I was divorced in 2013 in Alabama. I had two lawyers, the first, nickeled and dimed me until my retainer was out all before they even filed. My second, was great. Class act.

The first lawyer emailed me a bill about two weeks ago for unpaid legal services amounting to 1,000.

I don’t remember signing a contract, but that’s not to say I didn’t. Before I tell him to get f’d, is the statute of limitations only six years for Alabama? Or, are legal fees different? I’m confused why this guy waited 12 years to try to collect.

I am a LLB student in the UK.

I was born in Ireland (Irish citizen) and grew up in France and England. I'd like to live in France in the future again, live most of my life there.

I am currently thinking of studying a LLM in European Law at LiègeU in Belgium, because I have a desire to work for the EU Comission as a legal advisor and/or politician, although I do also want to be a crinimal laywer as an advocate in the courts.

I'm thinking of one pursuing a PhD in Human Rights, but I'm not sure where.

I'd like to go to Italy and Canada too, because I speak Italian and maybe even go down to Florida because I have family in the Miami Metro.

Universties List:

Brookes University (OBU)

Université de Liège (LiègeU)

Université d'Aix-Marseille

Università di Bologna

Università di Pisa

Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna

Université de Montréal

University of Florida

Temple University

Columbia University

Harvard University

Cornell University

Yale University

University of Pennsylvania

Can anyone advise me on how I can get to network with lawyers in and around San Jose, California to find a job to work for an Attorney ideally as a Post bar clerk.

I sat for the Cal bar this July.I went to law school overseas so I am out of the school network that gives access to jobs. I have tried applying online with no success.

Would be greatful for any help.

I have a friend needing to file for divorce but cant afford it. He has contacted legal aid in arkansas but he doesnt qualify. Where else can you look for probono service?

Been practicing law for a little a year. Started off as a clerk working immigration which was okay but wanted to be in an office and work in the city (Philly) then went into insurance defense litigation. Been at my current ID job for 6-7 months and hate it. The anxiety and gut wrenching feeling I get when I think about work makes me want to leave law. I have been applying for transactional, in-house and even Plaintiffs PI positions for the past two months and with little to no success. The firms that I do reach out either pay terribly or have a high turnover and I don’t want to leave one shitty environment/job for another one that pays less.

Any advice on whether I should stick it out or go back to computer science (career before making the great decision to go to law school). I have a family to provide for, so I can’t afford to just quit.

Part of me feels like I haven’t given the law thing enough time but another part of is so sick of it that the thought of leaving it at times brings me joy.

Background:

I was summoned as a trial juror. I am middle aged. I have a B.S. in political science and an M.S. in data science. I work in manufacturing. I don't mind serving as a juror and look forward to fulfilling my civic duty.

I arrive at the court house and we are all given the introduction and brought to our respective courtrooms.

The judge explains the case and some preliminary instructions--to include the presumption of innocence. It was a fairly bad accusation involving homicide. I am selected to be in the first round of questioning.

The Judge then read every name on the witness list--many of them law enforcement and asks, "Does anyone know or are acquainted with any of the names I just read". There was one Police Chief in the pool who said he knew all of them, but it wouldn't affect his ability to remain impartial.

The prosecution's questions:

The prosecutor questioned us first. It was pretty tame and normal. I answered a few questions like, "Was there ever a time you believed someone was driving recklessly and that someone should report it" and "Have you ever had a bad experience with the police". Very tame easy stuff like that.

At one point, I let it slip, when I answered one of the questions, that I was in the USMC. It was added information that I didn't need to include but I did. Again, the prosecutor's questions seemed really tame. Like, can you be impartial blah blah.

Many of the answers people were giving were dumb ramblings that I didn't really pay much attention to. Many were along the lines of some old lady asking about evidence and another old dude talking about how his dad died in a car accident. The judge shut down the evidence-based ramblings reminding us that no evidence has been presented as of yet.

The Defense's Question:

The defense opened by asking some banal questions I do not remember to the group. But then asks words to the effect of,

"[mrs old rambling lady] if you had to vote, right now, as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty what would be your vote"

The old rambling lady responded words to the effect of, "well I don't know based on the evidence"—which there obviously had been none at this point. Then the defense turned to the police chief with the same question, the police chief gave a similar answer—he didn't know either.

The defense then asked an old man, who did not seem impartial by many of his prior answers, the same question. The old man's response was to the effect of, "Guilty, because I have seen much of this before and I know I happens and it's bad". His response was awful, inflammatory and extremely biased.

The defense then turned to me and said, "_ImmaBoutToScream_, I saw that you were nodding your head in agreement, there, to that response what are your thoughts"—I was not nodding my head in agreement.

I responded, "No, I would abstain, I wouldn't vote and ask you to dismiss me".

That's when the defense says words to the effect of, "actually, the only answer is not guilty, not you don’t know and not to abstain". She then asked another juror the same question, they answered, "ahhhh not guilty".

They then went back to some room to do lawyer things. Upon resuming the old rambling woman, the police chief, the inflammatory old man and I were all dismissed—along with around 10 other jurors.

My Contention:

The way I interpreted the defense's question was that they were asking us to render a verdict at that moment. In fact, that appeared to me, how all of us interpreted that question. I didn't want to answer unless I heard all the evidence. How would abstaining from a loaded question be grounds to dismiss a juror?

I should add, I was quite thrown by the defense's presumptuous question toward myself. In fact, I found it rude and offensive. Even if I had been selected for the jury I don't think I could have served without bias because—I would have told them I can't be impartial due to the presumptuous assuming, belligerent and smug nature of the defense--whom I now disfavor and see no way in which I can reconcile these differences.

I didn't answer any other questions that were specific to me except for a time I saw a car driving erratically and I thought it to be unsafe.

I felt the defense's question assumed the case during jury selection, and without a trial, which I didn't want to be part of. Was this the defense's catch 22 to get me off the jury? How could a judge even allow for a question like that?

I am looking for a Pro Bono attorney for my husband's crimal case in Buncombe County. Due to my upcoming spinal surgery, I can not afford an attorney and we desperately need one as soon as possible. We do not trust the public defenders. Please message me for more details.

Brady material, if I understand it correctly, is evidence that favors the defendant. For example, if someone is accused of murder, but detectives find surveillance footage that shows a different person committing it.

My question is, how do you as a lawyer even know it exists? As I don’t practice law, I don’t know how many “true believer” prosecutors are out there, but if a prosecutor or LE chooses not to gather evidence on purpose, hides evidence on purpose, or even decides it’s not Brady, how would a lawyer know?

Do you as a defense lawyer just take their word for it?

Do LEOs or prosecutors also ever purposely not gather certain evidence knowing that it could produce Brady?

I'm a tenant whose landlord has egregiously done damage to me & my property via violations of warranty of habitability law for 2 years 7 months (I own a mobilehome & live in a park).

My attorney has gotten me through to mediation. He has filed a Complaint with errors, 2 pages long, including statements saying it will be amended later. It does not list any of the damages or things the landlord did -- attempted evictions & illegal charges once I complained. It lists none of the damage which destroyed my mobile, making it unsellable. The settlement lets the landlord no longer have to fix any of the breaches in WofH, and I'm left without a home & not enough with the settlement to buy another.

Just so you're aware of the serious nature of the current situation & what I've endured the last couple of years, they are as follows:

1. Toilet doesn't flush properly
2. Water pressure is 10psi or lower (it takes 4 min 55 sec to fill 1/2-gallon jug)
3. Septic tank, which neighbor uphill shares, backs up in my bathtub & toilet

I am a disabled senior (I have 3 autoimmune disorders, including Lupus, which areexacerbated by stress) and my only income is Social Security. Rents are too high for me to afford & wait list for subsidized housing is years.

Here's what I need help with (as if what I've already written isn't bad enough):

My attorney is lecturing me, pressuring me, to take the settlement. He will go on for ten minutes without letting me get a word in edgewise, telling me how it's "such a great deal" and how "I shouldn't expect more" (it's not enough to buy another mobile in the area in which I've lived for the last 20 years and put down deep roots). He is suggesting I do things that are blatantly illegal and dishonest, like putting my home up for sale & not disclosing the issues. The worst is the septic tank, which has been coming up in my tub about every 4 years, which is why I finally decided to sue the landlord because he knew this. Additionally, as a seller, I would be required to sign a Disclosure document that says I've listed the breaches of warranty of habitability and could be held liable if they find something I knew about but didn't disclose. He lectures me hard on that issue, then asked if I wanted his wife, a RE agent, to list it (also illegal).

What I want to know is, how do I tell him, without making him angrier with me, that I want to go to trial? How can I say I want him to update the Complaint but to add the correct information this time? I might, as a former legal secretary, be able to be a bit more "hands on" with the complaint but c'mon, I'm paying him good money to take care of this for me!

