Why Lawyers Fear Pro Se Litigants
nola...@primenet.com
Smug lawyers SHOULD fear competent, educated pro se litigants.
A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
making a backroom deal without his permission. He does not have to be
muzzled by his own lawyer, who may fear repercussions outside the
particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
same judge. Many pro se litigants won't bargain for anything less than
what they believe they're entitled to. Most pro-se's know their own
case far better than any lawyer could, and live/breathe their own case.
And finally, a pro-se litigant has nothing to lose by making a bar
complaint against opposing counsel.
That's why lawyers almost always cajole opposing pro-se's to "get a
lawyer". An opposing lawyer might be easier to intimidate than the
pro-se.
But an uneducated babe-in-the-woods pro se litigant is easily defeated.
That's why I educate them
See: http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
Legal Educator (602) 265 4692
nola...@nolawyer.com
Joseph R. Darancette wrote:
> Personal Experience. I am being sued by a lawyer. I am counter suing
> that lawyer and the law coporation that represents her. I am also
> suing two ex lawyers of that coporation of which one just became a
> federal Bankruptcy Judge. After many motions, status hearings,
> settlement hearings and all kinds of discovery I've had no real
> problems with the court. While my opponents have meen admonished by
> the court on multiple occasions for bad pleadings and bad service.
>
> The opposing lawyers always suggest that I should get representation
> to help my case. Call me parinoid but I can't believe they are making
> that suggestion to help me.
>
> Pro Per From Hell.
Joseph R. Darancette
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>Smug lawyers SHOULD fear competent, educated pro se litigants.
>A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
>making a backroom deal without his permission. He does not have to be
>muzzled by his own lawyer, who may fear repercussions outside the
>particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
>same judge. Many pro se litigants won't bargain for anything less than
>what they believe they're entitled to. Most pro-se's know their own
>case far better than any lawyer could, and live/breathe their own case.
>And finally, a pro-se litigant has nothing to lose by making a bar
>complaint against opposing counsel.
>That's why lawyers almost always cajole opposing pro-se's to "get a
>lawyer". An opposing lawyer might be easier to intimidate than the
>pro-se.
>But an uneducated babe-in-the-woods pro se litigant is easily defeated.
>That's why I educate them
Point well made.
Pro Per From Hell
***************************************************************
Joseph R. Darancette
<mhd...@primenet.com>
"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, It
causes you to be despised."
--Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
*************************************************************
Wesley Serra
In article <34810F...@nolawyer.com>, <nola...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Smug lawyers SHOULD fear competent, educated pro se litigants.
Smug lawyers should fear anyone. It's a difficult, demanding,
unpredictable profession.
>A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
>making a backroom deal without his permission.
In the real world, this simply does not happen. Every now and then, there
is a well publicized exception. But ending a case - whether by settling a
civil case or a guilty plea in a criminal case - requires a client's
signature (and, in a guilty plea, oral allocution) under oath. Doesn't
this meet your definition of "permission"?
He does not have to be
>muzzled by his own lawyer, who may fear repercussions outside the
>particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
>same judge.
Again, something that only happens in the well publicized exception. I do
mainly criminal work. Any time I appear before a Court - which happens
often - a client can address the Court directly. How can I "muzzle" him?
Many pro se litigants won't bargain for anything less than
>what they believe they're entitled to. Most pro-se's know their own
>case far better than any lawyer could, and live/breathe their own case.
Do you believe that these are good qualities for a litigant to have? It
is the rare client - God bless them - who understands "what he is entitled
to". *Most* clients believe that they are "entitled" to ten times what
any rational jury would give them, and (in the civil context) ten times
what a judge would let them keep should they be lucky enough to get an
irrational jury. "Living/breathing" one's own case does not lend itself
to objective decisions. That's why Holmes remarked that anyone who
represents himself has at least one fool among his clients.
>And finally, a pro-se litigant has nothing to lose by making a bar
>complaint against opposing counsel.
Something that I have done at least twice that I can now recall.
>That's why lawyers almost always cajole opposing pro-se's to "get a
>lawyer". An opposing lawyer might be easier to intimidate than the
>pro-se.
Mr. Hirschfeld, any doubt to whose benefit you were entitled is rapidly
disappearing (if you care). This (as I'm sure you well know) is pure
nonsense.
>But an uneducated babe-in-the-woods pro se litigant is easily defeated.
>
>That's why I educate them
Not to mention solicit them.
--
Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
PGP public key available from SLED or by finger
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <34810F...@nolawyer.com>,
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>Smug lawyers SHOULD fear competent, educated pro se litigants.
>particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
>same judge.
About the only thing I have to fear from a pro se litigant is the increased
legal fees that my client incurs because of someone who THINKS that know
the law when they actually don't.
Rahul Dhesi
> He does not have to be
>>muzzled by his own lawyer, who may fear repercussions outside the
>>particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
>>same judge.
>Again, something that only happens in the well publicized exception. I do
>mainly criminal work. Any time I appear before a Court - which happens
>often - a client can address the Court directly. How can I "muzzle" him?
Lawyers know one another...go to the same clubs...have lunch in the same
places...perhaps were together in college...etc.
Good lawyers do generally manage to represent their own client's
interests well. But still, there is always a potential conflict of
interest. No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
So consider:
Suppose lawyer A representing one party telephones the other party's
lawyer B on the day that a response is due in court, and says he has not
been able to get it ready and asks for more time. By refusing, lawyer B
could create a nasty situation for lawyer A. At best, lawyer A has to
now file a hastily-written response and might make some errors of logic,
or overlook some important arguments. At worst, failing to file a
response by the deadline might allow the other party to win by default.
And there can be grounds for a malpractice lawsuit, or a complaint
leading (in the extreme) to disbarrment.
But it's almost a certainty that lawyer B will say yes, it's ok, you can
have a few more days. No pro se litigant will agree to give the
opposing counsel more time than allowed by law.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press EXCEPT after suitable hand-waving."
Dan Evans
>No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
Huh? Where on earth did you get that idea?
I can only speak for myself, but I have run into many lawyers that
I would much prefer to see flipping burgers at MacDonalds.
Dan Evans **********************
*This is not legal advice unless
*you agreed to pay for it.
*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
TheCandide
If you overcharge for your services your customers will not come back. This is
true for ditch diggers and lawyers alike.
My posts are for entertainment value only. Therefore do not rely upon my posts
as they are not intended to be legal advise. You should seek the advise of a
qualified attorney.
I will proof read commercial e-mail for $195.00 per hour. Send if you agree.
Mike Siesel
Rahul Dhesi wrote:
>
> But it's almost a certainty that lawyer B will say yes, it's ok, you can
> have a few more days. No pro se litigant will agree to give the
> opposing counsel more time than allowed by law.
> --
> Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
Matters not whether you're a member of the bar or pro se, if a party
needs more time to respond they simply file a Motion for Enlargement of
Time--though the language varies--requesting an additional 30 days (ex)
to respond. Unopposed, the motion carries. OTOH if you're dragging your
feet you might get back a Motion to Compel with a date for hearing. In
any case it's the judge who grants or denies the motion.
ms
Rahul Dhesi
>In <65s4ub$l22$1...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@31.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>>No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
>I can only speak for myself, but I have run into many lawyers that
>I would much prefer to see flipping burgers at MacDonalds.
I should remember not to use hyperbole...not one in a million
understands it.
Dan Evans
In <65se5f$mvo$1...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@31.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>
>In <65s72b$g...@netaxs.com> eva...@netaxs.com@netaxs.com (Dan Evans) writes:
>
>>In <65s4ub$l22$1...@samba.rahul.net>, c.c....@31.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>
>>>No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
>>Huh? Where on earth did you get that idea?
>>
>>I can only speak for myself, but I have run into many lawyers that
>>I would much prefer to see flipping burgers at MacDonalds.
>
>I should remember not to use hyperbole...not one in a million
>understands it.
Trying writing it on the back of your hand. That way you'll see it
constantly, and won't be so prone to forget.
Meanwhile, you might want to respond to my question. Where did
you get the idea that no lawyer wants to harm the career of another
lawyer?
michael j. walsh
Most lawyers are very concerned about their client's legal fees. A client who
cannot afford to pay the bill does not pay the bill. A client who thinks their
bill was too high might never use the lawyer again, or worse, might sue for
malpractice or a fee reduction or might spread bad press about the lawyer to other
prospective clients. I worry a lot about how much my clients are paying for their
results.
CathMcCa wrote:
> As a lawyer you are ACTUALLY CONCERNED about your client's legal fees? Come
> on!>About the only thing I have to fear from a pro se litigant is the increased
Joseph R. Darancette
Carl H. Starrett II <chs...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <34810F...@nolawyer.com>,
> nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>>Smug lawyers SHOULD fear competent, educated pro se litigants.
>>A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
>>making a backroom deal without his permission. He does not have to be
>>muzzled by his own lawyer, who may fear repercussions outside the
>>particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
>>same judge.
>About the only thing I have to fear from a pro se litigant is the increased
>legal fees that my client incurs because of someone who THINKS that know
>the law when they actually don't.
So nolawyer and people like him will also help lawyers like you by
giving you more educated Pro Se opponents.
nola...@primenet.com
Wesley Serra wrote:
> Smug lawyers should fear anyone. It's a difficult, demanding,
> unpredictable profession.
So far, you're correct.
>
> >A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
> >making a backroom deal without his permission.
>
> In the real world, this simply does not happen. Every now and then, > there is a well publicized exception. But ending a case - whether by >
settling a civil case or a guilty plea in a criminal case - requires a
client's signature (and, in a guilty plea, oral allocution) under oath.
Doesn't this meet your definition of "permission"?
In the real world, lawyers who want to avoid working for their pay often
advise their clients to settle for less than the client would get in a
fully contested trial. Very few clients will buck their authority-figure
lawyer by refusing to sign a give-away document when the lawyer says,
"Sign it, it's the best you'll get."
> Re: Muzzling by his own lawyer:
>
> Again, something that only happens in the well publicized exception. I
> do mainly criminal work.
My statement arose primarily from Civil and Domestic Relations work.
> Any time I appear before a Court - which happens
> often - a client can address the Court directly. How can I "muzzle"
> him?
By telling him, "sit down and say nothing, or you'll get worse"
>
> Many pro se litigants won't bargain for anything less than
> >what they believe they're entitled to. Most pro-se's know their own
> >case far better than any lawyer could, and live/breathe their own case.
>
> Do you believe that these are good qualities for a litigant to have?
YES.
