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

[Beau_Ouiville]

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?

Nope. What is relevant (with some arcane exceptions) are the facts which pertain to the present lawsuit.

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.

There is a contingency system so under-privileged people can have their day in court. That’s the same reason that, in general, losing plaintiffs do not have to pay penalties to the defense – such a system would leave potential plaintiffs afraid of complaining in court.

As to oligarchy, I am convinced that the lawyer disciplinary system has far more offenses than those of other professions (like avoiding student loans, employment discrimination or exaggerating on a resume, none of which would get a doctor or dentist in dutch) and is far more open to public review. Many people don’t realize that in this state lawyer discipline is handed down by a panel of three, one of whom is always a non-lawyer. So its not really a closed system at all.

Doctor or dentist discipline can be expunged after a certain number of years but not lawyer discipline – it stays there forever. Further, lawyers have an affirmative duty to turn in other lawyers who violate any rules – this is not a requirement for doctors or dentists.

 

[pnewton]

Nope. What is relevant (with some arcane exceptions) are the facts which pertain to the present lawsuit.

Yes, but in most of these cases, it is he said, she said. If the plaintiff testifies, how is that person’s character and possible motive for lying not an issue. We all know that if anyone ever heard the priest make a dirty joke or other sexually questionable act, that his character would be fair game in a courtroom. It seems in these cases that juries have to decide a preponderance of evidence that is already tilted against the defendant.

I never forget that what is happening to many good priests today can happen to anyone of us and truth and justice will be sacrificed for greed.

 

[pnewton]

Nope. What is relevant (with some arcane exceptions) are the facts which pertain to the present lawsuit.

There is a contingency system so under-privileged people can have their day in court. That’s the same reason that, in general, losing plaintiffs do not have to pay penalties to the defense – such a system would leave potential plaintiffs afraid of complaining in court.

That sounds fine until you are the poor defendant. What about the him or her? I guess the poor only matter if they can be clients and make money for the attorney. I stand by my firm belief that we have a terrible, unjust, unbalanced and corrupt system of civil justice. I have had two occasions where I have had cause to bring a civil suit and can not morally justify under the current system.

 

[Erich]

I believe there is something in the Bible regarding lawyers and this must definately be an example of the type so menioned.

Something in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, also: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

 

[Godfollower]

Something in Shakespeare’s Henry VI, also: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”

That’s right. The rebels intended to set up a communistic tyranny, and they knew that the lawyers would fight it.

CADE
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven halfpenny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hooped pot; shall have ten hoops and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king, as king I will be,–

ALL
God save your majesty!

CADE
I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.

DICK
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

CADE
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o’er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee’s wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since. How now! who’s there?

Enter some, bringing forward the Clerk of Chatham

SMITH
The clerk of Chatham: he can write and read and cast accompt.

CADE
O monstrous!

SMITH
We took him setting of boys’ copies.

CADE
Here’s a villain!

SMITH
Has a book in his pocket with red letters in’t.

CADE
Nay, then, he is a conjurer.

DICK
Nay, he can make obligations, and write court-hand.

CADE
I am sorry for’t: the man is a proper man, of mine honour; unless I find him guilty, he shall not die. Come hither, sirrah, I must examine thee: what is thy name?

Clerk
Emmanuel.

DICK
They use to write it on the top of letters: 'twill go hard with you.

CADE
Let me alone. Dost thou use to write thy name? or hast thou a mark to thyself, like an honest plain-dealing man?

CLERK
Sir, I thank God, I have been so well brought up that I can write my name.

ALL
He hath confessed: away with him! he’s a villain and a traitor.

CADE
Away with him, I say! hang him with his pen and ink-horn about his neck.

Exit one with the Clerk

Henry VI, Part II, Act IV.

So keep in mind: when you quote “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” you’re advocating communism.

 

[Godfollower]

That sounds fine until you are the poor defendant. What about the him or her? I guess the poor only matter if they can be clients and make money for the attorney. I stand by my firm belief that we have a terrible, unjust, unbalanced and corrupt system of civil justice. I have had two occasions where I have had cause to bring a civil suit and can not morally justify under the current system.

The poor have legal aid.

Unless we all voted to do away with it, of course . . . .

Just bear in mind that (A) lawyers pay what is in effect a tax to support legal aid; and (B) many lawyers volunteer time on behalf of the poor.

