Can we have a legal practice section?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Can we have a legal practice section?

Postby laxbrah420 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:19 pm

Please?
Last edited by laxbrah420 on Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
stillwater
Posts: 3811
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:59 pm

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby stillwater » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:23 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:I dont know if people discuss non-academic law school stuff here, but I want to know, at what point in dealing with some shitty opposing counsel do you say, "fuck this guy, let's get sanctions." What are the pros/cons?


probably better for the legal employment forum because lawl students don't know SHIT. but my guess is that lawyers are a small community and if you are always boohooing and running for sanctions people will stomp you out like a bug.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby laxbrah420 » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:27 pm

stillwater wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:I dont know if people discuss non-academic law school stuff here, but I want to know, at what point in dealing with some shitty opposing counsel do you say, "fuck this guy, let's get sanctions." What are the pros/cons?


probably better for the legal employment forum because lawl students don't know SHIT. but my guess is that lawyers are a small community and if you are always boohooing and running for sanctions people will stomp you out like a bug.

legal employment is for getting jerbs though I thought?
why is there no legal practice forum

UnderrateOverachieve
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby UnderrateOverachieve » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:34 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:
stillwater wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:I dont know if people discuss non-academic law school stuff here, but I want to know, at what point in dealing with some shitty opposing counsel do you say, "fuck this guy, let's get sanctions." What are the pros/cons?


probably better for the legal employment forum because lawl students don't know SHIT. but my guess is that lawyers are a small community and if you are always boohooing and running for sanctions people will stomp you out like a bug.

legal employment is for getting jerbs though I thought?
why is there no legal practice forum


Well this is top law schools and I would bet there is probably some huge issues with lawyers discussing non-academic legal issues on a forum.

User avatar
Joe Quincy
Posts: 404
Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 10:42 am

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby Joe Quincy » Wed Jul 10, 2013 11:39 pm

laxbrah420 wrote:
stillwater wrote:
laxbrah420 wrote:I dont know if people discuss non-academic law school stuff here, but I want to know, at what point in dealing with some shitty opposing counsel do you say, "fuck this guy, let's get sanctions." What are the pros/cons?


probably better for the legal employment forum because lawl students don't know SHIT. but my guess is that lawyers are a small community and if you are always boohooing and running for sanctions people will stomp you out like a bug.

legal employment is for getting jerbs though I thought?
why is there no legal practice forum


Its called jdunderground.com

User avatar
Bronte
Posts: 2128
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby Bronte » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:02 am

laxbrah420 wrote:legal employment is for getting jerbs though I thought?
why is there no legal practice forum


I think they should open a legal practice forum. Sure, it's called "Top Law Schools," but that shouldn't be a reason it can't also become a forum for lawyers as more of us become practitioners. There are a lot more lawyers and recent graduates on here than there were when I first joined. As to issues about lawyers discussing non-academic legal issues on a forum, I don't think it's a problem to discuss legal issues in the abstract as long as it's not straight up veiled legal advice to a client.

User avatar
Lincoln
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 11:27 pm

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby Lincoln » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:19 am

I have limited experience with this, since I'm not a practicing lawyer yet, but I've dealt with a few sanctions cases.

The standards for sanctions tend to be high, and even where they are technically met judges tend to be loath to impose them. From what I've seen, unless every criterion is met, such that the judge doesn't really have a reason to deny sanctions, they will be denied. If the judge wants to impose sanctions, the court can often do so sua sponte. Thus, the judge has probably considered and decided against sanctions before you even file the motion, so you're unlikely to win. Moreover, for many sanctions (like Rule 11) you have to file a separate motion, meaning wasting everyone's time and money if you don't get it. Because of the "American rule" of not shifting costs, judges are often unwilling to impose costs (unless required by statute, such as for § 1983 actions) even where behavior is outrageous and cost-shifting is technically warranted. Billing for something that you are unlikely to get costs for is not often something the client likes. Moreover, if the other side is being obstructive or making frivolous arguments, it probably means you're winning, and prolonging litigation to deal with sanctions seems like a waste, especially because you don't really gain anything. The sanctions themselves are generally fairly small, at least by BigLaw standards.

The exception I can think of is in discovery, where spoilation can lead to sanctions (and, probably more significant) adverse inferences. But judges tend to hate dealing with discovery disputes, and when they do deal with them often rule from the bench, so whether sanctions are imposed can be pretty unpredictable.

User avatar
laxbrah420
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 1:53 am

Re: At what point do you argue bad faith --> sanctions?

Postby laxbrah420 » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:42 am

Lincoln wrote:I have limited experience with this, since I'm not a practicing lawyer yet, but I've dealt with a few sanctions cases.

The standards for sanctions tend to be high, and even where they are technically met judges tend to be loath to impose them. From what I've seen, unless every criterion is met, such that the judge doesn't really have a reason to deny sanctions, they will be denied. If the judge wants to impose sanctions, the court can often do so sua sponte. Thus, the judge has probably considered and decided against sanctions before you even file the motion, so you're unlikely to win. Moreover, for many sanctions (like Rule 11) you have to file a separate motion, meaning wasting everyone's time and money if you don't get it. Because of the "American rule" of not shifting costs, judges are often unwilling to impose costs (unless required by statute, such as for § 1983 actions) even where behavior is outrageous and cost-shifting is technically warranted. Billing for something that you are unlikely to get costs for is not often something the client likes. Moreover, if the other side is being obstructive or making frivolous arguments, it probably means you're winning, and prolonging litigation to deal with sanctions seems like a waste, especially because you don't really gain anything. The sanctions themselves are generally fairly small, at least by BigLaw standards.

The exception I can think of is in discovery, where spoilation can lead to sanctions (and, probably more significant) adverse inferences. But judges tend to hate dealing with discovery disputes, and when they do deal with them often rule from the bench, so whether sanctions are imposed can be pretty unpredictable.

Awesome thanks.

UnderrateOverachieve
Posts: 412
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Can we have a legal practice section?

Postby UnderrateOverachieve » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:33 am

To add something substantive that apparently you learn in practice, learn your judges. Some never give sanctions, some in my circuit are notorious for giving $999 dollar sanctions for all sorts of shit.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media and 2 guests