Should the lawyer pay $1,000,000.00?

[ralphwiggum]

What is the name of your state? Washington

Kid goes bankrupt.

Lawyer says 'let's accuse mother of being partner, and make mother pay.'

Lawyer knew mother was not partner, but wanted to place fear into mother - to extract a settlement. Similarto extortion.

Lawyer attacked. Attacked. Attacked. Mother spent $15,000.00 on her own lawyer and health quickly deteriorated. Mother was afraid of losing her house. she then suffered $1,000,000.00 worth of health problems.

After two years, Lawyer drops the case. Mother never was a partner - and lawyer knew it all along.

Should lawyer pay $1,000,000.00 for his negligence in attacking for two years and then dropping the case?

 

[Betty]

This person is really from Alberta, Canada - not Washington. See: https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=349746.

 

[Zigner]

Wow, that means we need to figure the conversion rate for Canadian $ too!!!

 

[ralphwiggum]

So the question is:

Does a lawyer who plays a real dirty trick,

and causes HUGE damage to someone,

does the weasel pay for it?

Or, because he's a lawyer - he goes free?


I say he should pay $1 million or even more.

 

[ceara19]

So the question is:

Does a lawyer who plays a real dirty trick,

and causes HUGE damage to someone,

does the weasel pay for it?

Or, because he's a lawyer - he goes free?


I say he should pay $1 million or even more.

You can SAY that there is a pot of Lucky Charms at the end of every rainbow, but that doesn't make it so. I would really like to know what kind of drugs, because you have yet to write a post that actually makes sense.

 

[ralphwiggum]

Hey ceara19 - NICE TRICK. By mentioning drugs, you hope to discredit me already.

I admire the way lawyers use dirty tricks. Actually, I don't admire it. I hate it. But I'm aware that it's one of the things they must do in order to earn an exceptional amount of money.

You see, everyone likes money. I know I like money. I like money a lot. And for money, a lawyer will be ruthless. He will begin legal action against a person, and try to prove that person was a partner in a business even when he knows damned well the person is not a partner, but it's because the lawyer likes money so much. Lawyers do this all the time. they are hoping the 'threat' of legal action causes someone to make a settlement.

But in this case, two years of stress caused by this lawyer's dirty legal action caused the woman to suffer about $1 million dollars worth of health problems. I know it's a dog eat dog world. I know lawyers can be ruthless. I know there will never come a day when humans do not have greed. But what i want to know - should the lawyer go to the personwho he screwed her life up, and offer to pay for the damage he caused?

It's a very simple qyestion. But somehow I predict that no one will want to discuss. I predict there will be only 'dirty tricks' like we just saw from ceara19.




.

 

[seniorjudge]

What is the name of your state? Washington

Kid goes bankrupt.

Lawyer says 'let's accuse mother of being partner, and make mother pay.'

Lawyer knew mother was not partner, but wanted to place fear into mother - to extract a settlement. Similarto extortion.

Lawyer attacked. Attacked. Attacked. Mother spent $15,000.00 on her own lawyer and health quickly deteriorated. Mother was afraid of losing her house. she then suffered $1,000,000.00 worth of health problems.

After two years, Lawyer drops the case. Mother never was a partner - and lawyer knew it all along.

Should lawyer pay $1,000,000.00 for his negligence in attacking for two years and then dropping the case?

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=349746

US law only.

 

[tranquility]

Suing someone when you know your claim is a lie is a tort called (depending on the specific facts) either abuse of process or malicious prosecution. You can recover your damages in such a situation. However, as always, damages are very hard to prove. Here, more importantly:

He will begin legal action against a person, and try to prove that person was a partner in a business even when he knows damned well the person is not a partner, but it's because the lawyer likes money so much.

It is very hard to prove what a person knows. And it is harder still to prove things if the facts are not always clear. Say mom loaned son money. Proper interest was not paid and the note was not properly recorded. Son gets sued. Is mother a partner? We can come up with many other scenarios where the knowledge of the facts help determine what the reality is--let alone what an outside, suspicious, attorney or victim knows.

Say you are going to the store and I say: "That's great, here's some money. Please bring me back some milk." Do we have a joint venture? Am I liable for what happens on the trip in some way? (As long as there is not frolic and detour.) These are questions asked early on in agency law classes. And, the answer is maybe. Theroetically, yes. But the reality is maybe. An attorney would be a fool to not include me in that suit, even though he "knows" I didn't do anything but ask for some milk on your trip.

So, did mother ask son to get her some milk?

 

[stephenk]

How come you aren't blaming the son for going after his mom?

 

[ralphwiggum]

How come you aren't blaming the son for going after his mom?

What are you talking about?


So the lawyer is sitting there faced with a big decision.

If he tells his client that the mother wasn't a partner in her son's business the client walks out the door and he gets $0.00 (zero)

Or, he can tell his client that he will go after the mother because she loaned the son money, therefore she is a partner and the lawyer will get about $15,000.00 and maybe much more. If it is proven themother was not a partner he still gets his $15,000.

Hmmm. That's a big decision. You can be a dog, and go for it, and cause immense stress to an older person, enough stress that destroys her health and pocket $15,000 (maybe more if you win) or you can be a human and say the truth - the mother is not a partner.

And so the lawyer chose to be a dog. he got his money. For two years he hounded the mother and then just dropped it. And that's when her medical costs began. $50,000 in medical costs and $1 million in suffering.

It would be impossible to prove what the lawyer knew or didn't know. Only his conscience knows. The lawyer will never pay for the damage he caused - and that's precisely why most lawyers will continue the dirty tactic of launching legal action against completely innocent people - because the lawyer gets his money, regardless.

