Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Oct 30, 2014 12:25:58 GMT -5
before they file a lawsuit? Seriously. I've been digging out documentation because my company is being sued over something so assine- we're all still in shock. It will get thrown out but meanwhile it's costing us time and money.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,380
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Oct 30, 2014 12:26:54 GMT -5
Attorneys never met a fact that they didn't like to ignore.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 29,241
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Oct 30, 2014 12:33:48 GMT -5
Depends on the attorney. I've met some totally awesome ones, & a couple of ambulance chasers...
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Oct 30, 2014 13:07:48 GMT -5
before they file a lawsuit? Seriously. I've been digging out documentation because my company is being sued over something so assine- we're all still in shock. It will get thrown out but meanwhile it's costing us time and money. I don't think so. There is no money in checking the facts before you file the suit. If you bury potential defendants in paper, you get to charge the client for every piece of paper you sent out. Even if 50% of the paper was inappropriate. And you get to charge the client for the time to answer phone calls and correspondence from potential defendants who were improperly included in the suit. And some of the defendants will fork over some money just to make you go away. And you'll probably get a chunk of the greenmail, too. This practice would stop if the lawyers involved had to reimburse potential defendants who were improperly included in the suit a minimum of $500 or 500% of their cost to respond to the suit. That would reduce the sue everybody in the phone book approach.
|
|
t-dog
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by t-dog on Oct 30, 2014 13:07:52 GMT -5
I personally fact check, can't generalize about all attorneys any more than any other profession.
|
|
t-dog
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by t-dog on Oct 30, 2014 13:09:46 GMT -5
There are some technical aspects of pleadings that a non-lawyer will just never understand.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Oct 30, 2014 13:24:39 GMT -5
There are some technical aspects of pleadings that a non-lawyer will just never understand. and with 30 seconds on google even a non-lawyer can find the information to know the claim is invalid.
|
|
t-dog
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by t-dog on Oct 30, 2014 13:26:44 GMT -5
I am sure there are attorneys who file frivolously just as there are bad apples in every profession.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Oct 30, 2014 13:29:42 GMT -5
I do. I dont waste my time on crap.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Oct 30, 2014 13:32:01 GMT -5
Just ticks me off. There really should be some kinds of penalty.
The only good thing- my boss sent an email with our attorney's request for information. I sent him back what they asked for and said- but here is what you really need. Now he thinks I'm a rockstar for knowing all this crap.
But it's still a PITA.
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Oct 30, 2014 13:45:23 GMT -5
The IRS doesn't do it. We get notices from them all the time for stuff that if the different departments would actually talk to each other they would know. I hate computerized notices because they are invariably wrong. Then you can't just call them to get it all sorted out. You have to write a letter telling them stuff they should already know. Or spend an hour on the phone to talk to someone that doesn't know anything or can't do anything.
Don't get me started also about notices with phone numbers you can't call from outside the US. If you want to tax your citizens who are living internationally, the least you can do is have a phone number they can reach you at.
I digress from the attorney fact checking..
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2014 14:29:47 GMT -5
There is.
That's the federal rule, but most states have a similar provision in their trial rules. Contrary to popular opinion, lawyers can't just go "suing everyone in the phone book" willy nilly, at least not without facing sanctions.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 30, 2014 14:35:18 GMT -5
There are some technical aspects of pleadings that a non-lawyer will just never understand. I'm not quite sure you understand exactly how this comes across. If you are incapable of explaining things in such a way that a non-lawyer can understand, then I suggest you may not know the material as well as you think you do. (States the tax professional who has to explain highly technical items to non tax people all the time). Most people are capable of understanding much more, then many people give them credit for.
|
|
midjd
Administrator
Your Money Admin
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:09:23 GMT -5
Posts: 17,720
|
Post by midjd on Oct 30, 2014 14:40:15 GMT -5
There are some technical aspects of pleadings that a non-lawyer will just never understand. I'm not quite sure you understand exactly how this comes across. If you are incapable of explaining things in such a way that a non-lawyer can understand, then I suggest you may not know the material as well as you think you do. (States the tax professional who has to explain highly technical items to non tax people all the time). Most people are capable of understanding much more, then many people give them credit for. We've been told any promotional or press material we create must be written at or below a 6th grade reading level. There are a lot of aspects of the law -- maybe not general legal concepts, but technical rules and pleading requirements -- that can't be boiled down to a 6th grade level. I realize that YM is probably well above the average when it comes to the ability to comprehend complex matters, so this wouldn't apply here, but when talking about the general public, I think tdog is right. (says the person who once heard a state legislator ask whether there is a difference between civil and criminal law)
|
|
t-dog
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by t-dog on Oct 30, 2014 14:40:24 GMT -5
So what I am referring to Captain is that there are defenses that must be plead or allegations contained in a pleading to avoid a waiver. Invariably when I include a third party at fault defense I hear that there is no reason for such a defense. If I don't include it at pleading stage its waived. I most likely will not get the blessing of the court to raise the defense later. so what seems to be irrelevant or unsubstantiated claims have to be included from the get go to avoid them being waived and the attorney being sued for malpractice by the client later. Its not a perfect system but its the one we have to operate within.
