materials. Access to the materials is not only necessary for purposes of our ongoing criminal investigation, but the Executive Branch must also conduct an assessment of the potential damage resulting from the apparent manner in which these materials were stored and transported and take any necessary remedial steps."
Well. I guess we will see. Not like our government or the media ever tells us the truth about anything.
Rules for me and rules for thee.
Trump reminded reporters of Obama’s decision to transport 30 million pages of his presidential records on 40 tractor trailers out of Washington DC prior to the end of his presidency—much to the chagrin of NARA. Trump pointed out that hundreds of the 30 million pages declassified by Obama included so-called “nuclear documents”—as reported by NARA after he took office. As usual the mainstream media ‘fact-checked’ the former president ruling his claims FALSE allowing social media to flag Trump’s statements as ‘dangerous misinformation’. Unsurprisingly the mainstream media forgot about their critical coverage of Obama’s nasty fight with NARA replete with charges of improper removal and retention of classified presidential records.
You mean the unclassified pages that were transported to a NARA warehouse in Chicago and then digitized? Or the classified documents that were retained under NARA control and that remain in a NARA facility in College Park, MD, and are currently undergoing review to determine which records must be declassified?
Because I have news for you: it wasn't the Media that fact-checked Trump. It was NARA. And it was clearly such a nasty fight that the NARA issued a press release in May 2017 (4 months after Obama left office) explaining the plan. The only criticism that have ever been levied (other than by Trump) has been that the digitization hasn't proceed quickly enough. It's almost as if Trump's lies are easily disproven by anyone with a few seconds on a search engine, a bit of personal integrity, and a memory longer than the most recent news cycle.
Meanwhile, 18 months after Trump was thrown out and after numerous requests and demands, he was still withholding documents.
Trump warrant redacted released. Upshot: it's even worse than speculated. Those law commenters that predicted neither classified dispute nor Presidential Records Act were at issue proven badly wrong. (Certain law tubers come to mind). Upshot: Trump sent 15 boxes to the Archives on request (though he didn't legally have to), and they used what was in those records to claim some sort of crime in ever having the records in the first place. That's really it. That's the legal pretext for the warrant. What a joke.
As great as everyone's answers are, if you want to show the public you are truly "Legal Elite™" you need two Rolls Royce Cullinan's, a Lamborghini, and Post Malone's Bugatti
JP Juanita Colvin died
I drive a Buick. It drives well, is effectively the same car as my dad's Cadillac, but much cheaper. I think I paid about $17k for it in cash. Very happy with it so far. Side note, bought it from Carvana, which is by far the best way to buy a car. They bring it to you, you get to test drive it for a whole week and make sure you like it. Don't have to deal with salesmen and the dealer's garbage. It only takes slightly longer than buying something off of amazon.
I have sold 4 cars to Carvana in the last 3 years. Best way to sell for sure. The pull up with a flatbed and hand you a cashiers check.