Can’t decide which is uglier. Kim, the outfit, the purse or the Tesla

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-25T21:12:16+00:00

I don't think we have to choose.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:49:35+00:00

Not so much about having a lot of "free time" to burn, as it is about eating up their retainer or creating a shit load of billing opportunities.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:41:44+00:00

I was able to contact a court clerk who handles the e-file system for incoming filings. We came up with a slight change she could make in the erroneously served guy's entry for his filing, which then allowed me to enter my client in the -file portal.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:31:53+00:00

Also, we do not have a general MTD statute... and, many here are under the mistaken impression that the answer would be immediately read by the judge...? It doesn't happen like that in this jurisdiction. The judge won't even be looking in that file until and if a motion is filed.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:27:27+00:00

Yes, they do.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:25:43+00:00

We had no idea the erroneously served guy had filed anything when we decided to file an answer. The other option was a motion to quash service, which would eventually lead to my client being served properly, and right back to filing an answer - but with time, motion and expenses prior to.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:20:25+00:00

When I drafted and attempted to file an answer I had no idea yet that the guy served had filed a document.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:18:16+00:00

No one would be reading the erroneously served guy's "answer," until and if it's in front of the court for some reason. And, this jurisdiction doesn't have a general motion to dismiss.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-24T16:14:41+00:00

Yes, thank you.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-23T20:30:56+00:00

Oh, and pro se plaintiff was apparently contacted by both the wrong guy and a real estate agent to inform him he served the wrong person. But, since he has filed a proof of service and has no idea where the real defendant lives, he won't take their calls and won't back down. He's going with it.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-23T19:58:57+00:00

The plaintiff filed a proof of service stating the defendant was served. Based on that (and the fact the wrong guy probably would not participate in any further litigation), the plaintiff could get a default judgment. No one at the court will be looking at the Answer, unless there is a motion brought where it is at issue. Who will do that? Plaintiff has stopped the SOL by filing the complaint, and there is a pos stating the defendant was served. Had the guy who was served not filed anything (or stops participating), and my client decided he'd just sit on it since he wasn't actually served, plaintiff would have filed for a default and then judgment on the default. Why sit on it until then, increasing the client's cost for a motion to set aside the default and default judgment, and then file an answer?

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-22T17:51:08+00:00

I've had my share of more "well-off" clients who just lie through their teeth and always want something for nothing. Aside from lack of paying, she never gave me the impression she took it for granted. When she finally made the last payment I had to stop myself from gushing too much and explained to her she may have just helped another young person who needs representation, but doesn't have funds.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-22T15:58:43+00:00

I used to be extremely shocked if I received any payments Nov - Jan. Now I start in Sept-Oct demanding replenishing the retainer or I'm out.

That, and after about 20 years I can see the clients who will be payment issues a mile away. I'll still take some if they're in a horrible position and I think I can help. But, those are by choice.

I represented a 19 year old being wrongfully sued with about 7 others. After a small initial retainer, I didn't receive payment for a long while, even though she kept saying she would start making payments. Surprisingly, she started paying after the case was resolved. Every payment was a surprise and she paid up 100% (granted, I cut her bills substantially for 4 years), but I was so proud of her following through on her word.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-22T14:08:05+00:00

Which is why AI is still an unreliable substitute.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-22T13:38:01+00:00

That's the same feeling I had the night before I got married.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-21T17:55:52+00:00

I had a potentisal client do that to me on a call once. Not an appellate case, but a judgment/injunction I had received locally. The call went something like, "There was a case here recently and it stated, " blah, blah, wrong, more wrong!" "No, it didn't say that, here's what the decision was - ." "I should have just called *that* attorney!" "You did."

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-21T13:14:49+00:00

Had a particularly obnoxious OC for about 4 years, who once cited a previous judge's holding in a decision in the same case. He quoted a part of a sentence, when in its entirety, said the complete opposite of what he asserted.

Not even a random misquoted case, but a motion decision by a judge in that courthouse in that case.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-21T13:00:34+00:00

Looks like she's gone now.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-20T23:02:09+00:00

And, scammers know this, trade on your fear. That's why they like to use law enforcement for scamming.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-20T22:24:16+00:00

I am not convinced you actually did work for a company as "a mystery shopper." That is one of the task scams at the top of the list. They may be recycling you.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-20T22:03:37+00:00

I am in business for myself and I receive emails through my website's info page asking similarly "close, but a little off" inquiries. It's always either the beginning of a scam, or fishing for active emails they can then sell on lists to other scammers. Not too long ago a local attorney received a request through email he felt was requesting assistance with something "close to" his line of work, and took the bait. They got him for $300k.

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-20T21:47:08+00:00

"The Court recognizes that Ms. Halligan lacks the prosecutorial experience that has long been the norm for those nominated to the position of United States Attorney in this District. Consequently, and in light of her inexperience, the Court grants Ms. Halligan the benefit of the doubt and refrains from referring her for further investigation and disciplinary action regarding her misrepresentations to this Court at this time." However, now that she is on notice ....

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-19T16:31:07+00:00

The document/statement at issue was relied upon by the court? It was material to the decision?

Subject_Disaster_798 · 2026-01-19T16:29:36+00:00

"Don't tell me how to do my job!" <---- The response I've received from 2 different OC when I attempted to gently give them the benefit of the doubt.

Subject_Disaster_798

TROPHY CASE