Wasn't this clear jurisdiction issues?

[tigger22472]

What is the name of your state? Doesn't really matter but this deals with Alabama...

I just finished reading this article http://www.theindychannel.com/news/9631712/detail.html about Natalie Holloway's mother filing suit in Alabama and it being rejected.

Now, here's my legal question....

Isn't this a clear cut jurisdictional case anyway? Why or shall I say how could any lawyer even be allowed to file (let alone allow the mother to believe it could be done) a case against someone in another country for an act that allegedly happened in another country?

This article goes on about how her mother is crushed the judge rejected the case and I'm sitting here thinking... well duh!

 

[Ohiogal]

Its clear to me.

 

[tigger22472]

Its clear to me.

Ok.. with that said I guess the next question is has the lawyer done anything unethical here? You would think after taking a course in Legal Ethics I would surely know that answer myself but I'm unsure I've ever seen something as clear as this.

I mean:

A) Conceivably the attorney took her money to file a case in which he obviously had to know was going to be rejected on this issue. Hello, jurisdictions and SOLs are the #1 rule

and

B) He obviously allowed her to believe it would be heard. This might be weak considering there are attorney's out there that do get client's hopes up unrealistically, however, again this attorney should have known better IMO.

 

[JETX]

What EXACTLY is your involvement in this case??

 

[tigger22472]

What EXACTLY is your involvement in this case??

HUH? I don't have an involvement. I was simply asking a legal question.

 

[seniorjudge]

HUH? I don't have an involvement. I was simply asking a legal question.

Lawyers have been known to file frivolous lawsuits; it happens thousands of times a day (I suspect).

 

[Ohiogal]

Ok.. with that said I guess the next question is has the lawyer done anything unethical here? You would think after taking a course in Legal Ethics I would surely know that answer myself but I'm unsure I've ever seen something as clear as this.

I mean:

A) Conceivably the attorney took her money to file a case in which he obviously had to know was going to be rejected on this issue. Hello, jurisdictions and SOLs are the #1 rule

and

B) He obviously allowed her to believe it would be heard. This might be weak considering there are attorney's out there that do get client's hopes up unrealistically, however, again this attorney should have known better IMO.

Well he may not have taken money. It may have been on a contingency basis depending what exactly the claim was. He should have known but as Seniorjudge stated lawyers file frivolous lawsuits every day.

 

[weenor]

You just don't know the number of stupid/frivolous cases I have to defend everyday. I scratch my head and go on. Practicing law is not brain surgery and this is a fact proven everyday in this state.

 

[tigger22472]

You just don't know the number of stupid/frivolous cases I have to defend everyday. I scratch my head and go on. Practicing law is not brain surgery and this is a fact proven everyday in this state.

Well I understand that frivolous cases are filed quite often and must be determined to be frivolous and I agree that this COULD have been on a contingency situation, but I guess what just blows my mind is that anyone ever thought this was possible at all. I mean anyone that knows anything about law knows the first two things the court will look at before even considering a case is jurisdiction and SOLs so this case was dead in the water before it hit the judge's desk.

This being the high profile case that it is I suspect there are several people out there ready to attempt to cash in on it for their 15 minutes of fame. Everytime someone tells these parents they have a 'chance' of doing something, they are giving them hope.. and in this situation it just seemed cruel IMO.

 

[weenor]

Well I understand that frivolous cases are filed quite often and must be determined to be frivolous and I agree that this COULD have been on a contingency situation, but I guess what just blows my mind is that anyone ever thought this was possible at all. I mean anyone that knows anything about law knows the first two things the court will look at before even considering a case is jurisdiction and SOLs so this case was dead in the water before it hit the judge's desk.

This being the high profile case that it is I suspect there are several people out there ready to attempt to cash in on it for their 15 minutes of fame. Everytime someone tells these parents they have a 'chance' of doing something, they are giving them hope.. and in this situation it just seemed cruel IMO.

Under most circumstances I would agree, but bare in mind that Beth Holloway's husband is an attorney, so she isn't the typical person off the street given false hope

 

[tigger22472]

Under most circumstances I would agree, but bare in mind that Beth Holloway's husband is an attorney, so she isn't the typical person off the street given false hope

Really? I guess I have not paid enough attention to the situation. That to me does make a difference in a sense. The article makes no mention of that.. Only that she was 'crushed' indicating that she believed this to be a valid avenue. Seeing as her husband is an attorney, I don't see that being the case. Thanks!