i want to be able to search motions/briefs by viciousness
| unholy area | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 03/03/15 | | unholy area | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 03/03/15 | | unholy area | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 03/03/15 | | naked bat-shit-crazy bawdyhouse telephone | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 03/03/15 | | naked bat-shit-crazy bawdyhouse telephone | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 03/03/15 | | vibrant box office lettuce | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 03/03/15 | | unholy area | 03/03/15 | | unholy area | 03/03/15 | | naked bat-shit-crazy bawdyhouse telephone | 03/06/15 | | jet thirsty travel guidebook mad-dog skullcap | 03/06/15 | | naked bat-shit-crazy bawdyhouse telephone | 03/03/15 | | unholy area | 03/03/15 | | Provocative organic girlfriend | 08/23/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 3rd, 2015 1:28 AM Author: unholy area
finding a 180 brief someone else has written on your issue or one that's close to it is ten times better than a good opinion or treatise. i also love reading venomous acerbic papers where it's clear the author just hates opposing counsel, thinks he's retarded, and wants him dead.
searching briefs on WL/lexis pulls in tons of garbage, and since no one cites some other firm's brief you can't filter by number of citations.
one of you codemos needs to create a searchable database of briefs with some loose ordering based on content (discovery/MSJ/etc) but a primary focus on using wisdom of crowds to upvote based on how good the brief actually is--especially if good means wrecking opposing counsel's anus. if my firm didn't subscribe i would pay my actual money for this simply for entertainment, but if it actually had a user base and content it would be a great research tool.
worst pwning of boilerplate RFP objections in N.D. Ill. in the previous five years.
GOAT example of he said/she said employment discrimination case where it's obvious the plaintiff is full of shit but the allegations are such that you clearly have to let him get in front of the jury, recite his script and leave them to decide if he's credible, but SHITBIGLAW firm files hopeless shitmotion for summary judgment on every single cause of action just to bill the hours and fuck the client and BIGSHITLAW firm that actually has some sharp dudes working there lights them the fuck up.
sort by sanctions motions where the judge pulls the trigger on default judgment against defendant or dismissal of plaintiff's complaint as a sanction for repeated bad faith in discovery.
(you can structure searches on traditional databases to pull this last one up, i guess, but you get the idea)
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2821334&forum_id=2#27420872)
|
|
Date: March 3rd, 2015 1:55 AM Author: unholy area
i get that.
but if i'm even taking this seriously i guess i'm thinking you'd need to go put the work in up front: pull together a base of good examples to work from either by searching yourself or networking with old lawyer doods and judges who have been in the same district for 50 years just asking "what's the worst MSJ beatdown you ever saw?" "who was the best lawyer you ever knew for turning a phrase mocking opposing counsel's argument but also getting his substance across?"
not so different from putting together books, which i think exist, or at least blog posts, which i know exist, of the worst briefs ever written or oh my god look at grade schoolers funny answers to test questions, with a much more focused audience. incidentally, i'd absolutely pay for a book of the most brutal or funny ass kickings laid down in briefs.
from there it's like any other site that relies on its users to generate or aggregate content: you'd need to cross a tipping point where people wanted to submit their own briefs and see them upvoted or someone else's they came across and really liked.
i mean i hit clients with DAT $3.00 PACER fee all the time if find a good opinion on LEXIS/WL that makes me think that reading one side's actual brief and research will help me beyond reading the judge's explanation of why they won or lost. once i do that it gets scraped by RECAP and is out there for anyone to read for free, so i assume there's nothing wrong with me turning around and uploading it to this hypothetical site, but i'm not an IP MFE.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2821334&forum_id=2#27420907) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2015 3:19 AM Author: unholy area
i mean it's if there's a way to reliably filter the remarkably *good* briefs. making them acerbic slugfests appeals to me purely for entertainment value, but also because i happen to be answering some papers that actually are that bad that going after them might be justifiable.
but as people have said in the other thread, the type of writing we're talking about is overused by many.
i'm very interested in this project, but if it were actually executed you'd need to make some decisions about whether it was at its core a research tool or a form of entertainment. there's value in aggregating the best papers by nature of the motion, practice area of the suit, etc. but it'd rely on different things to stoke the fires enough for users to want to fulfill their role, as compared to something that's aggregating EPIC briefs that play great for laughs, but are really a function of the other side actually hanging a big enough watermelon in your strike zone that you're justified going apeshit on it.
good entertainment, but there's probably no demand for a research tool specially designed for beating on the lowest rung of pettifoggers and shitlawyers.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2821334&forum_id=2#27421025)
|
Date: March 3rd, 2015 1:41 AM Author: naked bat-shit-crazy bawdyhouse telephone
This is a great idea. I used to look for briefs written by v25 firms on my issues, but I've often found that briefs by rando solos come with the venom.
Also, quite frankly, I think you're looking for my briefs. I'm the dude that has my big law bosses editing out all my good stuff, but every now and then I get some good ones through.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2821334&forum_id=2#27420887) |
|
Date: March 3rd, 2015 1:59 AM Author: unholy area
yours is a pain that i know all too well, my brother.
EDIT: actually i take that back. i do hate having my shit edited, but of course so does everyone, and 99% of the time it's nothing to do with taking out some jab or sarcastic crack i wrote. it's much closer to the reverse, boomer partner does a ten minute read through and deletes something that is 100% right, simple, and elegant and inserts some blunt, over-the-top treacle.
these are the types who can never give the opposing argument due credit. it's not enough to acknowledge a close issue, but explain clearly why your side is preferable. if the issue isn't a route the judge might not "get it."
these same types often adhere mechanically to CIRAC, but actually think it should be more like CICRCACCC. like you've got to make sure the relief you're requesting is stated on every page. really, if even a single paragraph doesn't end with "accordingly, Plaintiff's complaint lacks sufficient factual material necessary to cross the Iqbal/Twombly threshold separating a *possible* claim for relief from one that is *plausible* on its face ... THEREFORE THE CLAIM MUST BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)!!" the judge will just say fuck it, your entire argument was right, but you forgot to say "simon says" here so let's go to discovery on this part of the complaint.
someone in the other thread also pointed out that lots of times this is really just posturing for the client. the partner gets it. the junior guy in the GC's office gets it. the GC gets it. but one time the CEO actually read the brief and said it was boring as shit so you've gotta treat every issue in every motion of every case like it's Mike Tyson on meth beating the shit out of a 16 year old white dork and then raping his 4'9" asian girlfriend.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2821334&forum_id=2#27420914) |
|
Date: March 6th, 2015 2:44 PM Author: naked bat-shit-crazy bawdyhouse telephone
Good points. I'm just talking about one liner jabs. I agree some boomers and clients go over the top
One time a client kept editing my shit and getting pissed at how tame my oppo to a motion to dismiss was. I needed to rip the other guys throat out according to the client. I finally got it to a place where it was acceptable to the client. When I argued it the judge told me she thought she was reading science fiction and that my brief was offensive. She granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and told me in open court that the only reason she did it was to get all the offensive shit (the stuff the client insisted on) out of the brief. I want a first year. I never did that again. Still , I love a good jab.
That really taught me how important it is to know your judge. This judges rep is she doesn't like mean litigants.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2821334&forum_id=2#27441737) |
|
|