all 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 95 points 11 months ago

You couldn’t ask for a better review.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 40 points 11 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment