How will the media handle Bidens sexual assualt allegation? NYT tweet lets us know...just amazing

#151
#151
ClearwaterVol said:
On the whole, nothing could be further from the truth. Very rarely in a dispute has one side committed no wrong and the other done completely wrong. Each side has their own perception of the truth. When I take a case, I am hired to present my client's version of the truth. I am also hired to give my client counsel on the holes in his version of the truth and how an unbiased third party might view his version of the truth. Sometimes that will lead a client to settle, which is my hope when the case is not strong. However, the client wants to proceed to trial, my job is to present his version of the truth to jury while attempting to discredit the other party's version. The jury then decides who they believe. Just because I do not believe the client has a strong case does not mean the jury will see it the same way. I have been surprised many times both good and bad by juries. In short attorneys are not paid to present the absolute truth because we do not know it. We are paid to present a client's truth.

In my opinion, your beef whether you know it or not, is with society at large because the attorneys for the time they are retained are merely a mirror of their client.
Click to expand...
Ever scared by what you see?
 
#154
#154
ClearwaterVol said:
I do not handle criminal cases, so fear is not a part of the equation in my world. A apologize if I misunderstood your question
Click to expand...
I get that but I'm sure there had to have been some clients/cases that you found as unsavory, unethical and that their version of the "truth" unreliable, unbelievable, but you took them on as clients anyway? And gave them the best representation possible, of that I have no doubt.

That's what I meant by "scared" looking into that mirror.

Yes, I understand the ethical dilemma and the choices we have to make. But still . . .
 
#155
#155
37L1 said:
I get that but I'm sure there had to have been some clients/cases that you found as unsavory, unethical and that their version of the "truth" unreliable, unbelievable, but you took them on as clients anyway? And gave them the best representation possible, of that I have no doubt.

That's what I meant by "scared" looking into that mirror.

Yes, I understand the ethical dilemma and the choices we have to make. But still . . .
Click to expand...

I generally do not take cases that I do not believe in. About 80% of my cases are taken on a contingency and if I do not win, I stand to lose a fairly significant sum of money. (Doctors charge about $2,500/hr to testify with a 4 hour minimum.) Of course, there are instances when you come to discover that your client has not been forthright with you. My approach to these situations is to have a come to Jesus talk with the client. I tell them if I can smell a lie, so will the other attorney and so will the trier of fact. If statement that I think is not truthful does not completely eviscerate their case, I advise them to be truthful and explain the discrepancy. If the misrepresentation is one that goes to the heart of the matter, then I cannot solicit the lie in court.

Keep in mind, generally I do not know that client is lying. My spidey sense just tingles. Most times, the client is not "lying" they just believe they are right and have a crappy case. Sometimes those clients force you to trial with a loser. You do the best you can within your ethical confines and present the case. Usually, the jury gets it right.
 
#156
#156
ClearwaterVol said:
I generally do not take cases that I do not believe in. About 80% of my cases are taken on a contingency and if I do not win, I stand to lose a fairly significant sum of money. (Doctors charge about $2,500/hr to testify with a 4 hour minimum.) Of course, there are instances when you come to discover that your client has not been forthright with you. My approach to these situations is to have a come to Jesus talk with the client. I tell them if I can smell a lie, so will the other attorney and so will the trier of fact. If statement that I think is not truthful does not completely eviscerate their case, I advise them to be truthful and explain the discrepancy. If the misrepresentation is one that goes to the heart of the matter, then I cannot solicit the lie in court.

Keep in mind, generally I do not know that client is lying. My spidey sense just tingles. Most times, the client is not "lying" they just believe they are right and have a crappy case. Sometimes those clients force you to trial with a loser. You do the best you can within your ethical confines and present the case. Usually, the jury gets it right.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply. That helped clarify some things for me. I guess it is very important for you to size up your client and the case immediately and properly up front if 80% of your cases are contingent on whether you win or not. Do you have any idea of the % of potential clients you reject because of the nature of the client/case?

It's OK if you don't have an answer, why would you track that? I'm just curious.
 
#157
#157
37L1 said:
Thanks for your reply. That helped clarify some things for me. I guess it is very important for you to size up your client and the case immediately and properly up front if 80% of your cases are contingent on whether you win or not. Do you have any idea of the % of potential clients you reject because of the nature of the client/case?

