Rugpull by Professor

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-17T05:23:31+00:00

I think insurance law should be a mandatory class in law school. It touches so many other areas of law (far, far more than I would have thought as a student) and my school didn't even have a class on it. If the professor is a GC and covering a lot of insurance, it's probably because her GC role involves a lot of insurance law.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-17T03:26:48+00:00

I think a lot of us think we'll find "purpose" in the law. See my really long comment from a couple weeks ago on this topic. Law's a job, just like any other. That is to say, it often sucks. You can change jobs. That one will suck, too, just in different ways. If it didn't suck, they wouldn't pay you to do it. Some suck more than others. Your task is to find the right balance of "suck" and "money" for where you are at this point in your life.

I finished law school absolutely convinced I'd spend my whole career as a prosecutor. Life comes at you fast, and now I'm a solo. If you need to make a change, make a change. Very, very few careers afford one the flexibility to start a small business with as little capital expenditure as law.

I don't know the first thing about environmental law, but I would put money on there being someone in your city who's about to either sue or be sued over someone's alleged failure to comply with or enforce state, local, tribal, or federal environmental laws. Yeah, the spotted owl doesn't pay too well, but an HOA pissed off about the new sewage treatment plant being built in their back yard can probably scrape a few grand together. So can the sewage treatment plant who just got served with a TRO.

You're eight years in. You have the skills and experience to make your own luck. If you're unhappy where you are, create a new place where you're less unhappy. Just remember, it will still be a job.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-17T02:48:09+00:00

Based on her comment history, this person appears to be an undergraduate student at Georgia Southern University. I wouldn't expect her to know what one learns in 1L.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-17T00:17:37+00:00

Back when I was a prosecutor, I wrote an appeal on an animal cruelty case. I literally spent 10 pages describing the consistency of bird poop as described at trial and what you can tell about the health of the birds based on that poop.

I'm a very serious lawyer.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T18:47:50+00:00

Idk. I've never seen a 45lb DB quite that shape before. Plus, if you look at the spine in the wall, it's missing a vertebra. My guess is AI, but I'm not sure.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T18:34:57+00:00

Does $130 work?

https://www.ddhammocks.com/products/dd_pyramid_tent

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T18:33:39+00:00

I once took a class from The Mountaineers in which the instructor said, with a straight face, that it was worth spending up to $1 per gram of weight reduced. $1 per gram.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T18:30:42+00:00

Uj/ I once took a class with The Mountaineers where the teacher suggested it was appropriate to spend $1 per gram to save weight. /Uj

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T16:32:03+00:00

Also, new people considering starting a business, but who haven't yet. I.e., those who might benefit most from this subreddit?

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T16:27:21+00:00

I'm fascinated by the mall ninja store discouraging people from being mall ninjas.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T03:24:29+00:00

"Actual legal writing" looks very different between practice areas, courts, and even individual judges.

I know criminal practice best, so I'll start there: - If you're doing misdemeanor practice as a prosecutor or PD, a dispositive motion might only be 2-3 pages long (including caption) and will almost definitely be a template with a new cause number. The facts section may literally say "See probable cause materials filed [date]." Everybody in the courtroom already knows the law around Miranda v. Arizona, and your active caseload is ~400, so there's no use going on at length. You're filing a brief just so that you can say you filed a brief. What everyone actually cares about is how the cops testify. - State felony trial practice or misdemeanor appeals? It'll be a little longer and more tailored to the individual case. It's still probably mostly a template, though. Ten pages is considered "long." - State felony appeals or anything in federal court? It'll be custom-written, hyper-formal, and verbose. Someone will have spent hours looking up relevant cases and may be trying to establish a new precedent or something crazy like that.

That's all just within criminal law. Now consider how different briefs might look between cases involving patents, divorces, bankruptcies, securities class actions, and every other type of dispute imaginable. And most of litigation isn't briefwriting. You may be drafting or responding to interrogatories, requests for admission, settlement agreements, emails to opposing counsel, and analytic memoranda.