> It is the rare client - God bless them - who understands "what he is >
> entitled to".
It's your job, counszelor, to educate them, truthfully.
> *Most* clients believe that they are "entitled" to ten times what
> any rational jury would give them, and (in the civil context) ten times
> what a judge would let them keep should they be lucky enough to get an
> irrational jury. "Living/breathing" one's own case does not lend > itself to objective decisions. That's why Holmes remarked that anyone
> who represents himself has at least one fool among his clients.
Wrong. That oft-repeated statement does not arise from a litigant being
fully informed and "living and breathing" his own case. It arises solely
from litigants who remain ignorant.
>
> >And finally, a pro-se litigant has nothing to lose by making a bar
> >complaint against opposing counsel.
>
> Something that I have done at least twice that I can now recall.
>
> >That's why lawyers almost always cajole opposing pro-se's to "get a
> >lawyer". An opposing lawyer might be easier to intimidate than the
> >pro-se.
>
> Mr. Hirschfeld, any doubt to whose benefit you were entitled is rapidly
> disappearing (if you care). This (as I'm sure you well know) is pure
> nonsense.
Not at all, sir. When I was in law practice, I much preferred a
represented opponent to a pro-se opponent. One cannot predict the actions
of a pro se opponent. And usually, one cannot communicate on a
professional plane with an uneducated pro-se. Far from "pure nonsense".
Perhaps your misunderstanding is that, as a criminal defense lawyer, you
never had to deal with a "pro-se opponent". It would have been the
prosecutor.
>
> >But an uneducated babe-in-the-woods pro se litigant is easily
> defeated.
> >That's why I educate them
>
> Not to mention solicit them.
As is my right. First Amendment. Commercial free speech. They might not
otherwise find me.
You, Mr. Bar Member, may find reaching out to potential clients to be
prohibited by you Bar Association. Since I'm no longer fettered by
membership in such a corrupt organization, they've lost the ability to
threaten me with ouster.
nola...@primenet.com
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
> About the only thing I have to fear from a pro se litigant is the > increased legal fees that my client incurs because of someone who THINKS
that know the law when they actually don't.
Ah yes, another lawyer about to be led to the slaughter.
We're talking about pro-se's who are not only educated in the law of
their cases, but in how to bury lawyers with dirty lawyer tactics.
Based on the number of outraged screams from lawyers hit by good
pleadings from my students, you're in for a surprise.
nola...@primenet.com
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
> Did you ever practice law?
Yes. 1985 through 1995.
> Attorneys advise clients to settle to avoid
> the time, expense and hassle of a trial, not get out of doing work.
> If a client wants to roll the dice and go for a larger verdict, they > are free to
> do so along with taking the risks that they might lose or not be able
> to collect a large judgment. To say that attorneys routinely
> recommend law settlements just to get out of doing work is an
> innaccurate generalization.
It's not inaccurate from what I observed in ten years of law practice.
Especially when lazy incompetent lawyers represent fathers in custody
cases, and don't believe that they can win. "Give her custody, you can't
win". That way, such a lawyer keeps his retainer and gets rid of the case
without having to do the difficult job needed by most
father-custody-litigants. And in contingency fee cases, I've seen lazy,
incompetent lawyers (in my opinion, the majority) try to settle before
trial for an amount, of which they get 1/3 for no work, rather than going
to trial and risking that they, the lawyer, won't get anything.
> >Very few clients will buck their authority-figure
> >lawyer by refusing to sign a give-away document when the lawyer says,
> >"Sign it, it's the best you'll get."
>
> And most lawyers will be more than happy to provide a written > explanation
> to justify the settlement, including the possibility of bankruptcy and
> inability to collect a large jury verdict. Failure to document the
> reasons for accepting or rejecting the settlement may land the lawyer
> in court for malpractice if the client later decides they are not
> happy with the settlement.
Most lazy, incompetent personal injury lawyers not only refuse to explain
the real alternatives to their uneducated clients, they refuse to submit
an itemized bill for expended hours. Rarely will the victimized client
know enough to bring a malpractice suit.
But when such a victimized client does wake up soon enough, he can't find
a lawyer in that jurisdiction willing to attack another lawyer.
That's where I come in.
EnkeMM
>My question to you, if you don't mind answering, is - what can a pro per do
>when met with a lawyer without integrity? I was left to defend myself in my
>divorce because my attorney did nott win legal fees from my husband (I was a
>stay at home mom). When I represented myself - the opposing counsel SWORE
>she'd sent me pretrial conference paperwork and SHE DID NOT! I was fully
>taken
>advantage of. The judge, also , did not bend over backwards - but scared the
>hell out of me with threats about how I'd better know what I was doing, how
>my
>witnesses BETTER BE THERE...etc. I was creamed!
>
>
Dear Cathy(I hope that is your name, forgive me if it is not):
Your story is a sad one, but too often true. In fact, if this occurs even once
in a large urban circuit court given thousands of cases handled a year, it has
happened once too often. Unfortunately, there are unthinking, less than
compassionate judges and lawyers out there who do indeed push around pro per's.
This is totally unbecoming of the legal profession where, despite its
adversarial nature, should strive for all its members to be gentlemen/person
advocates.
It sounds like the Judge and attorney conduct fell within the letter of the
law, but not within the spirit or purpose of allowing pro per representation.
Ever run into a physician with a rotten bedside manner? Remember, your x's
lawyer owed all professional duties to your x, not you. The Judge is there to
insure fairness, especially a fair trial. If I stepped into the ring with Mike
Tyson, I would be picked up by an ambulance inside of 5 secs., despite the ref
insuring a fair fight.
We have a right to treat our own maladies, but often the aid of one more
experienced yields better results (ie a physician).
I do not understand why the court did not enter an order requiring your x to
foot the bills of an attorney to adequatley represent you.
There could be any number of reasons, but in my Michigan juridiction, your
husband would have had to pay for your representation given that you were a
housewife without visible means of support. Did you seek consultation with an
attorney at any point because most in my state would have represented you, and
filed a motion to have your x pay the bill.
Still, all that being said, when a pro per appears and is honestly looking for
fair resolution of any non frivilous matter, lawyers of inherent integrity,
while bearing in mind the duties they owe to their client, will insure some
modicum of equity. Believe me when I say that just as with any profession,
there are many good and some not so good.
Aweful sorry about your experience...In the future, contact your local
neighborhood legal services. In addition, there are many volunteer lawyer
associations who do free work for those such as yourself. Finally, most local
area law schools have clinics wherein third year lawstudents under a
professor's direct supervision are allowed to afford representation in various
matters.
It is wonderful to think of a legal system where all could appear in pro per
without negative consequences. However, the nature of our system, and the
general state of the human condition seem to preclude this at this particular
point in mankind's history.
I wish you the very best for this Holiday season, and hope the New Year brings
your peace and perhaps some of that which came only be found within our hearts;
justice.
Best regards,
EnkeMM
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <65s4ub$l22$1...@samba.rahul.net>,
c.c....@31.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
>Good lawyers do generally manage to represent their own client's
>interests well. But still, there is always a potential conflict of
>interest. No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
>
>So consider:
>
>Suppose lawyer A representing one party telephones the other party's
>lawyer B on the day that a response is due in court, and says he has not
>been able to get it ready and asks for more time. By refusing, lawyer B
>could create a nasty situation for lawyer A. At best, lawyer A has to
>now file a hastily-written response and might make some errors of logic,
>or overlook some important arguments. At worst, failing to file a
>response by the deadline might allow the other party to win by default.
>And there can be grounds for a malpractice lawsuit, or a complaint
>leading (in the extreme) to disbarrment.
>
>But it's almost a certainty that lawyer B will say yes, it's ok, you can
>have a few more days. No pro se litigant will agree to give the
>opposing counsel more time than allowed by law.
What a bunch of crap. Your hypothetical has absolutely nothing to do with
reality and everything to do the reality of practicing lawy. Lawyer knows
that by pissing off Lawyer A, he reduces the chances if reaching an
amicable settlement by creating a hostile working relationship with
opposing counsel. It has nothing to do with protecting the other guy's
career. It's called being polite.
Lawyer B also knows that he risks pissing off the judge by not granting the
courtesy of an extension. The pro se litigation might not be familiar with
how readily courts will grant a motion for relief from default so that a
case can be heard on the merits. You are not doing pro se litigants any
favors by advocating that they take a hard line in such situations.
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <348237...@nolawyer.com>,
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>In the real world, lawyers who want to avoid working for their pay often
>advise their clients to settle for less than the client would get in a
>fully contested trial.
Did you ever practice law? Attorneys advise clients to settle to avoid
the time, expense and hassle of a trial, not get out of doing work. If a
client wants to roll the dice and go for a larger verdict, they are free to
do so along with taking the risks that they might lose or not be able to
collect a large judgment. To say that attorneys routinely recommend
law settlements just to get out of doing work is an innaccurate
generalization.
>Very few clients will buck their authority-figure
>lawyer by refusing to sign a give-away document when the lawyer says,
>"Sign it, it's the best you'll get."
And most lawyers will be more than happy to provide a written explanation
to justify the settlement, including the possibility of bankruptcy and
inability to collect a large jury verdict. Failure to document the
reasons for accepting or rejecting the settlement may land the lawyer in
court for malpractice if the client later decides they are not happy with
the settlement.
Mattie16
Enkemm--your response to CathMcCa was compassionate and kind, but what can
CathMcCa do now? She was obviously ripped off by three individuals--her
lawyer, the judge, her ex's lawyer--whom does she now contact?
I think Ms.McCa's situation is more typical than not--the legal system is a
group of good ol' boys who care nothing for the client, but who care a great
deal about whose Christmas party they will be invited to.
Any responses to CathMcCa's plight? I am not a lawyer, merely someone
interested in a practical answer to a victim of the legal system..
Mattie16
Excellent!!!!
Mattie16
And exactly which lawyer would one go to in order to sue you? Is there a
lawyer out there who is no a good ol' boy?
Mattie16
Nolawyer--you are so right! The legal profession is shrouded in secrecy and a
"one-hand-washes-the-other" conspiracy.
What's funny is that I believe that a good (smart, ethical) lawyer in today's
world would achieve national fame. It wouldn't be right away, but it would
come. Is it possible to be this type of lawyer today? I don't think so. I
think every lawyer gets to the point where he does sell out his first client,
then it's all over.
K. D. Sefton
Rahul Dhesi wrote in message <65s4ub$l22$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>But it's almost a certainty that lawyer B will say yes, it's ok, you can
>have a few more days. No pro se litigant will agree to give the
>opposing counsel more time than allowed by law.