It's OK if you don't have an answer, why would you track that? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

I do not track that number, but I have a rough idea. Over the years, I have become adept at avoiding some land mines in regard to my plaintiff practice. The amount I reject are really dependent upon the type of case. For example, I do not reject many accident cases. I reject more than 50% of all slip and fall cases because the law is very friendly to the owner of the premises in Florida. In the employment discrimination setting, I am presented with 2-3 cases per week and I take 2-3 per year. I like them, but they are labor intensive and they represent an uphill climb due to the law and vehemence with which they are defended. Nobody believes they are a creepy perv that people cringe at the sight of.

In the plaintiff world, since I am working on a contingency basis, I do not take cases that I do not believe in to trial. I simply withdraw as counsel if the client insists. This does not mean that I won't take a tough case to trial. I will if I believe in the client. My statement above about taking cases to trial in which I thought the client might be lying was referencing the non-contingency world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1
#158
#158
ClearwaterVol said:
I do not track that number, but I have a rough idea. Over the years, I have become adept at avoiding some land mines in regard to my plaintiff practice. The amount I reject are really dependent upon the type of case. For example, I do not reject many accident cases. I reject more than 50% of all slip and fall cases because the law is very friendly to the owner of the premises in Florida. In the employment discrimination setting, I am presented with 2-3 cases per week and I take 2-3 per year. I like them, but they are labor intensive and they represent an uphill climb due to the law and vehemence with which they are defended. Nobody believes they are a creepy perv that people cringe at the sight of.

In the plaintiff world, since I am working on a contingency basis, I do not take cases that I do not believe in to trial. I simply withdraw as counsel if the client insists. This does not mean that I won't take a tough case to trial. I will if I believe in the client. My statement above about taking cases to trial in which I thought the client might be lying was referencing the non-contingency world.
Click to expand...
I have to believe, given the nature of the contingent cases you handle, that most of them are settled before going to trial. Is that correct?
 
#159
#159
37L1 said:
I have to believe, given the nature of the contingent cases you handle, that most of them are settled before going to trial. Is that correct?
Click to expand...

That is correct. 80% settle pre-suit. Of the 20% that I put in litigation only small fraction (10%) of those ever go to trial. Honestly, it depends on the insurance company's business model. State Farm is notorious for taking things to trial.
 
#160
#160
ClearwaterVol said:
I do not track that number, but I have a rough idea. Over the years, I have become adept at avoiding some land mines in regard to my plaintiff practice. The amount I reject are really dependent upon the type of case. For example, I do not reject many accident cases. I reject more than 50% of all slip and fall cases because the law is very friendly to the owner of the premises in Florida. In the employment discrimination setting, I am presented with 2-3 cases per week and I take 2-3 per year. I like them, but they are labor intensive and they represent an uphill climb due to the law and vehemence with which they are defended. Nobody believes they are a creepy perv that people cringe at the sight of.

In the plaintiff world, since I am working on a contingency basis, I do not take cases that I do not believe in to trial. I simply withdraw as counsel if the client insists. This does not mean that I won't take a tough case to trial. I will if I believe in the client. My statement above about taking cases to trial in which I thought the client might be lying was referencing the non-contingency world.
Click to expand...
There is a word for that, its called Bidening
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#162
#162
ClearwaterVol said:
On the whole, nothing could be further from the truth. Very rarely in a dispute has one side committed no wrong and the other done completely wrong. Each side has their own perception of the truth. When I take a case, I am hired to present my client's version of the truth. I am also hired to give my client counsel on the holes in his version of the truth and how an unbiased third party might view his version of the truth. Sometimes that will lead a client to settle, which is my hope when the case is not strong. However, if the client wants to proceed to trial, my job is to present his version of the truth to jury while attempting to discredit the other party's version. The jury then decides who they believe. Just because I do not believe the client has a strong case does not mean the jury will see it the same way. I have been surprised many times both good and bad by juries. In short attorneys are not paid to present the absolute truth because we do not know it. We are paid to present a client's truth.

In my opinion, your beef whether you know it or not, is with society at large because the attorneys for the time they are retained are merely a mirror of their client.
Click to expand...
And Hitler's soldiers were just a mirror of their leader.
 
