Why are we still allowing Chinese products into our country? They poison our children's toys, they poison our pets' food and now they poisoned their milk (at least it was only their own, but I feel terrible about their babies). Clearly this country is emerging in the shadow of capitalist america by valuing the almight dollar (or yuan) above all else. So much for communism, eh? This is a country that faked the Olympic opening ceremonies, having one child lip-sync to another child because the singer wasn't 'cute enough.'
Unfortnately, chinese products are so cheap, they are practically the only ones you can find in certain markets, like toys. Of course, that's because of our own country's rampant corporate greed that found it was better to hire the chinese company that pays its workers 5 cents an hour with no benefits than american workers that require unreasonable things like health insurance and sick days. Then the american corporation can give its CEOs and boardmembers millions and shareholders thousands, while sure they pass along perhaps a dollar or two savings on the product to the public. Frankly, I would rather pay a little more for something made elsewhere. Definitely going to look for that in the upcoming holidays.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Monday, September 15, 2008
So far so good
So I've been at this new job nearly four months now, and so far, so good. My boss is easy to work for, he gives me plenty to do, but doesn't nag me. He doesn't cut my billing hours (or at least he hasn't complained to me that he's had to). He hasn't said word one about whether I'm dressed appropriately (or complained that I wasn't), or that I have to leave to pick up my kids from school, or even the couple of days I had to work from home because of sick kids.
And now, for the second time in this four month period, I'm getting a trip to NYC to wine and dine clients. The firm is paying for me to take whatever train I want, will pay for the taxi fare, and pay for a pretty expensive meal. If I wanted, they'd even pay for me to spend the night in a decent hotel. I opted not, so I could come home to family, but it was nice to know it was an option. My last law firm that was supposedly "more elite" or "more prestigious" never did this. The closest was a "quick bite" in a hotel restaurant when a client was in town for a settlement conference. My last lawfirm also refused to pay for my California bar license or for more than one bar association membership. My current firm says they'll pay for both the license and any extra bar associations I want to join.
Now my salary isn't quite as high, but its not too far off. I know my current firm would love me to bill as much as my last firm required, but they accept that I probably won't. Given that my boss isn't slashing my hours faster than a Ginsu knife, I've actually come close to 'ideal' hours twice and made it once in the last three months. For September, I'll probably come close again. If this keeps up, the only month I'll probably not bill well is December, when the French family comes to visit.
So far, I'm really liking it here. The work is interesting, the people nice, the work environment great. I hope it keeps up.
And now, for the second time in this four month period, I'm getting a trip to NYC to wine and dine clients. The firm is paying for me to take whatever train I want, will pay for the taxi fare, and pay for a pretty expensive meal. If I wanted, they'd even pay for me to spend the night in a decent hotel. I opted not, so I could come home to family, but it was nice to know it was an option. My last law firm that was supposedly "more elite" or "more prestigious" never did this. The closest was a "quick bite" in a hotel restaurant when a client was in town for a settlement conference. My last lawfirm also refused to pay for my California bar license or for more than one bar association membership. My current firm says they'll pay for both the license and any extra bar associations I want to join.
Now my salary isn't quite as high, but its not too far off. I know my current firm would love me to bill as much as my last firm required, but they accept that I probably won't. Given that my boss isn't slashing my hours faster than a Ginsu knife, I've actually come close to 'ideal' hours twice and made it once in the last three months. For September, I'll probably come close again. If this keeps up, the only month I'll probably not bill well is December, when the French family comes to visit.
So far, I'm really liking it here. The work is interesting, the people nice, the work environment great. I hope it keeps up.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Shoot Me Now
I can't believe I am going to defend insurance companies. I know I have to do it for a living, but I don't really like it. Usually, I try and convince myself that even though the insurance company is paying my bill and calls the shots, I'm really representing the poor sap insured (whose rates have already increased the moment the lawsuit is served).
