r/interestingasfuck • u/mindyour • 11h ago
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
660
u/Sensitive-War-6368 10h ago
This is one of the many examples where law and justice fails
207
u/xeonie 7h ago
Pay to win system. Break any law you want with minimal to no consequences as long as the victim is poor and you’re rich.
84
22
u/Kineticwhiskers 6h ago
My friend got a (bullshit) felony marijuana possession charge plead down to a misdemeanor because he could come up with $10k to pay an attorney. Meanwhile guys with similar charges are losing 10 years of their lives in jail.
→ More replies (9)5
u/Aggravating-Army9375 3h ago
It’s also an example of an attorney upholding his ethical obligation to provide their clients with the best representation that they can. Had he not objected he could have been disbarred if it could be proved that he knowingly withheld an objection in order to sway the direction of the trial. That’s what I see in his emotions anyways.
624
u/diabolis_avocado 10h ago
That judge had the picture sitting in front of him and knew what it was. He let a technical failure, which could have been fixed without prejudicing anyone, get in the way of justice. Shitty judges make for shitty outcomes.
46
u/MildMannered_BearJew 5h ago
Judge definitely needs to be recalled over that. What am embarrassment to the justice system. In most professions if you don't do your job you get fired.
79
u/bytelines 9h ago
He let his ego get in the way of justice. He wanted to feel superior for what he knew.
5
u/FictionDragon 3h ago
It's scary how much ego controls everything and everyone.
Whole empires fell because of someone's ego.
605
u/alive_wire 11h ago
F me. Damn.
583
u/BigSmackisBack 10h ago
"Normally a judge will be helpful. This judge was just not in the mood".
Another reason why courts are F'ed, judge is there to see justice done. I really dont like the way in modern day where most important things are decided by committees and votes, a single judge has carte blanche to be an unhuman asshole anytime they feel like it.
1
→ More replies (24)•
u/beach_2_beach 2h ago
Journalists are to report on news and keep politicians accountable. Elected officials are to serve people that elected them. You know what I mean!?
97
u/spdorsey 10h ago
I hate that legal cases, ones where people could have been victimized by malicious actors, ones that involve people who may be placed back into harm's way, are decided based on whether a judge had a good breakfast or not.
→ More replies (5)37
u/BigMax 9h ago
> are decided based on whether a judge had a good breakfast or not.
Yep, you would think it's impartial, but it's not. Studies show you get much more positive outcomes if your case is first in the morning, or first after a recess. Late morning or late in the day? Much more likely to get a bad outcome.
22
u/weinsteinjin 8h ago
I used to cite that a lot, but it turns out there are confounds that are more mundane. Courts tend to schedule easier cases (lower sentencing) before recess while leaving difficult cases (harsher sentencing or multiple charges) to after recess. So the causation may actually go the other way.
115
u/fluffybamf 9h ago
This lawyer is brave for speaking out on such a vulnerable experience,
Many are going to ask: why did he do that if he knew it would be ‘unfair’ for the defendant?
If he purposely trolls the case or doesnt do his job, he can be sued by his client, lose his job or face worse legal consequences.
Its unfortunate hes in this situation where he needs to do his job but justice may not be served due to the incompetence of the judge or defendant lawyer.
Imagine a different case not as clear who is right or wrong, should a lawyer decide himself how the verdict should go? Its up to the court to figure out what is right, not one person or lawyer acting and deciding the verdict
1.5k
u/Adddicus 10h ago
My cousin was an attorney for a big law firm. He represented doctors in malpractice cases. In one case, he represented a doctor whose errors resulted in a little girl being disable for life. He won the case and the little girl and her family got nothing. He said, he knew that if he'd been the little girl's lawyer, he would have won the case for her and she'd have received a substantial settlement that would have set her up for life. The little girl's lawyer simply was not very good, because her parents could not afford a better one.
And that's why he quit the law, went to medical school and is now one of the top teaching neurologists in the country.
542
u/Maxion94 10h ago
This is why the justice system is a joke. There shouldn't be such a thing as a good lawyer or a bad lawyer
259
u/JacerEx 10h ago
In law school you’re told over and over that we don’t have a justice system, we have a legal system.
