Not looking for legal advice, and I’m just a bystander (standard disclaimers, etc.)
Can an attorney file continuous lawsuits against someone to get even with them?
Backstory: I have relatives living in a neighborhood with hi-dollar waterfront homes on one side of a street, and dirt poor trailers on the other. In one of the waterfront homes, a trust-fund-baby (TFB) has long been a sore spot due to noise, stalking around armed, and his particularly vicious Pit Bulls*. Over the years the animals have attacked several people and killed several pets, but always on the poor side of the street. Apparently the low-income folks are easily cowed by lawyers, etc. when they’re victims of these animals.
But things changed recently when the dogs broke thru a door and into one of the wealthier homes. They attacked the pets and the occupants inside, and apparently caused significant harm to both, but not life-threatening.
According to my relatives (2nd hand here, so the quote isn’t exactly accurate) the owner told TFB the following: “I own a law firm in town, and on Monday all my attorneys will be informed that their new objectives are to find ways to bankrupt you. Understand this son… I can file lawsuits all day long for free, and I will not stop until you are homeless.”
Sorry for the long explanation, but regardless of whether I agree with the dogbite victims, I wonder if judges would actually allow an attorney to simply attack someone with lawsuits until they’re bankrupt.
*as described to me by several, I have no idea of exact breed.
Your relatives need professional advise. While fling continuous suits on same causes of actions or indeed multiple frivolous suits would usually be deemed misconduct, it is certainly possible to drown a person in litigation without running afoul of the above rules.
I might not have been clear in my explanation. My relatives are mere bystanders, and aren’t involved other than curiosity. They aren’t the victims and have no dog in this fight. (Sorry… I couldn’t resist)
I was once subpoenaed to testify in a case brought by a lawyer. She lost miserably. It was clear from the start that she had no case and really didn’t understand what was going on. But, she was a lawyer and was pissed off at someone so she filed suit. When I was on the stand I had an obvious bad attitude. The judge asked me what my problem was and I told him I was losing a day’s pay for this idiot lawyer’s vengeance suit. The judge gave me a lecture, but later gave the attorney a much more stern talk about how she’d wasted everyone’s time.
I spent a better part of my career working with lawyers professionally. Most of them are self-important assholes who are full of shit.
Yes, low income folks tend to be cowed by lawyers. Usually because they are poor and uneducated and assume lawyers can just use their magic lawyer powers against them.
In reality, (as kayaker pointed out) , judges do not like having their time wasted. And attorneys have to follow the guidelines set by their state bar exam. I’m pretty sure filing frivolous and malicious lawsuits is covered by that.
Now in this case, it does sound like the lawyer has a case against TFB. However, his rhetoric is mostly empty threats in the hopes of convincing TFB to settle out of court. In spite of his claims, he can’t “file lawsuits all day for free”. Even if he could, there is an opportunity cost for “having all of his lawyers find ways to bankrupt TFB”. And I’m guessing he’s not the senior partner at Jones Day or some other huge firm. That is to say, he would likely bankrupt himself by not having any other clients to bill.
There is an old expression that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for both a counsel and a client.
A few general principles: the rules of every state bar require attorneys to certify that reasonable grounds (factual and legal) exist to support any filing. An attorney who intentionally violates this requirement is subject to discipline, and may be forced to pay the opponent’s legal fees. A client may also be required to pay the other party’s fees and costs for proceedings brought without reasonable grounds (or on the basis of false information supplied by the client.)
All jurisdictions prohibit vexatious litigation and malicious prosecution. These are terms of art. The first is generally a limitation on future litigation; if a court finds that you are a vexatious litigant it may prohibit you from filing any more documents in that court.* If a court finds that you maliciously prosecuted a case you are liable in tort;** that means you get to recover not just your legal fees but damages.
The tricky part here is proving that a prosecution is malicious. Most of the time any of the evidence would be inadmissible (and not discoverable anyway) because it would be subject to the attorney/client privilege. If the owner was dumb enough to tell the TFB what he’s going to do, things may turn out differently.
IANAL, but obviously the lawyer can sue on behalf of those in his household. But you mentioned that others on the street had been attacked by the dogs belonging to the trust-fund baby. So perhaps the lawyer intends to go around the street and offer to represent these other victims. He could take these cases on a contingency fee basis, so it wouldn’t cost the clients anything upfront and if he wins, he makes money. So it’s not as if his firm is going to lose money.
I don’t know, it looks to me like the guy might be able to pull it off.
The significant point here is that the guy is not planning to file frivolous lawsuits. He is going to look into grounds for valid lawsuits. Per the OP, the target “has long been a sore spot due to noise, stalking around armed, and his particularly vicious Pit Bulls”. It’s very possible that these or related matters would give grounds for lawsuits in one form or another, and this lawyer intends to find what they are.
