Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.

Aria

My RP bestie of several years was just left by his partner of most of a decade.

He is too far away to give a "Do you kinda need to shove your face in my boobs right now?" hug.

This upsets me.

Arkandel

The mancold is upon me.

Pray for me.

saosmash

I am being threatened with depositions in Alaska in December.

:[

Ganymede

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

I am being threatened with depositions in Alaska in December.

:[

What?

For what?

saosmash

@ganymede I just have to get my indigent client to agree to telephonic testimony for out of state witnesses to make it stop but they want to schedule Dec 27 through 29 and I talked a big game like sure we can go whale watching but ugh. That was the only time my stupid brother could potentially visit over the holidays.

(And my client keeps ... being ... intransigent.)

Ganymede

@saosmash

Why can't the out-of-state witnesses be hauled into your jurisdiction?

saosmash

@ganymede I don't think anyone has the money for that. We are litigating a dependency and I've never even had a deposition in one before and I'll have to get the office of public defense to pay my hotel if we go.

Ganymede

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

I don't think anyone has the money for that. We are litigating a dependency and I've never even had a deposition in one before and I'll have to get the office of public defense to pay my hotel if we go.

Admittedly, I'm a jerk when it comes to litigation.

The Uniform Deposition Act requires a recipient properly served to appear where designated by the party seeking to take the deposition. Whether by subpoena or by notice, the deponent has the duty to appear, unless he or she obtains a protective order.

I suppose, though, that you could agree to whatever you want, despite your client's intransigence. I've told more than one client that doing something their way would require an additional $2,000 from them as a retainer. They tend to come around then.

saosmash

@ganymede It is amazing how little they value anything when you're appointed counsel and it's all for free.

Ganymede

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

It is amazing how little they value anything when you're appointed counsel and it's all for free.

It is.

I'd just pull the trigger and set the deposition for a video or telephone conference. In my opinion (after sitting on an ethics committee in my jurisdiction for 5 years), an attorney may generally make choices regarding how to practice or execute a task without getting consent, so long as that choice is competent.

saosmash

@ganymede That's a really helpful idea I had not even thought of. Thanks!!

Ganymede

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

That's a really helpful idea I had not even thought of. Thanks!!

You're welcome. ^.^

Derp

@ganymede said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

In my opinion (after sitting on an ethics committee in my jurisdiction for 5 years), an attorney may generally make choices regarding how to practice or execute a task without getting consent, so long as that choice is competent.

Here, clients have choices in only a select handful of things.

Jury or bench trial?
You testifying?
You taking a plea or accepting a settlement?

Past that, every issue of trial strategy is up to the attorney, and the client can stuff it.

saosmash

@derp It's a little hazier when we're in dependency law. It's a civil case that they are appointed counsel to protect their constitutional rights to parent. I think TECHNICALLY I can override him re telephonic testimony but it's a little hard to manage a case for a client who won't stop screaming about his confrontation rights and how everything is illegal and unjustified literally every time you call him.

Arkandel

This thread is going horribly wrong.

Derp

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

@derp It's a little hazier when we're in dependency law. It's a civil case that they are appointed counsel to protect their constitutional rights to parent. I think TECHNICALLY I can override him re telephonic testimony but it's a little hard to manage a case for a client who won't stop screaming about his confrontation rights and how everything is illegal and unjustified literally every time you call him.

"I think this is the best choice. If you disagree so fundamentally with this decision, you can always request that I withdraw as counsel and pursue the steps to secure new representation, or represent yourself."

That usually gets them to shut up. If not, it might get you off the hook.

Auspice

@arkandel said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

This thread is going horribly wrong.

Because it's gone into lawbot speak?

Derp

@arkandel said in [Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.]

This thread is going horribly wrong[...]

@auspice said in [Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.]

...[b]ecause it's gone into lawbot speak[.]

And we're back. Magic.

saosmash

@derp If I start withdrawing on all of my cases that are for intransigent people who won't listen to what I say, I will have no more dependency cases and that will be bad, I'm on a contract here.

Ganymede

@saosmash said in Real World Peeves, Disgruntlement, and Irks.:

It's a little hazier when we're in dependency law. It's a civil case that they are appointed counsel to protect their constitutional rights to parent. I think TECHNICALLY I can override him re telephonic testimony but it's a little hard to manage a case for a client who won't stop screaming about his confrontation rights and how everything is illegal and unjustified literally every time you call him.

Peeve: People who think the Confrontation Clause applies to non-criminal adjudications.

Bless you for handling this shit, though. I'd be bad at it.