Why is it thought provoking? If he had kept client funds in his trust account then he wouldn’t have stolen them? That makes no sense.
Getting rid of flat fees is a bad idea. Sure, you shouldn’t bill a massive flat fee and refuse to refund any of it when you haven’t done any work. But that’s not the issue that it’s causing.
Tht is not really an issue, nor is on the job disability. The issue is “how much” is appropriate.
As an example, I have heard that one retired Metro officer receives $300k in annual retirement pay.
Do they have to prove that the disability is tied to their work at the PD or FD, or is that automatically assumed? It seems kind of like the VA – my FIL’s injuries in the Vietnam war got worse over decades and after about 35 years out of the military he went to something like 85% and unemployable, which bumped to 100%. But they put him through the ringer for nearly 3 years to get to that point. If the person is already retired from the PD or FD, why does it matter that their disability would keep them from continuing to work at the PD or FD? They’ve already chosen not to do it anymore.
I would not put that kind of political picture on my desk, where it could be seen by opposing counsel or clients. Has nothing to do with HRC. Would also not be willing to display similar pictures of myself with Donald Trump, Dick Cheney or Satan (but I repeat myself).
So the more interesting part of the story for me is a Federal Judge and a State Court Judge conducting a joint hearing.
As far as the photo, other than adoption hearings with Judge Giuliani, I think its unseemly for judges to be taking photos with litigants appurtenant to hearings that they just conducted. If you a photo at a SBN Convention or Meet Your Judges mixer, I have no problem. But this just feels off.
Who gives a shit. It is kind of cool and unique. Call it a flex or whatever you want, but it is not like people see it and think, those judges will rule in their favor and that is why the photo was taken.
No, but what they do think is, “Wow, those guys are juiced.” No guaranteed outcomes, but that doesn’t need to be the message for the flex to work. And it’s a great flex.
Firstivus maximus.
Thought provoking comment from last night that should not be missed.
https://lawblog.law/numerous-omissions-and-misrepresentations/#comment-103327
Why is it thought provoking? If he had kept client funds in his trust account then he wouldn’t have stolen them? That makes no sense.
Getting rid of flat fees is a bad idea. Sure, you shouldn’t bill a massive flat fee and refuse to refund any of it when you haven’t done any work. But that’s not the issue that it’s causing.
I disagree.
Your honor, I disagree with his disagreement. The end.
As a taxpayer I have no problem seeing my money go to retired cops and firefighters. Feels like a win to me.
Tht is not really an issue, nor is on the job disability. The issue is “how much” is appropriate.
As an example, I have heard that one retired Metro officer receives $300k in annual retirement pay.
Do they have to prove that the disability is tied to their work at the PD or FD, or is that automatically assumed? It seems kind of like the VA – my FIL’s injuries in the Vietnam war got worse over decades and after about 35 years out of the military he went to something like 85% and unemployable, which bumped to 100%. But they put him through the ringer for nearly 3 years to get to that point. If the person is already retired from the PD or FD, why does it matter that their disability would keep them from continuing to work at the PD or FD? They’ve already chosen not to do it anymore.
The article says it’s presumed.
What do you all think of this Bailey Kennedy post congratulating themselves with a photo op featuring a federal judge and state court judge? Have I been missing opportunities to flex by getting pictures with my judges? https://www.linkedin.com/posts/bailey-kennedy-llp_celebrating-success-for-our-team-chief-activity-7369073741701578752-pjTb
I keep my photo shaking hands with Hillary Clinton displayed predominantly on my desk.
I would not put that kind of political picture on my desk, where it could be seen by opposing counsel or clients. Has nothing to do with HRC. Would also not be willing to display similar pictures of myself with Donald Trump, Dick Cheney or Satan (but I repeat myself).
Procedurally, how did that happen? I’ve never heard of a fed and state court judge sitting together. Kinda cool though.
The first requirement is being white and male.
Then you have to be over the age of 50.
So the more interesting part of the story for me is a Federal Judge and a State Court Judge conducting a joint hearing.
As far as the photo, other than adoption hearings with Judge Giuliani, I think its unseemly for judges to be taking photos with litigants appurtenant to hearings that they just conducted. If you a photo at a SBN Convention or Meet Your Judges mixer, I have no problem. But this just feels off.
It certainly does not avoid the appearance of impropriety.
A little surprised that the Federal Judge came over to the EDC and not the other way around.
Hate all you want, but this is an impressive flex. A powerful marketing message with plausible deniability. Nicely done.
Who gives a shit. It is kind of cool and unique. Call it a flex or whatever you want, but it is not like people see it and think, those judges will rule in their favor and that is why the photo was taken.
No, but what they do think is, “Wow, those guys are juiced.” No guaranteed outcomes, but that doesn’t need to be the message for the flex to work. And it’s a great flex.
11:25 and 2:17 are definitely the same person and they definitely work at BK