Falsely accused by a predatory lawyer, a Catholic priest dies of a broken heart (article in Boston Globe)

[pnewton]

Thanks for slandering an entire profession in one fell swoop.

I did not! Is it not a matter of law that a police officer or department may have their past errors brought up to discredit their testimony, while attorneys can not be attacked for their failings by the defense? If I am mistaken, then I would be much surprised. If I am not, then it is never slander to say something that is true.

Why so touchy about it that you have to stretch and insult?

 

[Hboggs]

Was is Esther 1:13?

Or maybe Titus 3:13?

Luke 11:45-52 ESV

One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying these things you insult us also.” And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load people with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers. Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. So you are witnesses and you consent to the deeds of your fathers, for they killed them, and you build their tombs. Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ …

 

[Borealis]

Thanks for slandering an entire profession in one fell swoop.

According to the column, the lawyer in question has had 700 sex-abuse cases, and apparently two were unfounded against Fr. Murphy.

Should we kick out every doctor who has ever made two surgical errors? Defrock every priest who has ever made two misstatements of theology?

Ban every CAF member who has ever misspoken about the Church twice?

A doctor who makes two surgical errors is going to be up to his armpits in a malpractice suit. A lawyer who makes two false accusations will run for higher office and crow about how honest he is.

 

[Dale_M]

A lawyer who makes two false accusations will run for higher office and crow about how honest he is.

And that he is tough on crime.

 

[Dale_M]

I did not! Is it not a matter of law that a police officer or department may have their past errors brought up to discredit their testimony, while attorneys can not be attacked for their failings by the defense?

I am not familiar with the treatment of police officers by the courts, but it is well known that prosecutors have traditionally held immunity from professional misconduct.

This is most famously demonstrated in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee. It involved two county prosecutors who coerced false testimony from witnesses, and then knowingly presented false evidence in a successful attempt to frame the men charged with murder. The men served 20+ years in prison.

The US District Court and Appeals Court ruled that the prosecutors were not immune, but the US Supreme Court last year dismissed the case citing the out of court settlement reached by the county and the wrongfully convicted men.
topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08%E2%80%931065

volokh.com/2010/01/05/looking-forward-after-pottawattamie-county/

The costs were paid by the county government. The prosecutors, even though guilty of framing two men and sending them to decades of prison, escaped punishment.

 

[pnewton]

The US District Court and Appeals Court ruled that the prosecutors were not immune, but the US Supreme Court last year dismissed the case citing the out of court settlement reached by the county and the wrongfully convicted men.
topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08%E2%80%931065

volokh.com/2010/01/05/looking-forward-after-pottawattamie-county/

The costs were paid by the county government. The prosecutors, even though guilty of framing two men and sending them to decades of prison, escaped punishment.

Then what I wrote was truth, not slander, based on our laws. I think it is no coincidence that the majority of our politicians are lawyers, as are all our judges.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Yep. Because he was wrong. AND he won’t admit it. Consequences for one’s actions.

Well, if you want to punish the person you have to cite a rule that was broken. I can’t think of one in this case.

I did not! Is it not a matter of law that a police officer or department may have their past errors brought up to discredit their testimony, while attorneys can not be attacked for their failings by the defense? If I am mistaken, then I would be much surprised. If I am not, then it is never slander to say something that is true.

It is different than that with about 20 permutations and provisos about what past actions can be cited.

 

[Orogeny]

Well, if you want to punish the person you have to cite a rule that was broken. I can’t think of one in this case.

Doctors are held to account for their actions when sued for malpractice, even if the action that lead to the lawsuit was an accident. Lawyers should face the same scrutiny. How often are lawyers sued for legal malpractice?

Peace

Tim

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

A doctor who makes two surgical errors is going to be up to his armpits in a malpractice suit. A lawyer who makes two false accusations will run for higher office and crow about how honest he is.

Actually, your blanket statement is inaccurate. Two surgical errors are not necessarily medical malpractice. An unproven allegation in a lawsuit is not cause for any punishment, either.

 

[Dale_M]

Then what I wrote was truth, not slander, based on our laws. I think it is no coincidence that the majority of our politicians are lawyers, as are all our judges.

Certainly prosecutors are given special treatment. I imagine that if a police officer fabricated evidence against a defendant, and then committed perjury in court, he would face more than a slap on the knuckles.

However, I am not sure that the treatment accorded to prosecutors necessarily means that all lawyers, or even most, abuse their position.

How often are lawyers sued for legal malpractice?

I’m not sure. I’ve heard that lawyers who take legal malpractice cases are not popular with their colleagues.

 

[Orogeny]

Actually, your blanket statement is inaccurate. Two surgical errors are not necessarily medical malpractice. An unproven allegation in a lawsuit is not cause for any punishment, either.

The punishment can be the time and money it takes to defend against a charge of malpractice. Of course, the only ones who benefit from a lawsuit that is filed when there is no malpractice are the lawyers. Go figure.

And how does one prove an allegation?

Peace

Tim

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I sad end to a man that was guiltless of the crimes he was accused of.

