So 5 stars then : funny

[-] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 95 points 2 days ago

You couldn’t ask for a better review.

[-] optissima@lemmy.ml 21 points 2 days ago

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

[-] Spezi@feddit.org 9 points 1 day ago

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

[-] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

Fuck lawyers

[-] D_C@sh.itjust.works 38 points 2 days 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.

[-] smh@slrpnk.net 6 points 1 day ago

My estate lawyer was great. She helped my partner and I write up our wills and made the process as relaxed as possible. We also have powers of attorneys and all that good "we're not close to our parents and don't want them making decisions if we can't" documentation.

Plus she had candy in the waiting room, which really helps cut the tension in hard conversations. Need time to think? Have a bit of laffy taffy.

Also liked my real estate lawyer from when I bought my house. She let us bring our pup to the signing, since that made logistics easier.

[-] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 day 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.

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

[deleted]

[+] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 14 points 2 days 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."

[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

Why would a lawyer not be allowed to do that? Genuinely curious because I would expect information on who won court cases to be public anyway?

[-] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

It depends on how they "won". If it was a full hearing with a jury and everything, that's public record. If it's arbitration, that's probably not public record.

Bragging about a "win" in arbitration, and making something that's not a public record, into a public record, is usually a problem.

With the current wording, while you can infer from context, the outcome of the case, it isn't explicitly stated by the lawyer. The largest disclosure here is from the party that feels they were "wronged", and the lawyer is simply stating that "this person wasn't my client" (more or less). You fill in the rest.

The fact that the commenter was not their client is not disclosing any private information, nor any information about the matter that's being discussed. It's a simple statement of irrefutable fact. (Or fact that can be proven at least)

If the lawyer crosses a line by discussing case specifics, like what the matter regarded (divorce, custody, property, whatever), or the outcome of that case, when it is not a matter of public record, can land them in serious hot water.

I would assume, again, from context, that the matter is not presently a part of public record.

[-] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

That makes sense, thanks.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 0 points 2 days ago

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

[-] alci@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Maybe the lawyer lost the case. The response is even more brilliant in this case !!

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

🤣
That type of ambiguity is fine.
It's the “who actually wrote this: the client, a relative, or an opponent?”

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 27 points 2 days ago

That isn't clearer at all.

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 20 points 2 days ago

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

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -5 points 2 days ago

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

[-] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

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

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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.

[-] Hupf@feddit.org 11 points 2 days ago

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days 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 1 day ago

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

[-] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 0 points 1 day ago

bad certificate

[-] Hupf@feddit.org 0 points 1 day 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.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days 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 2 days 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 2 days ago

Tis the opposite, I misread the response initially.

Funny