Why Hire a Bankruptcy Lawyer El Paso with a similar background to yourself: Asian, Chinese, Philippine, Vietnamese, El Salvador, Guatemalan, Canadian, German, Latino, Mexican, Spanish, Italian, Japanese, Russian, Greek, Romanian, Cuban, Korean, Indian, Hispanic, American, Foreign, Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, Orthodox, Mormon, or Buddhist?
If you do you will need a lawyer. The trouble is there are several thousand Attorneys out there just on the internet and the choice in finding a Bankruptcy Lawyer El Paso appropriate for your case becomes more difficult. When you are trying to find a representative there are a few guidelines you will want to follow. Below you will find out how to choose the appropriate lawyer for your needs.
When trying to find a lawyer you first must understand the case you have. Some cases are very easy to determine, for instance those who have been in an accident often have personal injury needs. Those with problems at a hospital with a medical condition will have a malpractice suit and on and on. Once you have determined the type of representative you need, finding a lawyer becomes a little easier.
You may have a general practice representative or someone you have dealt with in Bankruptcy Lawyer El Paso law. Most of us know someone who has had a attorney in the past. In this case you can ask the person for a referral. If you have a business lawyer you can ask them to recommend someone in the field of expertise you need. They will often have at least one name for you and a few to keep away from. Those who have worked with lawyers such as family or friends will also be able to give recommendations. They may say you don’t want this person or that their associate can help you. In either case you are better off to ask for a referral in finding a lawyer rather than other options.
The key to finding a representative that will help you out is knowing as much about them professionally as possible. You want to understand how many years they have practiced and what their specialty really is. Other wise you may find someone who is more out for the gain they will get rather than the gain you will get. When you deal with finding a lawyer, ask them their policies. Kind of interview them during the course of the conversation as well. Some will not charge unless the case is won, while others will charge a small fee during the entire process. It will depend on the case and of course your representative.
Personal Injury Attorney - Why Do You Need One?
Primarily, employment law covers all rights and obligations within the employer-employee relationship -- be it the present employees or former employees. Due of the intricacy of employment relationships and the complexity of situations that may occur, employment law entails legal issues as varied as discrimination, wrongful termination, wages and taxation, and workplace safety; therefore, many of these issues must be governed by applicable federal and state law. However, a valid contract should be agreed upon by the employer and the employee -- stating contract law alone may present and hereby impose the rights and duties of the parties.
Evidently, all employees have basic rights in the workplace, which include the right to privacy, fair compensation, and freedom from discrimination based on age, gender, race, national origin, or religion.
Nonetheless, it is much better to give due courtesy and respect to the employees civil rights rather than to face predicaments as the result of being retaliated by the law itself. The Labor law applies to both the workers and the employer; whosoever are culpable committing unjust and unfair actions is worthy of such punishments as provided by the law.
Child Custody: What Are the Different Types?
The process for mediation will be dependent upon how mediation is triggered. Mediation can be triggered by:
a court or tribunal
an agreement to mediate.
A contract can state that when a dispute occurs to do with the contract or any matter of contractual import or bearing the parties must go to mediation. A well crafted mediation clause will provide that the parties must agree upon a mediator or in the absence of agreement the contract should provide that the matter must be referred to a nomination body to nominate a mediator.
The contact will provide that the mediator will be free to conduct the mediation as he or she sees fit, but the contract will also provide that if the mediation breaks down then the parties are at liberty to abort the mediation. Conversely the contract will provide that if resolution of the dispute through mediation is effected then the terms of settlement that underpin that accord must be in writing, must be co signed by the parties and the mediator and the accord will then be binding.
An example of a contract induced mediation clause is below
The Parties must mediate disputes.
The parties to the contract must use the mediation procedure to resolve a dispute before commencing legal proceedings.
The mediation procedure is:
The party who wishes to resolve a dispute must give a notice of dispute to the other party, and to the selected mediator, or, if that mediator is not available, to a mediator appointed by the president of the Law Institute.