>--
>Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
This may be true, but it seems that if a pro se litigant wants to play
procedural games, he will probably lose. Around here, if a default is
entered, it usually isn't terribly difficult to get the default judgment
vacated within 30 days. After 30 days can be a problem, but within 30 days
isn't usually (there are of course the anecdotal exceptions). It would seem
that delving into the substantive aspects of a case would provide enough of
a challenge to a pro se litigant without having to worry about combating the
finer points of procedural law.
Brett Weiss
In a small town with a small legal community, it might be a problem--no one,
in any profession, wants to cause his or her friends harm. If you go to any
decent-sized metropolitan area, you shouldn't have any problem. There are a
number of firms that even specialize in legal malpractice.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
Mattie16 wrote in message <19971201142...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Brenda Johnson
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> >In the real world, lawyers who want to avoid working for their pay often
> >advise their clients to settle for less than the client would get in a
> >fully contested trial.
>
> Did you ever practice law? Attorneys advise clients to settle to avoid
> the time, expense and hassle of a trial, not get out of doing work. If a
> client wants to roll the dice and go for a larger verdict, they are free to
> do so along with taking the risks that they might lose or not be able to
> collect a large judgment. To say that attorneys routinely recommend
> law settlements just to get out of doing work is an innaccurate
> generalization.
What Carl said. If anything, lawyers benefit by doing more work. Or
had you been following the business of practice? My clients are more
worried that firms do what is called "churning" (have you heard the
term?) They *love* lawyers that get them a quick, clean resolution with
minimal attorneys fees. They like efficiency. They like results.
That's why they come back :)
Brenda
Brenda Johnson
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>
> You, Mr. Bar Member, may find reaching out to potential clients to be
> prohibited by you Bar Association. Since I'm no longer fettered by
> membership in such a corrupt organization, they've lost the ability to
> threaten me with ouster.
You may also find it threatened by laws against the unauthorized
practice of law, my dear. And at least in my state, it ain't the bar
association that says what I may do regarding soliciting clients-- it's
the Supreme Court (had you checked?)
cheerily
Brenda
Member of the Bar and Proud of It
michael j. walsh
Why would a lawyer scream in outrage over a "good pleading"?
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <19971130182...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
cath...@aol.com (CathMcCa) wrote:
>>Huh? Where on earth did you get that idea?
>>
>>I can only speak for myself, but I have run into many lawyers that
>>I would much prefer to see flipping burgers at MacDonalds.
>
>lawyer?
Perhaps you don't have a case.
____________________________________________________________________________
Carl H. Starrett II chs...@ix.netcom.com
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <34823B...@nolawyer.com>,
>that know the law when they actually don't.
>
>We're talking about pro-se's who are not only educated in the law of
>their cases, but in how to bury lawyers with dirty lawyer tactics.
>Based on the number of outraged screams from lawyers hit by good
>pleadings from my students, you're in for a surprise.
I can't wait. I would like to see some evidence of your claims.
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <19971130144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
cath...@aol.com (CathMcCa) wrote:
>As a lawyer you are ACTUALLY CONCERNED about your client's legal fees?
Yes.
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <348256...@nolawyer.com>,
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>It's not inaccurate from what I observed in ten years of law practice.
It's inaccurate from what I have observed.
>Especially when lazy incompetent lawyers represent fathers in custody
>cases, and don't believe that they can win. "Give her custody, you can't
>win". That way, such a lawyer keeps his retainer and gets rid of the case
>without having to do the difficult job needed by most
>father-custody-litigants.
Broad stroke of over generalization based on anecdotal evidence.
>And in contingency fee cases, I've seen lazy,
>incompetent lawyers (in my opinion, the majority) try to settle before
>trial for an amount, of which they get 1/3 for no work, rather than going
>to trial and risking that they, the lawyer, won't get anything.
And how do you come to make these observations?
>> >Very few clients will buck their authority-figure
>> >lawyer by refusing to sign a give-away document when the lawyer says,
>> >"Sign it, it's the best you'll get."
>>
>> And most lawyers will be more than happy to provide a written > explanation
>> to justify the settlement, including the possibility of bankruptcy and
>> inability to collect a large jury verdict. Failure to document the
>> reasons for accepting or rejecting the settlement may land the lawyer
>> in court for malpractice if the client later decides they are not
>> happy with the settlement.
>
>Most lazy, incompetent personal injury lawyers not only refuse to explain
>the real alternatives to their uneducated clients, they refuse to submit
>an itemized bill for expended hours. Rarely will the victimized client
>know enough to bring a malpractice suit.
Most, if not all personal injury case are taken on contingency. When was
the last time you saw an itemized statement in a contingent fee case?
Mattie16
Interesting concept: >"explain whether the failure to explain the
ramifications of a certain clause
>in an agreement was a deviation from the appropriate standard of care because
>that conduct is not a matter within the common knowledge of a lay person").
Don't you think all lay persons should be advised of this item before hiring
legal representation?
Bruce Hayden
>
> Rahul Dhesi wrote in message <65s4ub$l22$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
>
> >But it's almost a certainty that lawyer B will say yes, it's ok, you can
> >have a few more days. No pro se litigant will agree to give the
> >opposing counsel more time than allowed by law.
In other words, you are in favor of winning cases based solely on
procedural issues, and not on the merits. Fine, then don't cry
next time that you lose on a pooly pleaded summary judgment response,
or fail to maintain your record for appeal.
I have been involved in cases where attorneys didn't cut each
other slack, and the results were predictable - the legal fees
for both sides went through the roof (which was probably what the
deep pocketed plaintiff wanted here - since he was losing in the
marketplace). Since the one party's attorneys never "received"
anything that wasn't hand delivered, everything was hand delivered.
Every request for a couple of day extension turned into a hotly
contested hearing.
The reality is that the curtesies shown each other by other members
of the bar are what grease the judicial system and make it work
efficiently. In the long run, when not abused (which it surely is),
this sort of thing most often actually reduces litigation costs.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
Original portions Copyright 1997 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce E. Hayden bha...@acm.org
Austin, Texas bha...@copatlaw.com
Mattie16
Thank you for your reply. Can I ask you, in a small town with a small legal
community, are you able to obtain a lawyer outside of that town?
Can you tell me the name of a firm specializing in malpractice?
TheCandide
I suggest you call on your nearest law school or local bar association.
Rahul Dhesi
>In other words, you are in favor of winning cases based solely on
>procedural issues, and not on the merits. Fine, then don't cry next
>time that you lose on a pooly pleaded summary judgment response, or
>fail to maintain your record for appeal.
I'm not in favor of anything in particular, but I am pointing out the
way things are.
Let me repeat what I said before:
Good lawyers do generally manage to represent their own client's
interests well. But still, there is always a potential conflict of
interest. No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
A conflict of interest is a situation, i.e., you don't have to be
actively doing anything bad for a conflict of interest to exist. And
you can best minimize the problems that a conflict of interest causes if
you begin by recognizing when it exists.
So let's recognize that there may be situations in which an attorney has
the choice of asserting his client's procedural rights at the expense of
the reputation of the opposing attorney. But an attorney works with
many of the same people (opposing attorneys and judges) case after case,
so he can't afford to create an adversary situation between himself and
his professional colleagues.
So, the attorney finds his loyalties somewhat divided.
A pro se litigant does not face this dilemma.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press EXCEPT after suitable hand-waving."
Marvin Frandsen
> >A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
> >making a backroom deal without his permission.
>
> In the real world, this simply does not happen.
Oh, yes, this surely does happen, and I know people that it happened to.
Only a small fraction of the dirty deeds ever get publicized.
-- Marv Frandsen
Brett Weiss
Sure--although I have personally handled several legal malpractice actions,
in my area someone just has to go to Washington, D.C. and can find a
plethora of attorneys willing to sue other lawyers. If you want the name of
a firm in D.C., let me know.
--
Brett
*****************************************************************
* Personal Injury/Malpractice Bankruptcy *
* *
* BRETT WEISS, P.C. *
* Attorneys at Law *
* Maryland, D.C. and Federal Bars *
* law...@erols.com *
* http://www.erols.com/lawyer *
* *
* Small Business Estates & Estate Planning *
*****************************************************************
Mattie16 wrote in message <19971202162...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
Fritz/Martens
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
> Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> > Did you ever practice law?
>
> Yes. 1985 through 1995.
>
> > Attorneys advise clients to settle to avoid
> > the time, expense and hassle of a trial, not get out of doing work.
> > If a client wants to roll the dice and go for a larger verdict, they > are free to
> > do so along with taking the risks that they might lose or not be able
> > to collect a large judgment. To say that attorneys routinely
> > recommend law settlements just to get out of doing work is an
> > innaccurate generalization.
>
> It's not inaccurate from what I observed in ten years of law practice.
> Especially when lazy incompetent lawyers represent fathers in custody
> cases, and don't believe that they can win. "Give her custody, you can't
> win".
Don't forget the other classic.....The kid will be better off with her mother anyway.
That's the one I heard within the first five minutes......Thank God somebody referred me
to Al Lebow here in Detroit.
> That way, such a lawyer keeps his retainer and gets rid of the case
> without having to do the difficult job needed by most
> father-custody-litigants. And in contingency fee cases, I've seen lazy,
> incompetent lawyers (in my opinion, the majority) try to settle before
> trial for an amount, of which they get 1/3 for no work, rather than going
> to trial and risking that they, the lawyer, won't get anything.
>
> > >Very few clients will buck their authority-figure
> > >lawyer by refusing to sign a give-away document when the lawyer says,
> > >"Sign it, it's the best you'll get."
> >
> > And most lawyers will be more than happy to provide a written > explanation
> > to justify the settlement, including the possibility of bankruptcy and
> > inability to collect a large jury verdict. Failure to document the
> > reasons for accepting or rejecting the settlement may land the lawyer
> > in court for malpractice if the client later decides they are not
> > happy with the settlement.
>
> Most lazy, incompetent personal injury lawyers not only refuse to explain
> the real alternatives to their uneducated clients, they refuse to submit
> an itemized bill for expended hours. Rarely will the victimized client
> know enough to bring a malpractice suit.
>
One I had tried to bill me for the time spent answering iquestions about billing errors
and suspect billing practices.
> But when such a victimized client does wake up soon enough, he can't find
> a lawyer in that jurisdiction willing to attack another lawyer.