There are a lot of trashy people who act in ways that could technically create grounds for lawsuits from their neighbors, but the neighbors don’t bother because of the hassle and expense of the suits and the difficulty of recouping anything from the shallow-pocketed defendents. But in this case, the plaintiff is a lawyer and the defendent has a trust fund, so it’s a lot more practical.
Anecdotally, about 10 years ago I was under contract to buy a home. The seller happened to be an attorney at a huge law firm (and the daughter of one of the founding partners…) During the home inspection some structural problems were found. Our contract (in NJ) allowed for cancellation of the contract, including the return of the earnest money (which was a significant amount) if the inspection uncovered structural damage. We decided not to go through with the purchase. She refused to return our money and we had to go to court. She tried to use the might of her law firm to bury us in legal fees, etc. Luckily my brother was an attorney in NJ too, and he was able to do most of our work for only the cost of the paperwork to his firm. She had her firm’s attorneys depose us and ask the most ridiculous personal questions. She dragged it out for 2 years. She lost, and got reprimanded by the judge, and then appealed and lost again. We got our money back, but still had to pay over $5k just in paperwork filings, etc.
I have to wonder whether the story may have grown in the telling. It’s not like one needs a whole bag of tricks to pursue successful legal action against an owner when a dog with a history of biting breaks into one’s house and attacks people.
I know a true story of a big time real estate swindler who contracted to buy a commercial property. The terms of the contract were that he was supposed to pay in full. But at the closing he announced that he wanted to pay some percentage and have the sellers finance the rest. The sellers balked. At that point the swindler’s lawyer stepped in, and announced that if the sellers walked away from the deal he would file suit and on the basis of the contract prevent them from being able to sell the property for years and years.
Had it actually gone to court, the sellers would almost certainly have won the case. But it would have taken them a lot of time which they didn’t have - they needed to sell the property then - and money as well. So they agreed to finance it. Then the swindler defaulted on the (multi-million dollar) loan and they were left holding the bag.
A lot of people face a similar predicament going up against the government. The government has virtually unlimited resources, once they set their sights on someone. The accused generally goes not.
IAAL, and I’ll say that, it can be a strategy to try and tie matters up through extensive motions, lawsuits, etc., but most judges (and State Bar Associations) see through these tactics fairly quickly and will impose sanctions and other methods to prevent frivolous filings and lawsuits. You have to remember that such actions don’t just waste the time of both parties, but they affect the judge’s schedule as well.
I also found it interesting that Trust Fund said he could file lawsuits for free. He must have a pretty sweet deal w/ the county / state if he doesn’t have to pay filing & service fees (as well as the time / money spent on dealing on this pet project when all his attorneys could be focusing on more lucrative endeavors). Granted, I’ve worked for people like this, who will let a grudge consume them beyond all rational actions, but time after time, the obsession has caused more harm than good.
I know you don’t have a dog in this fight (pun intended), but given the past history of the neighbor’s (and his dogs’) behavior, I can’t see this ending well for Trust Fund.
The lawyer in the OP certainly has grounds for filing a legitimate lawsuit for damages. But that doesn’t mean the lawyer can just “destroy him at will”.
Whether it’s an empty threat or not, he might still *threaten *to destroy the asshole at-will. Especially if it’s an off-the-record (verbal) exchange that’s not being filmed or otherwise recorded. It sounds like the guy is just sounding off.
Personally, I’m hoping lawyer-guy offers pro-bono legal representation to everyone that this asshole has wronged.
A state bar exam is a written test an applicant must pass as part of the process of being admitted to practice law in that state. It may have a question concerning frivolous litigation, but it does not establish any rules or enforcement mechanisms.
Writing and sending threatening letters with no actual legal follow-up, or intent to do so, are a normal part of an attorney’s job, right? If young Mr. Asswipe cuts the shit from now on, the attorney will have achieved the result his client hired him to achieve, and with very little time spent on it.
When I litigated, my boss would often have me write demand letters to insurance companies (on PI cases) when our clients didn’t have the facts in their favor. The goal is to intimidate and settle, not to move forward with filings, motions, etc. It’s professional bullying.
Additionally, last year, I had a client with a former employee who kept threatening to sue him. She had her brother (an attorney not licensed in this particular state) send a letter that quickly proved she had no case. I returned the communication, outlining the flaws in her logic. I received a reply outlining other details that bore no relevancy to the claim. I told him he was more than welcome to pursue legal recourse, but given the amount for which she was suing (less than $500) and the obvious frivolity of the suit, he should be prepared to lose the case and have his sister pay attorney’s fees. I never heard back from him after that.
(One of the interesting things about this case was that her husband was a licensed attorney in the state, but he had recently lost his job and I think he was afraid of me taking the frivolous lawsuit to the State Bar, not that I’m sure anything would have been done)
