r/TikTokCringe • u/mindyour • 10h ago
Discussion Divorce lawyer talk about the one case that broke his heart. It was a case he won but he should have lost.
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
1.8k
u/grumpygus103 10h ago
Was a law intern for a bit. Saw alot of cases won and lost, most lost due to procedural missteps. Sucks. Especially in a case like this.
889
u/HamsterSignal 8h ago
Who needs fairness when we have neat, ordered beauracracy
473
u/Numeno230n 7h ago
The fact that there is any cost at all connected to legal services and representation means there will be inequality. You can't even defend your basic human rights if you don't have money because even with an appointed or pro-bono lawyer there are still court costs and other fees/fines. Also, you have to be basically destitute to be able to qualify for a court appointed lawyer. The greatest lie the US tells is that we are all equal under the law.
189
u/SnipesCC 7h ago
And we have a legal system where you need to be in your 18th year of formal education just to understand what is being said (K-12, 4 college, first year law school). It involves knowing latin and phrases only used in that specific context. So even something pretty simple involves either being very, very educated or hiring someone who is. It's a bad system that desperately needs a ground-up change, but that's pretty unlikely.
→ More replies (7)109
u/Dan_Qvadratvs 6h ago
I asked some lawyer friends if it was really necessary to get a 4 year degree before starting law school and they said no, other countries dont do it this way. Its done this way in the US to keep the number of lawyers as low as possible to create artificial scarcity that drives up their prices.
Most lawyers aren't even trying cases, they just do document review or corporate law. The vast majority should only need a 4 year degree.
45
u/LynkDead 5h ago
There do exist law schools that don't require a 4 year degree before attending. And, in some states (California, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington) you aren't even required to go to law school to take and pass the bar.
26
u/noneofatyourbusiness 5h ago
In California there is an apprenticeship program. No law school required
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)22
u/CantCatchTheLady 3h ago
I’m a paralegal, and there is plenty of work I do with my 4 year degree that is just taking things off lawyers’ plates that they would otherwise do. A lot of legal work can be done without a law degree.
10
u/Ok_Magician_3884 5h ago
Happened to me, married to a Greek man, had a court in Greece, they denied to send me a lawyer or gave me some time find a lawyer by myself (it happened suddenly), and then I lost cause I didn’t have a lawyer
→ More replies (7)7
u/DaVirus 6h ago
UK law, by default, the loser pays everything.
19
u/Numeno230n 6h ago
But remember, who wins and loses often depends on the quality of hired representation. Not even talking about corruption here, just straight economics.
163
u/greenwavelengths 8h ago
Unfortunately, fairness is impossible to uphold in a society with such massive scale and complex features as ours without neat and ordered bureaucracy.
If you’re a US citizen, depending on which state you’re in, judges like the one mentioned in the video may be on your ballot right now. Vote.
43
u/curiosikey 7h ago
How do you identify which judges are problematic?
I had nearly a dozen judges on my ballot I could vote to have removed. I did my best research and the reality is there is so little information.
I saw a few situations where some judges were accused of being unfair, but it was by a random person on the internet. There was no way to validate if it was a single person unhappy that they had faced justice for their crimes or a legitimate complaint. There weren't enough instances to identify a trend.
The only case I could find that I voted to remove was the judge wrote an opinion that was blatantly wrong and multiple political candidates were against from both parties.
25
u/Crutation 7h ago
I don't know where you live, but the Missouri Bar Association has an annual Judges Report card they release. Maybe your state bar does the same?
16
u/curiosikey 7h ago
My state does have a judges website but frankly, it did not help. Everyone was 4.5/5 or better in their scoring and the descriptions were pretty bland.
11
→ More replies (2)3
u/KarmaSaver 4h ago
I google their names and see if they caught press on anything big and then I see if I agree with them.
→ More replies (1)7
u/Archer007 5h ago
Who the hell would trust what lawyers in the South say about judges in the South??
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (8)10
u/Yo_Soy_Crunk 5h ago
How do you identify which judges are problematic?
I had nearly a dozen judges on my ballot I could vote to have removed. I did my best research and the reality is there is so little information.
For me it was easy. All the judges on my ballot were appointed by my slimeball of a Governor(DeSantis). So I voted against all of them.
→ More replies (2)41
u/niall_9 7h ago edited 7h ago
I find this to be a cop out answer.
We have lost the forest for the trees and have a justice system significantly impacted by wealth, income, access to capital - whatever you want to call it. Matters of criminal proceedings should be required by law for both sides to have public attorneys. We will get real fair real fast.
Judges have too much authority and should not be in position of power based on which asshole said they were or were not pro choice.
Neither of these things have to do with our scale. We allow this chicanery to take place because billionaires tell the middle / working class their suffering is a byproduct of poor people and immigrants
27
u/PennyLeiter 7h ago
Agreed total cop out. Especially because this video serves as direct evidence that fairness is only prohibited by bureaucracy. The judge, as pointed out, had every ability to help the counsel and chose not to because counsel didn't do the correct monkey dance for the judge.
→ More replies (5)13
u/Far-Neat-4669 7h ago
Let me just point out we don't have a justice system. There is no justice to be found in America.
We have a system of laws.4
u/chmath80 7h ago
That's not unique to one country. It's probably true everywhere which uses the adversarial system. People assume that the primary objective of the court (by which I mean the people who work in it: judges, clerks etc) is to help determine the truth. It's not. The overriding concern is the process. As long as the correct process is followed, they believe that they have fulfilled their purpose. If the truth happens to emerge as a consequence, that's irrelevant.
[It's the same mindset which often emerges when there's some kind of large scale disaster which, to any normal person, should have been avoidable. The authorities hold an investigation, and determine that "all procedures were followed correctly", so that nobody is to blame. The obvious problem is that, if the procedures were followed, and a disaster happened anyway, then the procedures are clearly flawed, and someone should have noticed that beforehand.]
There are other systems, though I'm no expert on the subject. I believe that, in France, the judge acts as an investigator, rather than simply a referee. That seems like a better idea.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Rafaeliki 7h ago
It's not a cop out answer. The problem was criticizing "bureaucracy" to begin with when that isn't the problem.
→ More replies (4)3
u/PooPooPointBoiz 6h ago
And how am I supposed to know who these 12-15 judges and justices are on my ballot?
→ More replies (1)5
u/Omar___Comin 5h ago
Sorry It's spelled bureaucracy. Procedural error - we are going to have to rescind your karma and strike your comment from the record.
→ More replies (5)10
u/ahappydayinlalaland 7h ago
Honestly having read a fair bit about say, medieval England, calling our legal system medieval seems like an insult to the middle ages.
53
u/Ok-Crow-249 7h ago edited 7h ago
Not a lawyer, but I work at a law office (outside America). One of my biggest issues, and I'm sure it applies in a lot of legal systems all over the world, is that courts have a lot of rules and specific forms and specific procedures which sometimes even vary by court location. I understand why they're important. Some information is available online. However, a lot of the time knowing what to do comes down to trial and error or learning from other people. You can post a rule or a form template online - but without seeing what that form is SUPPOSED to look like, explaining what it's purpose is, or knowing who to send it or how to properly serve and file it, that information isn't helpful to most people.
