OT: Holy Cow!

[Brian Krashpad]

Well, a couple months ago, one of our firms' best clients hired me to be his counsel for purposes of a personal case. In other words, usually he hires my firm (not me personally) to do work on cases wherein he, as an attorney, represents his various clients.

In this thing from awhile back though, the case was his own. He had taken a specialization certification test in a particular area of the law, but not passed it. The Florida Bar gives these tests in various legal subjects (like criminal law, real property, tax, family, elder law, etc.), and if you pass it you can put that you are "certified" in that area by the Florida Bar, on all your ads, CV, etc. And in turn use that certification to justify a higher billable rate due to your expertise.

Anyhow, the Bar doesn't allow test results out of their offices, nor is anyone allowed to make copies of them. So if you want to appeal a failing score, you first have to go to the Bar's offices and sit there and review the test answers and the Bar's official answers, and take notes, and then later use that to draft an appeal arguing that you should have passed and why.

So anyhow, our client hired me personally to drive downstate and be his counsel of record to review the answers. That was a nice little chunk of change. Then he hired our firm to actually write the appeal.

I just heard from him via e-mail that he actually WON the damn thing.

I would have bet good money against that result. Not that the test didn't have some serious flaws in its suggested "correct" answers, but, face it, the Florida Bar generally doesn't like being told by some lone ranger how screwy its test answers are.

Woo-hoo!

Brian Krashpad, 1, Florida Bar, 0.

 

[Spudman]

Does that mean there is another lawyer lose in the world?

 

[Brian Krashpad]

Does that mean there is another lawyer lose in the world?

Haha, nope, he's been a lawyer for years. This is not the Bar Exam, to get in, it's a Certification Exam, to claim you have expertise in a certain area.

The best part is, this guy really is a great lawyer in his subject area. The whole taking the test rigamarole is bullsh*t. He's also a really great guy.

This is the same guy that's offered to hire me on several occasions. I'm guessing at this point the offer still stands. Business has been really sucky of late, and frankly I hope I don't ever have to take him up on it. He's about 6 hours downstate of me.

 

[marnold]

Ph34r the Krash.

 

[poodlesrule]

The best part is, this guy really is a great lawyer.....

OK.

Now we want to know if he has an interest in music and specifically guitar playing?

Is his house/yard big enough for a house concert, and spouse is not allergic to loud music?:dude

 

[Brian Krashpad]

OK.

Now we want to know if he has an interest in music and specifically guitar playing?

I honestly don't know. Fwiw, he does know I'm a musician and that I'm in a bunch of different bands. He came up to Gainesville a year or so ago to visit his significant other, and I took him to lunch. That's basically unheard of for my frims clients, whom we never meet irl.

Is his house/yard big enough for a house concert, and spouse is not allergic to loud music?:dude

I'm guessing his house is big enough, from the interior shots I've seen. As far as his significant other goes, I don't think the state of Florida allows them to legally be married. So probably not "spouse." I doubt he's allergic to loud music, but have no specific facts on which to base that guess.

 

[Spudman]

As far as his significant other goes, I don't think the state of Florida allows them to legally be married. So probably not "spouse."

I would have thought wills and bankruptcy cases would be plentiful right now. Does your firm do that work? What about wills? It sucks not having work.

 

[Brian Krashpad]

I would have thought wills and bankruptcy cases would be plentiful right now. Does your firm do that work? What about wills? It sucks not having work.

We do whatever our clients do. A lot of wills and bankruptcy cases are not heavily litigated, or if they are, are not complex. Or if they are complex don't involve enough money to involve outside research counsel. Our clients tend to ask for our help on the difficult stuff, and when there's a lot of money swinging. If it's easy, we never hear about it.

Not to say those things can't be difficult. But we get very few of them.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

Congrats counsellor. Always nice to notch a win!

 

[Brian Krashpad]

Congrats counsellor. Always nice to notch a win!

Thanks Steve. As you know, often the quality of representation does not result in a positive result. In this case I seriously doubted it would result in a win, despite that I thought I did a damn good job in issue-spotting and argument, based on my experience in the specific subject-matter area. Frankly, I could not have done this good a job in any other subject area, but it had not only been the bulk of my work in general over the years, but has also been almost everything I have done with/for this client.

 

[Commodore 64]

Did you order the Code Red?

 

[FrankenFretter]

Right on, Brian! Good on ya!

 

[Brian Krashpad]

Did you order the Code Red?

You can't handle the truth!

 

[deeaa]

OT, is it true that every American knows at least one lawyer?

I've never even met a lawyer that I'd know and I've got divorces behind me even...but I never even came close to needing one. Sometimes people would have a lawyer take care of these kind of things and stuff like land/estate sales etc. but so far I've managed just fine without one. I mean, how hard can it be to write a pre-nuptial or a deed to a house etc, it's all in the books how you do it anyway. I suppose we do have lawyers who also deal with normal people's issues, but I think it's more like they are in courts/criminal cases.

One of my childhood friends and band buddies from wayyy back is a judge, though, in the south of the country.

