There are a couple of lawyers I can't stand, especially this week. Most clients actually like their lawyer, it's "lawyers" as a concept they hate.
The difference? Those who hire lawyers are generally seeking someone to help or protect them. Lawyers in general, however, are often criticized for dirty tricks, making life expensive, or pursuing frivolous cases. Then there's the lawyer who sues at the drop of a hat to prove he has muscle, or compel a result or settlement he or she couldn't otherwise get - forcing someone to honor an expired warranty or take back a product they don't like. We are all happy that hospitals count the sponges before they sew us up, but don't think to thank lawyers for that.
When a lawyer's action is viewed as without merit, it damages the relationship of all of us. Most lawyers I know are sensitive to this, and don't throw around their muscle - they try to work it our, or suck it up, without threats.
Last week I won a motion to dismiss a case against a client. The case was without any merit whatsoever. I spent a large amount of time, money, thought, and energy to this case, trying to bring it to a easy end - at that, it took almost a year to get rid of the case. My client loves me, and hates lawyers in general, as a result. I'm not so happy with the other lawyer either - he's mad at me for calling him disreputable.
My client had been named in the lawsuit, not because he had done anything but because someone had listed him as "related" to a car that had been in a horrible accident. There was no evidence he had anything to do with the accident, but there was a possibility that he might have been involved in the car's sale or transportation at some point in the past, unrelated to the accident.
I can easily speculate why he was sued: He lives in San Diego County where the plaintiffs' lawyer has a practice. The accident occurred in Mexico, after the car had been sold and taken there. Without naming my client, the case would surely have been transferred to Mexico - I presume the lawyer isn't licensed to practice there, and other defendants' lawyers have told me that damages in such cases are very low in that country, so it was important to keep the case here. According to the Mexican police report, the plaintiffs' father was driving at a high rate of speed and on bald tires at the time of the accident - he killed himself, so he isn't a defendant.
After giving the plaintiffs almost three quarters of a year to come up with evidence, I filed a motion for summary judgment. Such judgments are based on a claim that there is no evidence showing liability, so it is unfair to send the case to trial.
When you file such a motion, there is a very long notice period to give the other side a chance to scramble around and find some evidence - they can take depositions, issue subpoenas, try to find witnesses, etc. Although they'd already had more than 6 months to do this when I finally filed my motion, the procedure gives them a more months to scramble, just in case they weren't working on the case and needed to have a wake up call [not exactly what I consider a great procedure, but it's what we have to deal with].
In the end, there was no admissible evidence they could produce. In fact, had the evidence they claimed they had were admissible they still would not have had a case against my client because he never did anything. Yet, they opposed the motion.
When the judge issued a tentative ruling against plaintiffs, they asked for oral argument, so I had to play dress up and go to court and worry the judge might change his mind based on some arcane rule of which I am not aware [I am a family law lawyer, and this is really out of my league - I haven't filed such a motion in decades, and felt really unsure of myself - a couple of friends gave me some help, but I still didn't feel too confident].
The lawyer didn't even show up himself. He sent an associate to take the beating: That lawyer asked for the motion to be continued so they could go out and find some legitimate evidence, and maybe find some theory on which my client might be liable. Anything to keep all the balls in the air. The court denied the request.
Since I filed the motion, the lawyer found some other California defendants he could name to try to keep the case in the U.S.: Prior owners of the vehicle - still no evidence they had anything to do with the accident, but they're here. He was able to bring them into the case as "Doe Defendants:" These are people or entities unknown at the time of filing the lawsuit that can later be brought in when they are identified. And, he still has the car and tire manufacturers.
In this case, their names and identities were long known to the plaintiffs' lawyer - he just didn't need them in the case until he was about to lose the other California defendants. A California tow company that had once towed the car also got out last week on a similar motion.
Why do I care, you may ask, aren't I getting paid? No, and probably won't. I took on the case because the defendant is a nice guy, I know his family, he was in boy scouts with a staff member's children, and he didn't have any insurance for this kind of defense - he did have car insurance, but that doesn't cover you for cars you never owned and were never driving. We have a loose arrangement, but ultimately getting paid for my time is an unknown.
As I noted above, the client thinks I'm a great guy, but he has a bad taste in his mouth for lawyers in general. Not much I can do about that.
As a result of my action, nothing is likely to change. No one is going to be counting more sponges because my client found a defense. The lawyer will keep pulling such stunts, no doubt. This whole process makes me question the contingent fee system, despite the great good it has done to make us all more safe.
