quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We have something called the First Amendment, Saeed. Also, statements made in lawsuits are privileged in our country.

Let these lawyers take their lumps in the court of public opinion. The lawyers who pleaded comparative negligence will doubtless lose other legal business because of their mistake. Claiming a nine-year-old should have detected the camera was an exceptionally boneheaded move. Someone will probably lose their job over this, maybe their career.

Most defense firms automatically plead comparative negligence in negligence cases. This story shows that high-profile cases have to be treated differently.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We have something called the First Amendment, Saeed. Also, statements made in lawsuits are privileged in our country.

Let these lawyers take their lumps in the court of public opinion. The lawyers who pleaded comparative negligence will doubtless lose other legal business because of their mistake. Claiming a nine-year-old should have detected the camera was an exceptionally boneheaded move. Someone will probably lose their job over this, maybe their career.

Most defense firms automatically plead comparative negligence in negligence cases. This story shows that high-profile cases have to be treated differently.

quote:

If you lie or deliberately mislead a court process, there should be some sort of penalty there.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
So how does that fit with privilege?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We have something called the First Amendment, Saeed. Also, statements made in lawsuits are privileged in our country.

Let these lawyers take their lumps in the court of public opinion. The lawyers who pleaded comparative negligence will doubtless lose other legal business because of their mistake. Claiming a nine-year-old should have detected the camera was an exceptionally boneheaded move. Someone will probably lose their job over this, maybe their career.

Most defense firms automatically plead comparative negligence in negligence cases. This story shows that high-profile cases have to be treated differently.

Yes.

A society ruled and abused by the vermin of humanity!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Allegations made in pleadings are not privileged and are typically not verified or sworn. Therefore, perjury isn't an issue. It's stupid to lie in your pleadings but you can't be subjected to a perjury charge for doing so typically.

Any sort of discovery answer that requires a sworn verification and that contains a falsehood subjects the person signing the verification to potential perjury charges.

Any sort of a false answer given while under oath in a deposition or at trial or in an affidavit also subjects the person making the statement subject to perjury charges.

Pleadings (the lawsuit itself, the defendant's answer to the lawsuit, etc.) are typically not verified, with some exceptions.

I don't know the context of the statements about the minor plaintiff that were made by American's lawyers. I'm guessing they were trying to plead comparative negligence? Which is idiotic but probably doesn't subject them to perjury charges. Might be an ethics violation though.

Frankly, I don't point out lies or omissions by the other side in pleadings or discovery answers. Until I've got the witness who lied under oath and in front of a court reporter or a judge and jury. Then, I mark the document as an exhibit and cross-examine the witness about the lies until his nose bleeds.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Allegations made in pleadings are not privileged and are typically not verified or sworn. Therefore, perjury isn't an issue. It's stupid to lie in your pleadings but you can't be subjected to a perjury charge for doing so typically.

Any sort of discovery answer that requires a sworn verification and that contains a falsehood subjects the person signing the verification to potential perjury charges.

Any sort of a false answer given while under oath in a deposition or at trial or in an affidavit also subjects the person making the statement subject to perjury charges.

Pleadings (the lawsuit itself, the defendant's answer to the lawsuit, etc.) are typically not verified, with some exceptions.

I don't know the context of the statements about the minor plaintiff that were made by American's lawyers. I'm guessing they were trying to plead comparative negligence? Which is idiotic but probably doesn't subject them to perjury charges. Might be an ethics violation though.

Frankly, I don't point out lies or omissions by the other side in pleadings or discovery answers. Until I've got the witness who lied under oath and in front of a court reporter or a judge and jury. Then, I mark the document as an exhibit and cross-examine the witness about the lies until his nose bleeds.

I have seen pleadings so misleading and without merit the lawyers were sanctioned under Rule 11.

quote:

Allegations made in pleadings are not privileged

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Simple. Lawyer showed bad judgment blaming a child for the acts of a sexual predator and a client showed good judgment in firing a lawyer that has bad judgment.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Allegations made in pleadings are not privileged

Normally they are privileged. A lawyer may violate Civil Rule 11 and be subject to punishment if there is no factual basis for a pleading allegation. But he and his client normally won't be subject to a libel suit.

"The general principle regarding the privilege is:
"... that a person is not subject to be sued for . . . libel for defamatory statements in papers filed in judicial proceedings or before bodies whose duties are quasi judicial, boards or commissions. But this rule obviously does not render one immune who has made such defamatory statement; he may be dealt with under the criminal law."
'
https://scholarship.law.marque...%20com%2D%20missions.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We have something called the First Amendment, Saeed. Also, statements made in lawsuits are privileged in our country.

