<< <i>lots of lawyers will file anything for a fee and to suggest that there aren't stupid lawyers is more ridiculous. >>
Mike -- if you understood malpractice insurance and a bar investigation, you might re-think your position. If a lawyer advises his client in writing that he/she doesn't think he/she has a strong/good/prevailing case and the case still gets filed, it usually because the lawyer has done what was required of him/her. Remember, the client controls the litigation, not the attorney. I never tell my clients what to do. I give them options, its their final choice what option to persue. Sometimes I disagree and even write them CYA letters. Good lawyers make recommendations, thats all. Stupid attorneys tell their clients what to do, and they will eventually get sued for malpractice and disbarred.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out. Thats the Courts responsibility. And it appears to have worked in this particular case.
Michael is correct. An attorney can advise their clients what they should and should not file, but ultimately, the client makes the decision. For example, I can almost bet you their attorney advised them not to include the "bogus" and "illegitimate" survey in they're pleading. But if they told the attorney that is what they wanted to allege in the suit, the attorney must do it.
<< <i>lots of lawyers will file anything for a fee and to suggest that there aren't stupid lawyers is more ridiculous. >>
Mike -- if you understood malpractice insurance and a bar investigation, you might re-think your position. If a lawyer advises his client in writing that he/she doesn't think he/she has a strong/good/prevailing case and the case still gets filed, it usually because the lawyer has done what was required of him/her. Remember, the client controls the litigation, not the attorney. I never tell my clients what to do. I give them options, its their final choice what option to persue. Sometimes I disagree and even write them CYA letters. Good lawyers make recommendations, thats all. Stupid attorneys tell their clients what to do, and they will eventually get sued for malpractice and disbarred.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out. Thats the Courts responsibility. And it appears to have worked in this particular case.
TPN >>
I was going to write the exact same thing when I saw that previous comment. Well said TPN. It's unfortunate that the lawyers always get blamed when it is the clients that are the cause of the problems.
Always took candy from strangers Didn't wanna get me no trade Never want to be like papa Working for the boss every night and day --"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>lots of lawyers will file anything for a fee and to suggest that there aren't stupid lawyers is more ridiculous. >>
Mike -- if you understood malpractice insurance and a bar investigation, you might re-think your position. If a lawyer advises his client in writing that he/she doesn't think he/she has a strong/good/prevailing case and the case still gets filed, it usually because the lawyer has done what was required of him/her. Remember, the client controls the litigation, not the attorney. I never tell my clients what to do. I give them options, its their final choice what option to persue. Sometimes I disagree and even write them CYA letters. Good lawyers make recommendations, thats all. Stupid attorneys tell their clients what to do, and they will eventually get sued for malpractice and disbarred.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out. Thats the Courts responsibility. And it appears to have worked in this particular case.
TPN >>
But, correct me if I'm wrong. A lawyer is not required to take the case.
<< <i>I was going to write the exact same thing when I saw that previous comment. Well said TPN. It's unfortunate that the lawyers always get blamed when it is the clients that are the cause of the problems. >>
Exactly. And in this case, it would be ASA-Accugrade who is ultimately responsible.
Even though I was named in the suit, I was not a titled defendant and if they had attempted to serve me on it, I would have had it tossed in short order. Unfortunately that also works the other way, so I will not be able to go after them for filing this frivolous federal case. It's up to the named defendants who were served and got the case dismissed.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out.
I suppose that's literally true, but it's walking a mighty fine line.
A federal Complaint has to be signed by the attorney, and that signature certifies to the Court that to the best of the attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that:
the suit is not presented for any improper purpose (such as to harass, delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); and
the claims and other legal contentions presented are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and
the allegations and other factual contentions have or likely have evidentiary support.
So to that extent, in a very real sense lawyers do control what gets filed in court. Just an observation.
Comments
<< <i>lots of lawyers will file anything for a fee and to suggest that there aren't stupid lawyers is more ridiculous. >>
Mike -- if you understood malpractice insurance and a bar investigation, you might re-think your position. If a lawyer advises his client in writing that he/she doesn't think he/she has a strong/good/prevailing case and the case still gets filed, it usually because the lawyer has done what was required of him/her. Remember, the client controls the litigation, not the attorney. I never tell my clients what to do. I give them options, its their final choice what option to persue. Sometimes I disagree and even write them CYA letters. Good lawyers make recommendations, thats all. Stupid attorneys tell their clients what to do, and they will eventually get sued for malpractice and disbarred.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out. Thats the Courts responsibility. And it appears to have worked in this particular case.
TPN
<< <i>
<< <i>lots of lawyers will file anything for a fee and to suggest that there aren't stupid lawyers is more ridiculous. >>
Mike -- if you understood malpractice insurance and a bar investigation, you might re-think your position. If a lawyer advises his client in writing that he/she doesn't think he/she has a strong/good/prevailing case and the case still gets filed, it usually because the lawyer has done what was required of him/her. Remember, the client controls the litigation, not the attorney. I never tell my clients what to do. I give them options, its their final choice what option to persue. Sometimes I disagree and even write them CYA letters. Good lawyers make recommendations, thats all. Stupid attorneys tell their clients what to do, and they will eventually get sued for malpractice and disbarred.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out. Thats the Courts responsibility. And it appears to have worked in this particular case.
TPN >>
I was going to write the exact same thing when I saw that previous comment. Well said TPN. It's unfortunate that the lawyers always get blamed when it is the clients that are the cause of the problems.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
<< <i>
<< <i>lots of lawyers will file anything for a fee and to suggest that there aren't stupid lawyers is more ridiculous. >>
Mike -- if you understood malpractice insurance and a bar investigation, you might re-think your position. If a lawyer advises his client in writing that he/she doesn't think he/she has a strong/good/prevailing case and the case still gets filed, it usually because the lawyer has done what was required of him/her. Remember, the client controls the litigation, not the attorney. I never tell my clients what to do. I give them options, its their final choice what option to persue. Sometimes I disagree and even write them CYA letters. Good lawyers make recommendations, thats all. Stupid attorneys tell their clients what to do, and they will eventually get sued for malpractice and disbarred.
You seem to think lawyers should be the arbitrator who determine who gets to file what lawsuit. We're not. While there are many cases that are frivilous, its not the lawyers job to weed them all out. Thats the Courts responsibility. And it appears to have worked in this particular case.
TPN >>
But, correct me if I'm wrong. A lawyer is not required to take the case.
<< <i>I was going to write the exact same thing when I saw that previous comment. Well said TPN. It's unfortunate that the lawyers always get blamed when it is the clients that are the cause of the problems. >>
Exactly. And in this case, it would be ASA-Accugrade who is ultimately responsible.
Even though I was named in the suit, I was not a titled defendant and if they had attempted to serve me on it, I would have had it tossed in short order. Unfortunately that also works the other way, so I will not be able to go after them for filing this frivolous federal case. It's up to the named defendants who were served and got the case dismissed.
I suppose that's literally true, but it's walking a mighty fine line.
A federal Complaint has to be signed by the attorney, and that signature certifies to the Court that to the best of the attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, that:
the suit is not presented for any improper purpose (such as to harass, delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation); and
the claims and other legal contentions presented are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law; and
the allegations and other factual contentions have or likely have evidentiary support.
So to that extent, in a very real sense lawyers do control what gets filed in court. Just an observation.
Tiger trout, Deerfield River, c. 2001.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------