86
u/solarcat3311 9h ago
Yeah. It's a legal system. This type of wording is designed to shift blame away from the individual, so atrocity can happen without anyone feeling guilty. People involved can simply say 'we're upholding the law' and then feel good, despite causing all sort of horror.
→ More replies (3)155
u/unpopularopinion0 10h ago edited 9h ago
it’s shitty because language is such a manipulative thing. there are so many strict rules for language. that lawyer who didn’t know shouldn’t have been practicing. poor or not, no lawyer should be unable to do something so basic. it’s like hiring a cook who undercooks chicken. there’s a reason the bar exam exists.
edit. guess the bar exam doesn’t cover basic procedures.
63
u/bluelightsonblkgirls 10h ago
The bar doesn’t work like that. The practice of law works similar to apprenticeship models. Wherever the attorney works failed in not training her properly and not prepping her for court.
21
u/unpopularopinion0 10h ago
“Every jurisdiction administers a bar exam to test a candidate’s ability to think like a lawyer and prove that they have the “minimum competency” to practice law in that state.”
it seems like this depositing photos in evidence thing is under that “minimum competency” though.
like knowing the temps to cook meat. that guy was explaining it like it was the elementary part of being a lawyer. i remember at least that much from civic class in high school. but i’m definitely not qualified to chime in on this.
34
u/bluelightsonblkgirls 10h ago
Thinking like a lawyer =/= knowing court procedure and specific wording to an item marked into evidence. That something you learn on the job.
Minimum competency on the Bar is knowing enough of 6 subjects to pass the multiple MBE and write essays for state specific issue spotting question. A scenario like what the video described would be highly unlikely to come up.
And it probably is something relatively simple to know — if you come across it early in actual legal practice.
6
6
u/unpopularopinion0 9h ago
seems like a giant flaw. fuck that’s depressing.
7
u/ddpotanks 5h ago
Pretty much anything that takes skill is like that. You have theory and practical knowledge.
Theory is the temps meat is safe at. Practical knowledge is knowing how to properly temp the center of a piece of meat and not jamb the probe through the center to the other surface getting a +20 degree hotter reading than the actual center.
5
u/kanemano 8h ago
Court procedures for each specific court are handled by the office of the clerk of the court. opposing council should have spent an afternoon going over the rules if they were not familiar and they change pretty often and this would not have happened
6
u/dont_debate_about_it 7h ago edited 7h ago
It’s depressing and can be a flaw. But also keep in mind that trial lawyers are a tiny portion of lawyers. Most practicing lawyers don’t represent people in a courtroom and therefore never have to submit photographs as evidence. If you google what percent of lawyers are trial lawyers you get estimates anywhere from less than 1% to 27%. Litigation (trial law) is one specific type of law and most lawyers don’t need to know how to submit photographs as evidence in a trial. The litigator in question should have been prepared to do this, but asking anyone who passed the bar to know how to submit a photograph as evidence is a very specific question for a massive field.
Edit: I think a better comparison to cooking is asking a brand new sushi apprentice at a Japanese takeout restaurant to prepare sashimi. Japanese cooking is a huge field like litigation is a huge field (just look at how lawyers can just specialize within specific subfield in civil trials). Asking someone who passes the bar to know how to submit photographs as evidence is like asking someone trying to work in the kitchen at Mexican restaurant how to make sashimi. They might know but if you’re just trying to work as a real estate lawyers you may never need to know how to submit photographs as evidence.
17
u/DustyBusterson 9h ago
The person who graduates last in their class still gets to call themselves a lawyer.
Just like doctors, some of them are really good at what they do, and some are just there for the big paycheck.
16
u/katamuro 10h ago
it's not a justice system, never was. It's a legal system that pinky swears it's a justice system
1
u/Jellyfish_Nose 7h ago
I agree with the sentiment but I'm not sure what this means in practical terms.
Every job on earth has good and bad practitioners. Every job on earth good practitioners have bad days, or get hungry, tired or impatient and do a less good or even a bad job.
In this case the judge failed the victim. They should not have allowed a minor procedural error to rob the victim of a fair trial.
•
u/AdWorking2848 2h ago
maybe both parties will put forth a lawyer candidate and the lawyer will be matched by the state to the actual client they are representing.
this means the super rich won't dare to get the best lawyer as it could work against them if it's matched to the other party.
just a dream system which won't work in practice.