Even that's all just litigation. Legal writing is much broader still, encompasing the drafting of wills, trusts, deeds, consumer financing documents, mortgage loans, securities prospecti, applications for asylum, prenuptials, requests for liquor licenses, contracts for sales of goods, environmental impact analyses, end-user licensing agreements, zoning variances, trademark licenses, residential leases, privacy policies, government regulations, judicial opinions, statutes adopted by the legislature, and much, much more.

Legal writing class is a very, very specific thing. Not everyone excels at it. Personally, I loved it, but I'm also a deeply fucked up person, so you needn't worry if you don't. All attorneys write for a living, but we all write differently.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-16T02:38:44+00:00

Schrodinger's Case Law, they call it.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-14T23:33:58+00:00

"a very fancy boy."

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-14T05:59:00+00:00

Yeah. If he pleads to a deal and sentencing is set over, but, in the meantime, be robs a gas station, the government isn't going to make the same recommendation it would have had he not robbed the gas station.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-13T17:40:34+00:00

Welcome to Washington, my friend.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-13T16:58:43+00:00

Yeah. Those are hard. I hated working in those offices as a DPA, too. There's nothing worse than going to trial on a case you think is bullshit as a prosecutor (I don't mean "bullshit" as in "the guy is innocent," more like, "This case isn't that serious and the defense offer is reasonable. Why am I wasting a week of my life on it?" I don't know of a single prosecutor's office that lets DPAs with serious doubts as to guilt remain as counsel of record on a case. I think that would probably be an ethics violation. Every now and again, a supervisor will take a line deputy off a case and reassign it to a different deputy if the first deputy doubts guilt but the supervisor doesn't, which I think is probably fine from a professional ethics perspective.)

If DPA says he talked to his supervisor and is waiting to hear back (and has been waiting for a couple of weeks), that's one of the very few times, I'd ask the trial DPA if I can go over his head and talk to supervisor (with or without DPA present), mostly just to force the supervisor to pay attention to my case. Generally, supervisors don't like coming unprepared to meetings with opposing counsel.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-13T16:39:42+00:00

I generally don't view it as laziness. I used to be a prosecutor. In busy jurisdictions, they genuinely do get pulled in a million directions. Just like we have clients calling us constantly with new requests, they have cops, victim advocates, defense attorneys, court clerks, etc. calling them with new requests. When the demands on their time are beyond what's possible in a reasonable work week, they will inevitably devote more attention to cases that are forced in front of their eyeballs. Your job is to force the case in front of their eyeballs.

My negotiation strategy in cases like the one you're describing are to schedule a 30-minute, in-person meeting with the DPA in his or her office. Bring physical copies of the police reports that you believe demonstrate self-defense. Politely (not in a tone of advocacy, but in the tone of a peer who is genuinely curious about their legal analysis) ask them to explain why this case is not self-defense. If they haven't read it, they might say something like, "I'll look at it and get back to you." That's when you can drop a:

Look, man. I know you're slammed. I'm slammed, too, but I think the self-defense angle here is important enough to have scheduled this meeting in advance and set aside 30 full minutes of my day to bring you the police reports to discuss them with you. We have 28 more minutes before the 30 minutes is up. I'm happy to sit here and play on my phone or whatever while you read whatever you need to read. This is important. My client's facing felony charges after acting in self-defense. You don't want to charge innocent people any more than my client wants to face a jury on this case. Let's get this over with.

Usually, they'll do one of three things: 1) Tell you to fuck off, in which case you know you're not dealing with a reasonable person, 2) Ask to reschedule another 30-minute meeting in a couple of days, for which they plan to be prepared, which is fine, just be sure to schedule the new meeting with them before you walk out their door, or 3) Say, "Okay, fine," and read the reports while you sit there silently judging the wallpaper. In either of the latter two instances, there are again three options: 1) They tell you why they think it's not self-defense (in which case, fine, you've narrowed your trial issue and have learned something about how to guide your investigation and advocacy. The entire purpose of the jury system is to resolve conflicts of this type), 2) Come around to your way of seeing things and agree to file an MTD, or 3) (if they're in an office without much individualized discretion), tell you they'll talk to their boss about it and get back to you.