And the judges will not either, they're all in bed together.
nola...@primenet.com
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
> Most, if not all personal injury case are taken on contingency. When
> was
> the last time you saw an itemized statement in a contingent fee case?
Routinely, when the prevailing plaintiff seeks to be awarded attorney
fees on top of damages, for violations of FRCP Rule 11(a) or its state
equivalent, and in Federal 42 USC 1983 Civil Rights Tort cases (42 USC
1988).
nola...@primenet.com
Fritz/Martens wrote:
> Don't forget the other classic.....The kid will be better off with her mother anyway.
> That's the one I heard within the first five minutes......Thank God somebody referred me
> to Al Lebow here in Detroit.
Please give Al Lebow my regards. I was V.P. the year he was President of
the National Congress for Men, ( now NCFC) of which both of us were
1981 founders.
> > But when such a victimized client does wake up soon enough, he can't
> > find a lawyer in that jurisdiction willing to attack another lawyer.
>
> And the judges will not either, they're all in bed together.
Well, at least some judges conspire to cover for each other's misconduct
as well as their lawyer friends in the "old boy system." I still believe
there is hope in weeding out bad judges and encouraging the good ones.
Yes, Virginia, there are good judges.
See "Bad Judges and What to Do about them" at
http://www.primenet.com/~nolawyer
nola...@primenet.com
Mattie16 wrote:
>
> And exactly which lawyer would one go to in order to sue you? Is there a
> lawyer out there who is no a good ol' boy?
During the ten years of my law practice, I was an outsider, one who
refused to participate in the good old boy system. Once the Bar figured
that out, I became a target for expulsion.
nola...@primenet.com
Brenda Johnson wrote:
>
> nola...@primenet.com wrote:
> > You, Mr. Bar Member, may find reaching out to potential clients to be
> > membership in such a corrupt organization, they've lost the ability
> > to threaten me with ouster.
>
> You may also find it threatened by laws against the unauthorized
> practice of law, my dear.
Brenda, dearie, Arizona's legislature handed the bar over to its Supreme
Court a decade and a half ago. In so doing, they wiped the statutes
clean, including "unauthorized practice of law." When the
court-subservient "integrated bar" lobbied for a new criminal UPL
statute, our sensible, lawyer-skeptical legislature refused. So, sweetie
pie, your comment ain't universally applicable.
> And at least in my state, it ain't the bar
> association that says what I may do regarding soliciting clients-- it's
> the Supreme Court (had you checked?)
Yup. The AZ Supreme court dictates similarly to "Bar Members". But not to
private citizens exercising their right to educate other private
citizens.
> cheerily
> Brenda
> Member of the Bar and Proud of It
Bob Hirschfeld, JD, who was truthfully accused by Bar Counsel before the
AZ Supreme Court of "placing his duty to his clients above his duty to
the court", who burned his bar card, and remains proud of having done
both. See:
http://www.primenet.com/~nolawyer/independ.html
nola...@primenet.com
Bruce Hayden wrote:
> In other words, you are in favor of winning cases based solely on
> procedural issues, and not on the merits. Fine, then don't cry
> next time that you lose on a pooly pleaded summary judgment response,
> or fail to maintain your record for appeal.
>
> other slack, and the results were predictable - the legal fees
> for both sides went through the roof (which was probably what the
> deep pocketed plaintiff wanted here - since he was losing in the
> marketplace). Since the one party's attorneys never "received"
> anything that wasn't hand delivered, everything was hand delivered.
> Every request for a couple of day extension turned into a hotly
> contested hearing.
There are several Domestic Relations Attorneys in Phoenix Arizona who
routinely behaved as you described above, and who then protested when I
treated them with similar lack of cooperation. They were accustomed to
bowling over less aggressive opponents.
>
> The reality is that the curtesies shown each other by other members
> of the bar are what grease the judicial system and make it work
> efficiently. In the long run, when not abused (which it surely is),
> this sort of thing most often actually reduces litigation costs.
Ah yes, greasing the judicial system. Many divorced fathers have
expressed to me the perception that the grease was K-Y jelly, and they
felt like.......
Mattie16
Enough with the spelling,already! Who cares?
Anyway, thanks for your reply.
Regarding the subject: Did you know that all Real Estate agents are now
required by law to advise buyers that they work solely for the seller? In
comparison to this discussion, why does it always seem that laws are made for
everyone but lawyers? I recognize that you're sincere, troubled by being
lumped into a bad category, but can you see my point?
Clients should be advised beforehand that should they not be adequately
represented, that they have recourse somewhere else.
It's bad out there, Candide. We all know it. People going through divorce are
completely drained of any financial resources once the divorce comes through.
There are many things that can be done about it--but the lawyers have to do it.
Gators suck
Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
feigning you're any different.
Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>
> In article <34810F...@nolawyer.com>,
> nola...@primenet.com wrote:
> >Smug lawyers SHOULD fear competent, educated pro se litigants.
> >A person who reprsents himself doesn't have to fear his own lawyer
> >making a backroom deal without his permission. He does not have to be
> >muzzled by his own lawyer, who may fear repercussions outside the
> >particular case, in other dealings with opposing counsel, or before the
> >same judge.
Mattie16
No lawyer said:
>During the ten years of my law practice, I was an outsider, one who
>refused to participate in the good old boy system. Once the Bar figured
>that out, I became a target for expulsion.
I hate to say it, but that's not difficult to believe. You're interesting,
nolawyer, tell us more.
Special note to Brett: Do you know of any such lawyers in Florida? I
appreciate your reply.
Dan Evans
In <3485F0FD...@us.oracle.com>, Gators suck <mtyn...@us.oracle.com> writes:
>Reply-To: mtyn...@us.oracle.com
>
>Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
>fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
>feigning you're any different.
Well, if you like sweeping generalizations, how about the following:
People who write messages like those quoted above are idiots.
Dan Evans **********************
*This is not legal advice unless
*you agreed to pay for it.
*http://www.netaxs.com/~evansdb
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <3485F0FD...@us.oracle.com>,
Gators suck <mtyn...@us.oracle.com> wrote:
>Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
>fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
>feigning you're any different.
Get a life.
TheCandide
mtyn...@us.oracle.com wrote:
>Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
>fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
>feigning you're any different.
>
>
You must have incredible psysic abilities - you know the mind of every lawyer:)
Chas Clements
Dan Evans wrote:
> In <3485F0FD...@us.oracle.com>, Gators suck <mtyn...@us.oracle.com> writes:
> >Reply-To: mtyn...@us.oracle.com
> >Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
> >fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
> >feigning you're any different.
> People who write messages like those quoted above are idiots.
>
> Dan Evans **********************
perceptions. While I wouldn't make a sweeping gerneralization as above
(either one), I must admit that my perceptions of lawyers is pretty
negative. I work in a field that sees a lot of lawyers of various
specialties. They have seemed to be possessed of a prediliction towards
'sharp' dealings, 'considering' the Ethical Canons without adhering to
the spirit, sharply adhering to the 'wall of silence' about the
unethical practitioners in their own system, aggrandizing their own
position without regard to the trusts implied by their oaths.
I was reared to respect lawyers (I'm over 50) and the steady erosion of
that regard has come from their own actions- generally and
specifically. One good lawyer doesn't excuse the rest.
Chas
Brenda Johnson
Bruce Hayden wrote:
>
> >
> > Rahul Dhesi wrote in message <65s4ub$l22$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> >
> > >But it's almost a certainty that lawyer B will say yes, it's ok, you can
> > >have a few more days. No pro se litigant will agree to give the
> > >opposing counsel more time than allowed by law.
>
> procedural issues, and not on the merits. Fine, then don't cry
> next time that you lose on a pooly pleaded summary judgment response,
> or fail to maintain your record for appeal.
>
> I have been involved in cases where attorneys didn't cut each
> other slack, and the results were predictable - the legal fees
> for both sides went through the roof (which was probably what the
> deep pocketed plaintiff wanted here - since he was losing in the
> marketplace). Since the one party's attorneys never "received"
> anything that wasn't hand delivered, everything was hand delivered.
> Every request for a couple of day extension turned into a hotly
> contested hearing.
>
> of the bar are what grease the judicial system and make it work
> efficiently. In the long run, when not abused (which it surely is),
> this sort of thing most often actually reduces litigation costs.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> The preceding was not a legal opinion, and is not my employer's.
> Original portions Copyright 1997 Bruce E. Hayden,all rights reserved
> My work may be copied in whole or part, with proper attribution,
> as long as the copying is not for commercial gain.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce E. Hayden bha...@acm.org
> Austin, Texas bha...@copatlaw.com
YES. Bruce speaks the truth.
Brenda
Brenda Johnson
Yow. Where IS this huge cabal of lawyers and judges who manipulate the
universe and how can I join?
Brenda
The one member of the bar who apparently wasn't taught the secret
handshake
Brenda Johnson
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> Bruce Hayden wrote:
> > In other words, you are in favor of winning cases based solely on
> > procedural issues, and not on the merits. Fine, then don't cry
> > next time that you lose on a pooly pleaded summary judgment response,
> > or fail to maintain your record for appeal.
> >
> > I have been involved in cases where attorneys didn't cut each
> > other slack, and the results were predictable - the legal fees
> > for both sides went through the roof (which was probably what the
> > deep pocketed plaintiff wanted here - since he was losing in the
> > marketplace). Since the one party's attorneys never "received"
> > anything that wasn't hand delivered, everything was hand delivered.
> > Every request for a couple of day extension turned into a hotly
> > contested hearing.
>
> routinely behaved as you described above, and who then protested when I
> treated them with similar lack of cooperation. They were accustomed to
> bowling over less aggressive opponents.
>
> >
> > of the bar are what grease the judicial system and make it work
> > efficiently. In the long run, when not abused (which it surely is),
> > this sort of thing most often actually reduces litigation costs.
>
> expressed to me the perception that the grease was K-Y jelly, and they
> felt like.......
Mr. Hirschfeld, you're an idiot.
Brenda Johnson
> >procedural issues, and not on the merits. Fine, then don't cry next
> >time that you lose on a pooly pleaded summary judgment response, or
> >fail to maintain your record for appeal.
>
> way things are.
>
> Let me repeat what I said before:
>
> Good lawyers do generally manage to represent their own client's
> interests well. But still, there is always a potential conflict of
> interest. No lawyer wants to harm the career of his legal bretheren.
>
> A conflict of interest is a situation, i.e., you don't have to be
> actively doing anything bad for a conflict of interest to exist. And
> you can best minimize the problems that a conflict of interest causes if
> you begin by recognizing when it exists.
