I'm not an attorney, and it wasn't in front of a judge, But I got into a dispute with a contractor who f**ked up royally when installing anew heating system, resulting in an asbestos contamination of my house.

Their insurance argued the contractor couldn't have caused the contamination, because the contamination was way worse than could have been possible from what the contractor did (which is bulls**t). They argued the contamination must have been caused by the contractor that installed the previous heating system.

It was super satisfying to write our response:

The previous heating system was placed 12 years earlier. The asbestos dust was visibly lying everywhere. Arguing we didn't vacuum for 12 years was beyond ridiculous.

The asbestos dust was on a floor we installed 6 months earlier (included the receipt for the floor).

And then the third point was the most fun to write:

3) I said they were welcome to believe the contamination was caused by the contractor who installed the previous system 12 years ago. I included the receipt of that installation: it was done by the same contractor.

The next letter was very brief, stating they would pay us fir all damages we were claiming.

JustCallMeBen Report

POST

Zoe's Mom

Zoe's Mom

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Bazinga.

19

19points

reply

View more comments

Late to the party, but I'll chime in anyway. My firm had been chasing down this woman for years, trying to get her to pay out on a six figure judgment. She kept nothing in her personal bank accounts and used the money for her business accounts for a rather lavish lifestyle. She kept claiming she was broke and that she didn't use her company funds for her living expenses, including in affidavits filed with the court. During the citation deposition, at the beginning, she stated she was current on her mortgage for her huge house. We go through all her finances and companies and after a few hours I brought up the mortgage again and then asked "if you're broke, but current on your mortgage, how are you making mortgage payments?" Dead silence, then in a soft voice "I use company funds." Her attorney stopped the deposition and pulled her out of the conference room. My boss was observing and started laughing and told me it was a good question.

LizLemonKnope , todd kent Report

POST

Random Anon

Random Anon

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

2 years ago

• Report

I hate to be the evil one here but if you want to remain "broke" and still "owned" your home. Sell it to your company for chump change. But do not lose control of said company though.

5

5points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

My brother went to court to gain some custody rights of his daughter. Ex-wife says he shouldn't be allowed to be alone with the daughter cuz he looks at porn. The judge, who happened to be a woman, laughed and said, "honey, if every man who looked at porn wasn't allowed to see their children then there would be no child with a daddy in this world".

heavenleemother Report

POST

Kai David

Kai David

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

I come from money. My family has money, but its their money. Not mine. I bought a house prior to my marriage, but it was a rental property, never ment to be my residence. I moved back to the states with 3 sons and my wife. LSS we moved into the house, 7 bed, 3 bath; we divorced when we found out I was gay. (arranged marriage back in the olde country). Ugly divorce. She wanted custody and my house AND she based child support on my family's money, not my income. She had no job, no family or support system, no place to live. She told the judge that women always gets to keep the house and custody of kids after divorce and the $65,000 a month of child support, she will be fine. At the time, I made $75,000 a year . Judge asked where she came up with that number, she told judge that it was based on my family's money, not my income. I kept the house and custody, no child support from her I did buy her a house. When she realized she was not getting the money, she left.

8

8points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

I was a second year associate and handling my first trial. I represented the plaintiff. The defendant had an expert witness who had testified previously in about 40 similar cases. This expert came out to my client's property and did a completely bulls**t examination of the issue and his expert report was equally as bulls**t. For those of you that don't know, expert testimony needs to meet a certain standard (the Daubert standard, at least in my state) in order to be admissible. This guy basically took some photos and put a ruler on the ground a few times to make his "report" seem legit.

The partners at my firm told me it wasn't worth trying to file a Daubert motion to strike his report/testimony because the case was low value (under $100k) and those types of motions can be very complex, and didnt want to bill the client for it. I was so angry about this guy being deemed an "expert" that i came in on a weekend, on my own time, and drafted a 20 page motion to strike his testimony. I didn't bill the client a dime.

The defendant didn't file a response to my Daubert motion to strike. Instead, they waited until right before the expert was set to testify (he had been sitting in court racking up fees for two full days beforehand). The judge had the jury leave the room, put the expert on the stand, and allowed the defendant to do a direct examination of their expert. The defendant's attorney, not taking my motion seriously, had their inexperienced associate (just like me) do the examination. It was incredibly basic and didn't respond to any of the points in my motion. I was in charge of doing his cross exam (it was my first cross exam of a witness, ever). I tore the guy, a seasoned expert witness, apart on the stand. I got his entire testimony and report struck.

They also had a second expert witness, who was pretty terrible but not quite as terrible. I also did his cross exam. Realizing that they were in serious trouble without their primary expert, and their second expert at risk of getting struck, the lead counsel for the defendant (a named partner at a well known firm) did the direct exam for the second expert. I again did the cross. I got the second expert's testimony struck except for one very, very tiny area. So essentially he was forced to testify with both hands tied behind his back.

It was the most gratifying moment of my legal career so far.

this_is_not_the_cia Report

POST

Albo alt

Albo alt

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Did you win?

6

6points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

Not a lawyer, but this is my favorite story in traffic court.

I got a ticket for going 75 mph on I-88 (Near Chicago)

The Officer wrote on the ticket I was going 88 mph on I-75. (Detroit south to Miami, not near Chicago)

I show up wearing a suit, because I have one suit, and I may as well wear it.

Judge calls on me asking me if I'm a lawyer. I say I am not, but I get to go first because I'm the only one in a suit.

Judge looks at the ticket, says 'You were going 88 on I-75? Officer X, what does this ticket say? Isn't I-75 out of our jurisdiction?'

At this point I open my mouth, and shut it, because I have the right to remain silent, may as well show the ability to be silent as well.

Officer says 'Your honor, at my age I have no idea what I wrote'.

Judge gives him a look, and throws my license back at me, in the plastic bag, says 'you are free to go'.

Always wear a suit to traffic court.

coranos2 Report

POST

Ogre Juan

Ogre Juan

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

'Your honor, at my age I have no idea what I wrote'. Admission Of Senile Incomitance

4

4points

reply

View more comments

Opposing counsel decided that I had coached my witness and gave him lines to repeat, that he was lying. Short version is that he asked the witness if he spoke to me before he testified. Witness said he had. Attorney looked like he thought he had me. Attorney asked the witness what I told him, what instructions I gave him. Witness looked him dead in the eye and said, “First thing he told me was to tell the truth no matter what. He said the lawyer is never the one who goes to jail, that he isn’t going to jail for me, and if I lie, I’m on my own.” Attorney looked like someone took the air out of him. Everyone in the courtroom simultaneously looked at me. Only time I’ve smirked or laughed in court. I wanted to put my feet up on the table like I was Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, hands behind my head, and say, “I’m done with this guy.”

Reptar4President Report

POST

Phil Boswell

Phil Boswell

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Good ol' Vinnie ❣

8

8points

reply

View more comments

So, picture it: mother and father are in a custody dispute. Mother's not making a lot of money but she's hustling as best as she can to take care of her kids. Father's a deadbeat. He actually was supposed to originally have primary custody, but skipped out, so she's been taking care of them for a couple years, and now she wants primary custody officially transferred to her and he's fighting it because he's a narcissist...

Anyways. In many jurisdictions, in addition to the lawyer for each side (assuming that the person isn't arguing pro se, like the father in this case, because not everyone can afford a lawyer, or thinks that they need one) when there's a child involved the court appoints a guardian ad litem, who represents the child. The guardian ad litem interviews the parents, interviews the child, does some basic investigating, and reports to the judge about their assessment. In this case, the guardian ad litem said outright that the mother was probably the better bet, but he thinks that both parents should take a drug test just in case. (Both parents had previous substance abuse problems, and both claimed to be clean.)

Well, the judge has no problem with any of that that, and sends the parents off to be tested right then (social services sent someone to administer the tests, I believe). That's done, everybody comes back to the courtroom.

Judge reads the results out loud. Mother tested negative for everything. Father...tested positive for cocaine.

Now, as the mother's attorney (and the guardian ad litem) made sure to emphasize, cocaine doesn't stay detectable for very long. Either the father used it very recently (he admitted in court that he'd gone to a party and done a line of coke), or he was such a habitual user that it remained detectable for longer (the party that he'd been at was the previous weekend, which was outside of the approx. 3 day range that cocaine remains in your system, so if that was indeed the only time he'd used coke then he must have been doing lines nonstop the week before for it to linger so long).

Things really did not go well for him after that. Mother ended up with primary custody of the kids, father ended up looking like a real tool in front of the judge.

IntrepidFlatworm Report

POST

IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet

IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Some helpful advice- Poppy seeds can make a false positive, don't eat them before any appointment. You never know when drug tests will be administered.

7

7points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

Not a lawyer, recent law school grad studying for the bar. This happened summer after my first year of law school, I was making a court appearance as a student attorney (basically, a rule in my state that lets students practice under attorney supervision).

I was working with the public defender’s office, representing a client at a first appearance on a probation violation/bail hearing. On a probation violation, the judge is allowed to hold a defendant without bail (keep them in jail until the case is over).

Client says he has some money, but not much. Could get together about $500 for bail. Ok, I’ll ask the judge to keep it low or just release him. Prosecutor asks for $300 bail. Great, my work here is done. Whatever I say, judge will order $300 or less and my guy is out.

I say my piece, and then my client interrupts the judge, saying some incoherent stuff about how he needs to get out and he’s got this that and the other thing going on. Won’t let the judge speak.

Judge holds him without bail even though the prosecutor didn’t ask for it. All he had to do was shut up and he’d have gone home that afternoon.

brotherstoic , Robert Linder Report

POST

Andy Acceber

Andy Acceber

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

NEVER talk over a judge. You may think the judge is the biggest idiot in the world -- and they may be -- but they have an incredible about of discretionary power over you. Suck up. Be humble. Be kind. And if there are issues, talk to your lawyer outside the courtroom to push for a retrial or appeal.

18

18points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

The defendant tried to b**** slap one of the jury.

soiseeadog-hmmm , Tingey Injury Law Firm Report

POST

Libstak

Libstak

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

How did the defendant get anywhere near any of the jury?

17

17points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

My dear, departed bf was a criminal defense attorney who told me this one:

Attorney (cross-examination): "You were dating my client, Eddie X, and your then-boyfriend, Mr Z, and became pregnant. How did you know that the baby was not my client's child"

Witness: "Because Eddie always f***** me up the ass!"

Order! Order!

kd3906 Report

POST

ZAPanda

ZAPanda

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

but of course she could get pregnant still: how do you think lawyers are conceived?? (joke)

20

20points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

I once had an idiot client who put out a public statement announcing that a subordinate had resigned.

Then the subordinate announced that he had not resigned, and furthermore, had no intention of resigning.

Then my idiot client put out an email announcing that he had fired the subordinate.

Then I had to advise my idiot client that he didn't have the right to fire the subordinate.

Then I had to explain to my idiot client that he couldn't fire the man because he is not my idiot client's subordinate at all; in fact, he was hired by, and worked for, a completely different subsidiary - over which my client had no authority.

So I got my idiot client to put out a public statement saying that his boss, the Chief Executive, had fired the subordinate.

Then my idiot client's boss blabbed to everybody that he had not fired the subordinate, and that he had thrown the whole matter back into my idiot client's hands.

And now, dammit, I have to spend the next four months boning up on all the statues and case law pertaining to obstruction of justice.

Sincerely, William Barr's lawyer.

theartfulcodger , Tingey Injury Law Firm Report

POST

Two_rolling_black_eyes

Two_rolling_black_eyes

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago (edited)

• Report

That took an extremely sharp turn in the last 4 words. I've followed the case and didn't recognize it because of the vagueness until the end. William Barr is the former US Attorney General accused of all of the above. The chief executive was Trump.

11

11points

reply

View more comments

This was in a custody dispute, jury trial. We represented the father of young twins, and the mother wanted child support. The issue was that, for the past three years, they had been sharing the kids EXACTLY 50-50, as in he got a weekend, she got a weekend, one of them got Monday Tuesday, the other got Thursday Friday, and they split Wednesday. There was no reason not to have a shared custody order with each parent paying their own expenses, but she thought she could get more, so there we were.