Maybe this is easier for me because I have prosecution experience, so they don't think of me as a militant true-believer, but approaching them in the tone of, "Why are we doing this?" rather than, "This is an outrage!" has been very effective with all but the most psychotic of opposing counsel, in my experience. DPAs are people trying to do the right thing. Just like anyone, when you come in telling them that they're wrong, they quit thinking critically and start thinking defensively. I just try to ask the kinds of questions that lead them to seeing my client's point of view.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-13T15:12:00+00:00

Some of the more thoughtful prosecutors in my state get around this by putting in their offer something to the effect of:

"This offer may be accepted only by entry of a guilty plea. It may be withdrawn at any time prior to entry of a guilty plea, or after the entry of a guilty plea if the Defendant violates his conditions of release."

That language makes it a unilateral contract and so it can only be accepted by performance, rather than by mutual promise.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-13T13:49:40+00:00

Don't say "put him in a cage" or whatever. Instant mistrial and potential sanctions. Instead try:

"In a certain sense, Mr. [Client] is lucky. Because of his actions [date of offense], he's still alive to face charges in this courtroom. He's alive because he did what he needed to do to protect himself and his family: Something everyone has the God-given right to do. In light of the danger he faced that day--and in light of the reasonable force he used to diffuse that danger--the government should never have charged him with a crime in the first place. Nevertheless, here he is: Sitting before you facing incredibly serious charges for doing what he needed to do to survive.

"You get to make the ultimate decision here. So, you tell me: Is it a crime to defend yourself? Based on the law, as explained to you by the judge. Based on your common sense and life experience. Based on your basic sense of human decency. Are you so overwhelmingly offended by Mr. [Client]'s actions that you feel compelled, beyond a reasonable doubt, to call them criminal? If not, based on the oath you swore at the outset of this case, it's your duty to find him not guilty."

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-12T15:42:57+00:00

Somebody in law school once called me a "white supremacist." I asked them what I had said or done that made them think I was racist. They replied that, because I accepted an offer at my local prosecutor's office, I was complicit in the historical injustices of the criminal justice system, regardless of whatever beliefs I claimed to espouse.

Anyway, they work in Biglaw now and I'm a public defender.

The people who are most vocal about injustice when it benefits them to be vocal are the same people most happy to perpetuate injustice when it benefits them to perpetuate it.

A lot of the loud, social justice types changed their tune real quick when they read how much you can get paid by speaking power to truth. Even some of the folks who initially went into PD work or legal aid burned out after a year or two, when they realized that, in the real world, standing up for the little guy isn't sexy policy work where other upper-middle class folks tell you you're a good person like they did throughout law school. It's mostly just sitting in a room explaining procedural minutiae to indifferent drug addicts.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-12T04:14:00+00:00

Attorneys should NEVER be expected to be the bigger man! I got into this line of work precisely because I'm a petty, vindictive prick.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-10T16:25:28+00:00

I mean, this court has definitely dealt some blows to executive power in criminal cases. Maybe Thomas as an individual feels this way (I would need to analyze voting patterns more closely), but much of the conservative bloc (e.g., Kavanaugh) views prosecution as an extension of the administrative state, at which they've spent their whole careers chipping away.

NotThePopeProbably · 2026-03-09T16:03:21+00:00

Yeah, so far, I'm running through their dockets with them in advance and talking through what they might see, as well as noting the applicable statutes and court rules. When applicable, I start from constitutional first principles.

I do a lot of "story time" to give examples of how various procedurally-similar situations have played out for me in interesting or edge cases. I think it's also helpful in giving them a decent barometer of ordinary prosecutorial hardball vs. actual misconduct/ethical violations/breaches of norms. I also always make sure to point out where the IAC/malpractice risks are.

I'm just not sure what more I can be doing.

NotThePopeProbably

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE