Top Law Schools

Please?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.