The thing was, she did not have a case. She kept taking the kids to CPS and child psychologists before the trial to make a reason why she should have primary custody, but we managed to get all of that excluded.

So on the day of the trial, her big argument is that these kids have asthma. Severe asthma. The kind of asthma that requires special equipment, and the father is ignoring these issues. He's negligent. He's endangering them. She should have custody.

The trial is generally going our way. She's not a great witness, she doesn't have any medical records to back up these allegations, and we have the children's daycare teacher testifying that she doesn't know anything about any special equipment or severe asthma. But the moment that sealed the deal came when the mother called her last witness.

The last witness to testify was the children's grandmother, the mother's mother. The jury already knew that she frequently babysat the two kids, and that her apartment was often a drop-off location for the kids. The mother swore that the grandmother never smoked in front of the kids, and that her apartment was not a dangerous environment for asthmatic children. The grandmother was called last minute by the mother as a rebuttal witness.

As she took the stand, the grandmother leaned over into the microphone and cleared her throat.

"Ahecchhhmm."

It was a two or three second long expression of smoky phlegm. I don't recall exactly what the grandmother said in her testimony, but I remember she sounded like decades of three-pack-a-day smoking when she said it.

After a half-hour of deliberations, the jury awarded primary custody to the father. He immediately started crying, while the mother sat motionless. It was a good result.

Thompson_S_Sweetback Report

POST

Zoe's Mom

Zoe's Mom

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

I feel this one for some reason. Fathers, in many cases, are seen as the bad guy. Obviously, this man loves his children immensely. I'm happy it went his way.

20

20points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

When I was in law school, I had to argue a case for an exam. I was the last in my class to go so there wasn't anyone arguing against me. I opened with a motion to dismiss since opposing had failed to show. The judge grading me chuckled and said "touche counsel." I still had to go forward but we got off on the right foot and I ended up with an A.

Dr_Julian_Helisent Report

POST

Anna Snorrepot

Anna Snorrepot

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

that's a nice one :D

3

3points

reply

View more comments

Back in the days when you needed to bring posterboard blow ups of photos with you to court as exhibits, and you didn't have a computer screen to enlarge them, in a fire case the defendant said he and his family were in Mexico buying tiles and went straight to their home in Beverly Hills. They claimed they didn't stop in Malibu at their beach house to drop off the tiles, have a smoke, and then leave. (Our theory was their cigarettes started the fire. LA County Arson thought so too.)

Up until the day of trial we didn't have the blow ups. I got them. They were huge, I took them to court. I asked the defendant husband to repeat the story he had given in deposition. Then I uncovered the blow up which showed his garage with the door left open by LA County firefighters. The garage was untouched by the fire that burned down his house and the neighborhood. I showed him the photo and asked him to identify the tiles neatly stacked in the middle of the garage. When he failed to answer the question I knew the jury knew he was lying. (He was, as we say in the profession, a "LSOS.")

Sterngard Report

POST

Megan Johnson

Megan Johnson

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

LSOS ?

5

5points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

Was waiting with now exwife in divorce court. Ours was mostly mutual so it was somewhat painless.

The couple before us was an older divorced couple arguing over back child support.

HER: "He has not paid me in 3 months. I gave him an extension but still nothing"

HIM: "I don't have any money right now, times are tough. Im trying the best I can"

HER: "You honor ask him where he was 2 weeks ago?"

JUDGE: "Where were you 2 weeks ago"

HIM: "I went to Florida and got remarried on the beach"

Bailiff: "CLICK. CLICK". {The guy was hauled away in cuffs}.

DrMussintouchit Report

POST

IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet

IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

I'm sorry your marriage didn't work out.

3

3points

reply

View more comments

Very abbreviated - I was prosecuting a convenience store owner for luring a young girl, who regularly came into the store, back to a part of the store to grope/fondle and kiss her (child enticement). It was the only section of the store without surveillance camera coverage. They were in the back room for about two minutes and seventeen seconds, per the timestamp on the videos. Of the many arguments the defense put on, one was there was no way there was enough time for anything to happen. In my rebuttal on closing, I asked the jury to imagine what could happen in the room in that amount of time, and I asked them to all close their eyes while I timed out 2 minutes and 17 seconds on my watch, in silence. After about 60 seconds two of the jurors started crying. Knew it was going to be guilty right then.

Badwolf84 Report

POST

Jo Johannsen

Jo Johannsen

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

I have seen this before. At random moments, it comes to mind, and I tear up all over again.

8

8points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

Unfortunately my best story for this is from my own client. We had a client who was on the board of directors for a company, and was being sued for allegedly not telling the board something. His part of the case was really only a smaller part of a larger and more complicated case, so while there were a lot of other issues in the case overall, the entire case against him specifically essentially boiled down to whether or not he told the board about X.

I and few other attorneys spent an entire week — 9 AM to 5 PM or later, Monday through Friday — prepping this client for his deposition by going over every document in the case with him and explaining why it was important. On several occasions we reiterated that no matter what else happened in the case, as long as we can show that he told the board about X, he was fine.

The day of the deposition arrives. Opposing counsel sits down and starts questioning our client. In the first 5-10 minutes of the dep, opposing counsel straight-up asks our client what he told the board. Client responds, “I told them about Y, I told them about Z, I told them about A, B, and C” — and says NOTHING about X, literally the only issue in the case against him.

In 20+ years of practice it was the closest I’ve ever come to rage-quitting on a client.

abunchofsquirrels Report

POST

gellert gridlewald

gellert gridlewald

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

wow!

4

4points

reply

View more comments

My father as a young lawyer was trying to get a case to take place in one state and not another because the insurance laws were more favorable in state A. The company he was in litigation with wanted it in state B for that reason, and claimed they only distributed in state A but had no locations in it and should not have to go to court in state A.

Well this company was a soda company and my dad has a major diet soda addiction, he goes through at least a 12 pack a day. So they were in a meeting with the soda company lawyers and took a break and he went downstairs to get a diet soda. When it came out he noticed on the can that it said "Distrubted by the XYZ soda company of State A". So he got another diet soda and brought that one up stairs to the meeting. The XYZ soda co decided to settle after that.

This was in the late 70s or early 80s I believe.

McCarty898 Report

POST

TheCapitalOfTurkeyIsAnkara

TheCapitalOfTurkeyIsAnkara

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

My favorite soda is from XYZ soda co

1

1point

reply

View more comments

I represented a company that was sued for breach of contract by a former independent contractor. Dude basically alleged that my client wasn’t paying him correctly in accordance with the contract.

During his deposition, dude admits that he never reviewed any documents to make sure his allegations were true, never reviewed his complaint before filing it to make sure the allegations in it were true, and had no idea whether or not my client actually failed to pay him in accordance with the contract. Basically, he tells me that he was suing my client because he didn’t think their agreement was fair (even though he agreed to the terms when he signed the contract). The kicker is that he admitted that he OWED my client money.

At arbitration, he tries to flip his story and starts giving testimony that is the exact opposite of his dep, so I whip out his transcript and undermine his testimony bit by bit. Needless to say, I won that case.

[deleted] , Sora Shimazaki Report

POST

Kai David

Kai David

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Owned rental properties. I advertised for a contractor bid to repair a brick wall. A black contractor called, set up a meeting and gave us a verbal quote. We accepted, but we need his quote in writing. After 5 weeks, he ignores our phone calls, letters and never submitted a written quote to us. He never got back to us, nor did he start any work.We went with someone else. 3 years later, the original contractor, the one who ghosted us, sued us for discrimination. It was an ugly trial, painting us as racist. After we presented our paperwork and evidence that we gave him due diligence for several weeks. Judge ruled in our favor, lecturing the contractor that his behavior and lack of action was the reason why we chose another contractor. Race was not the reason.

12

12points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

I represented a man in a slip and fall case in a national chain that grills chicken. The restaurant is not supposed to clean the grills until after they close because it is a huge sloppy mess that involves using a garden hose after applying chemicals to remove all of the grease. The close down process can take up to two to three hours that involve packing up the food for the next day, scrubbing the grills, mopping, etc. Even though the corporation knew this, they refused to pay more than one hour worth of wages after closing time. Thus, the shift managers and cooks decided that they would start the closing process two hours before closing while there were still customers in the restaurant. This is really dangerous as employees delivering food can track the greasy water into the lobby where the customers were.

On one fateful day, two hours before closing, one of the cooks was cleaning the grills and using the hose to wash them down. This slurry is so slick that the cook has to wear a plastic smock and slip resistant shoes for the process. While he was waiting for the chemicals to remove the grease which takes about 15 minutes, the cook goes into the lobby tracking this stuff into a hallway to wipe down some tables. My client walks out of the restroom and slips in the greasy water. He hits his head so hard that it causes a subdural hematoma which requires surgery to relieve the swelling and blood from the brain. Go figure, the video system wasn't working that day.

In any case, right after that the cook was fired and the corporation claimed that they could not locate him during litigation. I did some research and found a relative of the cook which eventually led to me finding him. He admitted that he was cleaning the grill, but denied that he was the one that tracked the greasy water into the lobby as did all of the other employees. The corporation during the entire three week trial testified that cleaning before closing was against their policy and it NEVER happens. Thus, it had to be anything else that caused my client to fall.

I was talking to the cook before trial because we were going to call him as a witness. He was pissed that they fired him. I asked, "Do you think they are still cleaning before closing because they are denying that they do." He told me, "Absolutely." On the first day of trial, I sent my investigator to the restaurant at the time my client was injured which was two hours before closing to record video on his cell phone whether they were cleaning or not. Guess what, they had the hose out and everything. I couldn't believe that they would continue to do this at the restaurant at issue in the case. I told my investigator to go back up there when there is a different shift manager and cook to see if they are doing the same thing. They were.

At the end of the trial, the defense put on their general manager for the region. He swore up and down that this never happens. He was their last witness. We get up and say, Judge we need a side bar. In the Judge's chambers we revealed the videos to the other side. The attorney for the corporation was freaking out. The Judge let it in for rebuttal.

The last thing the jury saw before going into deliberations was five minutes of video with audio of the hose as they were cleaning the grills two hours before closing. We completely wiped out their entire defense in a three week trial with that video. Needless to say, we prevailed.

I should add, using sub rosa video against a defendant like this is very rare. They usually stop doing what they are not supposed to be doing during the trial. I guess the restaurant didn't get the memo.

Cepheus Report

POST

Anna Snorrepot

Anna Snorrepot

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

weird to no pay for hours that need to be worked (after closing time).

1

1point

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

There was one juror who just had been clearly thoroughly annoyed with the other lawyer throughout the trial. When the verdict came back, that juror was holding the verdict, indicating he had been the foreman. At that moment I knew I had won.

Thirty_Helens_Agree , Tingey Injury Law Firm Report

POST

Michael Largey

Michael Largey

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

The juror may have been annoyed because the lawyer's arguments were so phony that that they were an insult to the intelligence.

3

3points

reply

View more comments

Defendant on trial for arson of an occupied dwelling. I cross-examined him about statements he made to witnesses saying he was going to burn down the house. He claimed he was just, 'Singing the song, you know — burning down the house, burning down the house.'

I said, 'You mean the song by the Talking Heads?' He said, 'Yeah, that song; I remember because it had just come out!' He set the fire in 2015. I actually had to look up the proper citation for a recorded song for the appellate brief, which went as well for the defendant as the trial did. The Talking Heads, "Burning Down the House" (Sire Records, 1983!).

He was lying about why he was saying he was going to 'burn down the house' is evidence of intent to conceal."

Sunnydale_Slayer , Jen Theodore Report

POST

Andy Acceber

Andy Acceber

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Eh, this is a pretty weak connection to me. I hope there was a lot more evidence. I'm old enough that "just came out" to me is anywhere from 1 day to roughly 25 years. Plus, I'm pretty ignorant. Sometimes I'll hear a "classic" song that I somehow missed the first time around and just assume it's new.

