Look at it this way: would you ask a gynecologist to perform brain surgery?
I would expect either to be able to clean a scrape and put a band-aid on it. That is more akin to the matter faced by the OP.
Only if cleaning and dressing a scrape was a completely different procedure depending on which part of the body the scrape was on.
Nope. In a pinch, a lawyer regardless of any specialization or barrister’s experience should be able to mount a defence of this simplicity. Just find the court’s rules of procedure and follow them.
Obviously an experienced defence civil litigator would be preferable, but even if Daddums happened to be a policy wonk specializing in the drafting of alpaca regulations, he should still be able to cobble together something servicable. It really is that simple.
Which part of “disbarred” is unclear?
I think people are confused about the way the story keeps mutating. Now we have 20 witnesses who can say that Soapbox Monkey’s brother wasn’t anywhere near the fight. Before, he’s completely and has no idea what’s going to happen, even though his dad was a lawyer.
Still that’s what puzzles me about the OP. Even a disbarred lawyer is going to have 10 times more legal acumen that the average respondent on a message board, and lawyers often get disbarred not for lack of technical competence, but for getting sloppy ethically. The accused brother is represented to be in high panic mode and his father, and ex-atty, is a phone call away.
Assuming daddy is not estranged or a doofus I have to wonder why he wasn’t consulted immediately before the brother started panicking.
This is a thread in the pit, I was never asking for advice. I was bitching about the fact that my brother is going to have to pay money to clear his name. You guys started asking questions, so I started filling you in on the details.
And as for the “assuming daddy is not estranged or a doofus”: estranged from everyone BUT my brother, and replace doofus with…well no, let’s stick with doofus.
One assumes that being disbarred for having sex with a client is not an indication of being unable to figure out a very simple legal task, and that a father would assist a son even although the father is no longer licensed to practice law. Clear enough for you now?
Where the hell did you get “having sex with a client” from? Oh. Thin air. I see.
Now, pay attention: even if Daddy was disbarred for some incident having nothing to do with competence, he can’t represent his kid. Young Joey Friendswithsociopath is a lot more likely to be dropped from the suit because Mr. Plaintiff’s Attorney sees that he’s retained counsel than because he can write a convincing letter.
Errr…it’s actually in one of Soapbox’s posts.
So it is :smack:
Really Not All That Bright, when you get around to having a clue about how litigation works, give me a call.