>
> So let's recognize that there may be situations in which an attorney has
> the choice of asserting his client's procedural rights at the expense of
> the reputation of the opposing attorney. But an attorney works with
> many of the same people (opposing attorneys and judges) case after case,
> so he can't afford to create an adversary situation between himself and
> his professional colleagues.
>
> So, the attorney finds his loyalties somewhat divided.
>
> A pro se litigant does not face this dilemma.
> --
> Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
> a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
> "Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech or of the
> press EXCEPT after suitable hand-waving."
I'm really tired of hearing this weird idea that attorneys have a
conflict of interest between their client's interests and those of other
members of the bar. As a member of the bar I can say, without
qualification, that my concern about the welfare of another attorney has
never been a barrier to my representation of ANY client. I have,
however, had at least one client who shot himself in the foot bigtime
after being swayed by that kind of crap. He was a criminal defendant
for whom I was appointed appellate counsel. When I was appointed he was
already in a federal penitentiary in Michigan-- a Ghananian popped on
drug smuggling charges. There were good arguments for overturning his
conviction. But by the time I was appointed, some jailhouse legal eagle
had started writing pleadings for him (his English was good, but I doubt
he came up with that "no true bill" crap on his own). The last pleading
I saw that he had signed (but clearly had not written) was one firing me
because I "clearly" would not represent him fully because I would, as an
attorney, not point out failures in his trial counsel's performance.
What crap.
A piece of delusional garbage written by some idiot who hadn't even seen
the record lost this poor guy my representation (and I had, by then,
reviewed the transcripts, interviewed his trial counsel and had a
plan). And in case you were wondering, I didn't need the money. I am
an associate at a law firm with an international presence, and we were
taking the case to satisfy our pro bono responsibilities. And in case
you were wondering, I'd have challenged the performance of this guy's
trial counsel if it would have gotten him out of jail. Without batting
an eye.
What happened to my former client I will never know. An illegal alien
in a federal jail on drug charges-- if anyone needed the resources that
my firm could have delivered, he was the one. But he listened to
counsel of his choice (not his first choice, by the way, because he
personally moved the trial court for appointment of appellate counsel).
I hope it worked out. But every time I hear this junk about attorneys
being conflicted about representing their clients' interests because
*someone* thinks attorneys believe they owe a greater duty to other
attorneys, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Brenda
who can think of several attorneys she'd be happy to disbar personally
Brenda Johnson
Gators suck wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
> fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
> feigning you're any different.
Yeah. We cheat and hustle BP America all the time. NOT. You have no
clue.
Wesley Serra
In article <34875E...@earthlink.net>,
Brenda Johnson <bjoh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I'm really tired of hearing this weird idea that attorneys have a
>conflict of interest between their client's interests and those of other
>members of the bar.
[Snip remainder of Brenda's articulate and clearly correct post]
But, Brenda, from the points of view of at least three groups of posters
to this thread, you are merely confusing the issue with facts. You will
never convince those posters, for reasons which vary with their
motivations for posting. The first group consists of those litigants who
really have been hosed by their attorneys. We know that it happens. The
second group consists of those litigants who lost on the merits, but
cannot accept it, and blame a conspiracy of bench and bar. The third
group consists of those who would take advantage of the first two. None
of these will listen, for their own reasons.
Nonetheless, you are surely right that, for many of us, protection of
fellow members of the bar ranks somewhere below forgetting to buy eggs at
the grocery store when deciding litigation strategy. You'll get a kick
out of this: I have a currently pending appeal (Second Circuit) in which
I brief *my own* ineffectiveness. I briefed a _Batson_ point
(discrimination in jury selection by the Government), the Government
answered that it was waived, and I repled that, if it was, I was
ineffective. Now, I am virtually certain that the Court of Appeals will
rule on the merits and not find a waiver - but, if I am willing to brief
*my own* ineffectiveness, how long would I hesitate in briefing someone
else's? It is pure nonsense (and an ex-lawyer clearly knows it) to argue
that lawyers as a class are unwilling to take each other on.
Mr. Hirschfeld, the word "pandering" comes to mind.
--
Wesley Serra Nothing you can't spell will ever work.
wse...@panix.com - Will Rogers.
PGP public key available from SLED or by finger
Brenda Johnson
Wesley, you rule. Totally. And Mr. Hischfeld is a worm.
Deanna Flaming
Chas Clements wrote:
>
> Dan Evans wrote:
> > In <3485F0FD...@us.oracle.com>, Gators suck <mtyn...@us.oracle.com> writes:
> > >Reply-To: mtyn...@us.oracle.com
> > >fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients.
<big snip>
> I was reared to respect lawyers (I'm over 50) and the steady erosion of
> that regard has come from their own actions- generally and
> specifically. One good lawyer doesn't excuse the rest.
> Chas
No, s/he doesn't, but by that logic, should one bad one tarnish the rest?
I've been working side-by-side for two years with an attorney who looks
carefully at the ethics of a situation before he does something that
might be even the slightest bit gray. Unfortunately, he's had to close
is private practice and share space with others, and I've lost a very
special boss, to a great extent *because* his ethics are NOT "in his back
pocket".
Just a thought!
Deanna
Karl L. Sandwell-Weiss
Join the ABA.
>
> Brenda
> The one member of the bar who apparently wasn't taught the secret
> handshake
It must be because you are female.
Headers trimmed.
Karl L. Sandwell-Weiss
Jack Lawson
On 30 Nov 1997 20:16:00 -0700, nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>Carl H. Starrett II wrote:
>> About the only thing I have to fear from a pro se litigant is the > increased legal fees that my client incurs because of someone who THINKS
>that know the law when they actually don't.
>
>Ah yes, another lawyer about to be led to the slaughter.
>We're talking about pro-se's who are not only educated in the law of
>their cases, but in how to bury lawyers with dirty lawyer tactics.
>Based on the number of outraged screams from lawyers hit by good
>pleadings from my students, you're in for a surprise.
Based Upon the rantings of this nolawyer@primenet, is it Bob
Hirschfeld, I would suppose that we have sour grapes over getting
burned for engaging in unlawful tactics whilst he was practicing. As
Mr. Hirschfeld said:
Bob Hirschfeld, JD, who was truthfully accused by Bar Counsel before
the AZ Supreme Court of "placing his duty to his clients above his
duty to the court", who burned his bar card, and remains proud of
having done
both. See:
http://www.primenet.com/~nolawyer/independ.html
Mr. Hirschfeld seems to think that the interests of one particular
client, it seems usually himself, rise above the over-arching
interests of a fair, expedient rational justice system. Thereby he
can serve his client, not justice, and feel smug about it as he is
disbarred.
Yes, Mr. Hirschfeld, I suspect you were disbarred, not that you
voluntarily resigned. So now, you spew your venom upon those
individuals who are capable of maintaining a proper and legal practice
of the law.
You refer to your students. Are you now trying to circumvent the
interests of justice by teaching pro-se people what you know? If so,
that is also illegal and quite a disservice to your new type of
client.
I'm sorry that you were disbarred, sir. But I'm certain that your
life will continue and that you shall find some other way to continue
your livelihood. The best of luck in your pursuits, sir.
Jack Lawson
EATMEAT
In case your interested,
Here is the raving Bob Hirschfeld. Quite A Charming fellow, actually.
Right.
EATMEAT
begin 644 Bob.gif
<encoded_portion_removed>
end
Marvin Frandsen
Rahul wrote:
>> But an attorney works with many of the same people
>>(opposing attorneys and judges) case after case,
>> so he can't afford to create an adversary situation between
>> himself and his professional colleagues.
>>
>> So, the attorney finds his loyalties somewhat divided.
> But every time I hear this junk about attorneys
> being conflicted about representing their clients' interests because
> *someone* thinks attorneys believe they owe a greater duty to other
> attorneys, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Uhh .. the conflict of interest is with the attorney's sacred
self interest rather than something idealistic. This is especially true
in cozy little areas where the judges could care less what the law is.
There are attorneys like Brenda who will put the client first.
But there are others too.
-- Marv Frandsen
Brenda Johnson
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Marv. But I'd like to point out that
even in cozy little areas (and I've been hometowned in some of those
cozy little areas with the best of 'em) judges hate to get reversed on
appeal. There's always a way to land a big fish in a little pond.
Brenda
Brenda Johnson
Karl L. Sandwell-Weiss wrote:
>
> Brenda Johnson wrote:
<snip>
> > Yow. Where IS this huge cabal of lawyers and judges who manipulate
> > the
> > universe and how can I join?
>
> Join the ABA.
ROFL. Actually, I did, and it didn't work.
> >
> > Brenda
> > The one member of the bar who apparently wasn't taught the secret
> > handshake
>
> It must be because you are female.
Actually, we have our own cabal, as I'm sure you suspect.
Aequalsa
<sniped>
>Mr. Hirschfeld seems to think that the interests of one particular
>client, it seems usually himself, rise above the over-arching
>interests of a fair, expedient rational justice system. Thereby he
>can serve his client, not justice, and feel smug about it as he is
>disbarred.
>
I don't know enough about Mr. Hirschfeld to defend him but I do know enough
about our legal system to know that if Jack Lawson thinks there's very much
that's fair, expedient or rational about our justice system he's a lot more
into serving his own smug self delusions than he is the cause of justice.
D. E. Gibson
"The only way for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing" (Ayn Rand)
George
unfair, I'd like to note a couple of things.
First, the quality of discourse seems a bit unreasonable. Can we not
criticize and comment on one another a bit more politely?
Second, in my experience, my general "fear" of a pro se litigant is the
fact that the judges generally lean over backward, avoiding the full
application of the Rules to the pro se litigant who generally knows very
little beyond the limited circumstances of his own case. There really
is a reason to consult with a lawyer who bothered to spend the time to
learn both the substantive law as well as procedure.
(Truth to tell, any lawyer who doesn't at least listen to and consider
the pearls of wisdom his clients cast before him risk not learning
things. Clients - and pro se litigants - can come up with little gems
from time to time.)
nola...@primenet.com
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> > > > http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
>
> Yow. Where IS this huge cabal of lawyers and judges who manipulate the
> universe and how can I join?
>
> The one member of the bar who apparently wasn't taught the secret
Brenda, I am sure that you as a practicing attorney have seen the "huge
cabal" in operation. You said you weren't part of it? Neither was I. It
took "the system" ten years while I was in practice , to recognize that I
refused to be co-opted, and that I forthrightly advocated on behalf of my
clients, which included calling a liar a liar, and a bad judge a bad
judge. Of course, when an organism such as what you call "the cabal"
detects a "foreign object", it marshals its internal forces to reject the
non-conforming invader. I had ten good years of tweaking the noses of
those bastards before they railroaded me out. Now, as an outsider, I am
helping other outsiders, pro se litigants, to smite these philistines.