20

20points

reply

View more comments

I was on the losing end. Represented a guy who had bought a company and the company failed spectacularly within months due to a number of reasons I could attribute to the seller, and they had clearly lied about the company’s finances to induce him to buy. I was suing to rescind the deal, have your s**tty company back and give my guy his money back. I laid out my huge case and thought I had it in the bag, and then opposing counsel asked my guy:

“Isnt it true that you listed this business for sale a month ago” “Yes” “And you did sell it correct? You signed a purchase and sale?” “Yes but he never finished paying me, he has more payments to make. I’ll just give his money back when you guys give me my money back”

My idiot client had me suing over a company that he had legally sold. F**ker never told me. Game over on the spot.

ElvisAaron Report

POST

gellert gridlewald

gellert gridlewald

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

well then.....

3

3points

reply

My "Eight Word Trial" would be up there. Basically my lowest ever effort court hearing win. I was required to say a grand total of eight words during the whole thing.

The Defendant's lawyer has f**ked up, spectacularly; and has tried, ineptly, to get his client and himself out of the s**t. He spends about an hour ranting and raving about the injustice of it all; screaming at the judge that he's got it wrong, while I sit, half listening, casually browsing Reddit using the court Wi-Fi.

Eventually, he gives up and the Judge says something like "For [reasons] I'm going to dismiss this application. Anything to add, u/CountZapolai?"

"No." (word 1)

"OK, application dismissed for [reasons]. How much are your costs?"

"Twelve thousand pounds plus VAT" [a UK sales tax] (words 2-6)

"Granted. Good morning"

"Thank you" (words 7 and 8).

CountZapolai Report

POST

So I typically do Plaintiffs work for corporations but one of my clients was getting sued by a former contractor for work allegedly performed right before he was fired in the amount of $150k. I had never dealt with opposing counsel, she was about my age (32) and seemed nice heading up to trial. The day of our pretrial just 5 days before trial she tells me in the elevator "I hope you know I'm going to kick your ass in trial" I laughed and she said "no really, you are screwed". Trial comes and she drags out her case over 5 days and I start to get the impression her client made up the invoices with her help. She finally rests her case and I called her client as my only witness. He immediately testified his attorney showed him how to make the invoices. The judge wouldnt allow them into evidence, she lost her case and was sanctioned $5k for falsifying evidence. She appealed and the court of appeals ripped into her. Needless to say, I didnt get my ass kicked.

Lazy_Litigator Report

POST

Ty Stratton-Quirk

Ty Stratton-Quirk

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Should've had her license revoked...

13

13points

reply

I'm not a lawyer, but I took my old landlord to court when I was in college. They stole my security deposit over bulls**t: They claimed I "trashed" the place, not knowing that I took pictures and video when I moved in and out. Their "evidence" was a VHS quality recording of going through a perfectly clean apartment in better condition than it was when I moved in, but then they opened up the top of the stove and found a single piece of elbow macaroni under it, holding it up triumphantly. That was the crux of their "defense", the judge was not amused and I got all my money back plus my lawyer fees and the filing fee. She then fought against her own lawyer to avoid paying him. As**ole. Edit: Any time you move into a place, take pictures, take video, make notes about any damage. When you move out, do the same thing along with noting any repairs you made. Pretty hard to argue against solid evidence. Protect yourself.

FartsWithAnAccent Report

POST

Bobby

Bobby

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

This is why I handle most interactions with my landlord through text. "You never told me that was an issue" Well right here I can prove I did, and you did nothing

4

4points

reply

View more comments

A doctor testifying under oath that he deliberately chose not to inform a pregnant woman of a positive test result for a really severe genetic disorder, because he figured because she was a member of his church she wouldn't have considered aborting the pregnancy under any circumstances.

A primary care doctor who received a complex and technical test report from a genetics lab, and simply forwarded it to the patient (who didn't really speak English and wasn't medically educated). She testified that she "performed the minimum required diligence" which is not what you should say and expect a good outcome.

