So 5 stars then : funny

[+] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

[deleted]

[-] Spezi@feddit.org 4 points 8 hours ago

Lawyer Jen doesn’t hesitate. She exhibits no restraints and she takes and she takes and she takes. And she keeps winning anyway.

[-] optissima@lemmy.ml 16 points 13 hours ago

This is horrific, I hate how everything is a competition in the US.

[-] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 7 points 12 hours ago

Fuck lawyers

[-] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 9 hours ago

Oh I have, a few times. Mostly them seem to be into mild restraint kink, though I know at least one who is into cross dressing.

[-] D_C@sh.itjust.works 28 points 11 hours ago

Agreed.
My mate and his wife decided to divorce. She chose the assets that she wanted to keep and everything was amicable...until her mate said "use my sister, she's a divorce lawyer. She'll get you everything from him"

Now you have to remember that this was just a marriage that had run its course, there was no cheating etc etc. no violence. They just fell out of love.

Anyways long story short his wife hired the lawyer. So he had to get a lawyer. And instead of them sharing the assets between themselves everything got dark and murky and both lawyers got the lions share of their money and assets. Fuck lawyers.

[-] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 84 points 1 day ago

You couldn’t ask for a better review.

[+] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -26 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

got confused enough that I believe this should have been written this way:

In the interest of accuracy, the [reviewer] above is one of my client’s ex-spouse whom we won a case from.

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 12 points 13 hours ago

Legally, I don't think the lawyer can brag about such a win on a public forum.

It's very very likely she can't say more than that the comment is from the 'ex-spouse of a client' without risking libel or something.

It's up to the reader to infer the context.

The same way as: "there are only two types of people in the world, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data."

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 0 points 9 hours ago

I can also infer the wrong conclusion from the same data… which is why I misread Agnew’s response at first.

[-] Hupf@feddit.org 11 points 17 hours ago

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I don't think either folks were joking m8.
Jokes require setup, I don't even see a punchline.

[-] Hupf@feddit.org 2 points 9 hours ago

https://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 0 points 9 hours ago

bad certificate

[-] Hupf@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago

Yeah, one would think ESR of all people would get his shit together here. OTOH it's just a static web page, not handling sensitive user info.

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 24 points 21 hours ago

That isn't clearer at all.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -4 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Mines, or Agnew’s response?

I reworded Agnew’s response because I misread it as if a client used es ex-spouse’s account to write the review [in es behalf], and not that the losing ex-spouse wrote this scathing review.

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 18 points 19 hours ago

Your version was worse, I understood the original just fine.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -5 points 19 hours ago

How would u write it so my former confusion wouldn’t misread?

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 18 hours ago

I'm not sure, it made sense to me.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -4 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

It didn't to me at first read, and my upvoter.

Now, if I was in a similar position, I would respond:

Case No. #####, the poster above was an opponent that lost against my case against es.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 17 hours ago

That's what you'd think is being implied, but it's a lawyer so who knows if this is the case

[-] T4V0@lemmy.pt 5 points 17 hours ago

You're thinking too hard about this, the lawyer left this response open ended on purpose as an ad. Regardless if the lawyer won or lost the case, the implication here is that they won, so they are so good at their job, the opposition cries about it.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 0 points 9 hours ago

Tis the opposite, I misread the response initially.

Funny