--Bob Hirschfeld, JD, originator of the "1983 Pro Se" thread, which has
developed a life of its own, discussing pro se litigants and the "UPL"
attempts by the "cabal" to perpetuate its monopoly.
http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer My Pro Se Educational Resources page
> handshake
nola...@primenet.com
Brenda Johnson, having been reduced to "nyah, nyah" ripostes wrote:
> Mr. Hirschfeld, you're an idiot.
You, Brenda Johnson, are a practicing attorney. (What an epithet!) From
what I've read of your posts, other posters and participants on the
various newsgroups treat you with the disrespect which you richly
deserve. I gave you the benefit of the doubt prior to your above-quoted
infantilism.
nola...@primenet.com
Gators suck wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
> feigning you're any different.
As a "nolawyer" I still disagree with your generalization. There remain
some honest, trustworthy lawyers, and judges. They are generally attacked
by their corrupt, dishonest brethren.
-Bob Hirschfeld, JD
http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
nola...@primenet.com
Chas Clements wrote:
> Sweeping generalizations are often built on very real societal
> perceptions. While I wouldn't make a sweeping gerneralization as above
> (either one), I must admit that my perceptions of lawyers is pretty
> negative. I work in a field that sees a lot of lawyers of various
> specialties. They have seemed to be possessed of a prediliction towards
> 'sharp' dealings, 'considering' the Ethical Canons without adhering to
> the spirit, sharply adhering to the 'wall of silence' about the
> unethical practitioners in their own system, aggrandizing their own
> position without regard to the trusts implied by their oaths.
> I was reared to respect lawyers (I'm over 50) and the steady erosion of
> that regard has come from their own actions- generally and
> specifically. One good lawyer doesn't excuse the rest.
> Chas
Correct. One good lawyer doesn't excuse the rest. But that lawyer's
existence at least gives hope that there may be more than one good
lawyer. The problem is finding a good lawyer. It's about as difficult as
finding a good spouse. Most are not prepared to either.
--Bob Hirschfeld, JD
http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
nola...@primenet.com
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> YES. Bruce speaks the truth.
> Brenda
Perhaps he did, in his message. But Brenda's posts should be viewed with
appropriate skepticism. I'm sure she'll respond to this with another of
her ad-hominem inanities.
nola...@primenet.com
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> But every time I hear this junk about attorneys
> being conflicted about representing their clients' interests because
> *someone* thinks attorneys believe they owe a greater duty to other
> attorneys, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
>
> Brenda
I suggest you cry. The corrupt "old boy" system is alive and well,
notwithstanding the bravery of a few iconoclasts such as you and I, both
willing to attack other lawyers. But perhaps you'd prefer to laugh.
nola...@primenet.com
Wesley Serra wrote:
> but, if I am willing to brief
> *my own* ineffectiveness, how long would I hesitate in briefing someone
> else's?
You might well hesitate, depending on your personal friendships and
assessment of the consequences among your peers. But then, you don't
hesitate to spout generalities, do you?
> It is pure nonsense (and an ex-lawyer clearly knows it) to argue
> that lawyers as a class are unwilling to take each other on.
> Mr. Hirschfeld, the word "pandering" comes to mind.
Then Mr. Serra, stop pandering to your fellow apologists for the
corruption of the bar and bench, or perhaps to those readers of these
newsgroups whom you hope will recognize you as such an upright lawyer
and hire you.
Nowhere have I "generalized" as you allege, about "all lawyers". After
all, one exception breaks any generalization. I know of several
exceptions to such a generalization. For ten years, I was one of those
exceptions.
nola...@primenet.com
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> Wesley, you rule. Totally. And Mr. Hischfeld is a worm.
Tsk, tsk, Brenda. More of your infantile one-liners. Even we worms have
our function in the world. It is to consume corrupt, decaying entities,
whether they be the State Bar, the Judiciary, or subterranean cadavers.
Do you belong to one of those categories?
Hungrily,
Jol Silversmith
> > It is pure nonsense (and an ex-lawyer clearly knows it) to argue
> > that lawyers as a class are unwilling to take each other on.
> > Mr. Hirschfeld, the word "pandering" comes to mind.
[...]
> Nowhere have I "generalized" as you allege, about "all lawyers".
Lie.
In article <347FA1...@nolawyer.com> nola...@primenet.com wrote:
[...]
Lawyers won't do a damn thing about other
lawyers who are corrupt never mind the arbitrary and capricious judges
who cover-up for the corruption in the justice system.
--
Jol A. Silversmith __________________________ silv...@law.harvard.edu
http://www.nyx.net/~jsilvers/index.html _______ jasi...@ix.netcom.com
Opinions are my own, and should not be construed as legal advice, etc.
EnkeMM
>From: nola...@primenet.com
>Date: Sat, Dec 6, 1997 10:23 EST
>Message-id: <34897D...@nolawyer.com>
>
>Gators suck wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I'm sure YOU are real concerned about your client paying you more
>> fees. Be serious. All lawyers cheat and hustle their clients. Stop
>> feigning you're any different.
>
>As a "nolawyer" I still disagree with your generalization. There remain
>some honest, trustworthy lawyers, and judges. They are generally attacked
>by their corrupt, dishonest brethren.
>
Amen...so it is!
Best regards
EnkeMM
Carl H. Starrett II
In article <348983...@nolawyer.com>,
nola...@primenet.com wrote:
>Brenda Johnson wrote:
>
>> Wesley, you rule. Totally. And Mr. Hischfeld is a worm.
>
>Tsk, tsk, Brenda. More of your infantile one-liners. Even we worms have
>our function in the world. It is to consume corrupt, decaying entities,
>whether they be the State Bar, the Judiciary, or subterranean cadavers.
>Do you belong to one of those categories?
Pot, kettle, black.
Brenda Johnson
In a prior response to me, you claimed to have gained the ire of the
"cabal" by calling a liar a liar and a bad judge a bad judge. Now
you're pissed at the bar because (you claim) you were penalized for your
candor. You'd think that would lead you to appreciate (or at least
respect) the candor of others. Guess not.
Brenda
Who calls 'em like she sees 'em
Brenda Johnson
> > being conflicted about representing their clients' interests because
> > *someone* thinks attorneys believe they owe a greater duty to other
> > attorneys, I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
> >
> > Brenda
>
> I suggest you cry. The corrupt "old boy" system is alive and well,
> notwithstanding the bravery of a few iconoclasts such as you and I, both
> willing to attack other lawyers. But perhaps you'd prefer to laugh.
>
> http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
Bob, old buddy, did you read the rest of my post? Some poor schmuck got
screwed out of crack legal counsel (if I may be so bold) with a genuine
desire to use her skills to the best of her ability for his benefit (and
damn what it would have done to my billable hours) because he bought
that claptrap. If I'm going to cry, *that's* why.
Yeah, I know about the old boy network. I run into it in every dipshit
courthouse outside of my county. I run into it *in* my county. Ya know
what? I still haven't lost anything that had the merits to win. And as
far as the occasional slick/lying country boy (or city boy, for that
matter) or lazy, connected judge is concerned, my tactic every time has
been *not* to take it personally, to act like everyone has been acting
with the best of intentions and to *make a record.* There's always the
threat of appeal, and my experience has been that a good record usually
makes appeal unnecessary.
As far as making other lawyers happy (or unhappy) is concerned, well,
ultimately they're my competition. Clients pay me, not them. Sure,
good relationships with fellow lawyers can make my life easier, but it's
only possible to have a good relationship with a good lawyer.
Brenda
nolawyer http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
Brenda Johnson <bjoh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Bob, old buddy, did you read the rest of my post? Some poor schmuck got
>screwed out of crack legal counsel (if I may be so bold) with a genuine
>desire to use her skills to the best of her ability for his benefit (and
>damn what it would have done to my billable hours) because he bought
>that claptrap. If I'm going to cry, *that's* why.
>
>Yeah, I know about the old boy network. I run into it in every dipshit
>courthouse outside of my county. I run into it *in* my county. Ya know
>what? I still haven't lost anything that had the merits to win. And as
>far as the occasional slick/lying country boy (or city boy, for that
>matter) or lazy, connected judge is concerned, my tactic every time has
>been *not* to take it personally, to act like everyone has been acting
>with the best of intentions and to *make a record.* There's always the
>threat of appeal, and my experience has been that a good record usually
>makes appeal unnecessary.
>
>As far as making other lawyers happy (or unhappy) is concerned, well,
>ultimately they're my competition. Clients pay me, not them. Sure,
>good relationships with fellow lawyers can make my life easier, but it's
>only possible to have a good relationship with a good lawyer.
>
>Brenda
Just when I was about to give up on you, you display redeeming social
values. :-)
Making a record when one's case is certainly going up on appeal is
something I've been trying to teach pro-se litigants. Most pro-se's seek
appellate assistance after they have fatally destroyed their chances by
failing to make a record.
For pro-se's reading this, who are about to go to trial, do at least the
following:
1. File a request for court reporter at all proceedings, including in
chambers.
2. Find out your jurisdiction's equivalent, if any, to a FRCP Rule 52
Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and file it before
the trial starts.
3. Learn the Rules of Evidence and make timely (proper) objections on the
record at trial, even if they're all overruled.
4. Define your issues and their legal bases, and attempt to at least
mention each of them on the record, so your appeal woun't fail for lack
of having raised them. Two possible escape hatches: Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction can be raised at any time, and I believe that
Constitutional issues may be raised on Appeal even if omitted below.
A Judge knows when you're competently making a record. It tends to keep
him honest, or at least, cautious. It may also make him angry. Too bad.
Appeasing a bad judge by not making a record often results in an
unappealable bad decision anyway.
The infamous case in which I was fined $20,000 was finally reversed
because, though I had one of the worst judges imaginable, who made it
clear before trial that my client would lose no matter what, I did all of
the above things to make a record. I was no longer talking on the record
to that judge. I was already creating a record to communicate to the
Court of Appeals.
My pro-se videotape, "Introduction to Courts and Civil Procedure," tries,
among other things,to persuade the pro-se audience before whom I spoke,
to do the simple steps outlined above to "make a record". Even one who
thinks he'll win may be glad he prepared at the trial level, for the
possibility of appeal.
