igurari
Joined 18 years ago
Karma
233
Submissions
72
Member since
Mar 18
Recent submissions
Comment · 7 years ago
Comment · 8 years ago
Although I have no experience in immigration law, as a former lawyer and software engineer (and the CEO and co-founder of a legal tech startup), I'd caution against moving into law (or at least taking a long hard look and talking to people who have made the transition).
I left a PhD program in CS to go to law school based on ideals around having a positive impact through the legal system. Ultimately, the law is a slow, difficult, and painful system to work through and with. The work is mostly tedious (relative to software development) and most of the time you're not really having a significant or positive impact. It's generally not very rewarding.
I'd be happy to chat if you're interested in hearing more about my take. (itai [at] judicata [.com])
Comment · 8 years ago
A lot of the errors you'll see in lawyer work product is not just from being overworked, but also comes from poor quality control mechanisms and insufficient use of technology in law firms.
On the litigation side we regularly see significant typos, misquotes, and even misspellings of the judge's name - and those are just the more basic types of errors we see.
By building the technology they're using Atrium will be able to not just drive efficiency but also improvements in the quality of the legal work product they sell.
It's a very exciting company.
Comment · 8 years ago
> Software developers build abstractions, write tests, refactor and simplify older code, yet no such trend seems to be occurring for law. Why not?
Actually, the Common Law[1] (which the US, England, Canada, and other English-speaking countries) very much have a legal system that includes building abstractions, refactoring, and simplifying (though there are no tests). Judicial decisions are precedential and over time rules and tests are discarded or re-written to be easier to use and more applicable.
I think the parent comment is discussing legislation (which politicians enact), but the process by which judge made law develops and improves is very similar to how code evolves and improves.
Comment · 9 years ago
That is also not true (except that it is an up-hill battle -- I agree with that). A "Tameny Claim" is an exception to at-will employment, and the rules around discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and discharges in violation of public policy are different. California follows the "McDonnell Douglas" burden shifting process at the summary judgment stage for identifying where the presumption is, and who has to show/prove what.[1][2]
Ultimately, at trial the burden of proof is on the employee, but the standard of proof is low -- more likely than not, which is basically 50.1%. If the employee survives summary judgment, their chances of winning (or settling favorably) are probably pretty good.
[1] See, e.g., https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Diego+v.+Pilgrim+U...
[2] The burden shifting process is:
"When a plaintiff alleges retaliatory employment termination ... as a claim for wrongful employment termination in violation of public policy, and the defendant seeks summary judgment, California follows the burden shifting analysis of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 [36 L.Ed.2d 668, 93 S.Ct. 1817] to determine whether there are triable issues of fact for resolution by a jury. [Citation.] In the first stage, the `plaintiff must show (1) he or she engaged in a "protected activity," (2) the employer subjected the employee to an adverse employment action, and (3) a causal link existed between the protected activity and the employer's action.' [Citation.] If the employee successfully establishes these elements and thereby shows a prima facie case exists, the burden shifts to the employer to provide evidence that there was a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. [Citation.] If the employer produces evidence showing a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, `the presumption of retaliation "`"drops out of the picture,"'"' [citation], and the burden shifts back to the employee to provide `substantial responsive evidence' that the employer's proffered reasons were untrue or pretextual."
Comment · 9 years ago
That is simply not true (in California). If the underlying lawsuit is based on employment Discrimination or Harassment under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, firing the employee because they filed the lawsuit itself subjects the company to liability. It's called a "Tameny Claim" -- a "Discharge in Violation of Public Policy." [1]
Of course, proving that the reason for the firing was Retaliation isn't easy, but that doesn't make your statement true.
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=tameny+v+atlantic+...
Comment · 9 years ago
Datanyze (https://www.datanyze.com/) has built a nice business doing this. You can learn a lot from understanding what software a company is using on their website. It's especially useful for generating sales leads.
Whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors under Dynamex and the ABC test is an open question, but the Uber explanation of the bill's impact is more or less correct.