The notice of dispute must state that a dispute had arisen, and state the matters in dispute.
The parties must cooperate with the mediator in an effort to give an opinion to technical matters. Each party must pay a half share of the cost of the opinion.
If the dispute is settled, the parties must sign a copy of the terms of settlement.
If the dispute is not resolved in 14 days after the mediator had been given notice, or within any extended time that the parties agreed to in writing, the mediation must cease.
Each party must pay a half share of the costs of the mediator to the mediator.
The terms of the settlement are binding on the parties and override the terms of the contract if there is any conflict.
Either party may commence legal proceedings when mediation ceases.
The terms of settlement may be tendered in evidence in any mediation or legal proceedings.
The parties agree that written statements given to the mediator or to one another and any discussions between the parties or between the parties and the mediator during the mediation period are not admissible by the recipient in any legal proceedings.
Court or Tribunal Ordered Mediation
Most courts require litigated matters to be referred to mediation before the case goes to hearing. The courts normally have a published list of mediators that the parties can choose from and each party has to pay the costs of the mediator.
If the mediation facilitates a settlement then the matter is concluded and the legal proceedings will be aborted by consent. If the mediation is unsuccessful then the matter will in all likelihood proceed to trial.
In some jurisdictions like the VCAT (Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal) the parties do not have to pay for the mediator and this is a significant cost saving and benefit that flows from such benevolence.
Agreement Based Mediation
Any party to any dispute, be it civil, commercial or planning can at any time agree to mediate. All the parties need to do is to find a mediator and then in good faith attempt to settle the matter.
There still however needs to be a rigour, there is little point in settling a dispute unless the settlement is agreed in writing, is witnessed and is evidenced by an instrument that states that the parties have agreed to resolve all of their disputes and differences to do with the subject matter.
Any mediated settlement agreement has to be comprehensive, well drafted and must embrace all matters that gave rise to the dispute. Poorly drafted settlement agreements are open to challenge and are frequently challenged when one of the parties in hindsight thinks that result could have been better.
If matters can be mediated at the gestation of a dispute, a mediated outcome has considerable merit. There is little doubt that the fastest and cheapest way to resolve a dispute if negotiations breakdown is through mediation. In any partnership agreement that I have entered into with fellow practitioners or businessman I have insisted on the inclusion of a mediation clause. Resort to court, is last resort.
One of the ostensible benefits of mediation is confidentiality. If a matter is resolved by mediation the disputants can keep their issues of discontent "in house". If there is any "dirty linen" it is "washed" in-house, never in public. For people in high office this is most important, reputations particularly in this day of age where communications via the internet are immediate and widespread mean that anything odorous can be seized upon and published very quickly. Furthermore once the odium is out there it can never be archived or placed in a vault that is dedicated to the scurrilous. Information that is published on the web remains there in perpetuity for all and sundry. The need for confidential resolution of disputes is therefore greater than ever and mediation is a useful although not necessarily perfect way of achieving this.
Not everyone however is convinced that a benefit of mediation is confidentiality.
"It could be said that the reality of confidentiality in mediation is in large part reliant on the goodwill of the parties. If good will breaks down, then somewhat ironically, whether confidentiality will be upheld or not depends on relatively insecure legal protections"
(Field, Rachael and Wood, Neal (2006) "Confidentiality: An ethical dilemma for marketing mediation?" Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17(2):pp. 79-87 at 7).
"From an ethical marketing perspective it is less than desirous to use the concept of confidentiality to promote mediation; certainly not without providing full information about the qualified nature of the concept in practice. Indeed, the accuracy and legitimacy of some of the assertions made about confidentiality in mediation can be brought into serious question"
(Field, Rachael and Wood, Neal (2006) "Confidentiality: An ethical dilemma for marketing mediation?" Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 17(2):pp. 79-87 at 16).