Anyway, recently I've worked on cases where the Plaintiff has sued our client, who admittedly was probably negligent, but the plaintiff doesn't sue the party that really caused the wrong. The reason? Because our client has insurance and the really wrong party doesn't. Yup, the Plaintiff presumes that the insurance company will likely pony up at least some money to settle the lawsuit, which is probably right, whereas the really wrong party probably doesn't have two sous to rub together (which may or may not be true). Its annoying because not only does it offend my sense of justice (yeah, I do have one), but it makes more work for me because I then have to prepare a joinder complaint to join the really wrong party into the lawsuit, and serve the complaint (and I have plenty of other work to do, I don't need the extra billables, thank you).
Its not like it costs the Plaintiffs that much extra to add on another defendant, and the plaintiffs in these cases, can well afford the sums. Some plaintiffs (or their counsel) are just too lazy.
Anyway, recently I've worked on cases where the Plaintiff has sued our client, who admittedly was probably negligent, but the plaintiff doesn't sue the party that really caused the wrong. The reason? Because our client has insurance and the really wrong party doesn't. Yup, the Plaintiff presumes that the insurance company will likely pony up at least some money to settle the lawsuit, which is probably right, whereas the really wrong party probably doesn't have two sous to rub together (which may or may not be true). Its annoying because not only does it offend my sense of justice (yeah, I do have one), but it makes more work for me because I then have to prepare a joinder complaint to join the really wrong party into the lawsuit, and serve the complaint (and I have plenty of other work to do, I don't need the extra billables, thank you).
Its not like it costs the Plaintiffs that much extra to add on another defendant, and the plaintiffs in these cases, can well afford the sums. Some plaintiffs (or their counsel) are just too lazy.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Pro Se Pains
Gah, I hate pro se plaintiffs. They flaunt the rules, enforce the ones they choose, get away with not following the ones they don't like. You can't call them up and ask for reasonable extensions, because they aren't reasonable. You can't file motions against them because they just plead "poor me, I have no attorney" to the judge and get away with their vague and incomplete answers to discovery. You are left with no choice but to take their deposition, where they make your life even more difficult by claiming not to understand your questions, or just outright refusing to answer. Sure you can file a motion for that, but then you're forced to retake the deposition.
Its not quite as bad in federal court, you can arrange to have a magistrate sit in on the deposition to make instant rulings and force the plaintiff to answer. The judges are also a lot more likely to grant summary judgment motions, even if the plaintiff could make an argument for his case, but due to his lack of attorney, he doesn't. State court is much more forgiving to pro se plaintiffs and bend over backward. State court judges deny clearly meritorious motions because they too don't want the pro se plaintiff filing even more documents. More often than not, their settlement demands are outrageous, they refuse to see reason and ultimately the client has to pay a ton of money in attorneys fees to either win at summary judgment (if lucky) or at trial. Yeah, its nice to have good billing time, but the headache these plaintiffs put one through, its not worth it.
All in all, pro se plaintiffs are a PITA in every sense of the word. They really should get a clue when they can't find even a sleaze-ball attorney to represent them.
Its not quite as bad in federal court, you can arrange to have a magistrate sit in on the deposition to make instant rulings and force the plaintiff to answer. The judges are also a lot more likely to grant summary judgment motions, even if the plaintiff could make an argument for his case, but due to his lack of attorney, he doesn't. State court is much more forgiving to pro se plaintiffs and bend over backward. State court judges deny clearly meritorious motions because they too don't want the pro se plaintiff filing even more documents. More often than not, their settlement demands are outrageous, they refuse to see reason and ultimately the client has to pay a ton of money in attorneys fees to either win at summary judgment (if lucky) or at trial. Yeah, its nice to have good billing time, but the headache these plaintiffs put one through, its not worth it.
All in all, pro se plaintiffs are a PITA in every sense of the word. They really should get a clue when they can't find even a sleaze-ball attorney to represent them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)