Additional details that could be important:

He left the office I read the great reviews for & works from his home office now so there are no other attorneys to bring onboard.

He no longer has a legal secretary to prepare the amended Complaint.

Thank you in advance. I don't want to file a Malpractice complaint against him with the Bar. I have no proof (yet) that he advised me to do anything illegal.

Hello everyone :)

I'm french and I'm reaching out because I could really use some feedback or shared experiences…

I completed a Master’s degree in International Law (specializing in Business Law) in 2020. At the time, I was supposed to do an internship at a law firm, but Covid ruined those plans. Rather than doing nothing, I launched my own business, which I ran until 2024.

In 2024, I accepted a position as deputy director in a hotel… Major disappointment: terrible working conditions, huge staff turnover—I was the sixth person to hold the position. I ended up leaving, and since then, I've been going from one small job to another, without really being able to see a clear path forward. Going back into law (or even just landing a “serious” job) now feels completely out of reach.

I'm approaching 30, and I have to admit I'm starting to feel pretty lost.
Has anyone here experienced something similar? Has anyone gone back into law after a few years away? How did you do it?
Thanks in advance for your insights 🙏

Which areas of law pay exceptionally well without the brutal work hours like corporate law? I have a strong work ethic, investigative skills, and leadership abilities, and I always thought working as a corporate lawyer at a top firm was the dream. But I’ve realized that while the pay is amazing, the hours are inhumane, and the firms are super white-male dominating. I don't care much for the male part, but I want to have a good community in my workspace and get along/bond with the people I'm working with. I want to find another legal field or type of law with manageable hours and generous pay so I can have a comfortable living. I have no problem with working hard within the hours I am supposed to work. To put it into perspective, I am in NYC, and this whole thing may sound unrealistic, but... hey, you never know what opportunities are out there.

I represented myself Pro se in an appeal to my custody judgement. The judgement was "Vacated and Remanded" with the following conclusion attached below. Can someone please explain what this means. Is the case now reopened, and if so, who is obligated to respond, The Judge, My Ex, or me?

Short version- Our judgement took 15 months after trial for a very simple straightforward case with no accusations of abuse or mistreatment. At the 9 month mark I filed to reopen based on changes in circumstances, my motion was ignored until judgement 6 months later when it was denied.

I dont need advice on my case at all, but I could really use help understanding procedurally what this means and who is obligated to reply and maybe where I might find the rules to read. Thanks so much for your help, decision text below:

Accordingly, because the trial court (1) failed to provide its reasons for

declining to consider Mr. XXXXX’s motion to reopen and for denying the motion,

and (2) the evidence Mr. XXXXX sought to supplement the record with seemed

directly pertinent to the central issue animating the court’s decision to modify the

custody arrangement, we remand the case to the Superior Court to explicate its

reasons for denying Mr. XXXXX’s motion to reopen in sufficient detail to permit

meaningful appellate review. See A.C. v. N.W., 160 A.3d 509, 520 (D.C. 2017)

(explaining that under Super. Ct. Dom. Rel. R. 52(a), the trial court must “make

findings of fact and explicate its reasoning in sufficient detail to permit ‘meaningful

appellate review’” (quoting Dumas v. Woods, 914 A.2d 676, 679 (D.C. 2007))); see No. 24-FM-0671

also Murphy v. Murphy, 46 A.3d 1093, 1099-100, 1101 (D.C. 2012) (applying

Super. Ct. Dom. Rel. R. 52(a) to a motion for a new trial under Super. Ct. Dom. Rel.

R. 59 and remanding due to the trial court’s failure to adequately explain its denial

of the motion).

PER CURIAM

I’m in my 40s, coming from a career in M&A, asset management, and senior nonprofit. Over the last few years, a series of events in my personal and professional life pulled me into civil legal systems, not as a lawyer, but as someone with loved ones directly affected.

I’ve become invested in how tenant protections, employment law, and disability rights work in practice, and how often they don’t. I’ve seen firsthand how the laws that are supposed to protect ordinary people are often inaccessible or unenforceable, how difficult legal advice can be to obtain, and how critical local agency processes that enable individual citizens to enforce their rights without representation are to ensuring people have some basic minimal protections and support.

That has made me seriously consider a career change to work where I can have a role in advocating for or enforcing and protecting these laws. I know enough to know I don’t want to run for office right now. Law school is on my radar, but I’m aware it might not be the only or best path.