As one of the perceived benefits of mediation is confidentiality, yet in actual practise as the said co-authors contend this may be an assumption in some instances rather than a fact, settlement condition "belts and braces" should be brought to bear to secure confidentiality. Where settlement via mediation is engineered the settlement agreement should have a confidentiality clause, any breach of which is actionable in a court of law. If part of the consideration in the settling of a dispute is confidentially it should be expressed as such, then a breach of confidentiality is a breach of that confidentiality provision and actionable.
A greater problem is if settlement is not effected by mediation. How confidential is information conveyed during negotiations in these circumstances? Field, Rachael and Wood have said the notion of whether information remains confidential or not may be reliant upon the good will of the parties. All well and good but of little comfort to disputants at loggerheads with one another, particularly if the mediation proves fruitless and as it can on occasion, counterproductive and a tension exacerbater.
(Michael Moffitt "Suing Mediators" Boston University Law Review, Vol. 83:147 at page 150)
The difficulty in suing mediators is probably because it is a new addition to the dispute resolution repertoire, somewhat of a dark and evolving art. As canvassed previously mediators are not supposed to make decisions and although a mediator never makes a decision, the errant mediator in making a recommendation or proffering an opinion that affects a settlement is influencing the decision to settle. If the decision is settled and compromised on the basis of a misconceived mediator`s expressed inclination, the conduct of the mediator should be actionable at law.
Yet actionable on what basis? The duty of the mediator in not codified or regulated rather it is ill-defined and speculative As some mediators are not remunerated by the parties does their duty to the party differ to circumstances where the mediator is remunerated by the parties, (presumably on a fifty- fifty basis)?
Unlike lawyers who are required to enter into cost agreements with their clients that are regulated by solicitor conduct acts, mediators do not explicitly contract with clients to dispense impartiality, ethical reverence or detachment. So in the absence of any contractual obligation for one to sue a mediator, one would have to imply certain duties, duties that are to reiterate ill-defined and opaque.
For the above reasons it is not surprising that mediators apparently have not been sued to date. Although a party in the absence of any mediator immunity would be at liberty to sue a mediator, success could prove elusive. There would have to be compelling evidence that the mediator, very forcefully recommended a course of action, based upon flawed rationale or pretext, resulting in a settlement that materially prejudiced a party`s interests.
Furthermore if the aggrieved was represented by lawyers it would be even more difficult to sue the mediator, because the question would be asked "Why did your lawyer not advise you to refuse to accede to the mediator's recommendation?"
The disquieting consideration for lawyers, is that the lawyer must be ever vigilant and bold if need be, in ensuring that a bad deal that is put to the client is described as such in no uncertain terms, least the lawyer be implicated in a questionable outcome. The last thing the lawyer would want to become is a client "safety net" for a compromised settlement in circumstances where a forceful or vociferous mediator extolled the virtues of settlement and the lawyer meekly acquiesced or endorsed in that facilitation. For to do so could mean that the lawyer would be sued for a failure to emphatically reject the mediator`s recommended course of action.
As an aside the author can attest to his disappointment with respect to some of his experiences at mediation, albeit a minority of experiences. One case concerned a multimillion dollar dispute where the author was retained by an insurance company and the author's client flew an insurance instructor from one jurisdiction to the jurisdiction where the mediation occurred. The mediator was a fairly relaxed sort of character but the amount that he charged being $6,000 per day certainly did not relax the disputants. It was observed on a number of occasions that when there were "breakout" caucuses, the mediator used his downtime to read the newspapers in the public reception area that someone very kindly left in the reception of the office.
In another matter, again an insurance dispute, one team flew from one jurisdiction to another, at great cost. The mediation was getting traction but because the mediator and some other members of one of the adversary fraternity had to attend a religious festival, the mediation was cut short. The author, a religious man himself, considered that it would have been a far better idea for the mediator to arrange a date that did not conflict with either his or one of the other party's religious commitments. Particularity when the mediator was charging in excess of $5,000 per day and the combined legal spend for the day would have been $12,000. Needless to say that the team lacking the same religious affiliation was in a word; disappointed.