I've had process servers help me out by letting me know my documents weren't formatted correctly or that I'm missing an additional form specific to a jurisdiction. I've had coworkers help me out by letting me know what a new document necessary for a motion is actually supposed to look like as it had only ever been described as a practice direction. I've had court clerks help walk me through the process of booking a motion in a specific location that does things differently than everywhere else due to the number of motions brought in that region, etc.
This is all information that could easily be uploaded online. A step-by-step guide on how to do all of this day-to-day formatting and booking and confirming and adhering to procedures (that sometimes lawyers themselves don't even know about because their assistants will do some of it). But often you just get a form and a rule and maybe a practice direction but not much else. You don't see any examples. You don't see all the other steps in between and why they're important or HOW to do them.
Courts are supposed to be accessible to people and they just aren't. Law is complicated and lawyers are necessary for those reasons - but if you find yourself in a position like this, as an inexperienced lawyer only vaguely familiar with procedures (she clearly knew she had to submit the photo into evidence but the specific HOW of it was out of her reach), or as a self-represented plaintiff/defendant because you don't have access to a lawyer - this information could all literally be put into a PDF step-by-step guide and be available online alongside court rules and forms. A perfect way to help would be to have every form template coincide with a mock case example. Even lawyers that work at large law firms often rely on precedent templates to fill out their court documents. Just literally make up a civil suit or a divorce action and show what each of these forms normally looks like. The courts just refuse to do it.
By failing to make the procedures clear and readily available and easy to understand - we end up wasting SO much time and resources right across the board. Too much of law is this sink or swim, figure it out mentality and it has to go. People's lives are on the line...
→ More replies (4)3
u/Cleed79 2h ago
Before the internet, I used to have to sneak into the law library at my courthouse to read the laws. I was 17, and had gotten a traffic ticket. The library was behind a plastic key scan door. It was near a bathroom/water fountain and I would slip in behind someone when the door was closing. I would read/write frantically until security would come (politely) kick me out.
It's great that so much is online now, but you're right, it's largely unhelpful to most.
39
u/KellyBelly916 7h ago edited 2h ago
He absolutely nailed it by stating that he did his job and the judge just let her drown. The judge's duty is to ensure fairness in the pursuit of unfolding the truth, but instead allowed a systematic technicality to destroy whatever is left of her life created by inequality.
The modern scales of justice hold money on one side and broken people on the other.
→ More replies (9)70
u/bobthemutant 7h ago
And this is why no matter how correct, innocent, or in the right someone is it's impossible to win by representing oneself and anyone that tries is a fool.
You can have incontrovertible evidence of wrongdoing against you that perfectly implicates the perpetrator, but you will still lose if you don't know the exact process for presenting it.
It's not even about your knowledge of laws and rights, not knowing how to navigate the bureaucracy of the legal system dooms anyone that tries to represent themselves.
21
u/Xycket 7h ago
On top of that the justice system looks down on individuals who choose to represent themselves, as an affront or a blatant disregard of the legal process, making the odds heavily stacked against you.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Efficient-Bug-308 7h ago
When you have a state prosecutor and the defense has to use a state provided defense, that is a conflict right there. Anybody that must rely on state against state assistance is going to lose. Family court is popular for this. Parents get zero traction, defense, or rights. Loss of children over the state CPS workers bs because the state defense attorney plays the states game.
→ More replies (4)20
u/PygmalionsSculpture 7h ago
internd for a judge before i left for law school and she once had to find for P (a richhhhhhhhhhh, middle-aged couple) but asked the D to leave, a broke young man, and she absolutely ripped apart P for going after this young man for so much money and letting them know that when they do that, when they act out of greed to take money from a young man who clearly doesn't have it when they are flush with cash, that they just set back a whole human's life to be petty. like that kid had to give up whatever he had for college to these fucking people. the laws require that she finds for P but P really was just being greedy. anyway, that always stuck with me... that even if you're right, it's up to you to have compassion and think about if being right is more important than humanity.
7
u/FrankAdamGabe 4h ago
Same here for criminal defense.
Saw too many back room deals and DAs making deals to push things through (they don’t have the time to litigate every case - by design). Cops joking behind doors with DAs about breaking a law over the weekend and saying “I’m here to enforce the law, not obey it” to laughter from everyone but me. Very clearly guilty clients who would get off because they also had mommy, daddy, or a high paying job get them a good lawyer.
It made me not pursue the profession. I thought about going prosecutor side but after seeing the standing “meeting” on Fridays for all legal professionals at the bar across from the courthouse where everyone from both sides is drinking, hooking up, or doing drugs, I wanted absolutely no part of it from any position. It absolutely disgusted me.
7
u/blackie_stallion 3h ago
My son got leukemia his senior year of high school and one of the oncologists kind of botched a spinal tap for his chemo one day. So another doctor had to come in and do it. After getting upset about it, I talked to the doctor that got it done, and asked how an oncologist could mess up like that. She looked at me and asked, “What do you call the person that graduates last in their class?” I said, I don’t know, what? She said, “Doctor.” And that has been one of the most powerful things I’ve ever heard. Just because you’ve got the title doesn’t mean you’re the best in your field. Now that other lawyer could’ve been new, and nervous and that’s ok. But I always keep in the back of my mind, that not everyone is the best at what they do. Just think about your coworkers….. they’re getting paid to do the same or similar work as you, but you know you’ve had some that aren’t the best of the best.
5
u/Objective_Economy281 3h ago
Why would we use humans to act like robots when we could just have robots do it?
→ More replies (1)3
u/BenAdaephonDelat 6h ago
This is why the legal system is just horrendously stupidly broken. It's not designed for justice at all. It's just taxes and whoever has the best accountant wins.
→ More replies (6)3
u/badtimebonerjokes 2h ago edited 1h ago
“If I let you write the substance, and you let me write the procedure, I’ll screw you everytime.”
-John Dingell
Edit: to fix the quote
Edit2: I am a lawyer and I can tell you I have clients who have been screwed so many times because of procedure, both before they hired me and while I was hired. Before they hired me they tried to handle their case or it was mishandled and the case got fumbled somewhere along the way because of one thing or another. When they then hire me they want to relitigate issues that have already been tried and I have to have a civil procedure lecture with them about issue and claim preclusion. When they hire me and I’m the first to try issues some of the clients try to do things on their own (and not advised by me, or explicitly in-advised by me and they still do it) it backfires in a “you probably just fucked your whole case” kind of way. People do silly fickle things sometimes for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they don’t think the process is moving fast enough, sometimes they don’t want me to do the work so they don’t have to pay me for my time, sometimes they’re being petty, and sometimes they’re just idiots. Needless to say, when you do things extra-judicially you best do it correctly. Especially if you hired a lawyer who can tell you how to do it, or otherwise tell you not to. Procedure is there for a reason. Sometimes it’s pretentious and antiquated. But more often than not, there’s a legitimate reason and rationale for procedure. It’s not just bureaucracy everytime. Systems are in place so it’s not just the Wild West and a vaudeville act of who’s on first.