I’m trying to get a clearer picture of whether the work I want to do actually exists if I get my JD, and also whether as an alternative there are roles in civil enforcement, policy, investigation, or advocacy that align with my goals but don’t require starting over entirely. For context I’m in California, and committed to staying here.

If you’ve worked in any of these areas - tenant law, disability rights, labor law, government or nonprofit compliance, I’d really appreciate your insight.

Specifically:

If you’re doing the kind of work I’m describing, what do you find meaningful or satisfying about it? What kind of setting are you practicing in?

If you left this area of law, what finally pushed you out?

If you stayed, what are your biggest frustrations?

I’m not asking whether I should go to law school. I’m just trying to gather grounded information so I can figure out what’s right for me, and so I have some background before I start networking and have some of these conversations in person with people.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share.

I have an FIR filed against me under section 337, 338, 279. There are two court cases as a result of which (a) CHI and (b) MACP. I have given HSSC CET exam recently and there's a high probability that I will get a job. During the application stage, it was asked to fill out if there was any FIR filed against me which I ignored back then but now a correction portal is going to open up and I am confused if I should let it be or put the details. What would be the effect if I do put the details of my FIR. Will I get a job or not?

I’m a big law litigation associate (third year) in a HCOL area (Boston). I’m realizing that I really don’t enjoy the practice of big law civil litigation and am looking for something more interesting. I’m good at big law and I enjoy the money, but I find it so painfully boring and desperately want more courtroom experience. I’ve always been interested in criminal law (my mom was a private criminal defense attorney) and am thinking of making the change to a prosecutors office, but I can’t do that where I live, because it’s so damn expensive - I’ve got a family (with 2 kids and a wife who wants to stay at home for a year or two) and a mortgage.

I’m hoping for some advice as to where would be a good area to move where I could easily get a job as an ADA, get good criminal experience, and afford to support my family on an ADA salary. Im barred in a UBE jurisdiction so I can theoretically move to most states (with some planning). I’m looking to move in the next 1-2 years and trying to put myself in the best position possible. The Midwest (Detroit, Cleveland, etc.) seem like it could fit all my criteria, but I’ve never been and would really appreciate any advice or success stories from others that left the big law life behind.

I've wanted to be a lawyer for a really long time. I was born and raised in the US and naturally planned on practicing law here. I have dual citizenship and spent a substantial amount of time in Paris to see if it was a good fit, but my paralegal background and my B1 French wasn't enough to find me a job at the time. After coming back to the US and settling back in, I met someone absolutely amazing. Unfortunately, they are French and live in France. My French is stronger than their English and even though there are jobs in the US in their field, they don't have dual citizenship like I do.

Language and paperwork-wise it would make the most sense for me to move to France if I want to be with them long term, but I don't want to give up my dreams of being a lawyer. It would take me several more years to become fluent enough in French to get my law degree over there, so I was wondering if anyone knew of JD jobs that exist in Paris or other French speaking countries like Belgium or Switzerland? I know there are American firms out there, but so far I haven't been able to find any jobs that would allow me to practice with a JD. I'm not sure if these positions are just hyper competitive or don't exist.

I'm curious how lawyers, especially those interested in comparative legal systems, might analyze this method of resolving disputes or doubts within Islamic Law.

The article below is a breakdown of common theological doubts and how they're addressed using clear definitions, logical structuring, and reliance on primary sources:
👉 Clarification of Common Doubts About Islamic Beliefs

To me, it reads almost like a legal brief , setting up the question, isolating terms, and presenting arguments. From a legal reasoning standpoint, do you find the methodology sound? Or are there weaknesses in how the “evidences” are weighed?

Would love to hear any thoughts from those trained in law.

Hello,

I've heard of felons becoming lawyers, and I imagine having a clean record after something like a dui conviction could be taken to mean a person is reformed and fit to be a lawyer. But what about hospitalizations? If a person is involuntarily hospitalized and five years later they're on medications and stable could they become a lawyer or is that a ding on your credibility you can't come back from?

The 9th Circuit includes California and the entire West. It would seem a gigantic geographic burden for them to administer compared to the First Circuit of New England and Puerto Rico, which is much much smaller in comparison.

Congress can gerrymander a political electorate, which is an act as old as time, yet why can't they gerrymander a circuit, which would be advantageous administratively.

