| Atticus Grinch |
09-23-2003 03:41 PM |
litigation ethics
Quote:
Originally posted by Not Bob
But I have never been involved in a case where a GA was forced against her will to make an argument that she felt was a violation of Rule 11 or whatever. Never. Nor have I heard of such a thing (and I am one of those kindly, avuncular GPs who always hear about these kind of problems from GAs).
|
I distinguished a "Rule 11 sanctionable" argument, which I, consistent with your observations, have never agreed to advance on a client's behalf. I was talking about the times in which we make arguments that are not Rule 11 sanctionable, but which cause us to be treated scornfully by judges and which diminish our individual reputations for intelligence and good sense. There's miles of no man's land between Rule 11 and plausible argument.
Quote:
As to arguments that don't violate Rule 11 or whatever, but which are loser arguments, there is always a way to articulate the client's position without impacting your credibility too much. Judges are not idiots. Many of them actually used to be practicing lawyers. With pain in the ass clients.
|
Of course. It's our job to think of them, and to advise the client when they shouldn't be made. But I think you're overgeneralizing about judges and their reactions when they think their time is being wasted. Out here, many of them are former career deputy DAs, who were never ever forced to litigate cases they didn't believe had merit surpassing a BARD standard of proof. These esteemed persons are not equipped to sympathize with my plight. They think lawyers decide which cases to settle, and which to litigate, and how.
Most of the other state court judges were not in high-stakes civil litigation, because all the lawyers who were could not afford to take the steep pay cut involved in taking the bench at the same time one's kids are reaching college age. They, too, are not equipped to know what it's like to have a GP tell you that hundreds of thousands of dollars in firm business relies on your maintaining that confident, "can do" attitude, even in the face of a judicial order, the spirit of which cannot be mistaken even if the language of which can be loopholed. |