So there's no way to legally make the lawyer pay. But wouldn't you agree there is something very smelly about such a system? I mean, in the NHL when one team accuses someone of having an illegal stick and the referee measures the stick and it's found to be legal, you get a penalty. I'm saying if a lawyer wants to be a dog, and accuse someone for two years and then drop it - he should pay for it.

What do you think, people?




.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

More stupidity from Canada.....

But, let's imagined this happened in France....

in that case, More stupidity from France....

 

[tranquility]

Hmmm. That's a big decision. You can be a dog, and go for it, and cause immense stress to an older person, enough stress that destroys her health and pocket $15,000 (maybe more if you win) or you can be a human and say the truth - the mother is not a partner.

What do you base your legal opinion upon that mom is not a partner? Many people do many things without thought about the legal consequences in this life. Just because they have an mistaken opinion about the legal ramifications of their acts, do you think they should be allowed to evade their responsibilities? An attorney would be derelict in his responsibilities if he did not include a potential defendant in a lawsuit. The concept of adding "does" to the defendant list is part and parcel of this responsibility. To denegrate an attorney for doing his job shows how far from reality your thinking is. That a person's actions caused them to be hurt is not the attorney's fault--it is the fault of the mother and child who did not seek competent advice before they did their actions. While I don't think there was an intent on the part of the mother to harm the plaintiff, from the lack of facts I'm going to assume there were actions taken that, if they were not taken the plaintiff would not have been hurt. The link may be distant, but it was still there.

Save your vitriol for someone else. The area of law we're talking about is very old and well vetted. Society has had generations to change the way things are in this instance to the way they should be and have kept the status quo ante. Get over it.

 

[ralphwiggum]

#1 - the lawyer dropped everything after two years. A document from the bank clearly showed 'sole proprietor.' and the lawyer just dropped it.

#2 - Every parent on earth will give or loan money to their children. That doesn't make them partners.

#3 - Lawyers will often begin legal action hoping the 'threat' of going to court will make the person settle. Lawyers begin legal action without even doing their homework - they know they have nothing to lose.

#4 - We know what affect stress has on people's health. If an elderly person thinks there is a possibility of losing their house - it could almost kill them. Of course everything is in the lawyer's favour. they earn unbelievable amounts of money - and no one can ever prove they did anything wrong - so they continue to do what they do. But when you think about it - an older person suffers $1 million dollars worth of damage to their health, just because a lawyer wanted $15,000.00 - it is truly sickening.

If it was up to me I would make some laws forcing the legal profession to be more 'human' and less like 'dogs.'

I would make a law that forces lawyers to pay for the damage they cause. A lawyer should not be allowed to 'terrorize' innocent people unless he's prepared to pay when he is wrong. Go ahead - begin legal action. But if you drop it after two years - then pay for the harm you caused. That seems fair to me.




.

 

[tranquility]

#1 - the lawyer dropped everything after two years. A document from the bank clearly showed 'sole proprietor.' and the lawyer just dropped it.

While I wouldn't think this would be enough proof in a situation like you described, how very human of the attorney to drop the mother from the suit once he, in his heart, "knew". (Actually, once the plaintiff knew. He is the captain of the suit.)

#2 - Every parent on earth will give or loan money to their children. That doesn't make them partners.

Agreed. There are other facts involved with this loan you are not telling us. (Just like you did not tell us of the loan until I guessed of something like it had to have been in existence to include mother in the suit in the first place.) I bet there wasn't a note. Interest wasn't paid. Maybe mom was paid back before another creditor, whatever. Competent advice could have protected mother. Neither son nor mother got that advice. That is not the opposing attorney's fault.

#3 - Lawyers will often begin legal action hoping the 'threat' of going to court will make the person settle. Lawyers begin legal action without even doing their homework - they know they have nothing to lose.

While you didn't give the facts of the genesis of the suit, since you said bankruptcy I'm going to assume it was a creditor who was out money. Right? How much money? Since you want advice without giving up facts, I can't answer if the plaintiff got screwed by son or whether son was just stupid or whether son was unlucky. Why should son's screwing, stupid or unlucky actions be the plaintiff's lawyer's fault? As another alluded to, why isn't the son being blamed for the problem in the first place? While the threat of lawsuit is cheap, lawsuits are expensive to prosecute. Both in time and money it takes a serious motivation for all but the ideologues to sue someone once they think about it. Nothing to lose? Hardly.

#4 - We know what affect stress has on people's health. If an elderly person thinks there is a possibility of losing their house - it could almost kill them. Of course everything is in the lawyer's favour. they earn unbelievable amounts of money - and no one can ever prove they did anything wrong - so they continue to do what they do. But when you think about it - an older person suffers $1 million dollars worth of damage to their health, just because a lawyer wanted $15,000.00 - it is truly sickening.

Add to that the stress of son asking for a loan and the stress of son screwing up and the stress of doctor bills and of stoplights and of commercial interruptions to the soaps, and you have a stress load which can really harm a person's health. Since everything came from the son's actions or lack therof, why aren't we asking him for the $1,000,000? Oh, that's right, he's bankrupt. Instead, let's go after the deep pockets lawyer who was doing his job in response to his client's substantial loss because of son. You dog you.

 

[shannon-cl]

Yes, lawyers do sometimes play dirty tricks and may do things the public may view as not very nice. But that is the name of the game. If nothing illegal had taken place, then not much can be done. There are no laws againsed being sleezy or manipulative. Sometimes, that is what makes a good lawyer. If you do not like what the lawyer did, all i can say is sue on your behalf.