I left this alone yesterday, but really it’s such complete and utter bullshit that I can’t ignore it now.
Your position is that at the criminal trial the facts weren’t exposed? And the police didn’t investigate the crime at all? Why in god’s name would a lawyer who, from what we know in the OP, only knows that Soapbox’s brother was physically present when an altercation occured, why would that lawyer sue simply to prevent the other defendants from pointing to an empty chair? What’s the theory of liablity that such an argument would survive a motion in limine even to be mentioned at trial (let alone a motion to strike/demurrer)?
Usually you have some kind of responsibility if you own a dog you know is violent and then the dog hurts someone. People, not so much.
Really, if that’s the theory, demur.
Anyway, Soapbox, I’m sorry this is happening to your brother, but it sounds like your dad is stepping up to help. I hope this gets resolved soon and, frankly, I don’t disagree with your take on the system. Now, the Brits do it differently, and their way does significantly reduce litigation – the loser pays the winner’s attorney fees. Makes the stakes higher when a slimy plaintiff’s lawyer thinks about adding a defendant on some cockamamie theory.
Why assume that there was a criminal trial at all? Most criminal charges are resolved by plea bargain.
No, that’s not my position. However, it’s likely that the police investigation was not thorough enough to figure out exactly who was or wasn’t involved.
For example, suppose the attorney has good reason to believe that the Stabber was assisted by two friends, but he doesn’t know who they are. He does have 1 guy – Adam – who he’s pretty confident was involved, and 3 suspects - Bobby, Charlie, and Dan who were present and who were friends of the stabber. If he sues only Adam, there’s a decent chance Adam will say “It wasn’t me, it was Charlie and Dan.” Which is a problem.
Heck, it might develop a few months (or years) into the case that it really was Charlie and Dan who helped the Stabber. What if by then, the statute of limitations has run for any claim against Charlie and Dan? Then the plaintiff’s attorney is looking at a malpractice suit.
The lawyer is just looking for deep pockets. Retain another landshark, and think about countersuits, and moving your assets around. If you own a home, see if you live in a state that recognizes Homestead Rights.
And, DON"T say anything to anybody-without your lawyer present. Don’t return phone calls, and don’t make any statements.
The client sues, not the lawyer. (Nitpick, I know.)
I don’t know the details of the case, but the shotgun method might be the best way to go from the plaintiff’s perspective. If you have reason to believe more than one person might be liable, but perhaps you don’t know which one(s), then sue them all and sort it out later. Otherwise, as mentioned, you might run into a statute of limitation problem against anyone not named as a defendant.
Demur? I doubt the complaint is demurrable, unless the plaintiff’s attorney is a real dumbass.
brazil84, there was a trial. Not only that, but the attacker confessed on the night of the attacks. He went MIA shortly after the fight, and my brother and some of the frat guys were on their way to the police station to turn him in, but when they got there they found that he was already there and had already confessed.
If there was a trial, he didn’t plead guilty, confession or not. Unless you are confusing a sentencing hearing with a trial.
Unless your dad is disbarred, I’m not seeing any reason why he can’t help your brother. If he didn’t want to enter an appearance, he could certainly help your brother do it pro se from the background.
AIUI, it is possible to change a plea at any time in a criminal trial up to the point when the jury actually reads its verdict. So there may have been a trial that was cut short by the OP’s brother’s friend changing his plea at the last minute.
With all due respect I had a bit of a “WTF?!” moment when you posted this. Your father was an attorney and your first post in this thread was all about how confused and scared your brother was about needing to hire an attorney, and what he should do etc. etc… and … I repeat… your father was an attorney.
What am I missing here? Is your father not your brother’s father or something?
Father WAS an attorney. Disbarred. He still has some connections in this county and he IS giving my brother advice, but that doesn’t change the fact that my brother may have to pay someone who is CURRENTLY a practicing attorney.
And I got the rest of the facts on the trial from my one friend tonight. The attacker was charged with aggrivated assault, to which he pleaded not guilty because of self-defense.
From all the stories I’ve pieced together from that night, the big fight outside of the frat house involved as many as 20 people, and the attacker claimed that 3 guys advanced on him, so in defense he pulled a knife in hopes of scaring the advancers off, but instead two of them ended up getting stabbed. For what that’s worth.
Not all attorneys are fluent in this kind of litigation. Maybe he was a transactional or some other kind of attorney (e.g., tax, corporate, real estate, bankruptcy, estate planning, international trade, immigration, family law, government, election law, administrative law, employment, etc.).
That was a criminal case.