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

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?
Why would the motives or errors of a lawyer having anything to do with the case? The lawyer is not the plantiff nor the defendant. The case is between those individuals not him. If the client presented him with infomation and after reviewing he finds no reason not to believe the infomation then he can file the lawsuit. He has done his job. Now if he finds out the infomation is incorrect then he should not file the lawsuit and if he did file it then he should have it dismissed.

Now if he knows the infomation is incorrect and he filed the paperwork or continues to persue the case then yes he should be punished. The lawyers from the other side or the court itself can and should be move for court sanctions and file a grievance with the state board.

The boards take it seriously and people do get disbarred.
 
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
Why aren’t you blaming the insurance company? They are the ones who raised the rate? It wasn’t the lawyers fault that the insurance company looked at the doctor and thought he was now a greater risk so we need to increase his rates to cover it. Insurance companies love to raise the rates for everyone no matter what type of insurance it is. (Lawyers have to pay insurance too and yes quite a lot get hit with malpractice suits expecially when a client doesn’t like it that their side lost or the pay out wasn’t as big as they expected.) Yet you are automatically assuming that the lawyer was greedy. Yet you have no idea what was found out during the discovery process. He may have been guilty of some mal-pratice. You don’t know so don’t assume you do.
 
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.
Why in heavens name would it matter how the lawyer got his client? What has the got to do with the facts of the case? Its the plaintiff’s rights that have been violated. He is the one suing. The defense side would have the chance to question the plantiff during discover and if it got to trial then they could destory his story. If in this case. The defense wanted to bring up his past or his reputation of the accused then they can. Again they would be attacking and dis-crediting the Plaintiff, the person who is suing not the person representing him.

In a criminal case if the police use force or corecon then the confession or statement is surpressed. Some goes for any evidence obtained under a bad warrant. The infomation is not allowed to be used against someone. Once again it is someone involved in the direct evidence of the case. Not someone representing the person because the lawyer is not the active party in the case.
 
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.
Lawyers can use the law as a shield or as a sword depending on what liberty their client has had injuried. I have not met a lawyer who was not willing to talk to someone and give some advice for free. But if it requires filing paper work or doing work then why shouldn’t the lawyer get paid? Would you expect to go to your doctor and get work for free? Your insurance provider will cover your basic medical but if you want elective stuff then you have to pay.

Same with lawyers. In a criminal, the state is trying to take away your liberties so they have to provide a lawyer. (Basic care). In a civil you are asserting something against someone else. You can either elect not to pursue your claim or not. If you choose to elect to sue then you should have to pay. If your being sued, you are allowed to represent yourself.

As far as your trust issue, there are mechanic set into place if the trustee is abusing the trust. Depending on your state the trust would be liable for the cost of the suit. Also don’t blame the trustee, some trust are set up in certain ways to only be paid on certain terms and those terms normally come from the person who initial set up the trust.

And as for contingency lawsuits…you relaize the whole point to those is that the lawyer is putting up his own time and money, betting that you will win and he will get paid from those so if he isn’t willing to put up the money then that probaly means your case isn’t that strong? If he ask for a retainer it might be to make sure that the client is also truly willing to be involved in the case. People seem to have this idea that their case is always worth more than it is or that they can just turn it over to the lawyer and they don’t need to do anything else. But why would their be public funds for those case. You are choosing to sue. You are choosing to take a step. Why should anyone but you have to pay for that?
 
Why in heavens name would it matter how the lawyer got his client? What has the got to do with the facts of the case?** Its the plaintiff’s rights that have been violated.**
What you have worded is indeed the way too may think. That is what has driven the law suit frenzy in this country. No, sometimes it is just that the plaintiff is a greedy liar.
 
What you have worded is indeed the way too may think. That is what has driven the law suit frenzy in this country. No, sometimes it is just that the plaintiff is a greedy liar.
Your statement doesn’t make an sense. That is the point to a lawsuit. If i sue you because you damaged my property or hit me with your car, then i am invoking my right to recover damages that you did against me. I am looking towards you to make me whole again for the damages you did to me. I can also choose to ignore and not sue. We use the court system because its a more civil way to take care of matters than me coming over extracting my own judgment or vegence against you.
 
As far as your trust issue, there are mechanic set into place if the trustee is abusing the trust. Depending on your state the trust would be liable for the cost of the suit. Also don’t blame the trustee, some trust are set up in certain ways to only be paid on certain terms and those terms normally come from the person who initial set up the trust.
I’m sorry, but you are so far off the concepts here. Unless you know what you’re talking about when it comes to the variations of Estate Law in the several States, it’s probably best if you not try to put yourself out there as some kind of expert. There are not “mechanics in place” in several situations in which I am intimately acquainted, and estate lawyers agree with me, that the potential and actuality of abuse are built into estate law in our State, as it affects minor impoverished benificiaries especially, who do not have recourse and in which there are no mechanics in place. One can literally lose the essential trust income when dependent on a malevolent, spiteful trustee. One is completely at the mercy and whim of the trustee, especially if the instrument is loosely written; the trustors were given incompetent legal advice; and the trustors are deceased. There are no checks and balances. UNLESS ONE HAS MONEY. And this is a matter of essential justice and truth.
And as for contingency lawsuits…you relaize the whole point to those is that the lawyer is putting up his own time and money, betting that you will win and he will get paid from those so if he isn’t willing to put up the money then that probaly means your case isn’t that strong? If he ask for a retainer it might be to make sure that the client is also truly willing to be involved in the case. People seem to have this idea that their case is always worth more than it is or that they can just turn it over to the lawyer and they don’t need to do anything else. But why would their be public funds for those case. You are choosing to sue. You are choosing to take a step. Why should anyone but you have to pay for that?
You utterly missed my point. Here is what I said:
legal aid has been all but eviscerated in many regions, States, etc. It effectively no longer exists in those areas. …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.

