Who pays for sanctions or contempt motion?

[Taxing Matters]

So they confused the evidence by bascially saying they misinterpreted its meaning years later so so they made themselves look like idiots.

That may be the case. But looking like an idiot is not something that draws sanctions.

But that is not a reason to withdraw, or atleast I wouldn't think so.

You have no way of knowing why the firm withdrew and really it is of no consequence to you what the reason was for it. So I suggest you not waste your time wondering over it. It could be something as simple a dispute over billing, or that the law firm discovered that its representation of some other client put in conflict with the client it had in your case. Whatever it is, though, is a matter between that firm and the client.

But I did tell them about the existence of evidence and accused them of hiding it and told them they had a duty not just to their client but to their profession.

Hiding what evidence and how was it hidden? In civil litigation in federal court the duty of the opposing side to affirmatively disclose evidence is pretty limited. Outside that limited duty, you don't get evidence from the other side unless you ask for it in discovery. Now if you ask for it and the opposing law firm knows it exists but fails to give it to you, that's a problem that might draw sanctions.

The evidence pretty much proves defendant committed fraud and that if they didn't know, they should have known and if they know and are delaying the case, which I think they are, then that was unethical. Then I told them I would be filing the sanctions and contempt unless something happened.

Then you have the evidence already, so what more is there for them to do? In order to seek contempt you must show the court that the opposing side is in violation of an order of the court. What order of the court did the opposing side violate? As for sanctions, you have to show that the opposing party committed some wrong that is serious enough to warrant sanctions. The number of things that draw sanctions are fairly limited. Note that delay is a classic tactic used by one side or another in a legal proceeding, and they can do that for as long as the court is willing to let them them do it. It is not by itself wrong. Sure, plaintiffs would generally like to get to trial sooner and defendants later. That's just part of the process, frustrating as that may be for you.

Understand that fraud generally is knowingly making a false statement to induce another party to act to his/her detriment, usually parting with money or property. Be careful about tossing around the word fraud when it does not apply; judges tend to dislike that.

 

[quincy]

Apparently mrsjohnson will have legal assistance soon, if Posner's promise was a legitimate and sincere one.

mrsjohnson's legal action will no doubt benefit from personal attention by an attorney in her area.

 

[Litigator22]

Oh goodness Litigator! Did you just make a smutty pun??

Not me! I'm a Methodist.

 

[Just Blue]

Not me! I'm a Methodist.

I am as well....I always make smutty puns. Do you think I will burn for it?

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

I am as well....I always make smutty puns. Do you think I will burn for it?

You moved to Vegas. You are certainly going to burn.

 

[Just Blue]

You moved to Vegas. You are certainly going to burn.

I'm doomed.

 

[mrsjohnson]

@Taxing Matters

There is a consequence to me because after all, I was going to file a motion for sanctions for false and frivolous pleadings and for delay, oppression, and harassment against opposing counsel, who is gone. That kind of confounds me. I'm going to file the motion anyway just to see what happens because after all, how else will I know?

The court ordered the parties to attempt to resolve this before mediation. Can't resolve anything if opposing counsel barely even acknowledges your existence. So that would be my contempt action. I guess I will have to wait to see how the new guy does. I'm already working my way up his butt.

I'm not tossing around fraud, I'm actually adding an additional claim of fraud, the evidence of which was provided to me by a major U.S. bank. This I provided to counsel seven days before they withdrew, which will be in the email that I attach to my motion for sanctions.

 

[Litigator22]

@Taxing Matters

There is a consequence to me because after all (I'm going to) to file a motion for sanctions for false and frivolous pleadings blah, blah, blah . . . . .

You know less about the rules of civil procedure, the rules of professional conduct, a "Rule 11", the substantive laws dealing with actionable fraud, etc., etc.,

So file and notice for hearing your pro se motions.

 

[mrsjohnson]

Apparently mrsjohnson will have legal assistance soon, if Posner's promise was a legitimate and sincere one.

mrsjohnson's legal action will no doubt benefit from personal attention by an attorney in her area.

Posner has an sample of what the website is going to be like. Not sure if you've peeked but it looks like a "one stop shop" kind of thing. My only fear for the idea is that it will attract more lawyers looking to find clients rather than lawyers that are legtimately wanting to help pro se folks start and finish a case entirely own their own.

 

[quincy]

Posner has an sample of what the website is going to be like. Not sure if you've peeked but it looks like a "one stop shop" kind of thing. My only fear for the idea is that it will attract more lawyers looking to find clients rather than lawyers that are legtimately wanting to help pro se folks start and finish a case entirely own their own.

I saw his website. It will be interesting to see what happens with it.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Posner has an sample of what the website is going to be like. Not sure if you've peeked but it looks like a "one stop shop" kind of thing. My only fear for the idea is that it will attract more lawyers looking to find clients rather than lawyers that are legtimately wanting to help pro se folks start and finish a case entirely own their own.

While his site may be helpful, it will not really be possible for it to cover all the various courts in the country and all the different kinds of legal claims that a person might bring. Pro se parties will still be at a disadvantage because they will lack the kind of detailed knowledge of that particular court and type of claim that lawyers practicing in that area possess. It's important for those who don't have the resources to pay a lawyer and cannot get free or reduced cost legal help to get some guidance on how to pursue their own claims, but the pro se parties using such services should never be mislead into thinking that it will put them on the same footing as they'd have with a lawyer.

 

[quincy]

@Litigator22

When you look in the mirror tonight, or the next time you do, I want you to ask yourself this question.... "When is it good for me to prejudge a situation and how can I benefit from such without having all the facts?"

You're welcome.

The Litigator post you (or someone else?) reported was one of his nicer ones, mrsjohnson.

Litigator can be quite helpful when he concentrates on imparting his legal knowledge and not his wealth of insults.

 

[Just Blue]

Oh he has legal knowledge? Well who would have thunk it? You know, so many people come on forums just to troll so these days, you just can't ever tell for sure...

Litigator is a site vetted attorney. Although s/he doesn't practice.

 

[quincy]

Oh he has legal knowledge? Well who would have thunk it? You know, so many people come on forums just to troll so these days, you just can't ever tell for sure...

Yup. You just can't ever tell for sure.

Litigator is an attorney.