As a true retainer or advance fee?
Also, pro tip, n00b, for when you enter law school–don’t call it a “PRN basis,” (I had to google fer chrissakes!) just say “as needed,” then you won’t (i) fail legal writing, and (ii) get a rep as a cheezy gunner. 
The Retainer Man looks at her stuff “to make sure she hasn’t screwed up.” Of course, if that’s any sort of substantive review, he’s an idiot. And if it’s only a review for formatting and she really paid 2000 beans for it, he’s screwing her, metaphorically speaking.
That came from pharmacy school, not law school. I don’t say it very often.
What the heck is a cheesy gunner?
A. I’m asking if they’ve ever heard, not citations. (Wow, I can imagine the hysterical laughter if a lawyer said “yeah, I’ve heard about it” and I asked for the citation itself!)
B. I am not about to take the words of a single lawyer in a single conversation as representing all the data available on any subject. That would be incredibly stupid. So “failing to mention” something is not an issue. It becomes issue if you are my lawyer and I rely on your advice and assessment. Which I did once and here I am today…
Pretty much all the explanations and examples that are being offered are right on…for clients and the lawyers they have hired. None of them make much sense when you try to apply them to a single conversation.
Actually, Jodi the “just a bit” was not that, with which I agree (and I’ll add in New York’s requirement for lawyers to have written engagement letters explaining the terms of the engagement), but with the implication that Stoid was seeking to get lawyers to do legal work for her for free. As I understand Stoid’s view, incorrect thought it is, she was looking to obtain answers to what she sees as minimally intrusive “information requests” – just an offhand comment on whether you’ve seen a pancake/bunny case – and not asking the lawyers to do what she sees as real or extensive legal work. I don’t think she understands that to properly answer what she sees as a simple question there needs to be some often substantial legal work behind the answer.
Seeing as how you have not been privy to the conversations, you pretty much are making stuff up, ya know. Kinda bold for a lawyer…
This flies in the face of the clear principle expounded in the seminal case of *Pissing *v. The Wind.
You don’t listen, you don’t listen, you don’t listen, you just don’t fucking listen. It really and truly is just like trying to have a conversation with my dad.
I’m not even mad at you, Stoid. I’m torn between sadness and a kind of awe at your innate ability to simply not hear dissenting voices and sit there at your keyboard wondering why everyone seems to be yelling at you. It’s truly amazing. I am listening to the stream of consciousness of someone who is mildly insane. It’s one of the reasons I post here.
Stoid, what I and the other lawyers are trying to say is that the legal, legal ethics, and professional issues are identical whether the answer is in the context of a formal retention (with or without pay) or in just a single, short conversation. A big issue you learn in legal ethics courses is when the attorney-client relationship starts, and that can very well be in the course of a single, short, offhand conversation.
Stoid, your little make-believe Q and A sessions fail to prove your point for the following very simple reason: You will surely ask a follow-up question if you get the anser you want. The follow-up question will bring the conversation closer to the facts of your case. If you get a willing victim on the line, the conversation will surely steer ever closer to your case until you just lay out the whole sordid tale and the lawyer commits seppuku for having listened to you for that long.
The part of my post in quotes is a direct quote from you. The fact that a review of your work is either substantive or non-substantivet is a self-evident aplication of logic – it must be one or the other, and cannot be both. So perhaps you’d like to specify exactly what stuff I’m making up?
Oh, maybe not.
Stoid: Have you ever heard of any cases involving X, Y, and Z?
Lawyer: Why yes, yes I have.
Stoid: Thanks so much! :: click ::
So it is said, over and over.
But I don’t notice anyone explaining how that could possibly be true.
Seen it? Heard of it? Yes. No. Ya either have or haven’t. What is the mysterious “substantial legal work” that needs doing? I’m genuinely interested. Because so far, no one has been very specific about what I am saying (versus reworkings of what I’m saying so that it CAN be answered), it’s just lots of “malpractice!” “research!” “SSubstantial legal work!” Okay…paint the picture. I ask you the question. You search your mind for a minute and realize that yes, you do recall lhearing about a case that was very similar. You can open your mouth and say that right there or you can do what exact substantial legal work first that will change what comes out of your mouth?
Wait wait, don’t tell me: go look it up, make sure you remember it right, cross check to see if the decision was overruled later… none of which will make any difference to your statement “Yes, I do remember hearing about such a case once.”