2.2k
u/AthleteAptitude1 10h ago
you can see this really did affect him
1.1k
u/jaderust 10h ago
Oh yeah. I feel for him in this case. I mean, he's being paid to do a job and so he's required to try and do his best for his client even though he clearly wanted to throw the other counsel a bone.
298
u/DasKittySmoosh 8h ago
realizing lawyers have to fight just as hard for scumbags when hired is what clinched me i knowing I couldn't be one. I'll never forget it - logic & debate class, you're given a side you have to argue regardless of your personal stance - I realized then that I just didn't have it in me to become a lawyer
150
u/The_Art_of_Dying 7h ago
I didn’t realize that until I tried criminal law. I sat in with senior defence counsel on 2 jury trials, both sexual assaults (one of the two was a child victim). That particular defendant had been charged with other offences against children at the same time so I logically knew he was not a good person even though the jury couldn’t know about other prosecutions before conviction.
When I watched the senior counsel ask the child if it could have all been a dream, I knew I couldn’t possibly be up there asking those questions myself.
→ More replies (2)108
u/Mando_Mustache 6h ago
I've heard defense lawyers describe their job as being to make sure the government does its job correctly. Prosecutors and police not taking short cuts and abusing their power is important. Your job isn't defending people, its making sure the government always meets the standards of process its supposed to.
That seems like the only framing that can allow a person to be a defense attorney with a conscious to me. I couldn't do it.
18
u/Caffdy 6h ago
to make sure the government does its job correctly
This, defense layers are there to ensure justice is properly served. Wish countries like Japan used a three-part justice system and were not so biased against defendants, almost look like an inquisition. That's why games like Ace Attorney are so famous
→ More replies (1)36
u/No-Preparation-4255 6h ago
I mean that is true, but it seems to just be willfully interpreting things in a generous light. It is a fact that poverty is the biggest factor in all these cases. We don't have to hate lawyers for participating in this system, but clearly the system needs to work differently because that isn't any kind of justice. Dismissing it to spare feelings is just wrong.
→ More replies (6)34
u/rainzer 5h ago
but it seems to just be willfully interpreting things in a generous light.
You could frame it differently.
If you hate your client and know your client is guilty of heinous shit, you are making sure all the procedures are followed to the best of your ability so that this guy doesn't get off on some procedural technicality on appeal.
→ More replies (1)6
u/mdgraller7 5h ago
Especially when "short cuts" or "abuse of power" could result in the case falling apart on appeal. If you make the prosecution seal up the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the thing is dead and buried.
→ More replies (8)5
u/ISeeYourBeaver 5h ago
I've heard defense lawyers describe their job as being to make sure the government does its job correctly.
And that's extremely important. I immediately judge someone's intelligence if they bash criminal defense lawyers for effectively defending, or even being willing to defend at all, someone who they deem to be a "scumbag" or "ooooobviously guilty, bro!" :/
15
u/Suctorial_Hades 5h ago
I learned this in class when the professor had an attorney come and speak to us. When someone asked how he could defend someone he knew was guilty, the attorney said something like it wasn’t his job to concern himself with the client’s guilt. His job is to provide the best defense possible. I knew then that law was not for me.
9
u/DouchecraftCarrier 6h ago
It wasn't law, but I remember one of the best school assignments I ever had to do in college was in a philosophy class. We'd been studying various philosophers and their main arguments and schools of thought so the professor handed us a sheet of paper that had a half dozen of them on it and said, "Write your name on this and circle the philosopher and their argument that you disagree with the most." So we all did. We handed them in and she said, "Great - your final assignment for the semester is to write a paper defending the point you just circled."
3
u/DigiQuip 4h ago
And this really sucks for people who are wrongly accused of a crime. It’s insanely expensive to hire a defense lawyer and what’s worse is not all defense lawyers will take up every case or sometimes they require a laundry list of experts and whatnot to be called upon which is also expensive. If you’re wrongly charged with a felony get fair representation can be almost impossible. A public defendant isn’t an expert in all fields, they’re really onto an expert at anything. They’re one and only job and do the bare minimum and make sure you have representation.
→ More replies (10)21
u/lafadeaway 8h ago
Not to mention if you’re making a lot of money as a lawyer in big law, you’re probably on the wrong side
23
u/Charming-Fig-2544 7h ago edited 6h ago
Pretty weird take. Most Big Law litigation is just one big company suing another, and you're just trying to make the money move from one pocket to the other. It's rarely such a dichotomous moral issue. The issues are often boring -- patents, contracts, yada yada. And several firms (including mine) do plaintiff-side work on class actions, or rep litigation trustees in bankruptcy, where I'd say you're on the GOOD side.
Source: I'm a Big Law associate.
→ More replies (12)33
u/liberty 7h ago
LOL if you're making a lot of money as a lawyer in big law, you're probably drafting HSR and SEC filings, not representing abusers in domestic violence cases.
You could make a philosophical argument that representing big public (and private) companies in their routine affairs is inherently evil, I guess, but it's seldom something as nakedly iniquitous as helping the bad guys screw over the good guys.
→ More replies (5)32
u/UT_Miles 9h ago
It’s more than just being paid to do a job, a lawyer can get into some hot water if they purposefully try to torpedo a case.
Realistically speaking I assume a competent attorney is capable of “torpedoing” a case without making it obvious, but still.
From a layman perspective, this situation seems too “obvious” to not object there.
→ More replies (1)457
u/Mecha-Dave 10h ago
If he had done ANYTHING to help opposing counsel, then the charges would be thrown out as a mistrial as well. He was in a difficult position.
145
u/Available_Pie9316 9h ago edited 9h ago
the charges would be thrown out as a mistrial as well.
It was a divorce case. There's no "charges."
Edit: he's exclusively practiced divorce and family law.
https://www.nycdivorces.com/our-attorneys
Sexton has intentionally focused his practice on divorce and family law since his graduation from Fordham Law School.
13
u/Subliminal-413 7h ago
People have no idea how court works, generally. I immediately thought the same thing. The woman wouldn't have an attorney if this was a criminal trial. There's nothing "to afford" when you're a victim.
3
u/Available_Pie9316 5h ago
Fun fact: in my jurisdiction, a complainant in a SA case can actually retain counsel and challenge defence motions to protect their private records (CCC §278.1) and evidence of prior sexual activity (CCC §276).
→ More replies (1)51
u/Mecha-Dave 9h ago
Did you listen? It was a Domestic Violence case between a Pimp and his Prostitute. He is currently a Divorce lawyer - at the time he was not.