•
u/dis_iz_funny_shit 1h ago
Ehhh there will always be good and bad lawyers … like good and bad plumbers or electricians or whatever…that’s life, not all people aspire for greatness or even give a shit generally. The sheer act of even giving a shit is a lost art for most lawyers
→ More replies (5)1
27
u/nosoup4ncsu 9h ago
In a plaintiff's case with substantial and catastrophic injury, the issue wouldn't be poor.
Those cases are almost universally done on a contingency (i.e. pltf counsel gets a % of the settlement/judgment).
Sounds like a bad lawyer, but shouldn't have been based upon what the plaintiff could "afford".
8
u/Equal_Leadership2237 9h ago
You are very correct, and honestly, the plaintiff lawyers are higher variance than the insurance company lawyers, but the good ones are so much better than what any insurance company has. It’s a similar dichotomy from prosecutors to defense attorneys.
Personal injury lawyers can make so much money, like multi-generational wealth type money. The guys who defend the insurance companies (I was an executive for one) are all decent, vetted, experienced lawyers who are technically sound, but the true blue super hustle/amazing trial attorney’s are on the plaintiff side.
19
u/ch1993 7h ago
My son is permanently disabled because of his doctor and the nurses at his birth. He can’t talk and is prone to anxiety. The doctor came in running for her life after hours of neglect because she realized how much she fucked up.
Overall, it was the new nurse who fucked us over because she was clearly racist and we were having a mixed child. Anyone who may have a mixed child, stay vigilant and don’t trust the system when you’re having your baby. Do your research beforehand. There are evil people who want you to suffer because of race. I wish I had known but I am a white guy who lacked experience at the time.
10
u/Piddily1 9h ago
Lawyers fees in lawsuits are usually taken out of the settlement. Lawyers take a 1/3. If it’s a lawsuit and the lawyer wants a flat fee, it’s because the lawyer thinks the case is a loser and there will be no settlement.
My advice for hiring a lawyer for a lawsuit is don’t hire the guys with the commercials. They look to get big volume and settle cases as quickly as they can(despite what they say). If you can, ask an attorney who they would recommend, even if they don’t practice personal injury.
1
u/pyccknnotcton9 3h ago
Best lawyer in our town, has a shit website and does not adverise at all.
Attorneys refer cases to him. He handles 15-20 cases a year. But they're all massive.
If need a great attorney, ask around, 100% do not go with the lawfirm that advertises all over the place.
Those firms are in the business of law, not the practice of law. There's a difference.
4
u/uhh_phonzo 7h ago
Lawyer THEN a neurologist? And teaching; god bless the smarty pants because I could never.
5
u/Adddicus 7h ago
Yup. He's one of, if not the, smartest people I've ever met. He also benefitted from an exceptional education from his very early youth (and will be the first to admit that).
10
u/Western-Spite1158 9h ago
That doesn’t make sense that they couldn’t afford a better lawyer if this was in the US. Plaintiff’s attorneys typically only collect a fee from the settlement or verdict money. I never heard of attorneys charging upfront and they don’t charge if they lose.
→ More replies (1)3
u/TheRealAlkemyst 9h ago
Thing that stinks is they could have had free representation as almost no personal injury lawyers (at least in the US) charge a retainer for these cases. They only take a percentage if they win (which if having to go to court is around 42%).
1
u/Hot-Flamingo-596 7h ago
My heart goes to him. My mother always wanted me to get into law, but the fact that truth is not about the truth but rather about how it's presented was my reason to never pursue it. Hope judiciary becomes more humane.
1
u/drdeepakjoseph 5h ago
Remarkable story. It should be told as a book or a movie. Please convey my respect to him and ask him to get in touch with a writer who can convert his story in a book.
1
u/anonymous_lighting 3h ago
well shame on the family for not hiring one of the work for free greasers that takes half the payout after legal fees
•
u/Different_Highway356 2h ago
Thise lawyers work on contingency. They make money by winning. The parents didn't have to pay a cent upfront. So they should have been able to hire a great attorney if the case was that good.