And then, when I say, "Can you remember anything about it that might help me find it, since searche’s on “pake and bunny” haven’t brought up any cases?
You think… and you think it’s possible it was in fact a rabbit, not a bunny. But you aren’t really sure and you dont’ want me to rely on your memory. You can open your mouth and say all that or you can go do substantial research and legal work. That I didn’t ask or expect or pay for and isn’t necessary, because I undestand when you say “Wel, it might have been a rabbit, not a bunny, but I’m not entirely sure. Don’t rely on my memory as the final answer, but try using rabbit in your search. Good luck!”
I’m guessing you are taught to always complicate the simple in the second or third year of law school, after you’ve been primed a bit.
Hey Stoid did you ever post what I suggested in that other thread (i.e., a concise summary of the case with an explanation of the grounds for appeal and your analysis of the issues). Because, as I said in that other thread, that would sure shut us all up if you knock our socks off with a good and concise post like that.
Since none of the resident attorneys are likely to be Californians specializing in family law or real estate or (specifically, distressed sales), there is a non-zero but not statistically significant chance that any of them have the slightest fucking clue where your goddamn bunny is.
For what it’s worth, I agree with Jodi here, and have misgivings that it might the latter of the two alternatives. You should reflect that most laypeople who pay $2,000 to engage a lawyer would not expect to have to spend much time (any time) doing legal research and certainly would think it irregular to post their legal questions on an internet bulletin board rather than consult with the attorney they’ve paid two large. Perhaps your lawyer does more than this; I should certainly hope he would.
Maybe so, but when exactly were you taught to refuse to acknowledge that something that might appear simple can in fact be complicated? Or is your inability to see that more in the nature of a birth defect?
To make matters worse, the bunny she is seeking (And let me just say out loud that the mere fact we have to now refer to her issue as a fucking bunny just illustrates the worthlessness of this whole thing) is invariably the one case from a municipal magistrate, decided in 1904, shrouded in the mists of time, written by the then-justice of the peace illegitimate offspring of Abraham Lincoln and Jane Austen. This case, when pulled from the dusty archives ala Indiana Jones, will glow with the inner golden light of justice, and when transported, Pulp Fiction briefcase style, to the courthouse, will melt the very fucking faces off of the judge and her friends at the other table.
Unfortunately, we’re talking about the land of fruits and nuts, aka California, and not the back lot at Paramount, so there is probably no controlling precedent that is of use, and a good lawyer would just distinguish it out in any case, because obviously Stoid is incapable of simply making a clear and concise argument, and instead is going with the tried-and-false strategy of looking for partners in her archaeological dig for the lost stare decisis of El Hombre Gato de la Pantalones.
Nope again. I do not talk about my case. I don’t want to talk about my case, and most of the lawyers only want to talk about my case, that’s exactly the issue, because they want to know how what I’m asking relates to my case before they answer. They ask and ask and drive me nuts. “Well, tell me about your case” NO. I don’t want to talk about MY case, please! Stop asking! You cannot possibly address my case in a 5 or 10 or 30 minute conversation, there are too many variables. I just wanna know about this little tiny bit of law itself. How it relates to my case is an hour long conversation neither one of us wants to have not least because we won’t arrive at an answer and both of us will have wasted our time. So please stop making my case the issue.
(And of course I will ask a follow up question and another and another and the lawyer is entirely free to stop answering me any time with a simple: can’t spend this time anymore, see ya.)
Your example is the perfect example of why what you are asking for is advice. I don’t expect you to be able to understand this (because you have layperson litigation syndrome, which I have seen a number of times in a couple of decades of practice), but I’ll post this anyway for the benefit of others:
What does “a lot” mean? Would many diseases of low incidence count, or if there are only a couple but they are of high incidence would you want to know about those also? What is the definition of a parasitic disease that needs to be avoided? Most places have some parasitic diseases. Where is the line as to what is to be avoided or not? You are asking me to judge an appropriate level of risk avoidance and then apply it in order to draw a line as to what I do and do not tell you about.
Have I or anyone I know ever gotten sick? Sure. In every place in the world. But then maybe that’s not what you meant. Should I answer exactly what you mean, or should I assume you are talking about in the locations concerned? Are you talking about parasitic diseases only, or would you want to know about very serious and widespread non-parasitic diseases that I know about in these locations?