Do I check facts, yes. Have defenses arisen during the course of discovery that were unanticipated, yes. Had I not out of an abundance of caution included those defenses at the answer stage of the suit they would have been waived. So yeah, I have to put stuff into an answer that may not seem relevant initially because it may become so later. Like I said, not a perfect system but its the game within which I gotta play.
Thanks for the comments on my abilities, or your perceived lack thereof, however.
|
|
t-dog
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by t-dog on Oct 30, 2014 14:42:03 GMT -5
Thanks Mid.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Oct 30, 2014 14:58:15 GMT -5
So what I am referring to Captain is that there are defenses that must be plead or allegations contained in a pleading to avoid a waiver. Invariably when I include a third party at fault defense I hear that there is no reason for such a defense. If I don't include it at pleading stage its waived. I most likely will not get the blessing of the court to raise the defense later. so what seems to be irrelevant or unsubstantiated claims have to be included from the get go to avoid them being waived and the attorney being sued for malpractice by the client later. Its not a perfect system but its the one we have to operate within.
Do I check facts, yes. Have defenses arisen during the course of discovery that were unanticipated, yes. Had I not out of an abundance of caution included those defenses at the answer stage of the suit they would have been waived. So yeah, I have to put stuff into an answer that may not seem relevant initially because it may become so later. Like I said, not a perfect system but its the game within which I gotta play.
Thanks for the comments on my abilities, or your perceived lack thereof, however. So the law requireds you to include things that you know are nonsense, just so they can't be excluded later because you forgot to include them in the first place. You do this to cover all bases in case those things do happend to be relevant to avoid becoming exposed to a lawsuite by your client. If I got the above correct then you were able to explain things to a non lawyer, that you thought a non lawyer would ever understand. If I got the above wrong, then you are right, and there are things beyond the understanding of those in the legal profession .
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Oct 30, 2014 15:33:33 GMT -5
So what I am referring to Captain is that there are defenses that must be plead or allegations contained in a pleading to avoid a waiver. Invariably when I include a third party at fault defense I hear that there is no reason for such a defense. If I don't include it at pleading stage its waived. I most likely will not get the blessing of the court to raise the defense later. so what seems to be irrelevant or unsubstantiated claims have to be included from the get go to avoid them being waived and the attorney being sued for malpractice by the client later. Its not a perfect system but its the one we have to operate within.
Do I check facts, yes. Have defenses arisen during the course of discovery that were unanticipated, yes. Had I not out of an abundance of caution included those defenses at the answer stage of the suit they would have been waived. So yeah, I have to put stuff into an answer that may not seem relevant initially because it may become so later. Like I said, not a perfect system but its the game within which I gotta play.
Thanks for the comments on my abilities, or your perceived lack thereof, however. Actually this makes sense and helps a bit. They named everybody and their dog in the lawsuit. I guess now we just have to prove that we can legally do what we did (government says we can so ) so they can get down to the one company that they may have a chance of settling with. Like I said, 30 seconds of google would tell them we did it right so to me it doesn't make sense to include us.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,912
|
Post by zibazinski on Oct 30, 2014 15:36:04 GMT -5
Good lawyers do, bad lawyers don't.
|
|
t-dog
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 17, 2011 13:46:06 GMT -5
Posts: 2,016
|
Post by t-dog on Oct 30, 2014 15:37:32 GMT -5
Glad to be of help Agile.
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,861
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Oct 30, 2014 15:46:54 GMT -5
If you think attorneys occasionally fail to check facts before filing lawsuits, you should SEE what plaintiffs representing THEMSELVES in pro per do with THEIR lawsuits.
(I once had to defend the City against allegations that our Police Cat was spying on this woman in violation of her civil rights.) When she filed the complaint, she also left a cat in the carrier at the Court House and fled ... so the court staff called ME to "come get the Police Cat."
(In case anyone is curious, I didn't go get the cat ... and one of the court staffers decided to adopt it since returning it to the crazy person didn't seem like a good choice)
|
|
violagirl
Familiar Member
Joined: Aug 17, 2011 11:04:54 GMT -5
Posts: 703
|
Post by violagirl on Oct 30, 2014 19:25:20 GMT -5
Funny mental picture of police trying to use cats for police work. Other than tripping criminals on stairs or giving them allergic reactions. lol On the other hand, put a cat in a room with a person and have it stare unblinkingly and the person will probably confess.