Let these lawyers take their lumps in the court of public opinion. The lawyers who pleaded comparative negligence will doubtless lose other legal business because of their mistake. Claiming a nine-year-old should have detected the camera was an exceptionally boneheaded move. Someone will probably lose their job over this, maybe their career.

Most defense firms automatically plead comparative negligence in negligence cases. This story shows that high-profile cases have to be treated differently.

Yes.

A society ruled and abused by the vermin of humanity!

Two questions:

1. What happened to you to make you hate every lawyer so much? You must have gotten really bent over by a lawyer at some point.

2. Who represents people in your country when they have a legal dispute? A sheik or some monarchy official or something? Or, are people not entitled to representation in your ass-backwards country?

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We have something called the First Amendment, Saeed. Also, statements made in lawsuits are privileged in our country.

Let these lawyers take their lumps in the court of public opinion. The lawyers who pleaded comparative negligence will doubtless lose other legal business because of their mistake. Claiming a nine-year-old should have detected the camera was an exceptionally boneheaded move. Someone will probably lose their job over this, maybe their career.

Most defense firms automatically plead comparative negligence in negligence cases. This story shows that high-profile cases have to be treated differently.

Yes.

A society ruled and abused by the vermin of humanity!

Two questions:

1. What happened to you to make you hate every lawyer so much? You must have gotten really bent over by a lawyer at some point.

2. Who represents people in your country when they have a legal dispute? A sheik or some monarchy official or something? Or, are people not entitled to representation in your ass-backwards country?

My father was the chief justice, over all the courts.

He made sure for us to know not to trust lawyers!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Allegations made in pleadings are not privileged

Normally they are privileged. A lawyer may violate Civil Rule 11 and be subject to punishment if there is no factual basis for a pleading allegation. But he and his client normally won't be subject to a libel suit.

"The general principle regarding the privilege is:
"... that a person is not subject to be sued for . . . libel for defamatory statements in papers filed in judicial proceedings or before bodies whose duties are quasi judicial, boards or commissions. But this rule obviously does not render one immune who has made such defamatory statement; he may be dealt with under the criminal law."
'
https://scholarship.law.marque...%20com%2D%20missions.

I don't disagree with the statements you make but that doesn't have anything to do with privilege. Immunity from a libel claim relating to recitations in pleadings doesn't have anything to do with privilege.

What privilege applies to pleadings?

A privilege is a legal right which allows persons to resist compulsory disclosure of documents and information based on the privilege.

The only privileges I am aware of are attorney-client, husband-wife, doctor-patient, clergy communications and trade secrets.

Pleadings are not privileged. They're typically public documents filed with the court.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Here's a quote from the Marquette Law Review article.

From a review of the cases it can be seen that the courts have universally agreed, even in early English and American laws, that there should be allowed a privilege or freedom from civil action for the use of libel in judicial proceedings. With the aid of the privilege the lawyer may discharge his duty as the administration of justice demands. With- out the privilege the search for truth would be hampered, and the
I Layne v. Tribune Co., 108 Fla. 177, 146 So. 234 (1933). 2Hartsock v. Reddick, 6 Blacld. (Ind.) 255 (1842).
inquiries towards that end would not be performed with the freedom
MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW [Vol. 36
and aggressiveness that society demands.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
We have something called the First Amendment, Saeed. Also, statements made in lawsuits are privileged in our country.

Let these lawyers take their lumps in the court of public opinion. The lawyers who pleaded comparative negligence will doubtless lose other legal business because of their mistake. Claiming a nine-year-old should have detected the camera was an exceptionally boneheaded move. Someone will probably lose their job over this, maybe their career.

Most defense firms automatically plead comparative negligence in negligence cases. This story shows that high-profile cases have to be treated differently.

Yes.

A society ruled and abused by the vermin of humanity!

Two questions:

1. What happened to you to make you hate every lawyer so much? You must have gotten really bent over by a lawyer at some point.

2. Who represents people in your country when they have a legal dispute? A sheik or some monarchy official or something? Or, are people not entitled to representation in your ass-backwards country?

My father was the chief justice, over all the courts.

He made sure for us to know not to trust lawyers!

Your father was a lawyer? Did you call him vermin too?

Again....your father was a lawyer? If he was a Chief Justice over all UAE courts, he must have been a lawyer, right?

Your dad thought that all the advocates that appeared in front of him representing the rights of folks with legal disputes were vermin?

That's what he told you?

Waiting for Saeed to respond to this.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Because judges and lawyers are human, and humans are fallible.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Explain something to me.

If the law is right, why do we have appeals?

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Explain something to me.

If the law is right, why do we have appeals?

Because close issues of law demand more than one learned man’s opinion.