 

[Brian Krashpad]

OT, is it true that every American knows at least one lawyer?

All the people I know do.

I've never even met a lawyer that I'd know and I've got divorces behind me even...but I never even came close to needing one. Sometimes people would have a lawyer take care of these kind of things and stuff like land/estate sales etc. but so far I've managed just fine without one. I mean, how hard can it be to write a pre-nuptial or a deed to a house etc, it's all in the books how you do it anyway.

Well, it's all in books how build a rocket or a skyscraper, but I wouldn't try to do it. Without training to use those books you have no contextual knowledge to know whether what you're doing is right. Further, in the US law is not only found in statute books but reported appellate case law. I don't know about Finnish family law, but no way should most people in the US try to draft their own pre-nuptial agreements. Pure folly.

Our president Lincoln is reputed to have said that a person who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Present company excepted , of course.

 

[marnold]

Can't speak for every American, but I know several--even before I came here and met Krash, Shiner, et al. The only time I've ever personally made use of a lawyer is in writing up a will. Even then, we got all the info together with someone else and just handed it to him to make it all official-like. My will is only really necessary for the kids so my relatives wouldn't have to fight WI probate for custody. Lord knows we don't have any money to worry about.

 

[Robert]

Congrats, Mr Expert Advisor Brian Krashpad!

 

[deeaa]

OK...well my old nuptial agreement was merely a few lines, simply saying that we agree that all the existing debts and possessions of either remain so despite the marriage. There was nothing else. Simple enough. Then we just put in a bank safe. Would have held up in any situation...but when we had our divorce there wasn't any argument anyway, she just left and we notified the authorities we're no longer married.

We also have a will, which simply says that in the case of either one dying, we'd prefer for his/hers entire assets to remain in the spouse's free usage, i.e. not be yielded to heirs until seen appropriate by the surviving member.

I get the idea that the U.S. law system is incredibly complex from the gazillion law etc. series we also watch...it's an endless source of amusement for sure...but here it's much simpler. There's no waivers etc. or all kinds of liability suites etc...and it's pretty easy for anybody to read how the laws go in which cases on the internet and that's pretty much how it goes in reality as well, so all you maybe need to do is some amends like our nuptial agreement was. Or when I bought my house I just wrote a sales document as per instructions on the net and had a notariat office finalize it into city archives, or something.

I didn't bother with a nuptial agreement with my current wife, though.

 

[Kazz]

Congrats Brian.....

 

[Brian Krashpad]

OK...well my old nuptial agreement was merely a few lines, simply saying that we agree that all the existing debts and possessions of either remain so despite the marriage.

And you'd think that that would be sufficient. :thwap

In the USA, however, in most states (because of our dual system of federal and state governments, family law is at least slightly different in each of the various 50 states and a few additional possessions and territories) such an agreement would be subject to attack.

In Florida, where I practice, and many other states, a prenuptial agreement can be nullified by lack of disclosure. In other words, each party must have a general and approximate knowledge (to use the language of the Florida case law) of the other's premarital estate, both as to types of assets and their value. Thus, when lawyers prepare "prenups" here, they always include a provision stating that each party has such knowledge, and also include an exhibit or appendix to the agreement containing a schedule or listing of each party's major assets, as well as a waiver clause stating that each party waives any further disclosure than what has been provided, and that each party has had an opportunity to question the other about his or her personal assets.

Another common problem is that a prenup can later be avoided if signed under duress. A frequent scenario is the "monied" spouse "surprising" the less well-off spouse with a copy of the prenup and demanding she or he sign it, or the wedding will be off, frequently just before the wedding. This has actually resulted in many many prenuptial agreements being voided by courts. Thus, US lawyers make sure not only that the prenuptial agreement is executed well before the wedding is scheduled, but also include a provision negating any duress defense, stating that the agreement was signed of the person's free will, that no duress, threats or coercion were applied, and that the signer had ample time to reflect, and to hire her or his own counsel to assist in deciding to sign.

I would strongly advise anyone in the USA considering a prenup to have it done by a lawyer.

 

[deeaa]

Yeah...it's way complicated indeed....

Here there's no leeway like that; if you get married or go into a contract basically anything like that, there's no way you can wiggle anything after the fact. I's just sorry dude, next time don't be stupid. Only in cases where, like you buy a house that turns out to be rotten in the core, you can probably get reinbursements.

Even without a pre-nup, in cases where couples find it hard to divide possessions, it all goes by the letter of the law. Basic idea is that no party can enjoy benefits undue to them...meaning, like I own our house and did before the marriage, and it is legally half my wife's - but if we separated I'd have a strong hold on the house anyway, maybe would have to compensate her for whatever monies she's put into it over the years, but then again, I've for the most part brought money in, and that would be taken into consideration as well.

You can make it more clear-cut with a nuptial agreement like I used to have, but it won't change that much anyway. And, if you're like married for 30 years and have kids, any pre-agreements and such are worthless by then anyway; the court will decide everything for you if you start to argue.