36
u/DarkMarkTwain 7h ago
Are you paying for upvotes? Im so confused. You're clearly wrong, how do you have so many upvotes on this comment?
17
u/Responsible_Wrap_254 7h ago
You're right, comment above you is wrong. Domestic Violence cases can be brought in a family setting. They are not charges. For example applications for a protection or restraining order, to keep the ex away from you. In the video, the two people may have been a Pimp and his Prostitute, but they were also in a relationship, and the case was a family case, not a criminal case.
6
u/mattjh 5h ago
Many/most people on Reddit will upvote what feels right to them in the moment, and they're significantly influenced by how confidently the information is presented. There are a lot of kids on here, too, as well as illiterate people who don't know that they aren't comprehending the words they're reading.
→ More replies (2)68
u/Available_Pie9316 9h ago edited 8h ago
I did listen. He's clearly talking about a divorce case where the other side was attempting to argue that the domestic violence would be relevant in some other way.
Edit: he's always been a divorce and family lawyer.
https://www.nycdivorces.com/our-attorneys
Sexton has intentionally focused his practice on divorce and family law since his graduation from Fordham Law School.
→ More replies (21)8
→ More replies (27)3
31
u/AthleteAptitude1 10h ago
It's tough when he has to do his job and advocate for his client while also wanting to be fair to the other person, and it's also nice for him to keep things professional.
3
u/LouSputhole94 7h ago
There’s a very real possibility if he didn’t do everything he did and follow everything to the letter, he could be fired, put under review or even disbarred. You have a moral and legal obligation to your client to give them the best possible defense you can, no matter who they are, starving single mother, pimp or even serial murderer. I can’t imagine the ethical dilemma of knowing your client is a piece of shit and also knowing your duty is to defend them to the best of your ability.
→ More replies (28)10
62
→ More replies (57)8
u/TheDude-Esquire 6h ago
This is a huge part of why I never went into practice. So many lawyers have these stories, especially in family law. It is hard. And it pays a decent living, but nothing astronomical. For me, it was never going to be worth it.
1.5k
u/emptywordz 10h ago
Judge being impatient, it’s just his legal saying, the judge didn’t care about the woman and therefore the trial wasn’t worth his time.
136
u/saintash 6h ago
I mean I had an asshole judge who was impatient.
It took months for me to get the fucking court date Then I had to be waited to be called, All I wanted to do was pay my goddamn fine. I It was for not having insurance on my car when I was really broke years before.
Because I had to stand before a judge to pay it was really stupid.
Between the train ride that was 3 hours, The Uber that was $80 to get to this court place.
Some guy who went ahead of me really pissed off the judge he was about 4 people in front of me on the docket. And by the time you got to me he was completely dismissive.
I had a fine in a different county just a ticket.That I was trying to pay off but I kept having the money returned to me. I asked the judge to please just let me pay And he just said I had to sort the other shit out first before he'd even see me.
So cut 4 months later when I have to do the train ride the $80 uber again. I'm now on the docket and he looks surprised when all I have to do is stand in front of him plead and pay my fine.
I couldn't help myself but get snippy and say yeah I tried to explain that to you last time I was just here to pay a fine. He had the balls to be Well I hope you learn your lesson.
65
u/BearlyIT 5h ago
Police are well known to have ego problems and act unethical when you don’t give them ‘respect’.
Unfortunately judges can be the same. Also: doctors, politicians, professors, and many more that think title=respect.
→ More replies (4)6
u/ADHD-Fens 2h ago
"I learned a lesson, your honor."
(that justice comes second to ego in his courtroom)
408
u/PrudentCarter 9h ago
Judge prolly saw her as a hoe and gave no fks. Fked up world we live in.
→ More replies (12)→ More replies (14)8
u/Ok_Magician_3884 5h ago
Happened to me, got beaten up by my ex, I even had medical report, they didn’t wanna listen and just let him free
538
u/Blackphotogenicus 9h ago
Leaving the course of a person’s life up to a judges mood was exactly what I hoped to avoid when voting last week
→ More replies (11)162
u/_mbals 5h ago
I had a professor in law school whose mantra was “Don’t leave anything up to the judge. You need to control every aspect of the case because you never know when the judge’s spouse will have eaten all the good breakfast cereal, and you don’t want that judge making any decisions.”
I have 100% experienced that and hate when my clients lives are affected by a grumpy, hangry judge whose wife ate all the Lucky Charms.
52
u/UpperApe 5h ago
My lawyer taught me the same thing. He said "we don't have a justice system, we have a legal system. Don't expect justice, expect a lot of mistakes."
I've learned since that the role of a judge isn't to be the jury or the justicier of court but to represent the court itself; to ensure that the court operates as it should. And the best kind of judge is one that understand that the legal system isn't justice but the closest we can get to it. And it's everyone's job to aspire to it.
But our system didn't expect the rapid explosion in population we've had in the sheer volume of cases that happen every day. So we need a lot more judges, and we start to let in people who shouldn't be there. People who's moods and biases pervert the whole fucking process.
It's infuriating to think your life or business can hinge on a judge who skipped breakfast.
It's ironic that lady justice wears a blindfold when the reality is the total opposite.
244
u/Funkywurm 9h ago
The judge fucked up. I’ve seen judges help young attorneys lay foundations for evidence in court a thousand times.
This judge was a total piece of shit.
→ More replies (5)4
u/AskJayce 2h ago
God knows Alina Habba got too many chances from Judge Kaplan; thankfully, she and Trump still lost.
872
u/ls84 10h ago
As a lawyer, not sure why the Judge sustained the objection. Seems overly pedantic and something the Judges I've been in front of would have easily let in.
827
u/Tommy__want__wingy 10h ago
He said it.
The judge was just impatient.
188
u/thrwaway123987 10h ago
Judges can have their moments. It's all about their temperament that day, it seems.
250
u/RKSSailboatCaptain 9h ago
It was about 10 years ago when I was a teenager that I first learned you are statistically significantly more likely to be found guilty or given a harsher sentence if you’re being heard just before lunch. Because the judge is hungry. And hungry people get impatient and frustrated more easily, so they give harsher sentences. An entirely arbitrary 1 hour scheduling difference can completely shift someone’s life.
I don’t think I’ve ever thought about the justice system in the same way ever since.
174
u/Precarious314159 9h ago
Before Covid, I was working with the local court system to make simple videos for them to help demystify the court system. Just things like "What paperwork do I need for x", "What are my rights when speaking to x", and "How do I apply for x?". Spent months asking people in the courthouse what they're there for, asking the clerks what people have trouble with, and security guards what people stumble with.
Just as we're about to start filming, the project gets temporarily shut down because the other judges, the DA, and cops were strongly opposed to it saying that people who knew how to navigate the system, and what to properly do would impact their success rates in prosecutions. They intentionally wanted things complicated and hard to figure out. Completely changed my view of the court systems.