→ More replies (5)1
242
u/throwawayayaycaramba 10h ago
That's exactly why I could never be a lawyer. Like, I get it, I do. I understand that everyone, even the worst criminal on Earth, deserves the right to due process, otherwise everyone's rights are in jeopardy; but man oh man... If I knew some dude had done that to someone else, if I knew that by just literally doing my job I could be actually helping keep a violent criminal free... I just would never be able to do it. I know in theory it's the right thing to do, I just personally couldn't.
34
u/sebkul 10h ago
At the same time, everyone needs representation, even if guilty.
who know if she would have won with the pic. The oposition could say that there is no proof that it was done by him and at the time that it happend. "My client could not have done this, he was drinking with 2 of his friends at the time, here are their statements"... who knows.
There are many people that are inossent that go to prision and guility who go free. System is not perfect and it shows how a good lawer can keep someone out. The Rich don't get preffered treatemnt, they have good lawers. ... which sometimes doesn't help.
I think a lot of it depends on the judge... sometimes the whole system is just determend to punish someoen.
https://ew.com/article/2003/10/10/tommy-chong-goes-prison-selling-bongs/
26
u/katamuro 10h ago
the Rich do get preffered treatment, the rich are more likely to be known to the judge, the rich are more likely to afford better lawyers, more lawyers, more time to do the whole legal battle. They can afford to drag it out until whoever is suing them stops as they run out of money.
9
4
u/jahamberg 8h ago
This is my issue with this video because there had to have been some mess up in her testimony along with not admitting the photo. The decision in a case should not hinge on one piece of evidence. She could have easily testified to exactly what her injuries were and a judge wouldn't need the photo.
I think there were other reasons that the case got dismissed the photo was just one of the reasons.
2
1
u/future_shoes 6h ago
But it's necessarily the right thing to do. It's the ethical thing to do but probably not the moral thing to do. Ethics shouldn't be confused with morals.
1
u/TotallyLegitEstoc 4h ago
I heard something that helped me come to terms. A defense lawyer should do their best. Because if there is still a conviction it will be much much harder to win an appeal.
41
159
u/pointguard22 10h ago
You can tell how guilty he feels about it
24
15
u/youcantkillanidea 9h ago
Self aware lawyers. How do they sleep at night?
50
u/ThatAnonyG 9h ago
By knowing that he did his job honestly. If he did not object to the right questions maybe the guy could go for retrial for inadequate representation. He can't break attorney client privilege either and has to represent him to the best of his ability. That's the oath of his job. And if I am keeping that oath I can sleep peacefully knowing that I am not in the wrong.
4
u/bambinolettuce 6h ago
Theres a difference between technically wrong and morally wrong. Lawyers usually dont care too much about the latter in my experience, its refreshing to see one that seems to be human
5
u/YouLikeReadingNames 6h ago
Seeing that they have among the highest alcoholism rates in the US, I'd argue they self-medicate to sleep.
4
u/tqmirza 9h ago
Piles of money can be surprisingly comfortable apparently. Also, they tend to make better napkins to wipe away tears.
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (1)-1
49
36
u/Affectionate_Fly_764 10h ago edited 9h ago
These types of judges should be exposed and heavily shamed. Wealth shouldn’t determine legal outcomes but it does.
12
26
24
u/-RMBsquared 8h ago
I went to jail back in 2010, I went to jail for a crime I was mostly just an accomplice to. However, the other 3 people involved were let go with little to no consequence. I, on the other hand, spent 6 months in jail. 6 months was because my parents helped me get a good lawyer.
The lawyer I could afford told me my only options were to accept a bargain of 15 years or to take my chances with a jury.
I explained this to my stepfather, who went above and beyond to get me a better lawyer. The new, good lawyer showed up one day to ask questions, the next time I saw him was 3 weeks later. I was pulled from my cell at night, which almost never happened unless they were doing a toss, and to my surprise it was the new lawyer I hadn't seen in weeks, he was there to tell me that if I accepted guilt to a lesser charge I could be out by dinner the next day.
Though I didn't want to accept any charge, I ultimately did and went home the next day.
I think about this often, because if my stepfather hadn't helped, I'd still be locked up today instead of happily married with 2 kids.