Of course sometimes there are problems, and now that I think of it one of my colleagues has an ex-husband who's pestering her every now and then about some money issues like who's gonna pay for their kid's scooter etc. but I suppose in most cases it's pretty clear.

One thing that is still a bit injust IMO is that the woman still gets the custody of the children more often in a breakup---not always, two of my friends like our drummer are guys who are also sole custodians of their daughters - but often the woman gets the kids.

If we separated, I'd probably keep the house and keep the kids' custody for the most part, but we'd buy her a condo nearby and split the actual time with kids in half anyway.

In many cases it's wiser to split possessions despite marriages etc. Like my parents separated when I was about five, but never told me till I was 18 or so; we still lived all together etc...and my mom bought the house and my dad got paid by her for doing work for it, and then it was much easier to sell the house to me in time, because it was my mom's solely.

But these monetary issues...they have little to do with marriages. My sister lives in her husband's dad's house and my dad lives in my sister's apartment, and my family lives in my house and my mother lives in her own condo, while my sister's husband's people live in my sister's house...it's all due to what is most sensible to do in terms of taxes and stuff like that.

Also, in time, I won't leave my house for inheritance but sell it for a very meagre amount to my kids, (and nobody will even check out if anything was actually paid afterwards)...but I better do it before my kid gets married, and after he's thru studies, so he/they can get the most out of everything...lots of wiggling there too, but no lawyer gets to know the details, it's strictly family affairs ;-)

Which reminds me I have to make some sort of, even oral, contract with my sister about dividing some lands we own together soon...

 

[Brian Krashpad]

Which reminds me I have to make some sort of, even oral, contract with my sister about dividing some lands we own together soon...

In the States, an oral contract for the transfer of real property on an interest therein, and a lease for more than a year, is null and void under the Statute of Frauds, an English concept hundreds of years (at the least) old. The idea is that real property is too important to have "swearing matches" in court over because nothing is in writing.

I wonder what a Finnish lawyer or court would say about some of your informal transactions. Hopefully, they'll go smoothly and I'll never know.

 

[deeaa]

Yeah of course we'll have to ask the land-measurer dude to measure and draw new lines etc soon enough...but for now, it'll suffice for me to know what we're planning.

I understand an oral contract is binding here even in land sales, of course you probably need someone(s) to witness it, or make a recording.

No way I'd drag my sister to a court, I'd rather just let her have the entire property. I'm sure she feels much the same. I already gave her a cottage and she never opposed to me having the house from my mom. I maybe hated her in my teens but we're blood and you don't screw around with relatives...well in my family it's always been you don't screw anybody period(except the government , but family...that'd be, well, real weird.

 

[deeaa]

BTW the entire Finnsh law is here:
http://www.finlex.fi/en/

It has a pretty easy a search engine as well...I don't know how it works in English translations but usually it's pretty easy to find everything the law says about some issue, and there isn't much you can argue against what it says. We don't have a jury system etc. so it's usually just the law and judges, although in some cases they use 'laymans' to help argue who's right.

 

[Brian Krashpad]

No way I'd drag my sister to a court, I'd rather just let her have the entire property. I'm sure she feels much the same. I already gave her a cottage and she never opposed to me having the house from my mom. I maybe hated her in my teens but we're blood and you don't screw around with relatives...well in my family it's always been you don't screw anybody period(except the government , but family...that'd be, well, real weird.

I understand and hope everything goes well. The US I think is a lot more litigious place. Which is probably bad for our society, but good for my line of work. There may be an upside regarding having more legal certainty, from a business transactions standpoint, where more dealings are done formally, as well.

That said, we have clients whose clients do very large and expensive deals on the backs of napkins and such, God bless them. More work for me.

 

[deeaa]

You know, Brian, talking law would be interesting indeed, except I don't know much of the subject.

But watching all those U.S. law series, seems to me the biggest differences are the jury system/lack thereof - and most definitely the severity of punishments.

Up here it's very lenient...most times a first-time killer etc. can walk after a year or two. Basically the very most anybody can get is roughly six years...and that is because the most severe punishment is 'life imprisonment' which means 14 years maximum. But as a rule that's cut in half unless the prisoner does something real bad, like escapes a dozen times and murders more people while on the run etc.

Some people feel it's not right, especially since you can get the same sentences even with crimes such as embezzlement or tax evasion etc...sometimes it does feel crazy when someone runs over a baby drunk and walks after a year...or sometimes when the case drags, doesn't even get to serve hard time, only probation. It's felt that the loss of work and status and whatnot is punishment enough in many a case.

That doesn't apply to criminally insane - those may really be imprisoned in an asylum for life.

One of my childhood friends (I haven't met him in years though) has actually killed two people already - once in a drunken fight, spent 3 years in jail, and now a while back another 'by accident' when he wanted to 'give the guy a limp' as a payback for some bad deal, and hit an artery. But it's another 3 years for him now...still, I suppose in the U.S. he'd probably get real life sentence already, especially since I hear he's got lots of drugs arrests etc.