One of the greatest risks with mediations is that successful mediations in the author`s experience often go well into the night. In these circumstances many mediators instead of adjourning over to the following day put pressure on the parties to expedite the "wrapping up" of a settlement. In such circumstances mistakes can be made particularly in regards to the drafting of terms of settlement. This makes one hark back to Michael Moffitt's observation that the lack of formal structuring can compromise the quality of mediation services.
Mediation is relatively cheap and in tribunals such as the VCAT and the NZ WHT it is free. Court nominated mediators however are not free and when the courts, compel the parties to mediate the parties have to engage and pay for recognized and reputable mediators. This can cost anywhere between $1,500 and $10,000 a day but is money well spent if the matter is resolved quickly by mediation.
The most cost effective deployment of a mediator is at the outset of the dispute, at a time that precedes the initiation of legal proceedings.
An actual mediation rarely takes more than a day or so. The critical thing is to ensure that the mediation occurs close to the beginning of the dispute rather than on the eve of trial.
On point, the author was engaged by the Law Reform Commission and the Law Institute of Victoria in the early 90's to co-author a plain English building contract with Jude Wallace (Jude worked with the Victorian Law Reform Commission). We decided to make mediation the first "port of call" in the dispute resolution process whereby it was a term of contract that no party could issue proceedings in any jurisdiction unless they had at first instance attended mediation. The contract also provided that the parties remunerated the mediator on a 50/50 basis, regardless of outcome.
It is critical, for fear of labouring the point that mediation occurs at the outset. Ideally, a mediator should be engaged before a matter goes to court, arbitration or a tribunal but this requires a contractual condition that binds the parties to this course of action.
A mediated outcome at the earliest possible time can indeed arrest the deterioration of a commercial relationship. Mediated outcomes can also be positive, they can turn the tide from discord to accord and where this occurs the relationship can be strengthened.
Adversaries can also learn more about one another, a constructive mediation can enable both parties to better understand the other party's point of view. As Sir Laurence Street, the prominent Australian mediator and a past NSW Supreme Court Chief Justice likes to say. "If you look at a coin, the coin has a head and a tail. In any given dispute one party sees the tail, the other can only see the head, yet they are both looking at the same coin".
Need advice: Bankruptcy Lawyer El Paso ?
Corporate Bankruptcy FAQs - Answers to Common Questions About Business Bankruptcy
A conviction always comes as a disheartening experience for those who are found to be guilty by court; some are even given the verdict despite a substantial case that was presented on their part. At such a time, many only have the wish to either complete their sentence or compensate for the penalty in order to put aside the bitter incident. Instead of moving on, repercussions of the conviction still ensues as those who were handed over to a guilty verdict now own a criminal record that could later become a liability, especially when the jobs require running extensive background checks on their employee. Nonetheless, individuals that have been previously convicted could still seek out for post conviction relief that where they could acquire legal aid.
Signing a petition
For a person to qualify for relief, they will have to be serving their time if their sentenced for incarceration where a legal representative will be in court on behalf of them. If not, individuals who wish to file a petition for the relief will first have to undergo probation or allow to be placed on parole. A way of putting it into perspective, post conviction relief is available as a second chance for those who have clean records after their conviction. If a person qualifies for a relief, they'll simply have to file in a petition. It could be done on their own, or with the help of an attorney.
Refinancing Your Home With Bad Credit or a Bankruptcy in Texas
The question of what is a repetitive strain injury (RSI) is one that many people may not even know to ask. An RSI is not something that happens instantly like a cut or broken bone. RSI's happen over time, and you may not even realize you are being injured until it's too late.
Repetitive Strain Injuries is the blanket term given to any injury that is caused by a repetitive motion that is performed over a period of time. These injuries usually occur in or around the joints of a person's body. The pain from the injury will usually begin to show itself as inflammation of the joint that is performing the motion.
