Welcome to the third part of our interesting investigation of intent here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we strive to provide baby lawyers and law students with a profane purview of the legal profession. I’m your host with little to say and 1,500+ words to say it in, the Boozy Barrister.
So, like we’ve covered every other time, this guide isn’t really aimed at lawyers. I mean, at least not good lawyers who paid attention during their first year of law school and therefore have a semi-firm grasp on these basic fucking concepts. I mean, these are concepts so basic they get a latte from the same Starbucks every damn day. You should know this shit well before now if you’re an attorney and any where the day-to-day practice of lot and not busy being some in-house asshole who forms their furniture solely out of frightened interns and sales representatives. It’s basic and fundamental to the practice of law to understand the question of states of mind and intent in the civil and criminal law system, that’s what we’re getting at here.
And we’ve gone through it now. Last time and the time before that we looked at the basic differences between the criminal and civil justice system and the standards of proof used, and then at the question and definition of what “intent” and “mens rea” mean in regards to the criminal justice system alone. And that was some dense shit, man. This time, though, we’re going to go into the sort of law that most of the people out there are going to be experienced with at some point in their life, and that’s civil justice. Because life isn’t a fucking Law & Order episode where a random celebrity is going to show up and commit some horrible crime against us, no matter how many times Kevin Spacey tries to break into your bedroom at night.
So, without taking up any more of my precious intro space, let’s lead ourselves down the garden path of civil intent and its meaning in this, our penultimate installment in our multi-part series.
Continue reading “Liable But Not Culpable, Part 3: Lexplaining The Reasonable Person and Civil Justice”
Hey you little neon-colored fauna of the world, it’s time for another Furry Friday on Lawyers & Liquor with the Boozy Badger nee Barrister. On Furry Friday we start talking about cases or legal principles and considerations that pertain to the furry fandom specifically, or at least those that are tangentially related to it. So, let’s fill up the dog bowls with some mac’n’cheese, slip on our giant deer heads, start queueing up the latest in music from an anthropomorphic animal, and get the ball rolling with the first of our multi-part series discussing the factors that govern the freaky, fun, friendly world of furry gatherings: the Factors of Convention Governance.
Today we’ll start by talking about the most maligned of mammals…or other groups of animals…the con chair. That’s right, the mean motherfucker that takes your badge, stresses about fucking everything, gives statements, and ends up talking to a room full of party penguins at opening and closing ceremonies. The bedraggled bastard that drags themselves through the convention space, desperately begging people to please for the love of whatever god they may believe in not leave a variety of “novelty silicone objects” in the lobby of the hotel. The public face of the convention and the person who catches the flak. The micro Mouse-o-lini that steals the joy of others while exerting massive control to make the trains run on time…and not the trains that go on at a “special” room party.
Fuck that guy, right? They just run everything the way they want it, and the hell with anything else. Why won’t they listen to the demands of the fandom? Why aren’t they reacting and changing the convention as people want? Why do they insist on doing shit their way?
Continue reading “Furry Friday: Con Chairs Aren’t God – The Factors of Convention Governance, Part 1”
Welcome to the second installment of the Lawyers & Liquor series on the difference between the criminal and civil justice systems. I’m your host, the Boozy Barrister.
So last time we talked about the general differences between the criminal and civil justice systems. We talked about the difference between the burdens of proof necessary to hold someone responsible for an offense, the intention of the two systems, the nature of who is bringing a case, the punishments, and where the basis for criminal and civil law is found. That was all leading up to today’s discussion, which could possibly be useful for lawyers that have lost half of their brain, or may have been practicing in one area for so long that they’ve forgotten the differences when they switch fields.
So, today on Lawyers & Liquor, and without any further dilly dallying back and forth, we’re going to start talking about the concept of mens rea in both the civil and criminal systems.
Let’s start with a conversation today about mens rea and criminal law because, once fucking again my wonderful little shit stains, this shit is somewhat complex and I’m basically boiling down like three weeks of criminal law courses into a single goddamn post for you.
Continue reading “Liable but not Culpable, Part 2: Lexplaining Intent in the Criminal System”
It’s May! Well, it’s halfway through May, and so in my infinite wisdom and general niceness, because I’m simply on heck of a guy who cares about those lowly law students, I’ve decided that I’m going to do a bit of a primer on a key difference in law that most people don’t understand. Hell, I’ve met lawyers that don’t really understand it. It’s because the difference that we’re talking about here is the difference between criminal culpability and civil liability, and the difference between what criminal intent and civil intent are.
Have I gone long enough without cussing that it won’t show up on the article previews in social media? Thank God. Alright, listen, if you’re a lawyer and you don’t already know this, hand in your law license. There is literally no reason for you to be practicing law. No reason, whatsoever. This is some basic ass stuff, like, so basic we’re talking “pumpkin spice latte wearing ugg boots” levels of basic. There’s absolutely no reason a practicing attorney shouldn’t already be aware of this first-year-of-law-school mess, but it was requested by a reader that I dig into the difference between the two, and that’s what we’re going to do today: the difference between civil liability and criminal culpability.
But before I even start to talk about that, the difference in the state of mind needed and the types of stuff that happens, we gotta make sure the non-lawyers out there understand the difference between criminal and civil, just as much as the lawyers in helltown ohio do. And that means, of course, that we’re going to end up doing a Lexplanation (you like that? I like it. It’s a portmanteau of lex, the Latin for law, and explanation, the English for “talking slowly and loudly to morons”).
So, I don’t know guys, go get some coffee or something and see what Popehat is up to? He’s normally got some decent stuff on his site. I’ll be over here forcefeeding basic legal knowledge to muggles and walking malpractice suits.
Continue reading “Liable But Not Culpable: Lexplaining The Criminal and Civil Justice Systems, Part 1”
Welcome to the new and improved, but still the same, Lawyers & Liquor. I’m the Boozy Barrister, here to provide some practice tips to the young and stupid among you, in particular any dipshit that went to law school with stars in their eyes and a song in their heart.
It’s all well and good to go into law school believing that people are all essentially good at heart and just need some help through a literal and metaphorical trial in their life. But that’s the sort of idealism that gets you shot in the goddamn ass, because it leads to you viewing clients as something more than billable sacks of flesh that you can hit with a stick to make money fly directly into the firm’s operating account, and that shit is a problem.
Why, you may say, is it so bad for an attorney to grow close to their clients, or at least so close that they recognize during the course of representation that every client may not be a worthless fuckhead who needs competent legal representation merely to wipe their own ass? Because part of the job of an attorney is to act as a leather-bound dominatrix, exerting control and twisting clients into accepting the situation as it exists and not as they fucking want it to exist. That may sound like something from www.pornv.xxx, right?
That’s right, to a certain degree every lawyer is a kinky-ass, whip-wielding mistress just waiting to tell the client they’ve been a bad boy. And I’m not just talking about our hobbies in the off-hours. So if you want to be a successful attorney, you better squeeze your ass into some high heels and get ready to step on the nutsack of your client’s ambitions and goals to bring them to reality, because the effective representation of people all fucking comes down to client control.
Continue reading “Being a Legal Dom: The Importance of Client Control”