A very important point noted by my colleague above. You should very carefully attend to what he has pointed out to you.
The herd might want to pump the brakes a bit and read the question before issuing rushed stamps of imprimatur and supplying contact information.
I had the same thought, Mr. Dohner, thank you.
My pleasure, sir. In some respects it wasn't even necessarily said critically, but, then again, in some respects it was. Everyone misses wide right occasionally - I know that I certainly do from time to time. LOL. And in general, I think that 80% - 90% of those answering are fairly thorough and contemplative in their responses. Likewise, the vast majority of our colleagues are very well-intended, terrific folks like Mr. Lewis, below, and Ms. Morcroft, above (and of course you in-between). There is simply a group B which is seemingly an issue which AVVO does not wish to address who throw anything, erroneous or not, forget insightful, against the wall, along with a "business card", if you will, and call it an answer. It's unfortunate, particular since laypersons often do not realize that the glib answer which may have been thrown out there in a race for a prospective client might very well be as wrong as wrong gets. I have conferred with AVVO a number of times and proposed several means by which it seems to me that this sort of "answer" can be eliminated, but I have to say, they were not terribly interested in what I had to say.
So I proposed. Hey, just kidding. It's a gender neutral joke anyway.
Have a great day.
Yes, well, I look forward to your insightful and sometimes entertaining responses and agree that while most lawyers take this stuff very seriously, there are always exceptions.
I think you means entertaining and sometimes insightful responses, rather than the converse..LOL...but in either permutation I certainly thank you for your very kind words. You are one of the true gentlemen (along with the ladies, of course) with whom I have had the sincere pleasure of exchanging our respective thoughts on approaches to situations which are novel and therefore require some rumination before charging in, as well as those which are so commonplace that one needs to frequently refresh one's approach in order to avoid the appearance and sound of "scripted" lawyering which is the truth kiss of death when presenting one's case to a jury, and I certainly have always appreciated your correspondence in these regards, and any other for that matter, as well as reading your always contemplative replies to the questions posed here.
And for my part, I, too, believe that the vast majority of our colleagues who take the time to participate in, and involve themselves with, this forum, are incredibly well-intended talented lawyers, with a great deal to offer, who happen to be right-minded enough to offer some of their talents to those who might otherwise not be able to very readily access lawyering of the caliber which they often receive here on a pro bono basis. It is merely a scant few, who are, unfortunately, incredibly persistent in their efforts to demonstrate their flagrant self-interest and lack of creativity that periodically irk me. They also frequently rush so quickly to throw anything in the ring, along with their contact information, that they fail to correctly apprehend the question posed, and therefore by pure "physics", so to speak, miss "way wide right" with their "Answers", to the extent that description is merited.
Mr. Registrato, sir, you certainly have, and have had for some time now, my warm endorsement along with my "no thought process required" referral of any matters in the realm of family law in the Bay area, and I hope you have a wonderful day, followed by a terrific weekend.
All the best,
David B. Dohner, Esq.