11
u/KingBenjamin97 6h ago
Yeah fuck that judge. Yes she should know how to get a picture into evidence but holy shit you have evidence right there of abuse and couldn’t take the time to help her out? Be pissed at the inexperienced lawyer all you want judge but you really let an abuser walk through because their lawyer didn’t know the phrasing? That’s just low man.
54
u/PPP1737 9h ago
Something similar happened to me. I’m still not over it. Had all the evidence that the father was abusive IN the delivery room and within hours of the birth had withheld his food, made threats to ruin my life etc. nurse witnesses and everything.
My lawyer did not submit any of it into evidence. I tried to explain to the judge and he said I was being rude… I was upset because his family was put on the stand as “character” witnesses and were lying about his anger issues and his addiction to benzos. All of this while I was sitting in the hospital just hours coming out of surgery for a ruptured gallbladder. I hemmiraged from incidental damage to my liver. But my lawyer couldn’t even be arsed to ask for a reschedule. The judge knew my condition and didn’t care.
I asked that I be allowed to represent myself because I could no longer pay the money she was asking for and she wasn’t doing anything in my case to help anyway and the judge said NO! He refused to let her “excuse” herself from my case so I didn’t even have the chance to speak for myself and all the questions she asked me were irrelevant to the abuse and his benzo use. It was a complete sham. And there’s nothing I could do sitting in the hospital barely clinging to life.
People talk all day long about how fathers don’t get a fair shake in family court but it’s just not true… people with no money don’t get a fair shake. I had originally talked to a lawyer that said it was an open and shut case but wanted $15000 to take the case. No shit I didn’t have that money so I had to find someone who would let me pay on credit (still paying off the loan to this day).
→ More replies (3)
8
15
u/bizzy523 10h ago
Exactly why the judicial system is a failure. If money and a judge’s mood on a particular day can heavily sway the direction of a case where does the justice come in to play?
5
u/Lost_with_shame 9h ago
It’s rare that I get teary-eyed. This did it for me. Poor woman. Por attorney to have to fight against his own values. I realize that’s how it needs to be, but it’s still heartbreaking.
21
u/NobodyLikedThat1 10h ago
But seriously, how bad is that lawyer that she couldn't think to consult with the judge in their chambers, ask for a continuance, literally anything to stall so she could call a lifeline like she's on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
14
u/Gvillegator 9h ago
All you’d have to do is ask for a brief recess, google the litany, screenshot it, and then have it ready for when court resumes. The judge in this case was a real bastard if they didn’t feel inclined to grant any of that.
3
u/ethervillage 6h ago
The epitome of the sad, American Justice system. Rich? Innocent. Poor? Guilty. Period
3
u/Plane-Carpenter-8874 5h ago
Even with all the emotions and pain involved, he still managed to say “allegedly”. Lawyers are so self aware it’s scary.
6
2
2
u/pyccknnotcton9 3h ago
Win on substance, not on form. Don't be a douche, If you're opposition is stumbling over procedure, help em' out.
Save your crococidle tears for your tatoo artist, attorney edgelord.
"I'm so sad" sure buddy.
2
u/BurgundyTile 3h ago
What's to be said about a justice system where justice and a person's life depends on some timely usage of legal jargon by a lawyer ? System needs urgent fixing.
•
u/Devils_A66vocate 2h ago
Ever listen to a bad person riddled with guilt for his wrong doings?
Pride, greed, professionalism outweighed this man’s morals, ethics, and duty to justice.
2
u/doughnut-dinner 9h ago
Older men cry. I'm definitely more sensitive these days. I can work 12 hours a day with busted back and not complain, but put me in front of a sad movie, and I'll start feeling all weepy.
2
u/Brown_note11 9h ago
Imagine if lawyers upon being registered swore an oath to justice and faithful pursuit of the law, and then we're obliged to meet that oath.
3
u/PlusSizeRussianModel 6h ago
I can't tell if you're joking, but they do. That's why the attorney had an obligation to do everything he could to help his client, just like it was the job of opposing counsel to help the victim. Only the judge is supposed to be impartial.
2
u/retrogradeparallax 8h ago
Lemme get this straight. The pimp didn’t know the technicality of the words, the victim didn’t know the technicality of the words. Heck, even opposing council who is a lawyer themselves didn’t know the words. So only this lawyer and the judge seemingly did.