The medical definition of Repetitive Strain Injury is an injury of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems that may be caused by repetitive tasks, forceful exertions, vibrations, mechanical compression (pressing against hard surfaces), or sustained or awkward positions.
Pain medications can be used to eliminate the pain. The problem with this approach, however, is that the pain will hide the RSI symptoms leading the patient to return too early to activities that caused the injury.
Other treatments are actually preventative measures that should have been taken before the injury occurred, but will also help treating the injury once the person returns to the activity that was the initial cause. These include ergonomic considerations and exercise.
Sometimes learning to deal with the pain is the best treatment. If the injury causes such a disruption in a person's life that it's worse that the injury itself then learning to cope with the pain might be the best answer. This way the patient can resume their day-to-day activities providing they understand how to avoid making the injury worse.
Child Custody - Who Should Have Custody of Your Kids?
Michigan auto insurance is a lot different from insurance elsewhere in the United States. Required by law in Michigan, no fault insurance has three basic parts. These are personal injury protection, property protection insurance and residual liability insurance (bodily injury and property damage coverage). If you want to register a car in Michigan, auto insurance has to be purchased, and you have to prove that you have it. Like most other places in the US, driving a car without insurance is against the law.
Michigan's no fault insurance policies provide for full reimbursement of medical costs, and for the money you lose from being injured, up to a three year period. As of 2007, that amount was up to a little over four thousand, five hundred dollars. People who are killed in an accident and have Michigan auto insurance will be paid up to that amount every month for three years, based on the earnings of the person who has died.
So what doesn't Michigan no fault insurance cover? Collision insurance, which covers repairs to your car, is not required. Comprehensive insurance is also not mandated by law, and covers damage to your car if it is stolen, or damaged by fire, flood, animals, vandalism, or falling objects. If you are hit by an uninsured motorist and have not voluntarily purchased coverage for this, you will also not be covered by regular Michigan auto insurance.
Best Practices When Using Subcontractors
Online incorporation services tout easy, fast, and cheap online incorporation and limited liability company (LLC) formation services. Examples include LegalZoom.com, MyCorporation.com, and IncorporateTime.com. Storefront and virtual paralegal services such as We the People and those found in the legal services section of your local craigslist also offer similar services. Their web sites and radio and TV sales pitches indicate that forming a corporation or LLC is as quick, easy, and inexpensive as filling out an online questionnaire and paying a fee of $100-150 for the completion of the paperwork and the filing of the documents with the secretary of state (plus the filing fees charged by the state). This article reviews the advantages and disadvantages of these services overall - for specific reviews of a particular provider, you should look elsewhere (and preferably to those with direct experience using the service, as well as at least a year of business operations thereafter).
No legal advice
In the fine print, many document preparation services state they are not law firms, cannot provide legal advice, and recommend that you consult an attorney for legal advice. Here's a word for word example from one web site: "This site is not a substitute for legal counsel.... You should consult legal counsel to determine applicable law for your situation." And from another: "[Our document preparation service] is not a substitute for an attorney or law firm." Only licensed attorneys can practice law and provide legal advice to clients, so these firms are wisely protecting themselves by making it clear that they are not in the business of providing legal advice; they are in the business of preparing whatever forms or filing you tell them to. Thus, the computer programmer's old adage, Garbage In, Garbage Out, applies. If you tell them to form a Nevada LLC, when you really need a California S corporation, they will in all likelihood produce a technically sufficient LLC, but it won't meet your actual business legal needs. Likewise, if you choose not to elect S-corporation status, and end up paying higher taxes as a C-corporation, this is not their fault; they are counting on you to know what you need, or to have consulted a lawyer and/or tax accountant before coming to them.