And lawyers police themselves far more than the other professions do. Ask a nurse how many doctors have been disciplined for operating drunk or otherwise incompetently, then ask a paralegal what happens if a lawyer gets caught screwing around with clients’ funds.

The doctor takes a vacation. The lawyers loses his license.

 

[Orogeny]

Ask a nurse how many doctors have been disciplined for operating drunk or otherwise incompetently, then ask a paralegal what happens if a lawyer gets caught screwing around with clients’ funds.

The doctor takes a vacation. The lawyers loses his license.

My wife is an RN for an OB/GYN and has worked for the same doctor for 26+ years. In that time, he has not been sucessfully sued. He has been sued, once, but not sucessfully.

What was he sued for?

While on-call, he delivered a baby whose mother was a drug addict and had no pre-natal care. The baby had problems. No surprise, right? He was sued and the lawsuit claimed that the health problems the baby had was due to his (the doctor) negligence. The case never made it to trial, but it took about 6 months and his insurance-provided lawyer didn’t work for free. He did a good job, but the doctor’s (and therefore my wife’s) malpractice insurance went up ~5% because he now had a lawsuit on his record.

Some lawyer took that case hoping for a settlement and a payout. Who was guilty of malpractice - the doctor or the plaintifs attorney? What was the price the lawyer faced? None. He didn’t get a payout, poor thing, but he wasn’t disciplined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. In fact, he was free to continue doing so because there are no professional consequences for lawyers who chase ambulances.

Doctor - penalized. Lawyer - no consequences.

How about instead of playing the pity party for lawyers, at least ONE lawyer on this forum admit that there are lawyers who ARE predatory.

Peace

Tim

 

[Godfollower]

My wife is an RN for an OB/GYN and has worked for the same doctor for 26+ years. In that time, he has not been sucessfully sued. He has been sued, once, but not sucessfully.

What was he sued for?

While on-call, he delivered a baby whose mother was a drug addict and had no pre-natal care. The baby had problems. No surprise, right? He was sued and the lawsuit claimed that the health problems the baby had was due to his (the doctor) negligence. The case never made it to trial, but it took about 6 months and his insurance-provided lawyer didn’t work for free. He did a good job, but the doctor’s (and therefore my wife’s) malpractice insurance went up ~5% because he now had a lawsuit on his record.

Some lawyer took that case hoping for a settlement and a payout. Who was guilty of malpractice - the doctor or the plaintifs attorney? What was the price the lawyer faced? None. He didn’t get a payout, poor thing, but he wasn’t disciplined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. In fact, he was free to continue doing so because there are no professional consequences for lawyers who chase ambulances.

Doctor - penalized. Lawyer - no consequences.

How about instead of playing the pity party for lawyers, at least ONE lawyer on this forum admit that there are lawyers who ARE predatory.

Peace

Tim

Of course there are lawyers who are predatory. Now try admitting that most aren’t.

You say this lawyer lost his case. That doesn’t mean he committed malpractice. Maybe he’s guilty of (gasp!) believing what his client told him and representing her to the best of his ability.

What did the lawyer assert were the baby’s problems and what was supposedly the doctor’s negligence? Just because the mother used drugs doesn’t mean the doctor was perfect. To assume that the lawyer was irresponsible (based on what I’ve heard so far) is itself irresponsible.

Maybe it was a frivolous lawsuit; maybe it wasn’t. I’m not in a position to say either way, because I don’t have the facts to make such a determination.

But, assuming that the lawsuit was frivolous and that the lawyer knew it, how does that translate to “there are no professional consequences for lawyers who chase ambulances”?

Don’t you see how broad a brush you’re painting with?

I’ve seen plenty of frivolous suits in my time. The vast majority of them were brought by unrepresented plaintiffs (people representing themselves). I’ve filed motions for sanctions against lawyers for frivolous lawsuits; I’ve won some and lost some, but the judges took the motions seriously. And I’ve seen lawyers get in trouble with the bar for bringing frivolous lawsuits. It happens all the time; in most states, there are so many investigations that the “prosecutors” (bar counsel) who bring disciplinary cases against lawyers are employed full-time. To say that no lawyer ever gets in trouble is ridiculous; even cursory research would show otherwise. Just google “lawyer disbarred” or some similar phrase.

 

[pnewton]

The poor have legal aid.