Brenda Johnson
Bob, my purpose in my last post was to engage in dialogue, not to give
you another opportunity to flog yourself out to the unsuspecting
cybermasses. You have yet to respond to my points qua points. Give it
a try (or are you intimidated by a good brief?)
Brenda
EnkeMM
>I don't know enough about Mr. Hirschfeld to defend him but I do know enough
>about our legal system to know that if Jack Lawson thinks there's very much
>that's fair, expedient or rational about our justice system he's a lot more
>into serving his own smug self delusions than he is the cause of justice.
>
>
>
>D. E. Gibson
>
>
Dear Mr. Gibson:
While there is much inequity in our legal system, please remember that it is
indeed (BY FAR) the best in the world today. In many countrries, one has no
access to courts for redress of grievances nor any due process rights. The
best way for you to perhaps develope a more tempered view toward our system is
to study and speak with those from other systems. Suffice it to say that
although you may well remain somewhat jaded in your views toward our system,
and rightly so... your perspective may tilt toward making our system better
than simply advocating that it flushed in its entirety.
Much like a chain, the system is only as strong as its weakest links.
It reflects the general state of "OUR" consciousness and sense of justice. I
fear that all to often, people finger point and attempt to blame lawyers,
politicians etc... but these people are nor operating in a vacuum and/or
separate reality. It is one shared by all of us, and so reflects.
Without the many good and gifted in our history, many of whom were and are
lawyers, we would not have much of the magnificent freedoms and lifestle that
we currently enjoy.
Can it be better? You bet! Should we all try to make it better, more just and
more equitable? You bet! Can we even begin to accomplish this by negative
banter, fatalistic attitudes, finger pointing and expression of unbridled rage?
Perhaps not!
Cooperation, constructive discussion of the issues, proposed solutions seem to
this writer to afford a better avenue for implementation of change. Change can
only occur to the extent that we agree, get along and otherwise pool our
resources and thoughts. United we stand, divided we fall...has it not always
been this way?
It brings to mind a Robert Frost poem which seems rather antithetical to the
process of human growth and exchange, but reflects the all to often embraced
attitude of the human race, to wit:
"Good fences make good neighbors". Perhaps not!
Best regards,
EnkeMM
Marvin Frandsen
Brenda wrote:
> Some poor schmuck got
> screwed out of crack legal counsel (if I may be so bold) with a genuine
> desire to use her skills to the best of her ability for his benefit (and
> damn what it would have done to my billable hours) because he bought
> that claptrap. If I'm going to cry, *that's* why.
I'm glad to see the other side of the coin well stated in a poignant story.
Not all Pro Se litigants have a clue, to say the least. Even if they have a
clue, not everybody is suited for representing themselves in court.
Not all lawyers (or judges) are corrupt or selfish or ignorant or uncaring.
Often it is a hard decision as to whether or not to be in pro per. Usually
this decision has to be made in all too much ignorance. In this situation
people are easily led astray by well meaning friends, or simply by ignorant
over-confidence. Or, conversely, some people who could do the job are scared
off because they don't know how to proceed.
Personally I think this is one important side benefit of widespread legal
education. With more legal education for persons interested in representing
themselves, they can get a clue as to what is involved. Students of Hischfeld
et al. will either show up in court Pro Se with a clue, or realize they are in
over their head, hire an attorney, and have a better background for discussions
with the attorney and better judgment when the time comes to make tough
decisions.
Students may also better appreciate what a lawyer does to earn his/her fee.
There's a lot more work in litigation than a lot of people realize.
I just can't see the overall effect of more knowledge about how the legal
system works, even if partial, as bad for the public good.
I think Hirschfeld and other vendors offer a real service in this regard. So
far the legal establishment has shown little interest in this area of business.
-- Marv Frandsen
Marvin Frandsen
Bob Hirschfeld wrote:
> I believe that
> Constitutional issues may be raised on Appeal even if omitted below.
This is correct for facial constitutional challenges, but not for
as-applied Constitutional challenges.
Even in a facial constitutional challenge, there are some criteria, and
the Court entertains such challenges at the Court's discretion.
The above true in both Federal and Florida state courts. I can't answer
for all of the other 49 state courts, but I'd bet that most of them
follow the same basic logic.
-- Marv Frandsen
Rahul Dhesi
In <348894...@tng.net> Marvin Frandsen <fran...@tng.net> writes:
>Rahul wrote:
>>> So, the attorney finds his loyalties somewhat divided.
>Brenda wrote:
>> But every time I hear this junk about attorneys
>> being conflicted about representing their clients' interests because
>> *someone* thinks attorneys believe they owe a greater duty to other
>> attorneys...
>There are attorneys like Brenda who will put the client first.
>But there are others too.
'Conflict of interest' simply means that the attorney has opposing
motivations. It does not mean that the attorney actually does something
bad. The attorney might or might not do something bad -- the conflict
of interest exists anyway.
Any time you serve two masters whose interests are in conflict you have
a conflict of interest situation. Typically the interests of pro se
litigants and the interests of courts and the legal bar are at least
slightly at odds. There is a reason why legislators are persuaded (by
legal professionals, not by the public) to pass
unauthorized-practice-of-law legislation, and why the courts often
(fortunately not always) uphold such legislation even when it infringes
on freedom of speech and even when its definition of 'practice of law'
is unconstitutionally vague. Ostensibly the purpose of such legislation
is to protect the public and to allow courts to function smoothly. But
there is at least one other purpose of such legislation that is
just as important, or more important:
Decrease competition, by establishing barriers to entry into the
legal professions.
A corollary goal is to make life harder for pro se litigants, by
denying them the right to hire research staff of their choice.
Please note that the above does not make all laywers bad. In fact I
suspect the general moral standard of behavior among legal
professionals is slightly higher than those of the public at large.
But it does make the system biased against pro se litigants, and every
person working within this system will feel some pressure from the
system to further the goals of the system. Those of you whose world is
entirely black or entirely white will find one or two counterexamples
and think that I am wrong. But one or two counterexamples prove
nothing.
The fact is that paralegals could serve the public much more than they
do, if it were not for UPL laws. Excessive UPL laws result in a net
harm (greater costs) to the public and a net gain (higher income) to
legal professionals.
You all will recall that at one time there were many legal challenges to
the right of authors to simply write books about how to fill out various
legal forms such as wills. If you do some soul-searching you will agree
with me that the sole purpose of such challenges was to limit
competition. It had nothing to do with protecting the public. Books
like 'Fight your ticket' give the public extremely useful information at
low cost, but would have been impossible in the climate that prevailed
some decades ago, had not some valiant authors beeing willing to fight
for their right to keep the public informed.
Why do we have the strange situation that any person is entitled to
represent himself pro se, but is not entitled to hire counsel of his own
choice and must limit himself to those that are approved by the bar?
Because the Supreme Court resolved the conflicting goals mentioned above
by granting pro se litigants just enough to let them be pro se in name,
but not enough to be pro se in any really useful way. I ought to be
able to hire a staff of law students to do research for me and help me
fill out my pro se briefs -- but this is illegal. So, it's impossible
to be pro se except by quitting one's regular job and becoming a
full-time pro se litigant.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dh...@spams.r.us.com>
a2i communications, a quality ISP with sophisticated anti-junkmail features
"Congress shall make NO LAW abridging the freedom of speech or of the
press EXCEPT after suitable hand-waving."
RobFosEsq
A good pro se litigant is not a problem. The problem is most Pro-se litigants
are incompetent and more arrogant than any judge or attorney. The biggest
problem is they have no idea what the case is actually worth. A "back room"
settlement of a case for say $10,000 is usually because that is what it is
worth. Often a litigant will have false values on his case, usually citing the
McDonalds case or the OJ Simpson trial as their basis for legal knowledge.
And do not forget the old adage (which also applies to lawyers themselves)--A
lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.
Soefjelaw
People who may be seduced into buying something from this fellow should beware.
No lawyer fears a pro se litigant. If I see a pro se petition, I know I either
have an opponent who couldn't find a lawyer to take their case or someone who
couldn't afford a lawyer and, therefore, is someone I can outspend. Anyone who
can find a lawyer to take their case or afford a reasonably priced attorney
should always hire one. I have poured out more pro se plaintiffs on
technicalities than I can count, missed deadlines, failure to answer discovery,
motion for summary judgment, etc. My brother is a doctor, and he loves to say:
"no one would pretend to think they can surgery on themselves; why would anyone
think they can try a lawsuit without a lawyer."
Deanna Flaming
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> <big snip>
>
> As far as making other lawyers happy (or unhappy) is concerned, well,
> ultimately they're my competition. Clients pay me, not them. Sure,
> good relationships with fellow lawyers can make my life easier, but it's
> only possible to have a good relationship with a good lawyer.
>
> Brenda
Brenda:
Well said! I've read and grown bored with this thread, but decided to
read your posts, which I usually enjoy.
The entire point of your particular post is a good one, but I especially
agree wholeheartedly with the last paragraph, which is what I left.
Sounds like you're the type of lawyer I'd love to work for/with.
Deanna
Brenda Johnson
You're halfway there, Marv. I have nothing against educating people as
to the law and their rights (and for free). Like many of my colleagues
(and there could be more, I admit), I've tried to make myself available
as a resource for those who want to learn or are not in a position to
pay for counsel. I've taken pro bono cases, volunteered with Legal Aid
(who should get MORE funding, not less). I've taught classes on
Constitutional law to public school kids as part of the Law in the
Schools program. I've volunteered to represent families whose children
have been cut from SSI.
The point I'm trying to make is not that I'm a cool or wonderful
person. Rather, I'm trying to say that there are a lot of us out there
doing this kind of stuff. Every time I've done these sorts of things
it's been at the invitation of people in the legal profession who have
put a lot more time and effort into setting up the programs and the
organizations in the first place, and have made it easy for me to
contribute. Indeed, there are many programs in place that I've *not*
had the opportunity to take part in-- but many other lawyers do. They
include in my city regular workshops on housing law, estate law,
consumer law and the like held for the benefit (and with no fee) of any
person who cares to show up. In short, a LOT of lawyers support and are
part of pro bono efforts and efforts to provide legal education.
OTOH, there are vendors out there-- some with what I would call
interesting backgrounds-- who are (a) no longer allowed to offer
themselves as legal representatives or (b) are proffering legal advice
but have questionable credentials. They may mean well. And if they're
charging you money for their advice, and you are willing to pay for it,
so be it. But the phrase "caveat emptor" comes to mind.