Many incorporation services would apparently seem to remedy this situation with lengthy FAQs and learning centers, but, frankly, a few minutes or even a few hours of research is not a substitute for a lawyer's college degree, three years of law school, and additional on-the-job training and annual continuing legal education. Any paralegal or incorporation service whose employees do provide legal advice is engaged in the unethical practice of law without a license, a crime in most jurisdictions, and their legal advice, for more reasons than one, should be taken with a grain of salt. Better yet, terminate your relationship with any such person immediately.
The other 'remedy' is to portray incorporation as a one size fits all, cookie cutter purchase, rather than explaining the reality that can be summed up the quote sometimes heard in law school, "The general rule applies to no one in particular." In other words, your circumstances and needs are not those of your friends, neighbors, or other online entity formation customers.
Other Legal Issues
But aren't you, as a California incorporation lawyer, biased?
That's certainly a legitimate question, and I obviously have a strong opinion on the matters discussed. It's up to you to take to heart or disregard the opinions and advice in this article, but I would answer it this way: Because I am a business attorney, I have seen the result of using these services in a way most lay people would not, and as a result cannot recommend that most people use an incorporation service. And although incorporation legal services is part of my business law practice, I would encourage most readers to use an attorney of their choosing, in their state - it need not be me and obviously I don't benefit from you using another attorney any more than I benefit from you using an incorporation service. In fact, incorporation services are probably in the long run good for my practice; they provide a steady stream of repair work and dispute resolution for me, that typically cost $1000s more than my flat fee incorporation services.
Summary and Conclusion
In short, comparing incorporation services to a business lawyer is an apples to oranges comparison. One option provides more services and costs more; one provides less and costs less. Neither is a "rip-off" or the definitive solution for everyone. You are more likely to get things right by choosing either than choosing neither and going it alone. The lawyer is licensed by the state to provide legal advice, is subject to numerous ethical rules, forms an attorney-client relationship with his clients, and keeps up to date on changes in the law through mandatory continuing legal education. The incorporation service simply executes on your instructions, no advice, no hand-holding, no legal review of your situation or legal needs. If your instructions do not comport with what's best for your situation, then your result will be less than optimal.
There may be a small group of people who know what they need, and how to do it, but just lack the time, and who are thus well served by incorporation services. (Ironically, most of these people probably realize the value of an attorney's input and would generally hire one to take care of their legal needs, while spending their own time on what they do best, improving their business. This explains why I have business entity formation clients who are attorneys and law firms!). Or who have been advised by their accountant to form a particular type of simple entity (simple being defined as an entity to be formed in their home state jurisdiction and with only one owner). But, in my opinion, the vast majority of potential incorporation service customers would be better served by investing an additional $500 or so to have their entity selected, formed, and set up correctly, with all of their questions answered along the way, with due attention to related legal issues, and to establish a relationship with an attorney for ongoing or future legal services.
Child Custody Laws for Single Parents
Commonly folks have asked me what the technical difference is between a contract and a grant. The difference is not about the dollar value or who the buying entity is nor the kind of work being done. Instead it is about the legal concept of default. In my eyes, the corner stone of whether something should be called a grant or a contract lies in whether one is legally bound to produce results as one is in a contractual relationship or whether you are simply granted funds to do something. Did you get that nuance? Perhaps that is oversimplifying it.
Essentially, a contract is a legally binding document in which the parties make promises to deliver a product or service in exchange for consideration (usually money.) A grant on the other hand is when one party grants funds to another party to do something, in reasonable hopes that the task can be accomplished. If the task is accomplished - great, everyone is happy and it could lead to more grant funding! On the flip side, if the task is not accomplished there are most likely no legal ramifications (assuming you have broken no other laws) as would be the case in a contract.
Accordingly, if you are in the Government Contracting arena it is always wise to make sure you understand which instrument you are working under. If you are faced with using a contract rather than a grant and you have some concern surrounding whether you can attain a goal or the task at hand, you will definitely want to use a "best efforts" type contract. This will allow you to operate as if it were similar to a grant where you have high hopes of attaining said goal, but ultimately not guaranteeing you can deliver.