OK here it is:
When I was a Cub Scout in the late 1970s, some of us went on a camping trip with one of the mothers driving. She had a CB radio and explained to us how it worked including emergency channel 9. She turned it off and a few miles later we see a car parked on the highway shoulder frantically running around; clearly something was very wrong. I asked our driver to turn on Channel 9 but she said no. I guess I was a dumb kid and thought everyone had a CB so I insisted. I’m sure more to shut me up than thinking it would work, she turned on the radio and tuned it to Channel 9 and sure enough there was a lady yelling about how her had had a heart attack, they were on the highway and she didn’t know what to do. Our driver tried to calm her down and get her location. Sure enough, it was the car we had just passed. Our driver got off the highway, went to a payphone and called for help.
Here’s one: a lawyer once filed a complaint in the usual manner: serving process to the listed agent for service-of-process, and in turn getting a signed acknowledgment of receipt of the summons and complaint; and following up by likewise serving a request for entry of default, and clerk’s default judgment, for the exact dollar amount desired — such that a duly-recorded abstract of judgment promptly ensued, along with the lien.
To the best of my knowledge, that got him disbarred. Why?
Now, you could add in another event to explain that: maybe he bribed a judge in the middle of the story, you could say. But then that stuff I mentioned wouldn’t matter; I wouldn’t have even needed to mention the other stuff, I could’ve just said “he bribed a judge” — or “he murdered someone and forged their signature,” or, I dunno, “he robbed a liquor store,” even. But he didn’t do any of that, is my point; the stuff I mentioned suffices — such that, if I told you the names of the parties, you’d probably know the answer already.
(If it helps: if I were suing a corporation, I’d be delighted to hear that my lawyer took exactly the steps I mentioned, and I wouldn’t expect her to get in any sort of trouble for having done so.)
Let’s cut to the part that seems to be holding us up: Is this gettable for non-lawyers? Or is understanding in detail how the legal precedure works necesssary?
I honestly believe what I’d said in that first post: that, if I told you the names of the parties, you’d probably know the answer already.
I’ll admit that I may be wrong about that, and that I may have come up with a pretty crappy brainteaser as a result — but the only way I can think of readily putting that to the test would be, uh, cutting to the chase: by me PM’ing you the names, and you then posting whether it’s 100% gettable.
I understand hardly any of this. The only thing I got out of it was: “a lawyer made a complaint and it got him disbarred. Why?” Is there any other detail in there we need to know? And if so can you explain it in layman’s terms please? Assume I’m a 5 year old in this instance.
I’m guessing he is saying he followed the correct procedure completely. But if you are not an attorney how would you know that from the description and not that he missed something like failing to provide the court a copy and THAT got him disbarred.
Was there something about the lawyer’s status that is the lateral part? Like he was suspended or not licensed in that state. Did he file in the wrong court? Did he file against someone that he was told he couldn’t file against (so like contempt got him disbarred)?
No, he wasn’t suspended or not licensed in that state —and he filed in the right court, against a party he hadn’t been told not to file against — and, per your previous question, the complaint was filed against a corporation he didn’t own. But, again, if I told you the names of all the parties, you’d presumably have it.
I thought I covered that as best as I could when I said “if I were suing a corporation, I’d be delighted to hear that my lawyer took exactly the steps I mentioned, and I wouldn’t expect her to get in any sort of trouble for having done so.” — that it wasn’t something like failing to provide the court a copy, because then I’d instead say, uh, ‘your procedural slip-up does not delight me, and you should get in trouble for it.’
And I think that is part of the confusion. As a layman, if my attorney told me he filed for a motion on the heisenfram resonators, I’d be clueless but say, “Yeah!!!” thinking he’s doing something. Also, there is the idea, especially in these puzzles, that maybe there is exclusion through inclusion meaning if you give us a list, something not on that list may be assumed to be excluded.
So for us laypeople can the puzzle be simplified as simply: the lawyer followed the process completely and perfectly with no additions or oversights?
Also, is there significance that you said lawyer and not attorney? Was he not allowed to act for his client? Was he his own client?