You're not wrong, but you do still have to swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Also, the bar exam doesn't test your ethics, or even your ability to practice law. It tests your ability to memorize a ton of shit you'll never use in your actual practice. Maybe it was useful once upon a time before every lawyer practiced in a specialized subset of law, but mostly it was made to stop people of color practicing law. (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2020-12-07/abolishing-the-bar-exam-bias)

It really needs to be reformed, though I would actually be in favor of abolishing it and having the third year of law school be reformed into an apprenticeship model where you learn directly from an experienced attorney. Or a specialized bar exam that tests for the area of law you want to practice. Something needs to change about it.

I'm getting off topic. Yes this guy is a fraudster and so is everyone who advised him to sign, but it has nothing to do with whether anyone took the bar exam.

Source: am lawyer in Wisconsin (who actually took the bar exam)

Meanwhile in Wisconsin I have to pay an extra $100/yr for registration because I drive a hybrid.

Why?

Because, I shit you not, driving a hybrid apparently costs the state too much money, because we have to fuel up less, and so they get less tax.

What the fuck.

I'm a big gamer, and was a massive HP fan. I did not buy the game, or even consider it, specifically because of JKR's bullshit.

I may be in the minority, but I guarantee I'm not the only one in this boat. So now you've talked to someone who cares, if you count this as talking.

And just to say a little more, no I didn't crusade against the game, nor do I villainize people who bought it and enjoyed it. I do think it's possible to enjoy art without liking the artist. Hell, my favorite book series of all time is the Ender's Game series, and Orson Scott Card is probably just as bad as JKR, though maybe not quite as famous/public about it.

But I can't bring myself to buy it. I'm trans, and her rhetoric, and how public it is, has been specifically harmful to me, directly. But that's just me. I won't tell other people how to live their lives or enjoy their free time, so long as they're not actively hurting others. And no, I don't consider buying a game where one person who is profiting from it might spend a sliver of that profit on anti-trans BS to be actively harming others, especially when she already has enough money to do whatever the hell she wants anyways.

This doesn't make a dent, and ethical consumption under capitalism is impossible anyways. I just hope that some portion of people who bought the game heard about the protests and maybe donated a fraction of what they paid for the game to some pro-LGBTQ groups. I have to believe there's at least a handful of people like that. I do believe that people are mostly good, and want to do good.

Yeesh, I wrote a lot more than I planned to here. I'll stop now lol.

Not sure how uncommon you're looking for, but I think I already did this.

I chose Sage.

According to some quick googling (read: not sure how accurate this is), Sage wasn't in the top 500 names for my birth year, but my given name was top 100.

Though both names I've used have been trending towards more common for most of my life. Looks like my original name is now a top 35 most common, but Sage is still outside the top 100 for females and outside top 300 for males.(Really wish there was more data for the popularity of nonbinary names. I think Sage is probably one of the more popular enby names, so maybe it's not all that uncommon, depending on how you define it.)

I believe the correct lawyer term is HA HA HA HAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HAHA!!

Lawyer here. Can confirm.

If this is America, and it was a House Sparrow, bastard had it coming. Awful invasive species, and it's one of, I believe, two ~~animals~~ birds which is always legal to kill here. Fuck sparrows. I'd swipe right.

Edit thanks to extra info from replies.

The meme says to denounce US sanctions. I think this commenter was pointing out that would also mean opposing the sanctions currently on the Russian oligarchs.

This is good advice, I appreciate it. But I should clarify, I definitely won't be launching my practice before I'm comfortable with the OS. I'm probably going to take some other user's suggestions and do some test runs on my home machine to figure things out. I'm not launching tomorrow, there's no real rush. My current contract runs until May 2024. So I've got 6 months ahead of me to figure things out.

This is a great tip, I'll definitely do some test runs, thanks!

This seems like a good thread to ask this.. I'm sure I could find the answers I need myself but frankly I trust the userbase here more than most online articles.

As my username hints at, I'm a lawyer. I'm considering starting my own firm as a solo practitioner. I need a computer and/or laptop for it, and as a new business my budget would be pretty tight. I've mostly only ever used windows, but I'm getting fed up with the bullshit, so I'm considering going with Linux.

I assume Linux is capable of doing everything I need, which is primarily handling word documents, viewing PDFs, watching evidence videos, and online research. But my concern is that some of the more commonly used video types might have trouble on Linux, or that some of the word document templates I use in Windows might have compatibility issues.

I'm also nervous about using an OS I'm not familiar with for business purposes right away.

