Ask DrewDevil your legal questions

[Anacardo]

Drew,

How would 'filled with the rage of the disenfranchised' hold up as a criminal defense?

Also, would you object to being referred to as Dru Down from here on out?

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Drew,

How would 'filled with the rage of the disenfranchised' hold up as a criminal defense?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not even close to the craziest defenses I've heard of.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, would you object to being referred to as Dru Down from here on out?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd prefer either DrewDevil or Captain Awesome.

[SlowHabit]

Double Ds,

If an undercover cop pretends to be a lawyer and someone unknowingly hire him and tell him their secrets, is the "client-lawyer privilege" still exists? I got the example from a movie but am curious for an answer. My thinking is that the undercover cop can go to jail for pretending to be a lawyer [is this true?] but he get to testify against the person as a witness.

Another question. I go eat at a restaurant. I get food poisoning which I know for sure is from the restaurant. Can I sue? On the other hand, as a restaurant owner, what can I do to protect myself from getting sued in case my foods cause people to get fat or get sick or both? I know this question sounds ridiculous but curiosity got the best of me.

Thanks again!

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
Double Ds,

If an undercover cop pretends to be a lawyer and someone unknowingly hire him and tell him their secrets, is the "client-lawyer privilege" still exists? I got the example from a movie but am curious for an answer. My thinking is that the undercover cop can go to jail for pretending to be a lawyer [is this true?] but he get to testify against the person as a witness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I don't know about this. My gut instinct is that there is no privilege if there is no lawyer, but that there's a pretty good claim of entrapment that the defense could argue.

[ QUOTE ]
Another question. I go eat at a restaurant. I get food poisoning which I know for sure is from the restaurant. Can I sue?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, but you have to prove damages (hospital bills, lots wages, etc.)

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, as a restaurant owner, what can I do to protect myself from getting sued in case my foods cause people to get fat or get sick or both? I know this question sounds ridiculous but curiosity got the best of me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope we're not coming to the point where fatties can sue restaurants for making them fat, but I'd never rule anything out.

The truth is you can't absolutely prevent yourself from getting sued, but you can maximize your chances of winning if you are sued. Obey health codes and take precautions to ensure that your employees don't contaminate the food, etc.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Double Ds,

If an undercover cop pretends to be a lawyer and someone unknowingly hire him and tell him their secrets, is the "client-lawyer privilege" still exists? I got the example from a movie but am curious for an answer. My thinking is that the undercover cop can go to jail for pretending to be a lawyer [is this true?] but he get to testify against the person as a witness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I don't know about this. My gut instinct is that there is no privilege if there is no lawyer, but that there's a pretty good claim of entrapment that the defense could argue.



[/ QUOTE ]

The privilege belongs to the "client." If that person actually believes that he is talking to his lawyer, there would be a privilege. Of course, the fake lawyer can attempt to use the information, but it would not be admissible for any purpose (unless, of course, the client gives consent to waive the privilege).

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope we're not coming to the point where fatties can sue restaurants for making them fat, but I'd never rule anything out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure lawsuits of this nature have already been filed against major fast food chains. I'm not sure if any have been won by the plaintiffs. I agree it's pretty screwed up.

[RustedCorpse]

Prepaid legal services; pyramid scam? Or useful?

[VoraciousReader]

When I went out to lunch today at my favorite local Chinese hole, the owner, who is a naturalized citizen, asked me to look at her lease for her.

Basically, the lease states that the tenant has the right to place one sign on the exterior wall, subject to approval by the owner, and at the tenant's own expense. They did this when they first moved into the space.

However, a few months ago the owner of the shopping center did some exterior renovations, and took down their signage and has not returned it. It wouldn't go with the remodel. (The last sentence is my opinion.)

When she called the owner of the shopping center, he told her that she had to get a new sign and to call the sign company and that per her lease, it is at her expense. The sign company wants 5000 dollars for the new sign.

While she understood that she had to pay for the original sign, the owner initiated and desired the remodel (probably to help fill some vacant locations) and removed her sign that she was completely satisfied to keep. She doesn't think she should have to pay for the new sign.

Does she have any legal ground to require them to pay for some/all of her new sign costs?

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
When I went out to lunch today at my favorite local Chinese hole, the owner, who is a naturalized citizen, asked me to look at her lease for her.

Basically, the lease states that the tenant has the right to place one sign on the exterior wall, subject to approval by the owner, and at the tenant's own expense. They did this when they first moved into the space.

However, a few months ago the owner of the shopping center did some exterior renovations, and took down their signage and has not returned it. It wouldn't go with the remodel. (The last sentence is my opinion.)

When she called the owner of the shopping center, he told her that she had to get a new sign and to call the sign company and that per her lease, it is at her expense. The sign company wants 5000 dollars for the new sign.

While she understood that she had to pay for the original sign, the owner initiated and desired the remodel (probably to help fill some vacant locations) and removed her sign that she was completely satisfied to keep. She doesn't think she should have to pay for the new sign.

Does she have any legal ground to require them to pay for some/all of her new sign costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

IANAL, but I think grand larceny is illegal in most states.

[DrewDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
When I went out to lunch today at my favorite local Chinese hole, the owner, who is a naturalized citizen, asked me to look at her lease for her.

Basically, the lease states that the tenant has the right to place one sign on the exterior wall, subject to approval by the owner, and at the tenant's own expense. They did this when they first moved into the space.

However, a few months ago the owner of the shopping center did some exterior renovations, and took down their signage and has not returned it. It wouldn't go with the remodel. (The last sentence is my opinion.)

When she called the owner of the shopping center, he told her that she had to get a new sign and to call the sign company and that per her lease, it is at her expense. The sign company wants 5000 dollars for the new sign.

While she understood that she had to pay for the original sign, the owner initiated and desired the remodel (probably to help fill some vacant locations) and removed her sign that she was completely satisfied to keep. She doesn't think she should have to pay for the new sign.

Does she have any legal ground to require them to pay for some/all of her new sign costs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on what you wrote, it sounds like the tenant has the option but not the duty to install a sign. Unless the lease requires the tenant to provide signage at the tenant's expense, then I don't see how the tenant has to pay for the new sign.

Also, where's the old sign? Tenant gets that back.