#163
#163
Just another “lesser of two evils” election coming up. 15th presidential I believe for me. 1964

Can put a sentence together? Trump No. Biden Barely

Molests women. Trump? grabs ‘em by the Pu$$y; invades teen age dressing rooms; Stormy and 18 others; Biden? Probably

Dishonest ? Trump: definitely. Biden: far less so

Liar ? Trump? Pathological! What 15,000 or so in 4 years. Biden?? Probably on par with Joe and Josephine Citizen

Will make himself King ? Trump already started with Senate dismissal now accelerating. If elected kids democracy goodbye. Biden? No

Best hairdo? Biden

In Denial? Trump. He is as bald as Biden. At least Ivanka says so

I could go on but it’s already clear to me that between those two Trump is the bigger a$$
 
  • Like
Reactions: imw8n4u
#164
#164
PointGuard said:
Just another “lesser of two evils” election coming up. 15th presidential I believe for me. 1964

Can put a sentence together? Trump No. Biden Barely

Molests women. Trump? grabs ‘em by the Pu$$y; invades teen age dressing rooms; Stormy and 18 others; Biden? Probably

Dishonest ? Trump: definitely. Biden: far less so

Liar ? Trump? Pathological! What 15,000 or so in 4 yearsBiden? Probably on par with Joe and Josephine Citizen

Will make himself King ? Trump already started with Senate dismissal now accelerating. If elected kids democracy goodbye. Biden? No

Best hairdo? Biden

In Denial? Trump. He is as bald as Biden. At least Ivanka says so

I could go on but it’s already clear to me that between those two Trump is the bigger a$$
Click to expand...

Ok so all you are responsible for is to make sure Joe remembers this until election day
 
#166
#166
PointGuard said:
Just another “lesser of two evils” election coming up. 15th presidential I believe for me. 1964

Can put a sentence together? Trump No. Biden Barely

Molests women. Trump? grabs ‘em by the Pu$$y; invades teen age dressing rooms; Stormy and 18 others; Biden? Probably

Dishonest ? Trump: definitely. Biden: far less so

Liar ? Trump? Pathological! What 15,000 or so in 4 years. Biden?? Probably on par with Joe and Josephine Citizen

Will make himself King ? Trump already started with Senate dismissal now accelerating. If elected kids democracy goodbye. Biden? No

Best hairdo? Biden

In Denial? Trump. He is as bald as Biden. At least Ivanka says so

I could go on but it’s already clear to me that between those two Trump is the bigger a$$
Click to expand...

I want some of whatever you have been smoking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and vols40
#167
#167
PointGuard said:
Both have mental acculturation issues Biden is not a sociopath though. Thanks for reminding me. Another + for Jor
Click to expand...

Joe doesn't know what day it is and this is a fact. Joe doesn't know what state he is in and that is a fact. Please cite the facts to support your middle school claims against the president
 
#171
#171
vols40 said:
Joe doesn't know what day it is and this is a fact. Joe doesn't know what state he is in and that is a fact. Please cite the facts to support your middle school claims against the president
Click to expand...

What do you live in a vacuum and only watch Fox, read the Washington Examiner and the WSJ. No You go back and read every news clip of the last 4 years. Then come back and correct every statement that’s wrong

No wonder you are always off the mark. You live in Conways alternative facts world
 
#173
#173
PointGuard said:
What do you live in a vacuum and only watch Fox, read the Washington Examiner and the WSJ. No You go back and read every news clip of the last 4 years. Then come back and correct every statement that’s wrong

No wonder you are always off the mark. You live in Conways alternative facts world
Click to expand...

Unlike you I don't live in my mom's basement and I get the news wherever tf I take a notion but unlike you I have the ability to cut the BS out.
 
#174
#174
PointGuard said:
What do you live in a vacuum and only watch Fox, read the Washington Examiner and the WSJ. No You go back and read every news clip of the last 4 years. Then come back and correct every statement that’s wrong

No wonder you are always off the mark. You live in Conways alternative facts world
Click to expand...

It's great chatting with you on this fine Super Thursday
 
#175
#175
The MSM isn't going to let Obama's vice president for 8 years and the person he just endorsed for 2020 be a sexual assaulter. Biden will be given a pass because of his association with Obama. Obama's endorsement pretty much guarantees that happening now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce, hog88 and vols40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top