 

[pnewton]

Certainly prosecutors are given special treatment. I imagine that if a police officer fabricated evidence against a defendant, and then committed perjury in court, he would face more than a slap on the knuckles.

However, I am not sure that the treatment accorded to prosecutors necessarily means that all lawyers, or even most, abuse their position.

I agree, and I never said they did. The point is that they can. The inequity exists even though most do not take advantage of the system.

 

[pnewton]

It is different than that with about 20 permutations and provisos about what past actions can be cited.

Ah, then getting back to the subject, let me ask a question, non-rhetorical, but straight to my objection in this matter.

In a trial, the police interview is open to investigation. The investigator may be questioned hostilely by the defense as to whether the answers given were coerced or lead. Now, it a case of an attorney out chasing ambulances or pews, can the defendant in a civil suit give the same extensive questioning to the attorney as to who sought who (attorney or client) and whether in their conversations the client (plaintiff) was coerced, lead or coached in a manner for the purpose of giving false information for the purpose of winning a case?

FYI - I actually had a friend killed last month by a driver that was cutting across the highway and hit his patrol car head on in the wrong lane of traffic. A clear-cut case of who was at fault if there ever was one. Yet there was an attorney monitoring the radio that went to the E.R. and offered his services in seeking a suit against us to the family of the young man who was at fault. This is not an academic exercise.

In any case, I appreciate your expertise and (name removed by moderator)ut, as always.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Ah, then getting back to the subject, let me ask a question, non-rhetorical, but straight to my objection in this matter.

In a trial, the police interview is open to investigation. The investigator may be questioned hostilely by the defense as to whether the answers given were coerced or lead. Now, it a case of an attorney out chasing ambulances or pews, can the defendant in a civil suit give the same extensive questioning to the attorney as to who sought who (attorney or client) and whether in their conversations the client (plaintiff) was coerced, lead or coached in a manner for the purpose of giving false information for the purpose of winning a case?

Well, in the criminal case you are criticizing the gathering of some testimony sought to be introduced. In the civil case, the question is whether or not the testimony is accurate. So how the testimony got to court in a civil case is irrelevant and the plaintiff’s conversations with his representative are confidential. Not so a criminal defendant’s talk with an investigator.

FYI - I actually had a friend killed last month by a driver that was cutting across the highway and hit his patrol car head on in the wrong lane of traffic. A clear-cut case of who was at fault if there ever was one. Yet there was an attorney monitoring the radio that went to the E.R. and offered his services in seeking a suit against us to the family of the young man who was at fault. This is not an academic exercise.

It is difficult for an attorney to make money in personal injury and the competition is intense.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The punishment can be the time and money it takes to defend against a charge of malpractice. Of course, the only ones who benefit from a lawsuit that is filed when there is no malpractice are the lawyers. Go figure.

You think that in each lawsuit the lawyer gets paid? Do you think that every time a lawyer does not prevail in a civil case malpractice is involved?

And how does one prove an allegation?

One convinces a trier of fact of the accuracy of the allegation.

 

[Orogeny]

You think that in each lawsuit the lawyer gets paid?

One or both will be paid. There are usually two lawyers in a case, counselor.

Do you think that every time a lawyer does not prevail in a civil case malpractice is involved?

Nope. Do you think that legal malpractice doesn’t exist?

One convinces a trier of fact of the accuracy of the allegation.

What if the allegation is false and one still argues and convinces the trier of fact that it is accurate? Convincing is not equivalent of proving, is it?

Peace

Tim

 

[GraceSofia]

I am not familiar with the treatment of police officers by the courts, but it is well known that prosecutors have traditionally held immunity from professional misconduct.
…]
The prosecutors, even though guilty of framing two men and sending them to decades of prison, escaped punishment.

Michael Nifong of the Duke Lacrosse Case fame was sentenced to ONE DAY.
He was disbarred, but that is nothing compared to what could have happened to those young men falsely accused.

 

[GraceSofia]

This is a very sad case.

There have been other travesties.

Los Angeles Attorney Declares Rampant Fraud, Many Abuse Claims Against Catholic Priests are ‘Entirely False’

‘Repressed Memory’ is ‘The Most Pernicious Bit of Folklore Ever To Infect Psychology and Psychiatry’

 

[pnewton]

So how the testimony got to court in a civil case is irrelevant and the plaintiff’s conversations with his representative are confidential. Not so a criminal defendant’s talk with an investigator.

That is my understanding, too.

It is difficult for an attorney to make money in personal injury and the competition is intense.

Yet, I know several millionaire lawyers that got rich off percentage of wins. It is not whether it is difficult, as much as whether it is possible. This difference made Las Vegas rich. A related question: if the attorney is exempt from examination, can the attorney for the defendant attack the plaintiff by bringing up past examples of greed, gambling and lying, designed to discredit the law suit?

I hope you can understand that from the outside, the legal system appears to be a oligarchial construct designed by lawyers for lawyers. The mere fact that a Diocese (the more innocent party than the molester) can be hit for millions over this system and that lawyers can work on contingency is a something I see as corrupting. We will never have real tort reform and the lawsuit lottery will continue leaving broken innocent lives in its wake.