This is key IMO. In my job, I interact w/ attys daily (tho I do not have the authority to hold individuals in contempt.) Lawyers say all manner of things - some of which are obviously false. Only this judge knows all the factors involved. I’ve got no idea what pressures are placed on that judge to move cases in whatever time. But absent some medical documentation, IMO a lawyer’s claim that he cannot speak and breathe while masked is patent BS. And if you aren’t capable of preforming the most basic elements of representing someone in court - speaking audibly - you’ve got no business accepting cases that will put you in such situations.
Looks like the judge offered a brief extension to allow the firm to send another rep. For whatever reason, the atty declined. Oh well. I think the judge’s actions entirely reasonable. In fact, the transcript shows that he handled himself quite appropriately. Showed considerable restraint, in fact.
As the judge said in the transcript, the lawyer didn’t seem to have any difficulty flapping his jaws.
I do have a bit of a disagreement with all of the folk who say,
Competent adults generally are held to have freedom to contract as they wish. There are plenty of attys out there. If someone CHOOSES to contract with an asshole, then I’m not sure I have problems with them experiencing adverse consequences from that decision. Obviously, there is a huge continuum. But if a lawyer acts so improperly that that is the reason you lose your case, well, maybe you should be able to pursue legal malpractice. And maybe increased legal malpractice actions would encourage the worst lawyers to stop being such assholes.
Yeah, these are very common in U.S. courts. Dismissals routinely specify whether it’s with or without prejudice, instructing the plaintiff whether it can be filed again.
Yes, and an attorney literally acts for the party. When complaints are filed by an attorney, we say the plaintiffs filed them. If the pleadings say the moon is made of green styrofoam, we say the plaintiffs alleged that. If the attorney stands up in court and objects, we say the plaintiff objected.
And that is all accurate, because the attorney literally represents the client. Normally, the attorney acts competently in the client’s interests. But, sometimes not. In some of those instances, the attorney gets fired, and all works out. Sometimes not. Those instances are still the client’s acts, and the client may have to seek a remedy for those acts. In a civil case, it’s a malpractice action, and in criminal cases it could be malpractice, but also a collateral proceeding based on ineffective assistance of counsel, if it was a serious mistake.
Almost never would a court start picking and choosing which acts are the client’s and which the attorney’s.
On rereading the thread, I saw your very reasonable previous post.
I’m occasionally bemused when people castigate asshole lawyers, b/c behind every meritless lawsuit is an asshole client.
And did everyone notice that this was a freaking jury trial solely for the determination of damages, in which the claimant suffered a leg fracture? Sure, they are entitled to a jury trial. If liability has been admitted, there has already been a settlement offer covering car repair (if hers), reasonable medical bills, and some pain and suffering. I suspect they have already consumed court costs which exceed any reasonable damages (plus atty fees) exceeding the offer.
I hadn’t even looked at what the trial was for. Yes, even more likely that they were playing a game of chicken about going to trial, trying to get a settlement on the eve of trial, and failed. They may know there’s no value in going to trial, and the defendant knows it too. The right to refile may be moot – possibly all of the money the case could generate has already been paid.