• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Under the Influence, no objection to claim

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

gjbrennan

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

Regarding Polk County Iowa:
As it relates to legal malpractice: What is 'timely' and what are the proper procedures?

Judgment granted by court assessing me (Def.) the plaintiffs 'lost wages' for his taking time off to attend defendant's deposition. Plaintiff's attendance was not required, only optional on his part.

Several issues:

Failure of my attorney to object to plaintiff's claim for lost wages and other costs and his further compounding the problem by not protecting my interests in an action to appeal said judgment.
I did not receive any notice to appear at the court hearing during which said judgment was granted and, when questioned, my attorney claimed that I'd received notice of the hearing. I explained that I hadn't and he failed to provide evidence a notice was ever sent to me.

Tangentially, my attorney knew of my anxiety related to the lawsuit and deposition. He also knew that at my deposition, I arrived after taking three doses of my anti-anxiety medication. Then, I find out that because of that alone, being known to him, he should have had the deposition rescheduled.
Finely, should the courts and public record related to said deposition be quashed?
 


Hot Topic

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Iowa

Regarding Polk County Iowa:
As it relates to legal malpractice: What is 'timely' and what are the proper procedures?

Judgment granted by court assessing me (Def.) the plaintiffs 'lost wages' for his taking time off to attend defendant's deposition. Plaintiff's attendance was not required, only optional on his part.

Several issues:

Failure of my attorney to object to plaintiff's claim for lost wages and other costs and his further compounding the problem by not protecting my interests in an action to appeal said judgment.
I did not receive any notice to appear at the court hearing during which said judgment was granted and, when questioned, my attorney claimed that I'd received notice of the hearing. I explained that I hadn't and he failed to provide evidence a notice was ever sent to me.

Tangentially, my attorney knew of my anxiety related to the lawsuit and deposition. He also knew that at my deposition, I arrived after taking three doses of my anti-anxiety medication. Then, I find out that because of that alone, being known to him, he should have had the deposition rescheduled.
Finely, should the courts and public record related to said deposition be quashed?
Most people are anxious when it comes to lawsuits and depositions. You made the decision to take three doses of your anti-anxiety medication, not the attorney. Did you call your doctor beforehand to see what effect the doses might have on you? Seems that the attorney is "innocent" here. And no, since you took the doses, which apparently resulted in a less than satisfactory conclusion for your case, there's no reason for the deposition to be quashed.
 

gjbrennan

Junior Member
Respond

I spoke to my doctor about it in a subsequent appointment wherein I complained about memory lapses. The directions for taking the medicine was subject to interpretation, as in, Take three times a day as needed.
 

sandyclaus

Senior Member
I spoke to my doctor about it in a subsequent appointment wherein I complained about memory lapses. The directions for taking the medicine was subject to interpretation, as in, Take three times a day as needed.
Actually, I'm fairly sure that the misinterpretation of the medication dosage instructions was your own. "Take 3 times a day as needed" implies 3 doses taken 8 hours apart (for a full 24-hour day). I seriously doubt that it meant to take 3 doses all at once, or over a less than 24-hour time period, such that it so significantly impaired your ability to think clearly. If it was intended to be taken more frequently than once every 8 hours, then the instructions would have been more like "take every x hours but no more than 3 times a day as needed".
 

swalsh411

Senior Member
So necessary court business should be rescheduled because you chose to overdose? So all those other people should have their schedule re-arranged because you chose to make yourself intoxicated? Really? :rolleyes:
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top