Why do I get two stories here? If the poor have legal aid for civil matters, then paying legal fees would not be a deterrent for seeking recourse in the courts for the poor. Yet that was what was claimed as an excuse for a one-sided legal system.

Yes, lawyers police themselves, as do police. Yet one can be taken to task and the other can not. No, I refuse to accept that there is any justice when it comes to lawyers in this legal system they themselves have written. I am glad you have more faith in it. My sense of justice is that all should be treated equally.

 

[Godfollower]

Why do I get two stories here? If the poor have legal aid for civil matters, then paying legal fees would not be a deterrent for seeking recourse in the courts for the poor. Yet that was what was claimed as an excuse for a one-sided legal system.

Yes, lawyers police themselves, as do police. Yet one can be taken to task and the other can not. No, I refuse to accept that there is any justice when it comes to lawyers in this legal system they themselves have written. I am glad you have more faith in it. My sense of justice is that all should be treated equally.

What’s the basis for your conclusion that lawyers can’t be taken to task? If you were harmed by your lawyer’s negligence, sue him/her for malpractice (it works just like medical malpractice; in fact, medical-malpractice and legal-malpractice lawsuits are often precedents for each other). Even if you weren’t harmed by the lawyer (and therefore can’t sue), file a disciplinary complaint if s/he violated a legal ethics rule. More so than with boards of medicine, state bars take disciplinary complaints seriously.

And state bars usually have – by rule – at least one non-lawyer on every panel.

 

[pnewton]

What’s the basis for your conclusion that lawyers can’t be taken to task?

I meant (if you consider the context), in a court of law, during the actual civil trial, where it matters, and in the same method that the policeman can. No, I do not trust the state bars to police themselves. If you do, then that is yet another point of disagreement of opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Of course there are lawyers who are predatory. Now try admitting that most aren’t.

Why? The fact that there are some gives rise to the need to for a defendent (the priest) to examine the motive and tactics of the plaintiff in order to discredit a lying witness and a greedy lawyer.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The poor have legal aid…Just bear in mind that (A) lawyers pay what is in effect a tax to support legal aid; and (B) many lawyers volunteer time on behalf of the poor.

I’m not sure which century you’re living in, but the fact of the matter is that legal aid has been all but eviscerated in many regions, States, etc. It effectively no longer exists in those areas. It has become targeted only (and in an overburdened way) to minorities explicitly (no poor Caucasians need apply, as you do not “qualify” for legal aid), and further, only to particular kinds of cases (immigration defense or other specialty areas). I know because my family had justifiable need to call on them over the last 5 years, and each time have been told that income is no longer a qualifier.

On the civil side (as opposed to criminal) there is no such thing as a public plaintiff’s attorney, only a (crimiinal) Public Defender. However, one’s civil rights – including one’s possession and freedom – can be at risk without legal representation for civil matters. It is a grave injustice that the person without abundant funds (I’m not arguing with attorney’s fees, merely being realistic) will be denied justice if his or her case has merit, versus his opponent, yet the opponent has money, and the other does not.

The several States differ as to civil statutes, and in some areas of law, in some States, you are up a creek without a boat or oars if you lack money, regardless of the merits of your case and the insupportability of your opponent’s case. For example, in regard to Estate law where the Will is not under probate but under Trust, and you face an arbitrary trustee who has power (by virtue of position) + money. Such a trustee is allowed to abuse virtually without restraint every beneficiary, including withholding funds provided by the Trust, unless the benefiiciaries have money to bring an action. The beneficiaries cannot even beg the Court to intervene in such situations of abuse. There is no avenue or vehicle for legal redress.

This is only one of many instances and areas. Even in contingency lawsuits, most lawyers now will not even open a contingency case, have a discussion, without a hefty retainer. There are no public funds for such retainers. As to pro-bono work, this has also considerably shrunk. Generally now one goes through certain organizations which have a list of pro-bono lawyers, but it turns out that these lists are also often outdated, and such organizations themselves are dormant. Probably the natiion’s oversupply of lawyers has affected all this. Many lawyers now do not have full-time work (clients, case loads) even, and have to supplement by various additional means, so they’re not even in a position to be generous with regard to volunteering their time.

 

[Orogeny]

Of course there are lawyers who are predatory. Now try admitting that most aren’t.

Most aren’t.

You say this lawyer lost his case. That doesn’t mean he committed malpractice. Maybe he’s guilty of (gasp!) believing what his client told him and representing her to the best of his ability.