Brenda
IJEROMES
You'r brother, the surgeon was almost right. If someone can't
afford a doctor or is in a place where a doctor won't operate, then
the patient must be brave, bite a bullet and operate on himself.
Sometimes there is no choice. Like when damages in a legal
malpractice suit are not enough to interest a laywer, or when lawyers will not
try a malpractice case against other lawyers. Or when they have already
extracted, surgically, all the ready money available
from the client and the client can either walk away and let them
practice their flawed medicine (i.e. lawyering) , or cause them enough
grief, time and money so that they hopefully will be more careful
with their next victim. Ironically your brother should know how
blind the medical profession was years ago. They have cleaned up their
act, somewhat, and now have procedures and peer review in place
to get those who do wrong out of the business, or punished. The legal
profession, no matter what their public image, aren't being pushed
hard enough by the public to clean out the bad apples, or give more
training to those who forgot what, honesty, integrity and ethics are,
let alone "care of the patient", protecting assets, prompt replys,
and most important, an honest hours work for a hours billing.
I'm pro se plaintiff in a legal malpractice suit and I don't like it, but I
have no money and no choice but to try and get a message to the legal
community that they need to clean up the good old boy system.
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
Ah, now I'm supposed to be the "seducer?"
If I, with my education and years of litigation experience, happen to
personally be the pro se litigant against you, sir, I assure you that
your presumptions stated below would be overly optimistic. My goal is to
educate laypersons to approach my own pro-se ability, tempered by my
knowing, as a former insider, how lawyer bullies and tricksters operate.
I'm glad you don't fear pro se plaintiffs. You may be in for a surprise
when opposing a competent pro-se some day.
--Bob Hirschfeld, JD
Pro Se Legal Educator
http://www.nolawyer.com/nolawyer
Brenda Johnson
-Robert Rudzki wrote:
>
> Brenda Johnson wrote in message <34875E...@earthlink.net>...
> |already in a federal penitentiary in Michigan-- a Ghananian popped on
> |drug smuggling charges. There were good arguments for overturning his
> |conviction
>
> Like what? He was 'completely innocent', the drugs were planted on him by
> US Customs agents, he really was a US citizen, but the INS burned his US
> birth certificate and passport and issued him a phony one from Ghana and
> then tipped the Border Patrol he was in the airport trying to enter
> illegally...?
>
> Robert
Actually, none of those and none of the arguments his jailhouse lawyer
was cooking up for him either (like that no true bill stuff that was
being cranked out under the poor guy's signature).
Brenda
fl...@spark.com
-Robert Rudzki wrote:
> Now I see more clearly why ordinary people hate lawyers so much...
>
> 'A man calls a law office on the phone, and says, "I only have $150, can you
> answer two simple legal questions for me, over the phone?"
>
> The lawyer taking the call says, 'of course, what is your second question?'
>
> So sue me...
How about educating you, instead?
Crooked mechanics do not mean that all cars on the road don't run well;
crooked doctors don't mean that no person ever gets well while keeping
his wallet relatively intact; crooked magazine editor/publishers don't
mean that no worthwhile story ever appears in the midst of the muck; and
so on. The REAL PROBLEM is the apathy which sits and complains instead
of DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. (What? Write to advertisers and say you
won't buy the product with the anti-family, snotty ad., and write to the
other advertisers telling them that you prefer to see their ads in a
better class of magazine than one showing the slimy articles along the
same lines; get active on the school board; read VOTESCAM on the web and
then in the book, and get active on that; ACT.)
Marvin Frandsen
Brenda Johnson wrote:
> Rather, I'm trying to say that there are a lot of us out there
> doing this kind of stuff. Every time I've done these sorts of things
> it's been at the invitation of people in the legal profession who have
> put a lot more time and effort into setting up the programs and the
> organizations in the first place, and have made it easy for me to
> contribute. Indeed, there are many programs in place that I've *not*
> had the opportunity to take part in-- but many other lawyers do. They
> include in my city regular workshops on housing law, estate law,
> consumer law and the like held for the benefit (and with no fee) of any
> person who cares to show up. In short, a LOT of lawyers support and are
> part of pro bono efforts and efforts to provide legal education.
Your city sounds like a nice place, legally. I sure don't see the same
scale of activities out here, on the central east coast of Florida.
Some certainly does occur. There are pro bono cases, and the
occasional workshop. But the reality for the average person remains
that he/she can either spend a lot of money, or start thinking
about self-representation. It's the rock or the very hard place
for most folks, most of the time.
I have one friend who is fighting for his financial life and has
had his business ruined by an unscrupulous business. They are
represented by attorneys. My friend has no choice but to
represent himself, because they took all of his money.
Workshops and the rare pro bono case out there are no help to him.
I certainly agree that in terms of buying speech in the
marketplace, *everybody* who can say "Pro Se" had better learn
"Caveat Emptor."
-- Marv Frandsen
Charles R. Mears
Soefjelaw wrote:
>
> People who may be seduced into buying something from this fellow should beware.
> No lawyer fears a pro se litigant. If I see a pro se petition, I know I either
> have an opponent who couldn't find a lawyer to take their case or someone who
> couldn't afford a lawyer and, therefore, is someone I can outspend. Anyone who
> can find a lawyer to take their case or afford a reasonably priced attorney
> should always hire one. I have poured out more pro se plaintiffs on
> technicalities than I can count, missed deadlines, failure to answer discovery,
> motion for summary judgment, etc. My brother is a doctor, and he loves to say:
> "no one would pretend to think they can surgery on themselves; why would anyone
> think they can try a lawsuit without a lawyer."
What about a hard working and responsible pro-se litigants against a
busy and not especially responsible lawyer?
My interesting experience acting as a pro-se occurred when a customer
accussed me of tampering with the odometer reading of a used car I had
sold her. After consulting with an attorney, I found that I had to
re-explain the facts of the case to him each time I went in to discuss
the progress of the case. At some point (several hundred dollars later)
I realized he could not adequately represent me if he didn't fully
understand the facts of this realitively simple case. So I fired him
and spent about 12 hours on legal research.
When we went before the judge the plantiff (or whatever she is properly
called) had a lawyer. Unfortunate for her, but fortunate for me, he had
as little understanding of the real issues involved as my lawyer had.
Midway in the case the lawyer asked for a voluntary non-suit. The judge
said "WHAT?" The judge explained that he was withdrawing the suit so
that he might retain the right to refile it later.
I left the court room feeling like I had climbed Mt. Everest. I had
defeated a lawyer on his on turf.
My advantage was that I understood the facts intimately and I also
understood the central legal issue, which was, did I have knowledge that
the odometer reading was not correct, or should I have known it if I was
acting as a responsible used car dealer.
It seems to me there are 3 basic areas one must understand in any case.
The facts of the case, the central issues of law, and lastly but not
leastly, the rules of legal proceddings. The last item seem most
difficult for me.
By the way, the lawyer I fired sent me a bill for preparing the papers
to have himself removed as my lawyer of record.
Randy
SWD
It will open as a Wordperfect 6.x in MS Word 7.0
Skip wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Name: Skip.wpd
> Skip.wpd Type: WordPerfect Document (application/wordperfect5.1)
> Encoding: base64
Michael Benveniste
On Mon, 15 Dec 1997 10:14:54 -0800, Skip <no...@user.net> wrote:
>/1dQQ3AEAAABCgIBAAAAAgUAAACeCQAAAAIAAD5x6voyFxk3vcefNdDQ7nHDKmhAh+lyJ3jb
>giiHUszlJ3DL6YgylfS1Z24yYqRR72JftgUxSmpO5O5aJFU1lb8UgYAn+wR4/KeWxO84Mi6c
>B0GuubvpDpEnTpTEgnfT/jiFDKi5f7oI5tCQxeyvuMg2UV1eD9yiAYFlh7UueLvXJ9WZ4r1Y
>OGRXwcTsfFqRpXiTUEZro5+ljn1LGtgmd3b3OEqGUpbIe1l2+xiu4sCxF4LXJizzvHcMjmd/
>vLLW1Kj2cj2x9oiPuJUbDiU5vHw0Pi5o7vURs7JauRIi534BODCJPKemlp6BAIeGm59Mr8oP
>+/LkHmMiQzEEret2LWjoy0WWMym1sNMxzfgC02BlZEVoMJRWhtLzk4vLvdNEhlEsiV3Bcz1/
[snip]
I would strongly suggest against this. While it may not be illegal in
North Dakota, there is a strong possibility that Montana will have
sufficient jurisdictional grounds to prosecute.
>dNAGHy6sk4ZmKnvCv9pg4MFqU/IAAs3PN5lskoInHsJFIZBGNnTBsydwUvlsqOFe8/YlAjsf
>Cb+rnoAs8A3bl42BVC9bgajq3gzwzmyImiBkVxjsR2PgYz1G9uO6tQq9XvSN3jlh+y7JBnH1
>W2rttPaxjXeurMd4AoTe8i4AswPznn0AdoGU1ufFm5ix7msodVLojkdMvSgRX/cTX05dyCAG
>HqPz5OzXEr4mklXGgSgF10e1ahfuy9HwW5YCAAkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgjAQAAAAsBAAB+AgAA
[snip]
That bond rating may be out of date. Please check again with any of
the better known rating agencies. From a quick check of the species
of larch/snipe hybrid, I can tell this isn't a general revenue bond.
>AFUBAAAATgAAAIkDAAAJJQEAAAAGAAAA1wMAAAswAgAAACgAAADdAwAACHcBAAAAQAAAAAUE
>AAAINAEAAAAUAAAARQQAAAgCAQAAAA8AAABZBAAACAUBAAAACAAAAGgEAAAAmEgAUAAgAEQA
>ZQBzAGsASgBlAHQAIAA0ADAAMAAgAFAAcgBpAG4AdABlAHIAAAAAAAAAA
[snip]
>UC5PLoBCb3iAMTI0OTQ3zFNhbvEDUQDx8QBSAPHxAlEA8W3xA1EA8fEBUgDx8QJTAPGARGll
>Z28sgENBgDkyMTEyhDQ5NDfM8QNTAPHxAEwA8fECSwDxaPEDSwDx8QFMAPHxAE4A8fECTQDx
>eW9uZYB3aG+AY2FugGhlbHCAbWXxA00A8fEBTgDxzMw=
I'm afraid you'll never get the franchisor to agree to those terms,
but yes, you probably need a lawyer to check this out.
This is not a legal opinion.
----------
Michael Benveniste
mike.be...@fmr.com
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of Fidelity
Investments, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.