So 5 stars then : funny

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 2 points 1 hour ago

Lawyer Jen doesn’t hesitate. She exhibits no restraints and she takes and she takes and she takes. And she keeps winning anyway.

[–] optissima@lemmy.ml 10 points 7 hours ago

This is horrific, I hate how everything is a competition in the US.

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

Fuck lawyers

[–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 2 hours ago

Oh I have, a few times. Mostly them seem to be into mild restraint kink, though I know at least one who is into cross dressing.

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 hours ago

Agreed.
My mate and his wife decided to divorce. She chose the assets that she wanted to keep and everything was amicable...until her mate said "use my sister, she's a divorce lawyer. She'll get you everything from him"

Now you have to remember that this was just a marriage that had run its course, there was no cheating etc etc. no violence. They just fell out of love.

Anyways long story short his wife hired the lawyer. So he had to get a lawyer. And instead of them sharing the assets between themselves everything got dark and murky and both lawyers got the lions share of their money and assets. Fuck lawyers.

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 78 points 18 hours ago

You couldn’t ask for a better review.

[+] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -21 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (5 children)

got confused enough that I believe this should have been written this way:

In the interest of accuracy, the [reviewer] above is one of my client’s ex-spouse whom we won a case from.

[–] MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca 10 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Legally, I don't think the lawyer can brag about such a win on a public forum.

It's very very likely she can't say more than that the comment is from the 'ex-spouse of a client' without risking libel or something.

It's up to the reader to infer the context.

The same way as: "there are only two types of people in the world, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data."

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 1 points 3 hours ago

I can also infer the wrong conclusion from the same data… which is why I misread Agnew’s response at first.

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 10 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think either folks were joking m8.
Jokes require setup, I don't even see a punchline.

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

https://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

bad certificate

[–] Hupf@feddit.org 0 points 2 hours ago

Yeah, one would think ESR of all people would get his shit together here. OTOH it's just a static web page, not handling sensitive user info.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 hours ago

That's what you'd think is being implied, but it's a lawyer so who knows if this is the case

[–] T4V0@lemmy.pt 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

You're thinking too hard about this, the lawyer left this response open ended on purpose as an ad. Regardless if the lawyer won or lost the case, the implication here is that they won, so they are so good at their job, the opposition cries about it.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 0 points 3 hours ago

Tis the opposite, I misread the response initially.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 21 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

That isn't clearer at all.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -2 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Mines, or Agnew’s response?

I reworded Agnew’s response because I misread it as if a client used es ex-spouse’s account to write the review [in es behalf], and not that the losing ex-spouse wrote this scathing review.

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 17 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Your version was worse, I understood the original just fine.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

How would u write it so my former confusion wouldn’t misread?

[–] Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not sure, it made sense to me.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social -1 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

It didn't to me at first read, and my upvoter.

Now, if I was in a similar position, I would respond:

Case No. #####, the poster above was an opponent that lost against my case against es.

Funny