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.
 
Further, ^ my post 53 responded to specific statements in post 46, with which I took issue and still take issue, on the facts – such as the hypothetical but now mostly vanished existence of “Legal Aid,” etc. When you remove comments from their context, the response is bound to be way off.
 
Further, ^ my post 53 responded to specific statements in post 46, with which I took issue and still take issue, on the facts – such as the hypothetical but now mostly vanished existence of “Legal Aid,” etc. When you remove comments from their context, the response is bound to be way off.
Sorry i will not be responding to any other post because If talking about terms in general is going to get me accused of giving legal advice then I am shutting my trap and getting the heck out of dodge. I will take this as a great learning experiencing to ignore any thread on the legal system and my experience with it…to anyone reading this thread…I am not license and had no intention of giving legal advice so you can disregard everything I have said…if you have need any legal advice please contact an attorney licensed to practice in your state.

Have a nice day.
 
Your statement doesn’t make an sense.
I does if you think our legal system is as absolutely broken as I think it is, especially our civil system. It makes sense if you see it, not so much as a way to recover a just settle, like for fixing a car to use your example, but to make lawyers rich and dangle the carrot of the big score to the greedy in terms of punitive damages, which have nothing to do with the nice, sanitized presentation your post gave.
 
^ And although you didn’t address me, I myself am not even talking about legal fees, or those lawyers who seem to lack, as individuals, an ethical compass, let alone a moral one. And I have met some highly ethical and generous lawyers, including recently, who have donated time because they see the inequities and abuses within the legal system.

Just for everyone who may still be reading this thread:
The Law itself, our legal system, recognizes that “the law” and “justice” are two different things. (Too often.) While that realism and pragmatism will help to guide those for whom the legal system is a discretionary avenue, there is a foundation of Justice with a capital J which should be operative within the law in all aspects of both of its two major branches, criminal and civil. That is even true from strictly a secular viewpoint. One primary purpose of law is to provide a framework of concepts like equity, like truth, like redress, like recovery for actual concrete monetary losses suffered at the hands of those who violate civil contracts – like restoration of one’s slandered name in the service of truth.

Accessibility to the avenues of the legal system is a fundamental social justice concept. This is a Catholic forum. Why should a Catholic limit himself or herself to “what the law says” and be complicit in the status quo of the law’s vast inequities with regard to accessiblity of the poor to Justice? One will find immoral and unethical practitioners in every field. The Sleaze Factor is there in other fields as well: medicine, accounting, education, and yes – the priesthood. (On an individual basis.) Our aim as Catholics should be reform of any system or institution which allows any predatory practitioner to operate without restriction or checks & balances and thus to violate Justice. (This is why the Church is concerned for its part to change its own system with regard to clergy sexual abuse, for example, and it has listened to the concerns of lay & religious in this regard.)

As Catholics, we are called to witness to Justice and to Truth, and I will not be silenced with regard to either, so that others may defend systems which are violating Justice and Truth.
 
Sweet friends,

This is for the Priest who lived a tortured life and never forgot the scrutiny he suffered. It broke his heart and he had to refrain from doing what he loved and was his calling. That is the true suffering–that and being falsely accused. My heart broke too and sadness covered my being. Prayers are needed here.

I’m not saying a thing about the Attorney. I’m going to let God handle it.

Love ya’ll, Sheila

Holy Mary, succour the miserable, help the faint-hearted,
comfort the sorrowful, pray for the people, plead for the clergy, *** intercede
for all women consecrated to God; may all who keep your holy commemoration
feel now your help and protection. Be ever ready to assist us when we pray,
and bring back to us the answers to our prayers. Make it your continual care
to pray for the people of God, you who, blessed by God, merited to bear the
Redeemer of the world, who lives and reigns for ever and ever. :highprayer::gopray2:

§❤️§ Dear God, help me to always feel love for all mankind and help them too. §❤️§
 
I’m not a fan of email SPAM. I’m likewise not a fan of tort-SPAM. Unfortunately the system is such that there will always been someone trying to make a buck on the back of other people by throwing out enough garbage to see if they can get a multi-million-dollar windfall out of what sticks.
  • Marty Lund
 
Online Legal consultation from Hyderabad lawyer, attorneys,solicitors, Hyderabad law firm Advocates Civil Corporate Litigation Family Criminal Lawyers in Hyderabad provides online legal help Civil Corporate Litigation Family Law.
Delhi Lawyers
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top