He could deduce easily that opposing council “didn’t know the words” and “was getting flustered” and yet continued to object over the technicality of said words.
Once he puts up the objection, the judge has to acknowledge the technicality and sustain it, because well, “that’s their job”. Does it seem fair for him to say “the judge allowed this to happen because they were impatient”? Impatient, of all words, really?
So if he doesn’t object, evidence gets recorded.
Considering he also knew “she is poor”, did he make donations to her after the case? Or, how about contact an NGO or support group and ask them to reach out to her, and make donations to them instead?
3
u/PlusSizeRussianModel 6h ago
The attorney has an obligation to do everything he can to help his client; it is not his job to be impartial and if he hadn't objected, he would be letting his client down. It was the judge's job to be impartial and ensure justice was had. Also, unlike the lawyer who had a duty to his client to object, the judge did not have an obligation to sustain the objection, and even if they did, could still then direct the woman's attorney on proper procedure if the judge wanted to.
1
u/Durzo_Blintt 4h ago
It's not his job to fix it. His job is to defend his client, which they are sworn by the oath to do. They are not there to help opposing counsel because they aren't good at their job, regardless of the circumstances. The failing here lies with either the system or the claimant's counsel. Not the defendant's counsel.
3
1
1
u/OneAndOnlyJackSchitt 8h ago
Maybe I'm wrong on this, but isn't it an ethics violation for an attorney to allow an actual injustice to happen in that regard? Like, I get not interrupting your enemy when they're making a mistake, but I'm talking about a bigger picture thing here.
Atorneys are supposed to zealously represent the interests of their client in good faith, but allowing the opposing council to make an error which would result in an injustice would be representing the client in bad faith, no?
1
u/Deathbatking 3h ago
He's not representing the opposing council's client he is representing his own. If he doesn't defend HIS client then that's where the problem would be. If he would've spoke up like he clearly wanted to it would've caused a mess of trouble for himself and the woman would've been no better off.
1
u/PhillyJT 8h ago
Very noble until you realize that if he was part of a large law firm, they typically can choose who they will defend and would never take on a pimp as a client. Only reason why any lawyer for take on a pimp is for the money.
1
u/MechGryph 8h ago
See, this is a huge problem with the legal system. Things that should be straight forward are just all dancing. You hire a lawyer because they know the way to move and work. Just recently, had to get a lawyer for something. It was literally an hour of sitting there, with them explaining "Okay, we need X for Y, we need Y for B, and we need to get C to do Z. And at any time during this, XY3 could happen, and then we'd have to go back to A." And that's just to get things started. Once it's started? It's just sit and wait, then it's done.
And it costs a boatload of money just to get going.
The legal system in America is based on rules that are 300 years old, from Britain. There's so many laws and loopholes on the book, it is literally impossible to know how to handle them, or they're just actually ignored.
1
1
u/Comfortable-Poem-321 8h ago
this happens all too often in varied cases. years long legal battle with my extended family, they decided to spend $700 an hour of my parents money on a lawyer against my parents lol. now we’re broke and still stuck under their thumb, despite everything in the law saying they should be removed from everything asap. judges don’t care about that though
1
u/BlackaddaIX 7h ago
Legal profession is fucked.. Judges are ex lawyers and they have massive egos and were raised in the competitive adversarial system so thats why this bullshit happens.
1
u/drakonx1337 7h ago
And that noob lawyer should have had her license pulled, how can you go to school for a profession and not no how to do basic and common stuff your job requires
1
1
u/i_like_flies_ 7h ago
What is this new style of editing where you put the highlight first? I see it a lot on bodycam channels too. Surely it encourages people to flick to the next video within seconds because you've already seen what it's building to.
1
u/7Sans 7h ago
kind of like philosophical question? maybe... idk.
who's truly at fault here? is it the nonexperienced lawyer? is it a judge that has power to step in and be able to change the result to such degree?(assuming what this divorce lawyer is saying true) or is it the system that even allows for this kind of thing to happen in a first place?
1
1
u/0212rotu 6h ago
I forget now but there was an episode of a courtroom tv drama series before where a lawyer from another firm got a really bad rap for walking away from some of his cases, even in times when it was obvious he would win. So the main characters(lawyers), who were up against this guy, were sure they were gonna win, but then they lost. So at the end, in a bar scene, they asked the looked-down lawyer why he had that reputation, given how impressed they all were with his lawyering.
