Your VoIP Line May Be Terminated Next Week > The solution is simple...

reply to P Ness

Re: The solution is simple...

reply to rradina
Actually, that's wrong. An attorney is supposed to do whatever the will of their client(s) is/are -- not what they personally believe. The only truth is the fact that he could have refused to represent her -- but then again, how many attorneys do you know that are going to turn down money.

No, attorneys are required by ethical standards to refuse to pursue cases which totally lack merit.

Attorneys should perform a basic evaluation of the facts prior to filing suit. In situations where there isn't time prior to filing (e.g., the statute of limitations is about to run out) then they are under a duty to evaluate their case as soon as possible.

So, attorneys who don't turn down bad cases are risking ethics violations.

The real problem here is that America does not follow the rule on attorney's fees that the rest of the world does. Elsewhere, the LOSER PAYS both sides' reasonable attorneys' fees. That deters most worthless cases from being filed.

Here, the attorney cranks up the word processor, pays a negligible filing fee, demands millions, takes a third of whatever he gets, and has virtually no risk that he'll have to chip in to pay the defendant's costs if the case is worthless. THAT is the problem.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

reply to rradina

reply to calvoiper

If you're saying the attorney does a little bit more, I did forget to add the phrase "hires a whore of an 'expert' who renders an opinion totally divorced from scientific fact" from the list of attorney activities.

If you're saying that American rule on attorney's fees isn't the problem, I'd like to hear more.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!

No matter what I say, it really wouldn't matter to people like you.