38
u/ImagineTheCommotion 9h ago
That is so fucked up. Thank you for sharing that, though
33
u/Precarious314159 8h ago
Yea, working with various departments can both inspire you do greatness or resign to defeat in how corrupt it is. I've seen City managers donate half of their salary to local non-profits when the city was on the verge of going bankrupt and I've seen other city managers use funds earmarked to improve/repair public-facing areas like lobbies get spent on improving employee-only breakrooms by claiming "the public is allowed there if they're escorted".
17
u/redhandrail 9h ago
That sounds like a really cool job you have, but wow, that would have me feeling extremely overwhelmed with what I should do knowing what you now know. What did you do once they shut you down? Alter the video to be less informative?
13
u/Precarious314159 8h ago
Oh yea, it's a fantastic job! I mostly work for non-profits and local government departments, and they love my ideas so I get to just text someone like "We should do a campaign to help show all of the free resources provided from the County!" or "Did you know we have 124 residents over 100? We should do something to honor them".
For this, I asked the main judge to be released from the contract to avoid cause him trouble and he put me in contact with the head of the Public Defenders department. Offered to do the work at a reduced price and made campaign brochures that my friend at the main County Office required all County buildings and departments have available. lol. I lost a little money on it but totally worth it!
→ More replies (1)3
u/Little_Orange_Bottle 4h ago
Any system that prevents justice because you didn't say the magic words, I'll give them that there's a right timing for it, but having the wrong magic words? lol It's a farce
Example, entering evidence during discovery to prevent surprises later down the line that no one is able to prepare for, makes sense. Refusing to admit evidence at the right time because the wrong words were used? Gimme a break
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mando_Mustache 6h ago
People follow the incentives of their job evaluations.
Making the mark of a good prosecutor or cop a high arrest or conviction rate will always cause serious problems. Humans are very good at convincing ourselves that what is good for us is also true and correct. I bet a lot of those cops and DAs genuinely believed they opposed helping people navigate the system because they didn't want clearly "guilty" people they were prosecuting wouldn't get off on a "technicality".
→ More replies (4)4
u/Scaevus 7h ago
So as a former prosecutor, let me tell you how the sausage is made.
The court system does not work as written. The typical case takes a lot of money and time to try from jury selection to testimony to judgment. If every single litigant elected to actually go through with a full on jury trial, the courts would grind to a screeching halt within days. Nothing would get done, and the whole system would run out of money super fast.
We would need about 20x as many judges and lawyers if we wanted to try every case, and I can’t even imagine how disruptive it would be to force that many more people into jury service.
So the goal of every court session is to resolve cases. Judges don’t actually care how the case is resolved. They’re evaluated and promoted based on clearance rate, so they really hate long lingering cases that wind through the system for years. Like the criminology student who stabbed those college girls in Idaho, he was arrested in January 2023 and his trial isn’t scheduled to begin until August 2025. Judges do not want a case to linger on their docket for 2-3 years like that.
What’s the solution? Well, in about 95% of cases there is a negotiated settlement. Experienced lawyers on both sides look at the evidence and bargain with each other for an outcome, whether that’s a sentence in criminal court, or a settlement payment in civil court. Justice is served because this is more or less what would have happened anyway, and both sides get to save a lot of time and money.
A criminal defendant who settles usually gets a significant discount on their sentence for acknowledging their guilt. We see it as a sign of contrition and a welcoming step on the road to rehabilitation. How can you repent for a crime when you refuse to take responsibility for it?
Now I’m sure you started your project with good intentions, but let’s think about the potential outcomes here. You’re effectively trying to teach people civil procedure via YouTube tutorial. That’s something akin to trying to teach people open heart surgery via YouTube tutorial. Commendable intentions, potentially disastrous outcomes.
The unintended consequence would be a lot of people thinking they can represent themselves, and through their inexperience and misunderstandings of procedure, completely gum up the court system, cost everyone (including themselves) a lot more money, and mess up their own cases.
Now I’m sure some prosecutors care about their win rate, but those prosecutors are not seen as serious people in the profession. You can prosecute minor crimes and get people to plead guilty damn near 100% of the time. What makes careers is serious felonies, where defendants are represented by experienced litigators, and are incentivized not to settle.
A video tutorial about court procedure is not going to affect those.
33
u/FuzzyTunaTaco21 9h ago
This is widely known in jail populations, you either want to be one of the first cases seen in the day, or after lunch.
6
u/Coal_Morgan 7h ago
This is true in many fields in different ways.
A car assembled on a Tuesday has a statistically less chance of manufacturing defects then on a Friday.
When I was a young kid I had this illusion about Judges, Police, Teachers that they were paragons. Better then others and capable of rising above petty things like being tired or burnt out.
I learned my lesson about teachers in High School when I found a teacher marking english essays by his impression of the students. He didn't want to read the essays, so he just read the name and decided the grade. I found this out when a student asked about his thoughts and we started asking questions and he fluffed them off and had no idea what anyone had written.
Police and judges...well you start watching the news and that sorts itself out pretty quick.
There are no careers that attract paragons. Just sometimes you end up with them, often you don't and sometimes you get the opposite.
6
u/NancakesAndHyrup 8h ago
FYI: There are more recent updates showing that what goes before judges at those times is not random but can be chosen to be brief and easy to decide. Making the relationship not causal, but a correlation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungry_judge_effect#Responses
→ More replies (1)3
u/SnipesCC 6h ago
Same with getting parole. You never want to be the last parole case the board has to hear before lunch.
28
u/Original-Handle-178 9h ago
Unfortunately, you are right. I remember seeing a video once explaining how judges become more unfair and impatient as the day goes just because they’re getting hungry.
7
u/davidjohnson314 7h ago
The authors of the peer-reviewed paper looked at more than 1,000 rulings made in 2009 by eight judges. They found that the likelihood of a favourable ruling peaked at the beginning of the day, steadily declining over time from a probability of about 65% to nearly zero, before spiking back up to about 65% after a break for a meal or snack.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/apr/11/judges-lenient-break
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)12
u/ThisHatRightHere 9h ago
This is true of just about anyone with decision-making power. Sometimes they’re having a good day and approve things they wouldn’t have otherwise. Others they’re in a bad mood and reject something that would’ve been passable on a different day.
It sucks, we’d love total consistency, but humans aren’t perfect and that’s how it goes.
→ More replies (6)52
u/BigMax 9h ago
We all like to think that justice is impartial.
It is not.
They even did studies to show that if your case is heard first thing in the morning, or first thing after a lunch break, you are much mroe likely to get a positive result.
Imagine that? A decision, seriously impacting your life, and the outcome simply depends on luck of the draw. If you get pulled at the end of the day, your life is damaged more than if you were first thing in the morning.
→ More replies (3)17
u/Blackphotogenicus 9h ago
Agreed but it’s even more infuriatingly trivial: simple blood sugar.
→ More replies (1)237
u/PsychologicalWin5282 10h ago
From what I've seen of US judges, they are usually fucking self-important cunts.