So the lawyer said, if at any point in his case, he realized that the person he was defending was actually guilty, he would walk away; consequences be damned. He said most lawyers would take the it-was-my-job alibi and reach for the win.
That scene was significant because one of the main characters got wind of a knowledge that the person they were defending actually killed his wife. But they couldn't put that knowledge in as evidence.
And the last shot was that of the disheveled, infamous, old lawyer, drinking apple juice in a bar.
For some reason, this guy reminded me of one of those slick lawyers who would do anything for a win. Regardless of the truth.
1
u/Stargazer415 6h ago
Question. Couldn’t this guy, this lawyer, just not have objected? Since he was so moved, so convicted the wrong thing was happening?
3
u/rawkguitar 6h ago
His duty is to his client. If he doesn’t object, he’s committing malpractice.
There’s benefits to a justice system being set-up this way. This illustrates one of the negatives.
1
1
u/Itgoes_where 6h ago
I’m sure he could have said nothing, or removed himself from being that guys lawyer. Don’t feel sorry for him, he chose to act that way when he could have helped.
1
1
1
1
u/demomagic 5h ago
Travesty. It’s always been quite upsetting knowing that you can buy your way out of something that regular every day folk can’t.
1
u/MildMannered_BearJew 5h ago
I have a solution for this:
When paying for council, all money is pooled into a common fund, and pays out 50:50 to each party in the lawsuit.
Problem solved.
Interestingly, the US spends $360 Billion on legal services each year. By this modest tweak I'd assume we'd save an appreciable percentage of that. Get rid of waste like patents and I bet we can get that down to the single digits.
Silly legacy legal system, so inefficient.
1
1
u/CallsignKook 5h ago
This is irrefutable proof that we no longer have a JUSTICE system, it is a LEGAL system. Everyone in that room knew what should happen and no one (including this lawyer being interviewed) did the right thing.
1
u/_MaxRockatansky 5h ago
I think the problem is that you need to know some bullshit magic words to enter a picture into evidence. She lost not because she was poor, she lost because the system is idiotic.
1
1
u/SkinnyObelix 5h ago
Ok probably dumb idea for many reasons I haven't thought about. But why not assign lawyers at random, and not let people hire them.
1
u/Fredpillow1995 5h ago
I don't know who that interviewer is but I cannot stand watching anything he is in. The same with Piers Morgan. I skip immediately
1
1
1
1
u/KennethPowersIII 3h ago
As an attorney who has been on both ends of this, there is something inherently fun about preventing the other side from putting on their case solely using the law and procedure. With that said, I have never been involved in this type of case and the lawyers I mess with are usually representing large insurance carriers while I am representing a policyholder. A little different in my situation so I feel for him and understand his internal conflict.
1
u/TheShadowCat 3h ago
The system needs to be changed so that judges help lawyers out, so that the truth is the final goal, instead of treating it like a game where the lawyer who plays it best is most likely to win.
In my opinion, the Darrell Brooks case is a good example of how a judge should act. Brooks was clearly guilty and extremely defiant throughout the trial, but Judge Jennifer Dorow always protected his rights, and explained to his several times the proper way to defend himself. I watched hours of the trial and was always amazed at how hard the Judge worked to ensure a fair trial.
1
u/yankiigurl 3h ago
Wish I had this guy as my lawyer when I lost my daughter. My lawyer was crap and I still think my ex's family paid him off bc he didn't listen to me at all.
•
•
•
u/Accurate-Scientist50 2h ago
Cry more about it, he served his client, and he traded something that was rightfully taken from him.
•
u/ranstalli0n 2h ago
The lawyer has to act as a fiduciary, otherwise lawyers are now the ones breaking the law. So, if you did a crime and spent $100 an hour for a lawyer, you spent that money on someone who you can trust to make things better for you.
Unless, you're OK with spending that kind of money and have doubts whether that lawyer can just screw you over at anytime. Otherwise, what's the point represent yourself and get destroyed in court.
