Suing a Lying Lawyer

Suing a Lying Lawyer – One Who Intentionally or Negligently gets you to do Something by Perpetuating a Lie

Suing a lawyer is not hard – the law is clear a lawyer is responsible to his/her client if the lawyer screws up – is negligent. But what if the lawyer you want to sue was representing the other side. I wrote an article sometime ago limited to suing a lawyer for malpractice: 

http://www.stangerlaw.com/CM/Articles/SuingOpLawyer-BHSWinter2012Article.pdf which essentially says you can only sue a lawyer who was not representing you if the lawyer was hired to do something for you. But there is another way – you can sue a lawyer for lying or misrepresenting things. You can sue the other party’s lawyer for telling you an outright lie that is intended to get you to do something. Negligent misrepresentation by a lawyer or intentional misrepresentation by a lawyer could be the way you get damages you entitled to under our law.

Lawyer may have been negligent, but no malpractice

Even if the lawyer was negligent (committed malpractice) the case is not worth pursuing if the client was not hurt.  Without damages caused by the negligent act of the lawyer – technically there is no viable case.  See a recent article on just this situation. 

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/07_-_July/Lawyer_may_have_been_negligent,_but_no_malpractice__appeals_court/

Aurora Shooting

WHAT IF A LAWYER KNEW HIS CLIENT WAS GOING TO SHOOT UP A MOVIE THEATRE

There has been some speculation and facts about what James Holmes’ (Aurora Theatre) university or therapist may have known before as well as what duty they had to take action. 

Clients know that what they tell their lawyer is privileged.  The lawyer is not permitted to share that information with others.  Even if a client gives the details of a terrible crime that the client committed the lawyer is not permitted to tell anyone.  But what if the information that the client shares with the lawyer involves future conduct; the client tells the lawyer he is going to cause substantial harm to himself or to someone else. 

If a lawyer reasonably believes his or her client is going to cause substantial injury to himself or to someone else, the lawyer must take reasonable steps to prevent that harm.  It could be telling the police about a crime the client is going to commit.  Or it could be calling the clients family or doctor if the lawyer reasonably believes that the client is likely to hurt him or herself.  

The penalty for not speaking up is not criminal – it is that the lawyer could be reprimanded or disbarred by the courts in Connecticut. 

Should society create a duty for a professional to come forward?

Mayor of Hartford, CT Legal Malpractice

Who has not made a mistake?

A local celebrity is said to have committed malpractice.   First it sounds like, if it happened as alleged, that this was simply a mistake.   Of course the injured party should be compensated for the mistake.  Yet when hearing the phrase malpractice it conjures up all sorts of images. 

Malpractice is simply negligence by a professional.   Simple mistakes are negligence.  Just like any one of us could be negligent on any given day, doing something un-reasonable while driving or not shoveling part of our sidewalk after a storm or even foolishly throwing a ball at someone who does not expect it.   In each of these situations if someone is hurt they deserve to be compensated.  

It sounds like the mayor did the right thing.  It appears from the article that he acknowledged an error by his office.   It appears this is only news because the lawyer is the mayor.   People including professionals make mistakes all the time.  The system is there to compensate for damages if they occur.

http://www.courant.com/community/hartford/hc-segarra-lawsuit-20120703,0,7201069.story

Tom Cruise Divorce/Mediation

There are many reasons why mediation is better than litigation for divorce.  Celebrities use mediation to avoid the tabloid spectacle but even for the non-celebrity, there are usually things that no one wants to say publicly or to have get out to the extended family, kids or friends.  Our lives are private – we share those private lives with our spouses.  When there is a fight with those who know our secrets – who are hurt – and who will twist the truth for self-preservation or to cause harm, think about mediation as a way to contain the hurt to yourself, each other and to those around you. 


http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/09/cruise-and-holmes-reach-settlement-on-divorce-issues/?src=busln 

Your Lawyer May Be Bare

Your lawyer probably has insurance for her car - the law requires it. But unfortunately the law does not require an attorney to have insurance to protect her clients against her screw ups. So if a lawyer is negligent in driving his car there has to be insurance. If a lawyer is negligent in representing a client - no insurance required. This is an article I wrote some years ago suggesting that lawyers should be required by law to have insurance. Insurance to protect clients. The lawyers dont like that, or at least most of the organized bar does not. So a compromise has been suggested which I support as a great first step. Lawyers will be obligated to disclose to the government what insurance they have and that information will be posted on the internet. An interesting first step, but in my view not enough. Why not require insurance? Why not require each lawyer to disclose in writing to his or her clients what insurance they do have or that they do not have any insurance at all? More about this in another post to come.

Court Order Trumps Facebook Privacy

It is obvious that social networking has skyrocketed over the past few years. It seems as though most everyone has at least one social webpage where they can make posts and communicate with friends. But what happens when those postings get seen by a soon to be ex-spouse amidst a divorce proceeding?

Recently a judge in New London Connecticut ordered that a divorcing couple disclose their facebook and online dating passwords to the other’s attorneys. The purpose, according to the judge, is to assist the couple’s attorneys in the discovery process. The judge did impose a restriction on this ruling prohibiting each party from viewing the other’s webpages and making postings pretending to be the other person.

This issue came up in court because the husband saw postings on his wife’s facebook page where she talked about her feelings toward him, their children and he believed the posts questioned her ability to care for their children. He believed this information could be useful in his quest to obtain full custody of their children. The wife was originally asked about her facebook password during a deposition, at which time she provided it. But then, on advice of counsel, changed it immediately after the deposition. That is where the court stepped in. This court ruling has been dubbed “court authorized hacking” and actually violates the terms and conditions set forth by facebook which states that users should never disclose their passwords

As we have said before - Even if you limit who may view certain aspects of your social media posts, and even if it is simply an e mail to a friend, once you get into court assume it is all going to be open for the other side. If you are injured and are claiming damages for limitations in your activities, if you may be facing a divorce, or if you are in anyway involved in litigation just imagine the court and the other side reading what you post and or e mail. If the other side wants to they will get a judge to force a disclosure. BE CAREFUL!