[QUOTE=Avman]I heard an ad by Hunter Greene today which I thought was terrible.
In the ad, the spokesperson says something about Greene helping families as a family attorney… something like that.
How exactly does a divorce lawyer help families other than to help them break up?
I just thought it was terrible and Greene shouldn’t even bring up his experience as a divorce lawyer much less call it “helping families”
Any thoughts?
Helping families over a cliff? At best family lawyers are referees between two warring parties. I was a court runner for one years ago and let me tell ya, it’s not for the weak at heart. The saddest thing I ever saw was a policeman beating up his policeman wife, but because of his status, he was immune from reprisals. Or a former wife who sent sheriffs 100 miles to steal a son from school (she didn’t have custody) and was in a town where her lawyer was pals with a judge, so she got away with it.
My experience with family lawyers and divorce was anything but positive. Most of them are more concerned with billable hours than actually helping anyone. Of course, my attorney was the exception.
[QUOTE=fred]My experience with family lawyers and divorce was anything but positive. Most of them are more concerned with billable hours than actually helping anyone. Of course, my attorney was the exception.
And, in a cynical sense, they have every incentive to keep the cauldron boiling - more fee income for them.
[QUOTE=TaxMan]Helping families over a cliff? At best family lawyers are referees between two warring parties. I was a court runner for one years ago and let me tell ya, it’s not for the weak at heart. The saddest thing I ever saw was a policeman beating up his policeman wife, but because of his status, he was immune from reprisals. Or a former wife who sent sheriffs 100 miles to steal a son from school (she didn’t have custody) and was in a town where her lawyer was pals with a judge, so she got away with it.
I think its an ad the Hunter Greene ought to pull, the last thing he should want people to think about is that he was a divorce lawyer. To me, it’s worse than saying he accepted money from liberal trial lawyers.
Too many people in this city have gone through a divorce. I’ve haven’t been divorced, and hopefully my wife and I won’t get one. Still, despite not having a divorce and never experienced it, I doubt that anybody looks back on their divorce as a pleasant experience.
Something that brings back such unpleasant memories ought to be avoided. Greene should pull that ad.
True....all of Greene’s commercials look Mike Smith-esque but we all know he works for sweet ‘ole Martha Jane.
[QUOTE=UnregisteredRepub]I agree the ad is terrible. Really all of his ads are really second rate, low quality in message and graphics. WEAK. The upside though is that he at least has something out there.
True....I feel that it’s a Riecke v. Tassin runoff. I just don’t have a good feeling when meeting Greene. He seems like he’s hiding something when one talks to him.
[QUOTE=TaxMan]If she thinks that she’s that far ahead, very smart. Why waste your firepower when you don’t have to?
[QUOTE=Cajun Charlie]True....I feel that it’s a Riecke v. Tassin runoff. I just don’t have a good feeling when meeting Greene. He seems like he’s hiding something when one talks to him.
[QUOTE=Btrguy]The error made by all the posters on here is that they are associating family lawyers strictly with nasty divorce cases and thats it. There is much more to it than that. The cases family lawyers handle frequently include adoptions, prenuptual agreements, name changes, wills and successions, setting up trusts, child emancipations, and other non-divorce things. And most family law attorneys I know have no shortage of business and encourage mediation and reconciliation.
That being said, there is some truth to the original post on here in that it is obvious just by the posts so far that the average voter associates family law with divorce and fails to see the many positive family-helping tasks that family law attorney partake in.
Being that attorneys have a tendency to be very active in politics and we do as well, then one must surmise that with so many people here associating family attorneys in such a manner, then what do you think the average Joe is doing?
Even in what you say that family attorneys handle, and I believe it to be true, half of the things you mentioned have a negative connotation to it.
[QUOTE=UnregisteredRepub]I agree the ad is terrible. Really all of his ads are really second rate, low quality in message and graphics. WEAK. The upside though is that he at least has something out there.
Greenes only chance of winning the race is to win it outright during the primary. Whoever goes against him will win the race.
[QUOTE=TaxMan]If she thinks that she’s that far ahead, very smart. Why waste your firepower when you don’t have to?
I believe that it was 1992 that Houston led the AFC championship game 28-3. I came in at half time, saw the score and thought the game was over. Buffalo got the ball first in the second half and Houston intercepted the ball and ran it in for a touchdown. Score was 35-3 with one of the highest rated offenses in the lead.
No need to score right? With such a large lead, it’s smart to relax and not waste your firepower, right?
[QUOTE=Avman]I believe that it was 1992 that Houston led the AFC championship game 28-3. I came in at half time, saw the score and thought the game was over. Buffalo got the ball first in the second half and Houston intercepted the ball and ran it in for a touchdown. Score was 35-3 with one of the highest rated offenses in the lead.
No need to score right? With such a large lead, it’s smart to relax and not waste your firepower, right?
Buffalo won the game, 38-35.
LOL - yer a step ahead of me. If 2 polls show her stuck at 34%, that’s fine and dandy for the primary. The runoff is a different matter. I deliberately didn’t mention that part, because I wanted to see which pundit(s) would pick up on that nuance.
Kind of like what happened to Jindal. His 34% of the vote in the primary was GREAT. Until you then realized he had few additional votes he could get, while Blanco started off with 48% (her vote + Ieyoub + Leach).
[QUOTE=TaxMan]LOL - yer a step ahead of me. If 2 polls show her stuck at 34%, that’s fine and dandy for the primary. The runoff is a different matter. I deliberately didn’t mention that part, because I wanted to see which pundit(s) would pick up on that nuance.
Kind of like what happened to Jindal. His 34% of the vote in the primary was GREAT. Until you then realized he had few additional votes he could get, while Blanco started off with 48% (her vote + Ieyoub + Leach).
Any time a candidate is sitting with less than sixty percent of the votes they need to be out actively campaigning.