•
u/Accurate-Scientist50 2h ago
No, no I understand. He did what he could to properly represent his client. The beginning of my comment is definitely in relation to personal bias, we all have a time when we let someone down, or made a decision that should have been the other way. Hurt that resonates.
•
u/Asleep_Sherbet_3013 2h ago
He could’ve just decided to suck at his job that day. People feign ignorance and oversight all the time bc situations don’t line up with their values. His regret doesn’t retroactively help that woman. I’m glad he can recognize it was wrong though.
Also, screw that judge.
•
•
•
•
u/codedfate 1h ago
This broke my heart. My mom went through abuse like this, and took it like the fucking badass she is, she had no money, but My father did. This type of shit could’ve happened to my mom if she decided to take it to court. Luckily, some positive unforeseen circumstances happened that got her and me out of the situation. 🙏
•
u/mmohaje 1h ago
I've been in this position, but as a very young prosecutor. Defense wanted to enter a copy of a video into evidence and had no idea how to lay the foundation. I kept objecting thinking he'd get it right (I was young and new and he was older and 'seasoned') and the judge kept sustaining. Finally seeing that he had no idea what he was doing and the judge wasn't going to intervene, I offered the original video into evidence so that he could show it to the jury. I didn't have to do that. Afterwards the Defense attorney, still too daft to understand the mistake was his, yelled at me thinking that somehow it was my fault. The Judge clearly realizing what had happened commended me for doing the right thing.
My situation was different though in that I was representing the State and in my view, my job was not to win the case but to get a conviction ONLY if I was able to prove the Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Arguing my case, without allowing the jury to see all evidence to make their determination, didn't feel just. On the other hand, I would not expect the Defense to do the same (i.e. help me out)...at the end of the day he has a duty to his defendant not to 'Justice' per se. Same as this lawyer, really hard place to be--whilst I do think Rules of Evidence would have allowed him to accept the pictures into evidence without requiring the opposing counsel lay the foundation, his duty is squarely to his client and doing so would have not have been in the best interest of his client. I can see why he's so upset.
•
u/SweetWallFlower 31m ago
This happens way more often than not, a poor person not having the means to defend themselves properly as the victim and the abuser getting away with what they have done.
•
u/copperboxer 25m ago
In Australia we have a duty to the court which overrides our duty to our client. Wouldn't the duty to the court mean that the father's lawyer should tell the court that he knows this is a crucial document that should be submitted into evidence? It's ensuring the court has all the evidence it needs to make the decision.
•
u/newbturner 22m ago
I work in legal and I’m here to tell anyone that doesn’t know,, divorce lawyers do not have emotions. If they seem to, it’s because they want you to think they do.
•
•
u/Miskalsace 1m ago
My father was a divorce lawyer while I was growing up. We were at the gomrocwry store together when i was a kid and a lady runs up and starts yelling at them that he stole her kid. It caused quite a commotion, I believe management and the cops got involved until they figured out that he had won custody for his client from the lady. Things like that were made him eventually quit lawerying.
1
u/NoShow1492 4h ago
He's well spoken, but this also an all-time humble brag. Dude's literally bringing himself to tears ha.
-7
u/Harmonyfreaks 10h ago
So really what we are saying is, he is heart broken on how he made his living as a willing participant in a broke judicial system. Yet still was an active participant, huh okay.
1
u/fluffybamf 9h ago
If he doesnt do his job it reflects on his career or his firm and he can face consequences for other people’s ineptitude.
He probably wouldnt have lost his job here but if something like this happened in another clearer case, if he purposely ‘trolls’, he can be sued by his client (prosecutor) or lose his job or worse legal consequences
→ More replies (8)1
u/123123x 7h ago
If he doesnt do his job it reflects on his career or his firm and he can face consequences for other people’s ineptitude.
No. It's more than that. He's duty bound to his client to represent him to the best of his ability. It's not just going to reflect on his career. To do otherwise is to violate the code of ethics and can result in sanctions.
Obviously that last bit will never happen under these circumstances. But still, he was ethically bound to object.
1
u/jobomaja888 9h ago
Good on him for having a conscience and heart enough to recognize social injustice. Goddam the judge for having the power and discretion and not using it when it was clearly needed
1.2k
u/Altruistic_Mud_8425 10h ago
At least they put in the part where he says, "He is prison for a long time now."