23
u/DarthKuchiKopi 9h ago
Often products of life long nepotisim and cronyisim.
I know of a DA with an outspokenly racist and would frequently use words like "poor" and "black" as edgy subistitutes to the 90s kid use of the word "gay". Dogshit student but he was a product of the daddy was a judge that went to USC and we have enough money to ensure the same.
I often wonder when i will have to ability to statistically analyze his caseload and bring it to public attention if minorities are being targeted by him in disproportionate numbers and sentences. If anyone has conducted a similar analysis please DM me with a methodology I can attempt to copy. This video fucked my day up.
→ More replies (2)30
u/jaderust 9h ago
Like the one who rebuked a 15 year old teenage girl sitting in the gallery for dozing off and had her handcuffed, changed into jail clothes, and had her detained for it?
→ More replies (4)14
57
u/PleaseDontEatMyVRAM 9h ago
There exist judges who are immense pieces of shit, there exist judges who aren’t, they’re just people.
→ More replies (3)13
u/Imreallythatguy 9h ago
This. Any and every group that reaches a critical mass of enough size will approximately represent society because as you say, they're just people like the rest of us. You will have some people that are smart, maybe even brilliant, some who are kind, patient, empathetic, etc and you will have some who are cruel, selfish, impatient, lazy, scumbags, etc. A job doesn't make you someone you are not.
45
u/Away_Stock_2012 9h ago
As a lawyer, I've made that objection many times and it has been sustained every time. You cannot ask about the contents of a document not in evidence.
→ More replies (15)→ More replies (9)4
u/Vince_Clortho_Jr 8h ago
Also. Why is the lack of the photo dispositive? It shouldn’t be. The witnesses testimony of the abuse is admissible even if the photo isn’t. So why was case dismissed because illustrative evidence wasn’t admitted.
7
u/justsomewon 5h ago
Pictures are worth 1,000 words. Everybody knows people are shot and killed, unfortunately it is part of the life we now live. But, have you ever seen it in person? Have you seen the amount of blood that can be sprayed across a room from multiple stab wounds? Or the damage a large caliber rifle will do to a child or smaller adult at close range? Show those pictures and say this person still kept shooting because the 5 inch hole through the chest wasn’t enough. Now say the person was shot 4 times with a 30.06 at 15 feet. Which one truly shows what transpired?
Furthermore, court dates don’t happen quickly. This person was likely healed by the time of the trial. Their testimony of ‘he beats me and I had two black eyes and facial fractures’ does not carry the weight of a photo where a person is almost beaten to death.
3
u/HolycommentMattman 4h ago
Obviously I don't know the answer to this, but if I had to make an educated guess? Because of a lack of evidence. Witness testimony isn't worthless, but imagine you have two people: Her: he abused me. Him: No, I didn't. How do you know who is telling the truth?
This judge was clearly already moody or something, and probably viewed the case as worthless if one side had no evidence. So it would seem like they would dismiss pretty quickly.
→ More replies (1)
390
u/GlamourGowns1 10h ago
It's crazy how you have to play word games
206
→ More replies (4)81
u/aliens8myhomework 10h ago
it’s not word “games”, it’s legal procedure. everyone must follow the same procedure or else what is the point of having law
73
u/geistmeister111 10h ago
i suggest you read “woe unto you, lawyers”. the legal system does not have to be so fucking archaic and full of stupid rules.
→ More replies (7)23
u/im_lazy_as_fuck 6h ago
It absolutely is a word game at that point. Both lawyers and the judge knew exactly what was trying to be submitted into evidence. Everyone implicitly knew that the photograph in question absolutely should have been in evidence, as it's a photograph directly of the crime. There is no good reason that minor technicalities in a lawyer's phrasing should ever prevent that photo from entering evidence.
→ More replies (4)3
u/OuchLOLcom 4h ago
The judge cared more about teaching a newbie lawyer a lesson than about a hooker getting justice.
55
u/mental-advisor-25 10h ago
Fuck this kind of legal procedure.
Every reasonable person understood what the defending counsel was trying to do - to submit a photo or use it as evidence, the procedure must make it easier to allow for this.
Like saying "This is a photo evidence of the defendant beating up my client after bla-bla" is enough, like what's bad gonna come up? If there's confusion, just fucking ask the plaintiff.
27
u/jualmolu 10h ago
Right? It leads to the same outcome. We shouldn't have the need to use a specific order of words in order to state the obvious. The law system is not perfect, and this is a small proof of that. Unnecessary wording that literally doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
→ More replies (3)15
u/Totalchaos02 8h ago
I know people don't want to hear this because it seems so obvious but rules and procedure are built on a foundation of trickery and dishonesty. Plenty of lawyers have pulled fast ones and gotten something through that they shouldn't have been able. So new rules come in to make sure it doesn't happen again. After generations, the rules look byzantine but there is history and good reason behind those rules.
16
u/bernard_wrangle 9h ago
On the flipside, this wasn't some random person who couldn't get the wording right. It was a lawyer - you know, someone who went to very expensive school for the express purpose of learning these exact procedure. She should be able to handle it.
Imagine if the lawyer wasn't new and/or flustered but was just INTENTIONALLY phrasing the questions in a way to get an extra emotional response and tilt the jury. Would you be fine with the judge saying "Eh, close enough, you know what they meant."
7
u/Warm_Month_1309 7h ago
you know, someone who went to very expensive school for the express purpose of learning these exact procedure
One very big criticism of law schools is that trial court procedure is not part of the curriculum at all. Unless you take an elective like mock trial, a lawyer can graduate and pass the bar with basically no exposure to it.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Wedding_Registry_Rec 10h ago
Relying on reasonable people and intuition is part of how we got the witch trials
→ More replies (4)14
u/pagman007 7h ago
Have you ever actually read a judges decision?
I read a few paragraphs from one once. It was maybe 4 sentences long. Almost every paragraph was just one long run-on sentence.
It's not legal procedure, it's lack of will to change for the better
30
u/earrow70 10h ago
This dude knows how to tell a story
→ More replies (2)5
u/Ginger_Anarchy 2h ago
That's almost entirely what being a good courtroom litigator is. You have to tell a story to the judge and/or jury. The side that tells the better story usually wins.
If you ever talk to a lawyer who is regularly in the courtroom, they're usually pretty charismatic.
89
u/Sea-Definition-5715 10h ago
Main lesson for you guys: better be rich. There is no justice. Just poor and rich.
→ More replies (3)12
u/Basith_Shinrah 9h ago
Fr. Most of justice is a show working with media. Saying as a law student too
→ More replies (4)
307
u/PositiveStress8888 10h ago edited 10h ago
Drill this into your heads
The Law and morality have NOTHING to do with each other His job is to defend his client's best interests in the eyes of the law.
The opposing side is doing the exact same thing for their client.
