(via Arbitrary and Capricious).
Don't ever drunkblog about your sex life.
Sending responses to yourself does NOT comport with discovery rules.
Unless you're actually in the wild west, twirling the evidence is a definite no-no.
If at first you don't succeed . . . give it up before you really tick off the court.
If you have to point out to your relatives that operating an illegal theft ring could be a really bad idea, it will probably bite you in the butt.
Getting scholarly papers published may not be as hard as some people make out.
And while this bit of advice does me no good, I just want to remind the plaintiff's bar:
But just like you don't "hit" on 19 and don't "go all in" on a pair of twos, you cannot accept every case with strong damages proof simply because it has the potential for a significant jury verdict. There has to be a reasonable likelihood of a recovery. In other words, you have to have a reasonable likelihood that a jury will determine that someone did something wrong and caused an injury, and that claim has to either be grounded in current law or you have to have a good shot of making new law. The risk of loss must be balanced against the potential recovery and both must be weighed against the investment of time and money.
You'll kick yourself because you're out a bunch of money. The client will hate you because you lost. I'll be really ticked because I had to hire counsel unnecessarily, and let's face it, you'll look pretty darn silly. Remember those "breach" and "causation" elements. If they ain't there, don't file. Do us all a favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment