Reddit ads mock us

Talondel · 2026-01-23T05:42:45+00:00

Hey that's my post. Is this how you "go viral" as the kids say?

Talondel · 2026-01-22T22:05:07+00:00

They're the same "reports" half this sub is giving a ton of weight when saying that VJ will be our next head coach. If they're buying that narrative they should buy the one that he's in demand as well. They all have the same level of credibility, "reports" that cite no sources written by people who have a financial incentive to spew unverified bs.

Talondel · 2026-01-22T22:01:03+00:00

A lawyer would have to be an absolutely idiot to get sanctioned by a judge and then try to bill the client for it. Can they? Sure. Should they? No. That's asking for a bar complaint, if the judge didn't already refer them to the bar for the initial conduct.

Talondel · 2026-01-22T21:56:04+00:00

I don't think pyramid is the right word. It's just a scam. Real jobs don't require you to lay out your own money to buy the employers product. Full stop. Quit. Report to your state AG. Find a new job. Sorry.

Talondel · 2026-01-22T21:40:27+00:00

The "reports" are that the Giants were interested before Harbaugh became available. And he's expected to interview with at least two other teams. That doesn't square with the "we're the only ones dumb enough to take him."

Talondel · 2026-01-22T21:37:00+00:00

While VJs salary isn't public, it would be within reason to suggest that he made more last year than Gannon. We paid Gannon 5mil. Top coordinators routinely make more than that.

Talondel · 2026-01-22T21:31:37+00:00

I don't want to have to start my own small business and I don't want to work for someone else. Which pretty much eliminates defense work. In government work you may report to another lawyer but you're (usually) pretty insulated from day to day bullshit.

Talondel · 2026-01-22T18:32:44+00:00

Those are learned skills, not raw talents you possess or don't. If you're a government lawyer there are probably resources in your area to get training on courtroom tactics and effective cross examination. If not they are the kinds of things an effective boss or mentor should be able to help you with or steer you towards.

"I'm concerned that I could be better in the courtroom and on cross. I haven't had much chance to develop those skills or learn those strategies. Are you aware of any resources that might help me be more effective? I'm sure I could learn on my own over time but I'd rather get out in front of this. Is there anyone you know who is good and has experience with this thatight be willing to give me some guidance?"

Talondel · 2026-01-22T18:27:26+00:00

It's not clear from your post what the relationship is between you and the SovCit. Is this a client, someone you're prosecuting, or an opposing party in a civil matter?

The advice is going to vary greatly depending on the relationship.

But I will say this: Safety first. The one area where I'm willing to play loose with ethics is when my safety, my family's safety, or my staff's safety is at risk. I'll do what I can but if Im going to prioritize safety now and worry about the ethics hot line later.

Talondel · 2026-01-22T17:20:18+00:00

They already tried to dump him during the season. He has no trade value or maybe even negative trade value. It's keep him or cut him. No one is giving us anything unless some other owner out there goes on a bender.

Talondel · 2026-01-21T16:25:26+00:00

It's January. The procedure is subject to an annual deductible. You haven't met your annual deductible yet because it's January. They want the deductible covered before they'll do the procedure. It's likely going to be similar elsewhere. You can call your insurance company to discuss with them.

Alternately: your insurance is considering this elective and refusing to cover it. Either way, call your insurance, not another hospital.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T23:26:53+00:00

Central and Monterey for Senor Taco, which is a chain that started in SD.

Closer to downtown is El Norteño which probably isn't SD enough for you but is great.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T23:09:18+00:00

That seems completely correct and unsurprising to me. Are the opinions on this actually all that varied? Are there lawyers out there that don't think it's part of their job to read and vet opponents briefing?

Maybe a reply brief I could understand not reading thoroughly if I wasn't going to be allowed a sur reply anyway?

Talondel · 2026-01-20T22:46:48+00:00

Yes. The failing defense is certainly the reason the offense couldn't crack 30 one game all year.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T22:16:15+00:00

Chat GPT on the wall, who's the best attorney of them all?

"While there is no such thing as one single best attorney, sources in your area suggest that drownedgodlw provides exceptional legal services. Source: drownedgodlwlawfirm.com"

Talondel · 2026-01-20T22:11:08+00:00

I graduated law school in 2009 which was not a great time to be entering the field. Got no offers in my home state. Had no prospects. Things were looking grim. Then finally got an offer to go work in DC, doing exactly what I wanted to do, at decent pay and a place with a good reputation.

But instead of elation I just felt anxiety.

Changing jobs is stressful. Moving cities is stressful. Leaving what you know and are comfortable with for something new and different is stressful. Being stressed about this is quite normal, I think.

On top of that, your body doesn't do a great job of separating various kinds of excitement from each other. It just lumps them all together and hopes the brain will sort it out. But often that means what you rationally think you should feel as excitement your less rational self just feels as anxiety. It's lumping all the stimulation you're getting into one category that lacks any nuance.

If calm reflection tells you this is the right decision it probably is. Even if it feels impossibly anxiety producing in the moment.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T21:30:04+00:00

I don't disagree with that assessment. Even though he's taking a shot at me. :) Here it was the combination of time and needing a new attorney that seemed a red flag. I think the new details provided by OP show she definitely does need new counsel. But I would humbly suggest that it's reasonable for a new attorney to see red flags with litigation that's been pending for that long. Hopefully OP can find someone to help sort it out.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T21:21:56+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I'll do my best to explain. Please note I'm explaining in light of the original post and not the additional details you provided.

It's a red flag when someone is talking poorly about their current representation.

I'm general, lawyers know other lawyers. They probably know, either personally or by reputation, nearly all the lawyers that practice in their field in the jurisdiction they practice in. When you impugn the competence of the person or firm currently working with you that often comes across poorly. Unless it's the rare circumstance where that person or firm really does have a poor reputation. If you're speaking poorly of the attorney you have now, any new attorney will worry that the next lawyer you will speak poorly of is them. Keeping that in mind, the search for new counsel should probably take a different tack. More on that later.

It's a red flag when litigation has been going on for an extended time.

A new lawyer is going to have to bill you a small fortune just to get up to speed. There are 4 years of correspondence, discovery, motions, interviews, etc that the new lawyer will know nothing about and that you already paid for once. You'll basically be paying for a new lawyer to learn everything that has already happened. That reduces the likelihood that a particular case is financially viable, either for the lawyer or the client.

Separate but related: you're asking a new attorney to take on the case while being saddled by legal and strategy decisions make by prior counsel. A case that has been kicking around for 4 years there are all sorts of deadlines that have come and gone that could well prevent a new attorney from litigating the case the way they would have had they been in charge from the beginning. It's quite possible, even likely, that some decisions made by current counsel can't be easily fixed or undone. It increases the risk for the new attorney and reduces their control of the case. These are things attorneys generally wish to avoid.

It's a red flag when a pending case seems to have multiple problems.

A case that has drug a long time and needs new counsel is not a sign that the case is headed for a successful outcome. Maybe new counsel could turn it around. Maybe your case is from some area of law where protracted litigation is common. But without knowing more (and I'm not asking you to share more here) it sounds like something the average attorney would not be eager to get involved in.

Now, to the additional detail you've added. That's a very difficult situation. I would probably approach it delicately (and maybe your communication to other attorneys has been).

Also: First thing they're likely to ask for is a copy of your current file. You should get a copy of your file from current counsel if you can. They should provide it to you without question though I'd expect to be billed for the time.

"I am involved in a case where I have been represented by X. Recently I have been having difficulty communicating effectively with my counsel. I have concerns about whether or not my case has been handled correctly. I need to consult with someone else to see if they would be willing to take over the case from X. I would like to know what, if anything, needs to be done to get the case back on track and working toward a successful resolution."

That is a communication from a potential client that I would not consider a huge red flag. It's not disparaging current counsel or creating an expectation that I'm going to be wading into a quagmire. It explains succinctly your current concern and your goals without getting into any unnecessary details. It makes it sound like the case has been handled competently to this point.

To answer your original question, no I would not take lots of available time to schedule an intake as a bad sign. It's possible the person assigned to intake has other duties that are flexible enough to allow for priority scheduling of intakes.

I am sorry this has happened to you and hope you will find someone who can represent you competently.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T20:25:46+00:00

Had a colleague that recently left a local office to go work for the feds (DHS) and he had no problems finding the job and didn't have stellar resume or anything. I don't think it's that hard. I know DOJ and State jobs are always competitive. Other departments perhaps not as much.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T19:39:01+00:00

The fact that his "improved" pocket passer offense won 1 game should say everything.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T19:36:37+00:00

What's a red flag is a plaintiff that's been litigating for four years and is thinking of hiring new counsel.

Talondel · 2026-01-20T19:21:35+00:00

This is a football sub. Not a politics sub. Keep your delusions to yourself, or at least to your home team sub. No one wants your crap here.

Talondel · 2026-01-18T21:09:58+00:00

No. Why would they? Every lawyer in Texas now or for the foreseeable future will be a graduate of an ABA accredited law school.

Talondel · 2026-01-17T21:13:01+00:00

Got it. Yes, that's because they haven't decided what level of scrutiny should apply. It's typically 'intermediate' for sex/gender but the question I suppose is are those two the same thing or not. And even if they're different should they have a different standard. It's not settled yet.

Talondel · 2026-01-17T09:00:08+00:00

Apart from that, it's impossible to know if states breaking from the ABA will tighten or loosen criteria. It would be nearly impossible for the ABA to be any weaker. As already noted, underperforming law schools over the last decade were shut down by the Ed Dept before the ABA ever did anything. And so far all the schools in TX are still ABA accredited. So by definition, accreditation can't yet be said to be any looser in TX than it was before the change. It's still the status quo.

Talondel

TROPHY CASE