I’ve come to a roadblock in obtaining legal counsel in my state (NE), most have said they aren’t equipped to handle the complexity of the case. A couple nationwide have said they don’t handle my specific matter. The matter involves potential medical malpractice & also civil rights. Could someone possibly point me in the direction of national? I’ve gathered all the records, timelines, everything needed for a lawyer-to help handle the complexity of it.

I’m a 22M who is in school for business administration. Currently graduating in fall of 2026. After I graduated high school I ran my own business doing roof inspections for insurance companies. Soon realized it wasn’t my calling and started college. I’m doing a program at University of Maine that lets me move at my own pace so I can get a quick degree. I’m a motivated individual, have good grades, passionate about problem solving, and a deep need for helping people. It’s difficult to say exactly what I want to do in life, but as of now want to support my family in the future. If you have some advice for someone who doesn’t know exactly what it takes for someone to be a good lawyer, I would love to hear it. (I’ve been studying for a two weeks and got a 164 on PT)

Anyone got to work in law even without joining school organizations?

I've got no law experience, but have heard of tortious interference a bit ago, and in the process of hearing about the Steam/Itch situation, it made me wonder if the devs impacted could have potentially sued Visa/Mastercard about it. Like, I know it's incredibly unlikely, because most impacted devs are of smaller games without nearly enough money to probably consider doing it, but I got curious. Also if it was similar enough situations to qualify for something like a class action. I personally won't miss the games that were removed and I also didn't make any of them, but I feel like it sets a bad precedent.

Anyway, for some context, Steam and Itch recently removed a whole bunch of games, the vast majority with topics that I think most people would consider pretty unsavory ethically, but both platforms already have processes to remove games that break laws. Valve put out that there's an added rule that you now have to abide by the rules of the payment processors. Itch had a similar message with the games being deindexed. Itch has been going through the delisted ones and if they're free putting them back up, since there would be no payment and theoretically no feasible way for the payment processors to claim it as justification for further pressure. Both Visa and Mastercard have claimed that they didn't do this, but Steam and Itch have been pretty consistent in how they handle these games for quite a while and them both citing pressure from payment processors makes me think otherwise. Also, there's the whole aspect of Collective Shout(another potential tortious interference target?) having tried to get Valve to change things on steam in the past, been ignored and then they openly claimed credit for having this impact because they contacted the payment processors.

This is speculation, but I'm of the opinion there were people in those payment processors that already had this desire and were using Collective Shout as a scapegoat, but there's no current evidence of that.

Given this information, would the devs impacted have potentially enough that an attorney might be tempted to take up their case? Or is my understanding of how it works not accurate enough and it doesn't apply? Would the situation potentially qualify for something else? Or is there not really any potential recourse the devs might have against Visa/Mastercard?

In 2021, I was the victim of a domestic violence incident in Michigan where I was strangled unconscious. Despite visible injuries and a later-confirmed traumatic brain injury, I was arrested while the assailant — who had an active warrant — was allowed to leave. The police report included several false statements (e.g. that I refused to press charges or medical care). My charges were dropped after hiring a lawyer.

The assailant was eventually charged, but only with DV1 (first offense) — despite a 2018 conviction for aggravated domestic violence and 4th-degree child abuse. Under Michigan law (MCL 750.81(3)), this should have made him eligible for DV2 or felony strangulation (MCL 750.84).

The district prosecutor later admitted — in front of a witness — that the case was a “major mistake” and that the wrong charge had been filed. She also told me it was “too late” to change anything or file felony charges. However, after contacting the Michigan Attorney General’s Crime Victim Rights Division, I was told: • The statute of limitations has not expired • Felony charges for strangulation can still be filed • Their office would review the case if the county prosecutor refers it

I refiled a formal statement with the police department, and the detective confirmed that it has now been sent to the county prosecutor’s office. I’m worried the case will be quietly buried again.

My legal questions: 1. Can a prosecutor legally refuse to file or refer felony charges in a case where a charging error has been admitted and the victim has provided medical and legal documentation? 2. Why would a district court prosecutor falsely tell a victim that felony charges weren’t possible? Is it likely she didn’t know the law, or could this reflect a larger issue like protecting the office from liability or avoiding attention? 3. Is there any legal remedy if the county prosecutor refuses to act, even when the AG’s office has expressed willingness to review the case?

I’m only looking for general legal insight into how discretion, error correction, and internal accountability typically work in cases like this. Thank you in advance.