|
|
olderburgher
Established Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 9:55:17 GMT -5
Posts: 347
|
Post by olderburgher on Oct 31, 2014 8:18:19 GMT -5
So what I am referring to Captain is that there are defenses that must be plead or allegations contained in a pleading to avoid a waiver. Invariably when I include a third party at fault defense I hear that there is no reason for such a defense. If I don't include it at pleading stage its waived. I most likely will not get the blessing of the court to raise the defense later. so what seems to be irrelevant or unsubstantiated claims have to be included from the get go to avoid them being waived and the attorney being sued for malpractice by the client later. Its not a perfect system but its the one we have to operate within. Do I check facts, yes. Have defenses arisen during the course of discovery that were unanticipated, yes. Had I not out of an abundance of caution included those defenses at the answer stage of the suit they would have been waived. So yeah, I have to put stuff into an answer that may not seem relevant initially because it may become so later. Like I said, not a perfect system but its the game within which I gotta play.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,622
|
Post by swamp on Oct 31, 2014 8:24:05 GMT -5
If you think attorneys occasionally fail to check facts before filing lawsuits, you should SEE what plaintiffs representing THEMSELVES in pro per do with THEIR lawsuits. (I once had to defend the City against allegations that our Police Cat was spying on this woman in violation of her civil rights.) When she filed the complaint, she also left a cat in the carrier at the Court House and fled ... so the court staff called ME to "come get the Police Cat." (In case anyone is curious, I didn't go get the cat ... and one of the court staffers decided to adopt it since returning it to the crazy person didn't seem like a good choice) I like the ones that are handwritten and written in a spiral patterns. The complaint starts in the middle of the page and continues to be written in ever increasing circles.
|
|
Peace77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 1:42:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,992
|
Post by Peace77 on Nov 1, 2014 12:51:49 GMT -5
If you think attorneys occasionally fail to check facts before filing lawsuits, you should SEE what plaintiffs representing THEMSELVES in pro per do with THEIR lawsuits. (I once had to defend the City against allegations that our Police Cat was spying on this woman in violation of her civil rights.) When she filed the complaint, she also left a cat in the carrier at the Court House and fled ... so the court staff called ME to "come get the Police Cat." (In case anyone is curious, I didn't go get the cat ... and one of the court staffers decided to adopt it since returning it to the crazy person didn't seem like a good choice) LOL !! Police Cat
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Nov 1, 2014 14:07:34 GMT -5
...:::"so what seems to be irrelevant or unsubstantiated claims have to be included from the get go to avoid them being waived and the attorney being sued for malpractice by the client later.":::...
This makes plain sense, and I think even a 6th grader could ultimately process the concept. You get one shot to build the case. As you proceed, you are free to discard, but have no room to add. So you are simply covering your bases.
ETA: I'm sure there is more to it than just that, but the concept as you explained it goes a decent way towards explaining why ostensibly irrelevant parties may be named.
I'm guessing in this case, the attorney could be hedging bets so that if the OP's company actually WAS guilty, and had been covering its tracks very well but ultimately uncovered, you have room to go after them without having to start over or file a new suit?
Still probably a pain for those who are, in essence, guilty until proven innocent.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,768
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 1, 2014 19:46:00 GMT -5
A profession with the motto "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."
|
|
Knee Deep in Water Chloe
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 21:04:44 GMT -5
Posts: 14,248
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1980e6
|
Post by Knee Deep in Water Chloe on Nov 2, 2014 17:49:14 GMT -5
A profession with the motto "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story." what!!!!!!I thought my husband made up that saying! Who knew! Although, he says "never" instead of "don't".
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Nov 3, 2014 14:29:46 GMT -5
...::: I'm guessing in this case, the attorney could be hedging bets so that if the OP's company actually WAS guilty, and had been covering its tracks very well but ultimately uncovered, you have room to go after them without having to start over or file a new suit? Still probably a pain for those who are, in essence, guilty until proven innocent. See that is the aspect that is ticking me off. Imagine if the government says that all coffee needs to be served between 145-150 degrees. We serve our coffee at 147 degrees and we get sued for it being 147. A quick google search would tell you that 147 is allowed, and they admit that it's 147- but sue us anyway. Not our industry, and not the situation- but you get the idea.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,582
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 3, 2014 14:58:33 GMT -5
...::: I'm guessing in this case, the attorney could be hedging bets so that if the OP's company actually WAS guilty, and had been covering its tracks very well but ultimately uncovered, you have room to go after them without having to start over or file a new suit? Still probably a pain for those who are, in essence, guilty until proven innocent. See that is the aspect that is ticking me off. Imagine if the government says that all coffee needs to be served between 145-150 degrees. We serve our coffee at 147 degrees and we get sued for it being 147. A quick google search would tell you that 147 is allowed, and they admit that it's 147- but sue us anyway. Not our industry, and not the situation- but you get the idea. Sometimes they just fish for companies who want to avoid the hassle and offer to settle for a minimal amount, to avoid incurring additional legal fees. I get annoyed all the time because my company settles ridiculous claims that could easily be dismissed in court. They come to use phrased like "Your coffee was 147 deg F and we're going to sue for lost wages, pain and suffering skin grafts, trauma to the family cat, etc etc, or send me $5000 and we'll forget the whole thing." I know it's just not worth the legal time for our lawyers to repond to these kinds of things, but it gripes my ass that these bottom trolling lawyers and their clients end up with anything at all.
|
|