In fairness I had warned my client from the get-go that he should likely abandon his claim.
Why? Was my client wrong in law? Hardly -- he was totally right. He had been defrauded (well, likely yes but in any event certainly ripped off) of a sizable amount of money but the bad guy was a total scamp and had spent the money. And the bad guy was prepared to go to court, himself, and plead poverty until finally, last week, he went bankrupt.
And there was nothing to collect.
7 comments:
Did you work pro-bono for this poor fellow who lost everything?
I don't know, johnathon, but I'll answer on his behalf (if I may be so bold). Most lawyers do take on pro bono cases on occasion, which is more than most professions can say.
Plus, the post clearly says he lost money, not "everything." Sounds like the scoundrel who fleeced him might have (or is pretending to) so maybe there is some justice.
Oh, and by the way, do you typically work for free, johnathoon troll?
I don't know, johnathon, but I'll answer on his behalf (if I may be so bold). Most lawyers do take on pro bono cases on occasion, which is more than most professions can say.
Plus, the post clearly says he lost money, not "everything." Sounds like the scoundrel who fleeced him might have (or is pretending to) so maybe there is some justice.
Oh, and by the way, do you typically work for free, johnathoon troll?
I've worked in the family law system for years so while my experience isn't necessarily apples and oranges with this case, what I can tell you is that I think if a lawyer knows full well their client's case is futile (depending on the nature of the matter at hand) they should withdraw from the case and provide information to their client on self-representing. Fact is, lawyers have priced themselves out of the average person's pocket book, and while in this case, you might well have known the case was futile, why not do your client a favor and withdraw from the case. Yeah - I know the courts are filled with self-representing people, but that's not entirely the fault of the litigants. I understand that a lot of litigants in civil matters are so wrapped up in the emotions of their case that they want their pound of flesh - great. But there is something fundamentally wrong with representing someone in a civil matter and charging them a fee when you know full well they have either no case or no chance.
I guess I should respond -- although I am not sure that's prudent! But who does a blog who is prudent!
I did not act pro bono here. I often do, but generally for people who are in need and simple won't get a lawyer otherwise. Here the client had lost a pile of money but could well afford to pay a lawyer.
In terms of whether I should have quit, the point is well taken I suppose. But the client was legally right (he was ripped off -- whether it was fraud or just close I am not sure but certainly he was owed a great deal of money). He understood (because I told him) that he ran a big chance of recovering nothing so it was his decision.
I agree that a frivolous case ought not to be pursued but where, as here, the case was valid but problematic I don't see any issue provided the client knows what's what.
Now -- I am ready to flamed (and I don't delete flames unless, as mentioned before, they are racist etc or threaten anyone's death -- including my own!)
ps. I am sick with something so be gentle (whine whine)
re "In fairness I had warned my client from the get-go that he should likely abandon his claim."
I think you did your fair share to try to steer him away from the case. I don't see why you should turn down a client who is willing to pay, even though his suit may be futile. It sounds like this was a risk he was willing to take.
>>I agree that a frivolous case ought not to be pursued but where, as here, the case was valid but problematic I don't see any issue provided the client knows what's what<<<
If a client knows they have no case and are in all likelihood going to lose, but insist on litigating, in this case, I'd say keep on representing them. They know they're going to lose and are happy to pay to lose, he go nuts, right?
Post a Comment