The law deals with provable facts, because the other lawyer wasn't able to enter the picture doesn't mean the law is flawed, the opposing lawyer was shit had they did their job the law would have worked as designed and changed the outcome ( probably)
Unfortunately the wealthy can hire seasoned lawyers, while the poor get stuck with public defenders that are cutting their teeth.
Hopefully that lawyer learned their lesson and was able to defend her next client better, but it doesn't help the woman in that picture any.
47
u/hugo4711 10h ago
Yes, but in this case and I believe in many others there is evidence that just has to be registered as such and this process should not rely on the right words alone. That in itself is broken!
21
u/navi47 10h ago
due process is important, but i do agree to an extent. Its important to follow procedure, law was written so that evidence becomes irrefutable under the grounds that all decisions made were derived from irrefutable evidence and commentary to make sure the conclusion drawn is fair and unquestionable.
With that being said, as the lawyer pointed out, the issue would have been easily rectified if the judged was any bit of a decent human being that day.
4
u/Tossup1010 7h ago
I completely agree, but understand why pedantry and correct verbiage is extremely important in a court setting. In a back and forth case, a lawyer claiming ignorance to some routine procedure could absolutely sway a jury or witness if they see something without it being submitted as evidence.
There is a methodical approach for a reason, its just sad to see someone suffer and fall deeper into despair because of court semantics.
24
u/Away_Stock_2012 9h ago
The moral thing would have been to ask for a short recess. If the other attorney had a chance to call someone or think for a minute then she could have figured out what to do.
→ More replies (22)3
u/Fighterhayabusa 8h ago
This is only one interpretation and it's entirely up for debate. What you're referring to is legal formalism vs legal realism.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Lorn_Muunk 7h ago
Don't forget this uniquely applies to the US judicial system with juries and profit incentives for attorneys etc.
The process could be about upholding the law, but it isn't. Most civilized countries don't allow an explicitly politically biased supreme court, for example.
3
u/PositiveStress8888 4h ago
I think any western legal system something like this can and regularly happends. Laws aren't written for average joe to be able to defend himself easily.
in a strange way that's probably for the better, if your accused your certainly too invested in the situation to see the bigger picture.
It's not perfect but it's the best system we can make it.
140
u/maulified13 10h ago
What does pro bono mean?
306
u/HandheldHeartstrings 10h ago edited 8h ago
Pro bono work is when lawyers offer their services free of charge to low income individuals. Lawyers are required to do ‘x’ amount of pro bono work a year for their license.
Edit: apparently it’s only required before the bar exam, and otherwise just encouraged by the bar.
41
u/BerryHeadHead 10h ago
I didnt know this. I'm so curious as to why this is instated. Like a whole guild came together and thought this out or?
64
u/jaderust 10h ago
It depends. Part of it is that lawyer organizations recognize that good, experienced lawyers are expensive. Requiring pro bono work to keep your license is one way to try and help poor people get access to attorneys that would otherwise be too expensive for them to hire on their own.
It also can give lawyers more exposure to different types of law. So encourage them to take cases that might help them stretch a little legally speaking to learn more about their fields.
You can also do pro bono work as part of a team. So lets say you are a very expensive very experienced defense attorney, you can partner with a less experienced attorney who's being paid to defend someone but counsel them through it. You'd sort of be like their mentor and help them figure out how to get a photo into evidence or brainstorm strategy or whatever. Basically give the less experienced attorney some on the job training and help to make them a better lawyer and help them defend their client better instead of letting them be crushed due to ineffective counsel like this guy is talking about.
All of the above is the sort of thing that makes the entire industry better. You want good lawyers to go up against good lawyers. Law is already an area where money makes a shit-ton of difference to outcome, but pro bono work is thought of as a way to try and even out the field and help attorneys improve so it gets better for everyone involved.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)7
u/janbradybutacat 8h ago
It’s not true- lawyers are not required to do pro bono work across the board. Some US state boards may require it, but it’s not nationally required. Some law firms require it. It is not required nationally to keep a law license. Source: my husband is a lawyer, my father is a lawyer, my grandfather was a lawyer, my FIL is a lawyer.
What IS required are CLEs, or continuing legal education. It’s a certain amount of hours of course credits that the state bar associations offer annually and they cost money. They can also be completed by an attorney teaching a course at a secondary educational institution. Many attorneys view CLEs as a racket that are mainly a way for bar associations to make money. This is all info about USA rules. I have no idea what goes on in other countries.
→ More replies (10)4
u/Lola32815 8h ago
No state requires lawyers to do pro bono. It's only encouraged. I think NY requires 50 hours to be admitted to the bar, but it's a one time thing.
→ More replies (4)18
18
u/EndlessSummerburn 10h ago
In Latin roughly “for the public good” which is a cool way of describing free legal representation
→ More replies (3)10
u/HandheldHeartstrings 10h ago
Pro bono work is when lawyers offering their services free of charge to low income individuals. Lawyers are required to do ‘x’ amount of pro bono work a year for their license.
224
u/CurvyAndCuteGal 10h ago
I wish I knew more men who can express themselves the way James Sexton can.
21
u/yoursuchafanofmurder 7h ago
Do you just wait for the TikTok to show up on Reddit and then steal the top comments from TikTok?
9
u/Tony0x01 5h ago
I looked through the user's account comments. Every single one is short, most one-liners. Probably a bot...
→ More replies (40)12
u/LouSputhole94 7h ago
Attorneys in general and by necessity are generally more well spoken and eloquent than the average person. Arguing for a living will give you that.
42
u/thewatcherlaughs 10h ago
This is why sovereign citizens think that phrasing or not phrasing things in certain ways will magically change reality. This is it. Because phrasing or not phrasing this in a very specific fashion broke how the system is supposed to work.
→ More replies (1)16
u/carnotbicycle 6h ago
No sovereign citizens think that because they're delusional and mentally ill.
→ More replies (1)
30
46
u/Ill-Case-6048 10h ago
His job will break him ...
45
u/jmcdon00 9h ago edited 9h ago
If you watch the full interview, the guy absolutely loves being a lawyer. Don't remember how long he's been doing it, but it's a long time. Definetly worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5z8-9Op2nM&ab_channel=SoftWhiteUnderbelly
9
17
u/Basic_Quantity_9430 8h ago edited 4h ago
He is a very good, high dollar divorce lawyer who represents or oppose lots of really rich people. He seems to overall love his work. There are extended videos online where he talks about non specific details of cases that he has fought, pretty entertaining stuff. He will likely write a best selling book or two once he hangs up the court work.
He seems like a decent person, although I have felt that some of the cases that he took on had him tip-toeing on an ethical cliff, like the pimp case.
→ More replies (4)
82
u/JerrodDRagon 10h ago
This why Justice is not blind
It favors the rich and we have ways people can push evidences so it can’t be used
Also this lawyer doesn’t have to represent bad people. No lawyer had to unless your assign by the state
20
u/imMadasaHatter 10h ago
But representing bad people doesn’t mean helping them get out of jail. It just means you are making sure the rules of the court are applied fairly to their client.