Does a lawyer have any obligation to check out a client’s story prior to filing a lawsuit? If they don’t, are they blameless if the facts are clearly in opposition to the “facts” claimed in the lawsuit?

What did the lawyer assert were the baby’s problems and what was supposedly the doctor’s negligence? Just because the mother used drugs doesn’t mean the doctor was perfect. To assume that the lawyer was irresponsible (based on what I’ve heard so far) is itself irresponsible.

Yep. See, here is the problem with your entire argument. There are predatory lawyers, but we can’t determine that and, in fact, if we accuse one of being irresponsible, we are actually the ones being irresponsible. Typical.

The baby had cocaine in his/her blood, extremely low birth weight and a couple other issues that I don’t recall. Clearly the fault of the doctor that just happened to be on call when it was time to deliver. Especially since that was the first time he ever saw the mother. But, I know. You don’t have to say it. I’m just a lawyer hater and am irresponsible for suggesting that the lawyer was wrong.

Maybe it was a frivolous lawsuit; maybe it wasn’t. I’m not in a position to say either way, because I don’t have the facts to make such a determination.

But, assuming that the lawsuit was frivolous and that the lawyer knew it, how does that translate to “there are no professional consequences for lawyers who chase ambulances”?

There were none. He wasn’t sanctioned. He didn’t lose his license. He is still chasing ambulances (at least he is still trolling the airwaves looking for “clients”).

Don’t you see how broad a brush you’re painting with?

Don’t you see that you are an enabler for bad lawyers?

I’ve seen plenty of frivolous suits in my time. The vast majority of them were brought by unrepresented plaintiffs (people representing themselves). I’ve filed motions for sanctions against lawyers for frivolous lawsuits; I’ve won some and lost some, but the judges took the motions seriously. And I’ve seen lawyers get in trouble with the bar for bringing frivolous lawsuits. It happens all the time; in most states, there are so many investigations that the “prosecutors” (bar counsel) who bring disciplinary cases against lawyers are employed full-time. To say that no lawyer ever gets in trouble is ridiculous; even cursory research would show otherwise. Just google “lawyer disbarred” or some similar phrase.

Good for you! As one of my best friends (a lawyer!) says, the problem with the world of lawyers is that there are too few lawyers willing to go after bad lawyers.

Peace

Tim

 

[Erich]

That’s right. The rebels intended to set up a communistic tyranny, and they knew that the lawyers would fight it.

Henry VI, Part II, Act IV.

So keep in mind: when you quote “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” you’re advocating communism.

I dunno… the current administration was recently endorsed by the Communist Party USA – and is chock full of lawyers.

From this link:

…The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.

 The line is actually uttered by a character "Dick The Butcher". While he's a killer as evil as his name implies, he often makes highly comedic and amusing statements. The wisecracking villain is not an invention of modern action movies, it dates back to Shakespeare and beyond. 

 The setup for the "kill the lawyers" statement is the ending portion of a comedic relief part of a scene in *Henry VI, part 2*. Dick and another henchman, Smith are members of the gang of Jack Cade, a pretender to the throne. The built-up is long portion where Cade make vain boasts, which are cut down by sarcastic replies from the others. For example:           JACK CADE.

Valiant I am.

       SMITH [aside].

'A must needs; for beggary is valiant.

       JACK CADE.

I am able to endure much.

       DICK [aside].

No question of that; for I have seen him whipp’d three market-days together.

       JACK CADE.

I fear neither sword nor fire.

       SMITH [aside].

He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.

       DICK [aside].

But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i’ th’hand for stealing of sheep.
You can almost hear the rim-shot after everything Dick or Smith say here.

Cade proceeds to go more and more over the top, and begins to describe his absurd ideal world:           JACK CADE.

Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,-

ALL.
God save your majesty!
Appreciated and encouraged, he continues on in this vein: JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord. And here is where Dick speaks the famous line. DICK.
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers. The audience must have doubled over in laughter at this. Far from “eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution” or portraying lawyers as “guardians of independent thinking”, it’s offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It’s hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be “When I’m the King, there’ll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot” “AND NO LAWYERS”. It’s a clearly lawyer-bashing joke. This is further supported by the dialogue just afterwards (which is actually quite funny even now, and must have been hilarious when the idiom was contemporary): DICK.
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.

