h a l f b a k e r yNormal isn't your first language, is it?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Attorney anti-fluff code
A trademarked/copyrighted, open-source code detailing frivolous pleadings and actions the attorney promises not to do or bill for | |
So,
Taking paralegal courses. Super pissed off because it's
amazingly apparent how B.S. all "school" is; My assignment
is laughably trite (in the instructions) and didn't make
sense to me for a long time because it requires making an
assumption about the case and accusing the other side of
something
that you wouldn't really do. Yet again I lose out
because I actually analyze everything in a real-life type
scenario and pay attention to detail. I guess I should have
just gone with the flow in the first place, but then again, I
don't think being good at bullshit is a good quality.
But then I thought, "You know, a laywer probably would
accuse the other side of intentionally doing what they did,
just because they could bill more by doig so."
Then I was watching these YouTube videos on this new
movie "Divorce Corp", and they were talking about the
same issue of lawyers billing for frivolous things
So I figured, why not make a code that details frivolous
motions that lawyers would promise not to make. A sort of
consumer protection for people hiring lawyers. Lawyers try
frivolous stuff all the time, and as far as I can tell from
what I've learned about law so far there are no
repercussions for doing so. Every case the lawyers file
motions for summary judgement, even when it obviously
won't work, they accuse the other side of every possible
thing, they speak histrionically about the other side in
court, etc. Then there are the ludicrous cases, like the
McDonald's fat kid case. But half these things will obviously
not work.
So I figure write a code that details certain things that
lawyers won't bill for or engage in, such as time just sitting
around waiting for a late judge, motions they won't file
given a certain level of fact patterns/strength of case.
Etc. Etc. Then honest (and cheaper) lawyers could put the
insignia for this code in front of their name in ads or
whatever, so people would know they won't do those
things. Could save people money
[link]
|
| |
If there's a stupid, useless, nonsensical, wasteful,
or
annoying motion your lawyer could have made,
but
didn't, and you lose your case, you can sue your
lawyer
for legal malpractice, and appeal your case for
inadequate representation. |
|
| |
So, yes, your lawyer has to be dishonest with you
because
he can't know how dishonest you're going to be
with him,
and that knife in your back is only in self defense. |
|
| |
[+], because I want to live in a country / world /
era
where this would be not just possible, but the
norm. |
|
| |
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell” |
|
| |
----
Did anyone ever write a murder mystery about a serial killer targeting "fluffy" lawyers ? |
|
| |
The case of the exhausted windbag |
|
| |
Fatal Fluff by Figby Ford |
|
| |
To kill a mocking barrister BY Harper Legal Begal |
|
| |
// " or annoying motion your lawyer could have
made, but didn't, and you lose your case, you can
sue your lawyer for legal malpractice" |
|
| |
I'm prety sure it doesn't work like that. What
you're saying is how it works with doctors, but
medicine is a science, it is by nature deterministic
with definite answers. If the doctor actually
missed something, it actually gets diagnosed later,
and then you KNOW for a fact he missed it.
But whether you would have won a case? Not at all
clear. What would you do, ask the judge "Would
you have ruled the other way if my lawyer had
done BLANK"? Of course that's not doable |
|
| |
" I want to live in a country / world / era where this would be not just possible, but the norm. " |
|
| |
Caution, gentlemen. Code duello still applies in my neck of the probability zone. |
|
| |
And my favorite local lawyer is a fine fellow who keeps trying to retire but only takes cases where he feels some poor beggar is getting a raw deal. |
|
| |
small penance for a lifetime of being a bloodsucking
leech, normzone |
|
| |
I may be currently taking classes to ostensibly help
these leeches out, but the ultimate goal is to know
the so that I may one day dismantle it (as much as
possible, and only the leech parts of it in particular) |
|
| |
Yep, it works like that. You can sue your lawyer; if he
missed something, then you have a "colorable claim". |
|
| |
I'm not saying you'd *win* - that's a different set of road
apples. |
|
| |
I'm pretty sure it's not as strong an issue for
lawyers, for the reasons already mentioned. Trying
to sue a lawyer for some theoretical motion he
didn't make, especially when said motion is part of
a code of motions NOT to make BECAUSE they are
SILLY, would be really hard to do. |
|
| |
And if it succeeded, it would probably make the
news, and be followed by legislation in favor of
the consumer and the code, to prevent it from
happening again. |
|
| |