What is the name of your state? KY
Before I ask my question, I would request no smart alec answers please. If its not constructive, I'd rather not hear from you. Also, please no answers stating get a lawyer. With that said, thanks.
I am asking on behalf of two people who had an attorney. They had a large case against three defendants, and they started pro-se. They did alot of work and apparently the other defense attorneys appeared impressed. As time moved closer to the possiblity of trial, they hired an attorney. This attorney claimed to be agressive, not afraid of work, and that she thought that she would have a settlement before the end of summer (2004). Once she took the case, she did depose one of the defendants, who was the main one. Then the two plaintiffs were deposed.
Because the plaintiffs attorney had done something inappropriate to one of the main material witnesses, she was afraid (literally) to talk to her and refused to depose her or talk to her before trial. Aside from the depositions, the attorney didn't do anything else even though at mediation, the mediation judge pointed out to her that she was lacking in work. When the plaintiffs tried to contact her with questions or concerns, she would not call back, failed to answer letters or email, and once even went off on one of the plaintiffs in writing because he had asked her to send him copies of any documents exchanges between counsel.
The plaintiffs were made aware that one of the defense atty, which was working for the city that they live in had made some threats against her, but she said that it didn't faze her. However, she would not discuss what was said as it related to their case.
There was a counter claim against them by one of the defendants. The defendant admitted in depositions that she never had any evidence and didn't even know, when questioned, what the basis of her own claim was. The plaintiffs asked their lawyer to ask for summary judgment. SHe said that she would. That was in June of 2004. By the time that she did so, it was March 2005.
Because the lawyer refused to do anything with the case as far as asking for a settlement or showing the plaintiffs any demand letter, the case went to trial. It was dismissed in a directive verdict, because even though there was a video tape to support the defendants illegal action, it couldn't be introduced because the atty didn't subpoena the witness who took it. In fact, she didn't subpoena ANY witnesses, and none showed up except for the one she had been afraid to talk to. Since there were no witnesses subpoena'd, she couldn't introduce medical records, video tapes, city records. The jury however, when told that the case was dismissed all expressed that they felt the defendants were guilty as they had been caught lying on the stand.
The plaintiffs realize that they should pursue a malpractice claim. However, they wish to get the original case handled. They have just found out that their attorney was aware of some foul conduct on the defendants part. It seems that one defendant acted pro-se and the judge allowed outrageous leeway for her. The problem is that the atty for the city, who by the way was supposed to be pursuing a claim against this defendant on behalf of the city, was acting in another court as her atty. He was defending her for one of the same things he was supposed to be prosecuting her on. He was careful to make sure that as her defense, he did not put his name on any official documents, but he couldn't avoid the tape. Someone turned it over to the plaintiffs atty, but she never brought it to the attention to the judge. In essence, the defendant claimed to be pro-se, but she was piggybacking on the city's atty since he was acting as her private counsel during the same time. The plaintiffs are now suspicious that their atty made some covert deal with the city because she was threatened, and it affected their case. Their atty never told them about the misconduct. They found out after the directed verdict from the one witness who showed up.
Can the plaintiffs file a motion for a new trial based on this or do they have to settle for finding a basis to appeal? Needless to say, this experience has made them wary of attys.
Thanks for any responses.
Before I ask my question, I would request no smart alec answers please. If its not constructive, I'd rather not hear from you. Also, please no answers stating get a lawyer. With that said, thanks.
I am asking on behalf of two people who had an attorney. They had a large case against three defendants, and they started pro-se. They did alot of work and apparently the other defense attorneys appeared impressed. As time moved closer to the possiblity of trial, they hired an attorney. This attorney claimed to be agressive, not afraid of work, and that she thought that she would have a settlement before the end of summer (2004). Once she took the case, she did depose one of the defendants, who was the main one. Then the two plaintiffs were deposed.
Because the plaintiffs attorney had done something inappropriate to one of the main material witnesses, she was afraid (literally) to talk to her and refused to depose her or talk to her before trial. Aside from the depositions, the attorney didn't do anything else even though at mediation, the mediation judge pointed out to her that she was lacking in work. When the plaintiffs tried to contact her with questions or concerns, she would not call back, failed to answer letters or email, and once even went off on one of the plaintiffs in writing because he had asked her to send him copies of any documents exchanges between counsel.
The plaintiffs were made aware that one of the defense atty, which was working for the city that they live in had made some threats against her, but she said that it didn't faze her. However, she would not discuss what was said as it related to their case.
There was a counter claim against them by one of the defendants. The defendant admitted in depositions that she never had any evidence and didn't even know, when questioned, what the basis of her own claim was. The plaintiffs asked their lawyer to ask for summary judgment. SHe said that she would. That was in June of 2004. By the time that she did so, it was March 2005.
Because the lawyer refused to do anything with the case as far as asking for a settlement or showing the plaintiffs any demand letter, the case went to trial. It was dismissed in a directive verdict, because even though there was a video tape to support the defendants illegal action, it couldn't be introduced because the atty didn't subpoena the witness who took it. In fact, she didn't subpoena ANY witnesses, and none showed up except for the one she had been afraid to talk to. Since there were no witnesses subpoena'd, she couldn't introduce medical records, video tapes, city records. The jury however, when told that the case was dismissed all expressed that they felt the defendants were guilty as they had been caught lying on the stand.
The plaintiffs realize that they should pursue a malpractice claim. However, they wish to get the original case handled. They have just found out that their attorney was aware of some foul conduct on the defendants part. It seems that one defendant acted pro-se and the judge allowed outrageous leeway for her. The problem is that the atty for the city, who by the way was supposed to be pursuing a claim against this defendant on behalf of the city, was acting in another court as her atty. He was defending her for one of the same things he was supposed to be prosecuting her on. He was careful to make sure that as her defense, he did not put his name on any official documents, but he couldn't avoid the tape. Someone turned it over to the plaintiffs atty, but she never brought it to the attention to the judge. In essence, the defendant claimed to be pro-se, but she was piggybacking on the city's atty since he was acting as her private counsel during the same time. The plaintiffs are now suspicious that their atty made some covert deal with the city because she was threatened, and it affected their case. Their atty never told them about the misconduct. They found out after the directed verdict from the one witness who showed up.
Can the plaintiffs file a motion for a new trial based on this or do they have to settle for finding a basis to appeal? Needless to say, this experience has made them wary of attys.
Thanks for any responses.