JACK CADE.
Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o’er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee’s wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who’s there?
He might just as well have been describing “shrink-wrap” software licensing agreements today in the last sentence.

(cont’d next post)

 

[Erich]

To understand what Cade is saying here, you have to know that documents of the time were likely parchment, and sealed with wax. So when he says “Some say the bees stings; but I say, 'tis the bee’s wax”. he’s making an ironic comment somewhat akin to “Some men rob you with a six-gun, and some with a fountain pen”. And the fact that he himself is an evil man only serves to heighten the irony, not discredit the sentiment - the more evil he is, the more the contrast is apparent.

It makes as much sense to conclude that since the “kill the lawyers” joke is expressed by villains, who later commit murderous deeds “there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score” is an approval of Libertarian thought, and a warning about Communists.

Now, just after this exchange, the scene changes tone. The gang commits the murder of the clerk of chatham. Here is the second level of Shakespeare’s commentary on law and layers, where the murder is carried out according to scrupulous procedure, a parody of law:
JACK CADE.
I am sorry for’t: the man is a proper man, of mine honour; unless I find him guilty, he shall not die.- Come hither, sirrah, I must examine thee: what is thy name? By this contrast Shakespeare thus makes in an alternating, connected, comedic and tragic manner the age-old point about the difference between law (and those who argue it) and justice. Cade makes up his “version” of law to his own ends, to the justification of his evil deeds, which is reminiscent of the context which commonly provokes “kill the lawyers” (where the phrase is in wry protest of actions thought to be the same in form, if not in degree). Far from being “out of context” the usage is more true to the original than most people know.

Now, compares this to the description given by the web page Lawyers are Our Friends! Cade’s friend Dick the Butcher, being only barely smarter than Cade, knew Cade’s scheme could not succeed if the learned advisors to the real King actually investigated Cade’s lineage. So, Dick the Butcher advised Cade that “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” hoping that this tactic would prevent Cade from being discovered as an imposter. At least in Shakespeare’s time, lawyers were regarded as the protectors of truth. That lawyer is being a protector of some sort, but it doesn’t seem to be of the truth! In fact, Shakespeare used lawyers as figures of derision on several occasions. …

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Yes, but in most of these cases, it is he said, she said. If the plaintiff testifies, how is that person’s character and possible motive for lying not an issue.

Motive is not always as issue. We know the plaintiff’s motive from what they are seeking. Credibility is always an issue with someone who testifies. Previous acts have nothing to do with if a claimed act actually occurred or with credibility, unless those previous acts had been denied. The exception is rather narrow.

We all know that if anyone ever heard the priest make a dirty joke or other sexually questionable act, that his character would be fair game in a courtroom.

No, actually. Not unless he (or someone else) testified that he had a good character.

It seems in these cases that juries have to decide a preponderance of evidence that is already tilted against the defendant.

Not at all. Go try to prove one of these cases.

I never forget that what is happening to many good priests today can happen to anyone of us and truth and justice will be sacrificed for greed.

How are you on the death penalty?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The poor have legal aid.

Just try to get an appointment for a civil case. Go ahead and try.

From today’s paper:

“A doctor convicted of sexual abuse of a patient was not disciplined by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation in any way.”

chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-medical-license-revocations-20110722,0,319779.story

That’s a definite professional violation for a lawyer and discipline is automatic.

Some lawyer took that case hoping for a settlement and a payout. Who was guilty of malpractice - the doctor or the plaintifs attorney? What was the price the lawyer faced? None. He didn’t get a payout, poor thing, but he wasn’t disciplined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. In fact, he was free to continue doing so because there are no professional consequences for lawyers who chase ambulances.

Because of the doctor’s lobby, a 20 year old law mandates that all medical malpractice lawsuits in this state (and many others) have to be signed off on by a medical professional as reasonable.

So you would have to blame a doctor, too.

 

[Orogeny]

Because of the doctor’s lobby, a 20 year old law mandates that all medical malpractice lawsuits in this state (and many others) have to be signed off on by a medical professional as reasonable.

So you would have to blame a doctor, too.

Ok, I blame a doctor too even though I don’t know if that is the law here in Texas. That doesn’t change anything that I wrote about the lawyer, just tries to change the target.

Peace

Tim

 

[pnewton]

How are you on the death penalty?

I do not think it should apply to malpractice or unethical conduct. I am very stong on this, whether discussing doctors or lawyers.