So I guess I'm asking a few questions. What is a reliable yet affordable option to get started? Are my concerns based in reality or is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues? What else might I need to know to use Linux comfortably from the get go? Is it going to take a lot of time and effort to get Linux running how I need it to?

For reference, I do consider myself to be somewhat tech-savvy. I don't code or anything, but I've built my last two home computers myself and I'm not scared of general software management, I just don't make it myself.

So, yeah, sell me on Linux, please.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I don't think there's really a number of years to put on it to make it appropriate. But I'm sure the lawyers discussed all the points you raised in negotiating this sentence. These numbers aren't pulled out of our asses, there are guidelines (almost certainly, again, not barred in NY) which help ensure similarly situated defendants are sentenced similarly.

What I'd like to hear more about, is whether the judge also ordered some kind of anger management counseling. I think that's what she needs more than a longer sentence.

If we truly want to balance the goals of protecting the public, adequately punishing the defendant, and also rehabilitating her, I don't think a few more years either way is what makes the biggest difference. I think it more depends on what she does with that time. I'm not sure what the situation is like within New York prisons as far as counseling goes, but if they have good programs, it's hard for me to imagine, if she takes it seriously, that 8.5 years of good counseling wouldn't be helpful to her, and to society at large.

I also think she could make all those gains in counseling, again, if she truly takes it seriously, within a couple of years. But then, I could probably be convinced that 2-3 years isn't long enough for causing someone's death. I've seen people get that for having the wrong amount of weed on them.

But then we get into the larger discussion about the entire prison industrial complex. We need some kind of change with how our prisons operate. Exactly how that looks isn't the point here. I'm just trying to point out that there's a bigger picture in play, and hope that people will consider that in the future.

In the end, nothing we say here has any impact on her life or the issued sentence. But it might have a difference in how people perceive and talk about the system as a whole in the future, so I think it's important to not lose sight of that.

Defense lawyer here, though not in New York so take this all with a grain of salt, I just felt I should put my 2 cents in based on the vibes in this comment thread.

It is weird for a judge to go against a joint recommendation, which seems to have happened here. It takes something extraordinary. The article indicates that the judge felt she didn't truly feel remorse for her actions, which could do it, but doesn't always do it. But, to me, just the fact that the judge went against a joint recommendation will always raise an eyebrow. Usually, if the sentence isn't harsh enough, the prosecutor won't agree to it, and if it's too harsh, the defense won't agree to it. So joint recommendations are almost always followed.

Yes, it's "only" 6 more months, but that's really not insignificant.

Now, to all the people screaming about how it's not enough (and especially to the one person saying she should have her citizenship revoked (????)), I wonder, how many of you are also against the prison industrial complex we have here in America? I challenge you to think beyond your initial emotions. Is this death tragic? Yes, absolutely it is. It was senseless violence for no good reason. So I agree, it deserves a harsh punishment.

But everyone keeps calling it murder. Not every killing is a murder. I also want to challenge people to watch their language. Murder carries with it an intent to kill. A shove does not intend death, regardless of who is being shoved. No, it shouldn't have happened, yes, it's tragic, but it was not a murder.

Now, all of you calling for 20+ years, really think about what you're saying. Do you think this person has no chance of rehabilitation? Those are the people we put away for life. I don't think that's the case here. She fucked up. Obviously. She deserves to be punished harshly, and make no mistake, she is. 8.5 years is a LONG time. Think back to where you were 8.5 years ago. Were you the same person? I doubt it. Now, do you think she might better herself in those 8.5 years? I think it's very likely, though again, the prison industrial complex makes that less guaranteed.

Sentences have many goals. Some of the primary goals are punishment, protection of the public, and rehabilitation of the defendant. Does this sentence punish her? Yes, a lot. Does this sentence give her a chance for rehabilitation? I'm not sure on that one, but that's because it may, if anything, be too long, and cause her to get too used to life in prison, and increase her likelihood of recidivism. But that's not her fault, that's the fault of the prison industry. Does this sentence protect the public? I say yes. She lost her temper once and it's now going to cost her 9 years of her life (if you include the duration of the case). That's a hell of an incentive not to repeat.

Alright, I think that's all I really want to say. But please, everyone, in the future, try to think about how our prison system really works, and how much you support it, when you're discussing individual crimes, not just when you're talking about the system as a whole. I think most people on this site lean left, and therefore should support reducing the prison populations, but this comment section has me worried with everyone here frothing at the mouth to give MORE prison time, when the sentenced amount should be enough to satisfy our sentencing goals.