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
-- EdwinBakery, Dec 12 2013

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.
-- lurch, Dec 12 2013


“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”

― Carl Sandburg

---- 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
-- popbottle, Dec 12 2013


// " 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
-- EdwinBakery, Dec 14 2013


" 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.
-- normzone, Dec 14 2013


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)
-- EdwinBakery, Dec 15 2013


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.
-- lurch, Dec 15 2013


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.
-- EdwinBakery, Dec 15 2013



random, halfbakery