OK Lawyers, ‘splain to me this

[Cosmic Wonder]

www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/woman-charged-connection-dognapping-lady-gagas-pets-sues-musician-5000-rcna72381

Mike

[Tamarack]

It sounds as is Ms. McBride's attorney is risking discipline from the courts or the state bar for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

[Cornflake]

Too late for me to put on my lawyer hat today. Tomorrow I'll do my best.

[aquaduct]

The General Counsel of a company I once worked for explained this kind of stuff to me like this, "The courthouse doors are always open."

Best summary I've ever heard.

[Marshall]

Certainly an entertaining little fluff story. I imagine it hinges on if this lady was a part of the kidnap scheme. Did she have prior knowledge of the initial crime. Or if she was in cahoots with the perps after the fact to get the reward, even if she didn't know they were going to kidnap the pups in the first place.

The criminal issues would have to be resolved before any civil Contract issue could be looked into.

[Cornflake]

A long-winded answer.

It's always dubious to assess a case based on a press account. In my last few years I dealt with the press a lot. I had a complicated but important case that got a lot of press coverage. I never liked dealing with the press but in that case my client made it clear that handling the press was part of my job so I did it.

One reporter understood the case so well that if he called, I knew the call was one I ought to take if possible and respond to promptly if I couldn’t. He also had some opportunities to burn me. Lawyers should never joke with the press because the press can legitimately run the remarks. They’re not required to indicate that you seemed to be kidding. This guy and I were both prone to lacing our comments with humor. He could have burned me by quoting some things I said jokingly. He would immediately have gone to the bottom of the list of people whose calls were returned, if ever. Maybe he knew that. In any event, he could have burned me but he never did. That added to why I had him at the top of the list of people whose calls I would return. I trusted him. Another reporter was almost as good; her calls got returned second.

Most reporters understood the case only at a rudimentary level and had to be educated about the case before I could give them an answer that made sense. That took time which I was reluctant to spare. A few reporters, almost all from TV stations, were clueless about the case but wanted a short sound bite. Because it was a complicated case, I never did find a short sound bite that didn’t distort the case in some significant way. Their calls got returned last. They invariably had nice hair.

So I’d want to know a lot of details about the case, the reporter and the lawyer’s feeling about the reporter before I could offer even an educated guess about how much stock to put in press accounts.

I served as a judge pro tem in both our trial court, the court where almost every case goes first, and in our court of appeals. In those days judges pro tem in both courts did exactly what regular judges did, just less often. That isn't true now. If I were the judge in this case in the trial court, I'd call a preliminary conference to have the lawyers explain anything about the claims or defenses I couldn't understand. I'd also ask each side what it expected to present as evidence at trial. I wouldn't get to the level of specific witnesses but I would ask about categories of witnesses and what those witnesses would be generally be called to prove. I’d also want to know if the other side planned to challenge the point the witnesses would be called to establish.

At some point, if it hadn't already come up, I'd tell the plaintiff's lawyer in a case like this one very specifically what my concerns were and ask him or her how much time it would take to report back to me on what kind of evidence he or she could reasonably be expected to provide on those subjects. I'd usually allow a couple of weeks in a case like this. The lawyer would be bound by the answers unless he or she explained what the changes were and why they couldn't reasonably have been disclosed to me and the opposing attorney at an earlier date. After that, or some equivalent procedure that allowed me to assess what kind of evidence the plaintiff had, I would decide whether the case had enough merit to survive a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. If not, I’d throw it out. The plaintiff could then appeal to the court of appeals. I never saw such an appeal succeed in thirty-five years of practice. In summary, after the case survived or failed to survive a dispositive motion, any predictions I might make about the case would be much more reliable.

Finally, these are not comments about this particular case, which I didn't read much about. They are also not intended to be relied upon by anyone as legal advice. I'm on retired status and I can't legally give such advice. Some parts of this post are probably different in different cities and states and may be outdated in my own state because of changes in statutes or rules. I may also be under the influence of new drugs that were prescribed recently, although I reread the post and saw no reason think so beyond more typos than usual.

That's probably more than anyone wanted to know.

[david]

Mike,

Your time would be better spent testing Telecasters and amps than to consider how outlandish a court case can be.

I agree with Peter, the courthouse doors are always open. You can sue anyone for anything. Then it is up to people like Don to sort it out.

[Tamarack]

"Dispositive" is a good word to know.