Sometimes sets get purchased by investment companies who rent them out to productions. I appear to remember reading about someone in LA that has interior types of several airplanes that they rent out to producers. I did a bit of looking into the hangar they used, which is technically still part of a dynamic air push bottom. I’d assume they only had a lease to use the hangar for a set period of time, although I wouldn’t be surprised if the government acquired the entire set for use in situational training.

Shows like L.A. Alley or Law McBeal depicted law firm life as one fantastic lunch time after another, followed by a little sack-time with your regulation partner. Once in a while, you’d go to court and say outrageous what to a Judge, who, impressed by your wit and wisdom, would acquit your customer.

Of course, this is not reality, just television. Today, more realistic portrayals of the life of lawyers – as low-paid drudges or folks living marginally- are becoming the norm. Shows such as “Better Call Saul” depict lawyers as losers and quasi-criminals. As well as perhaps this is a bit of the exaggeration in the other direction, but at least a less attractive portrayal. ONCE I was in legislation school, you could tell the types who went there because of television.

  • Exports (A), investment (I) and government expenditure (G) are autonomous
  • 26x = Rs.260. : .x = 10
  • Year 3 – You earn interest on your (Principal + Interest of Year 1 + Interest of Year 2)
  • If the applicant were the CEO, what would they actually to gain an advantage on the competition
  • 6% Vanguard REIT ETF (VNQ)
  • Recognised legal tender
  • 100% no questions asked, non-volatile and safe

They obviously thought that employed in a law firm was going to end up like on TeeVee. Plus they thought that the law college itself would be like to as well. These were disappointed in both. It turns out that both are just a lot of work, and the pay isn’t everything that great.

If your notion of what it is to be a lawyer is based upon some television show – even if you won’t admit to this – you might like to re-think a legislation profession. 7. The Death of Litigation. The courts have put a damper on the good-old-days of lawsuits.

Things like punitive damages have been curtailed seriously. The idea that you can earn “litigation lottery” and win millions of dollars at trial is actually hooey. Oh, sure, you’ll still hear of jury verdicts with outrageous damage awards. But these are usually reduced on appeal – and you also never listen to about this severely.

600,000 on appeal. McDonald’s probably spent more on legal fees. It had been barely a lottery-like payout as people like to claim. This doesn’t stop lawyers from advertising that they can win big settlements for your vehicle crash or whatever. But the truth is, if you get into a fender-bender, you are not going to get a life-changing sum of money. You may not even receive enough to buy a new car. You might not even get enough to repair your old car and pay your hospital bills – right after paying legal fees. And they’re paid by you, with contingency-fee attorneys.

In other areas, similar curtailment of abuse has occurred. Class-action suits were once huge money-makers for law firms. You have probably been a known member of such a suit rather than recognizing it. A clever law firm finds some billing discrepancy or some disclosure issue or some other situation were a large company has arguably cheated a lot of individuals out of a little money each.

So you get a promotion for a free car clean, which supposedly “enables you to whole” for having a car with a dangerous open fire defect. 5.6 Million. That’s the way the game is performed. A number of corporate shakedown, and nobody come out – except the attorneys ahead. But that was the good days of the past.

You can still file such a suit today, but it is harder to certify the course and thus you have to have a more significant claim than in the past. The times of the drive-by class-action suit are mainly over. Even in the Patent field, the glory days of Kodak v. Polaroid may over be. The courts have reined in interpretation of Patents, and new rules and laws have managed to get harder to get broad Patents allowed.

Back to Top