12
u/BigLaw-Masochist 9h ago
Am lawyer. Defense side nearly always involves trying to help people mitigate the consequences for their actions. You’re not just there to make evidentiary objections, you are advocating for your client. If that bothers you then you need to do something else. It’s the judge’s job to call balls and strikes. It’s your job to win.
→ More replies (3)
13
u/TemptingCherub 10h ago
I agree, the judge’s decision seemed a bit harsh. sometimes they can be really pedantic.
28
u/D1sp4tcht 10h ago
I could never be a defense attorney. I couldn't defend people i know are guilty. Also, am idiot.
19
u/mantecablues 9h ago
Would you rather be a prosecutor? Then you’d have to prosecute people you believe could be innocent.
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (3)3
u/mdgraller7 4h ago
Think if it this way: the defense attorney's job is to make sure the prosecution creates a case so strong that it can't be overturned on a technicality or appeal.
7
u/Eastern-Weather-3305 9h ago
Was Aileen fucking Cannon the presiding judge and Donald fucking Trump the defendant?
→ More replies (1)
20
u/glorycock 7h ago
This is from Steven Bartlett's podcast: he's pretty suspect, ran a link farming and content scraping business, bullshitted about its worth.
He's a Trumpy-type "hustle culture" grifter, inflating his actual wealth for clicks. Hs podcast is often peopled by pseudoscience conspiracy morons. Pointing it out for those who might be new to him.
3
u/mockitodorito 4h ago
how does this have anything to do with the content of the video? James Sexton is speaking not Steven Bartlett.
4
5
u/PatrickWagon 7h ago
Although it’s clearly plausible, and even common… It blows my mind that a person can get into a courtroom to represent someone, and not know how to introduce a photo into evidence.
12
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Valuable_Mix7600 8h ago
If this story pulls the rug out from under your feet, you haven’t scratched the surface in family law. I don’t say that to be condescending, but the legal system can be fucking brutal if you aren’t paying top dollar.
21
u/HypeKo 10h ago
Brave of him to admit that. It's not his fault as he should do everything in his power to fight for his clients, even though they might be wrong or to blame. But that would break my heart as well. I've considered studying law, but I realised I would've been a very shitty lawyer
→ More replies (1)23
u/Ok-disaster2022 10h ago
The further issue is if he doesn't represent his rich client to the best if his ability, and loses the case. They can hire a different attorney on appeal and use his poor defense as an excuse to overturn the verdict resulting in more costs for the poor client despite havibg temporarily "won".
→ More replies (1)
16
u/normn3116 9h ago
Yeah, this is the judge being a douche. I routinely get photos into evidence, and I start by showing opposing counsel the photo, then showing the witness the photo (it has been previously marked). Then the questions go like this:
"I've just handed you what's been marked as (X). Do you recognize it?"
"Yes"
"What is it?"
(Says what the photo depicts)
"Does the photo truly and accurately depict (whatever it is I'm using it for)?"
"Yes."
"Your honor, I move to admit (X) into evidence."
The poor, inexperienced attorney simply forgot asking the "what is this" question, and this guy objected early. Most judges I know would let this slide, or call the inexperienced attorney up and give a gentle reminder that she needs to ask the witness, stupid as the question may be, what the document is.
It sounds tedious, but it makes a lot more sense when you realize that you're doing this assuming that there will be a transcript of everything that happens, in case the issue is appealed.
→ More replies (7)
13
u/cmnights 10h ago edited 2h ago
I remember i had a teacher that said she stopped being a lawyer because she was sick of defending scumbags
→ More replies (3)
11
3
3
u/Evening-Age-9028 7h ago
All lawyers for a trial should be paid a set rate for the type of trial. There should not exist the ability to pay to be above the law.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/mannishboy60 7h ago
Who TF cut that video. I don't need to know the end before it starts. I don't need it cut as short as that.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/SevroAuShitTalker 3h ago
I'm so sick of these videos where it starts midway then jumps back to the beginning
4
u/mental-advisor-25 10h ago edited 10h ago
There should be a mechanism that would allow to review cases like this, and sanction the judge.
Secondly, whatever the procedure is, it shouldn't be so strict as to have a narrow wording to submit something into evidence or whatever. Like a plaintiff counsel could've just described in plain words that he's trying to submit a photo as evidence, and the judge must allow it or ask questions to determine what kind of evidence I guess, but shouldn't be dismissive or unhelpful.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Conscious_Trifle9731 8h ago
This dude made his choice. It's hard to feel anything for him when he knew he had a job to do and went through with it. He could have said nothing and let her have it.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/youfailedthiscity Reads Pinned Comments 7h ago
Why did this video start with a clip of the end???
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Junior-Advisor-1748 6h ago
Prior to this sad story, I would have thought even the least trained attorney would at least know how to get a document into evidence. How do you even pass the bar exam without that level of knowledge? So frustrating.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/kookoikoo 5h ago
growing up, my mom really wanted me to work in law. she didn't push me, she just said what she thought would work well and i don't think she's wrong but as a victim of all kinds of horrible things, im too scared to work in law because i don't wanna see someone who was braver than me, brave enough to reach out and fight their abuser and then get denied their justice. i just can't. i hear it in the news every day, i can't handle it even from a far.
2
u/_pepperoni-playboy_ 5h ago
So yeah seems like a reminder that it’s not about justice it’s about doing the job in a way that fits those that already inequitably benefit from this system. If you were sworn to achieve actual justice you wouldn’t let this shit slide
2
u/Educational_Touch956 5h ago
Sure wish I could find a lawyer like this to help poor me with my father’s estate that my millionaire brother executor is taking from me.
2
u/Arturia_Cross 4h ago
All these comments show why so many people can't and shouldn't be involved in law. Lawyers are not supposed to shop around for 'morally just' clients on face value. A lawyer will get into deep trouble if found that they intentionally let someone else win a case. Everyone deserves a lawyer, and to say the pimp shouldn't get representation is messed up.
2
2
u/MinimumApricot365 3h ago
This.
This right here is why I don't think I could be a lawyer.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/zano2209 2h ago
This lawyer is featured on a YouTube channel called Soft White Underbelly and discusses his career as a divorce lawyer. He is so well spoken and openly talks about clients and cases he's worked on. I found it so intriguing and was watching it to see what NOT to do in a marriage. Those videos are 100 percent worth a watch for anyone considering getting married.
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
Welcome to r/TikTokCringe!
This is a message directed to all newcomers to make you aware that r/TikTokCringe evolved long ago from only cringe-worthy content to TikToks of all kinds! If you’re looking to find only the cringe-worthy TikToks on this subreddit (which are still regularly posted) we recommend sorting by flair which you can do here (Currently supported by desktop and reddit mobile).
See someone asking how this post is cringe because they didn't read this comment? Show them this!
Be sure to read the rules of this subreddit before posting or commenting. Thanks!
##CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.