ThadisJones Report

POST

IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet

IeabellAlakar@aqueenofaplanet

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Dat first tho--- Wtf

10

10points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

I was involved in a civil suit against an organization that allegedly allowed and attempted to cover up the sexual assault of an at-risk population.

During a deposition of a victim the opposing counsel began asking an aggressive line of questions accusing the deposed of having been convicted of making false reports in the past, and convictions for forgery, and identity theft.

After our client answered with a simple “no” to about a dozen of these questions opposing counsel became belligerent, eventually basically signaling that at trial he would be producing mugshots, as well as conviction records, as well as charges for perjury and right about at that point he becomes ghost white, pulls very close to his face what is clearly a photo he had in a folder, looks at it closely then shoves it back in and asks to conclude the deposition. He had pulled records on the wrong person, i later found this other person and while their names were the same, the ages were more than 15 years apart.

k10bcImbiggerthnadog Report

POST

Who the What

Who the What

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

And that's why you always double check your work.

8

8points

reply

View more comments

(Im the victim of the case.) There was a guy being charged with 3 counts of sexual misconduct (2 from when i was a minor and one from when i was 18). There wasn't much for evidence for the case at all. No undeniable proof that he did any of it. All the state had going for them was me and my testimony. He was already in prison for unrelated charges (went to prison right after the time i was 18). Because he was in prison, they had access to all of his calls and letters. One day, he decided to confess to being completely alone with me all night, where no one else could hear us, and that was enough to make even the state attorney facepalm and call him an idiot. Prior to the call, they would have had a much better chance at fighting, because he and all of his family are willing to do anything to keep him out of trouble, including lying under oath. Had he not talked to the person on the phone about that night, we could have very easily lost. However, because of it, it sounds like his lawyer told him that his only chance at all is a plea bargain, which he eventually took.

xPrincessJesx Report

POST

Oopsydaisy

Oopsydaisy

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

It is astounding how many people don't realise their prison calls are recorded and reviewed.

8

8points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

My client and his wife were woken up one night because people were trying to break into his house. He fired two warning shots as his wife called 911. The neighbor also called 911. When the police got the neighbor's call that there were shots fired, the Police Sergeant radioed the other officers and said "He's going to jail tonight" referring to my client. So obviously even with signs of someone trying to break in and his wife calling 911 for help....the officers arrest my client for endangering his wife by shooting inside the house (nowhere near her). It gets to a jury trial and I start to go off on the Police Sergeant about why she would say that before an investigation and before she even had any idea what happened. The Sergeant had no idea how to respond and literally just sat there staring at me for a solid 2 minutes before saying anything. Even the bailiffs were audibly laughing.

[deleted] Report

POST

Hayhaypaula

Hayhaypaula

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

In the USA, it is legal to defend yourself by firing a gun inside your home, if you believe your life is in danger. So an investigation really should have been done before deciding to arrest the homeowner!

14

14points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments

Pro bono case. Representing woman who was trying to get a permanent protective order against her boyfriend.

I ask her if he has contacted her since the temporary order was issued (which is a crime).

She says yes, he called her three times.

Defendant: Objection your honor.

Judge: State the grounds for your objection please.

D: The facts! I only called her once!

Me: closes file and sits down

Prolyde Report

POST

Not as a lawyer, but a defendant. I was a concierge and named in a lawsuit against the building by an unlicensed realtor who was barred from entry after headbutting me while he was wearing a bike helmet. He was representing himself in court.

He cross examines me over how I had barred him from entry and had some preamble about the vendetta I had against him. Then asked me to repeat what I said when I asked him to leave the building.

I responded, "I'm sorry, was that before or after you hit me?"

He immediately answered, "After I hit you." Took him a minute but his face fell pretty far after he caught on to what he just admitted.

Case dismissed.

GoodChadAndUgly Report

POST

Cold Contagious

Cold Contagious

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

It's sweet justice when they tell on themselves.

5

5points

reply

Re-upping an old comment:

We all forget to turn off our phones in court, but I once faced off against a lawyer whose phone rang right while he was in the middle of making his final submission to the Judge.

Even that might have been forgivable if he hadn't interrupted his submissions to take the call.

JournalofFailure Report

POST

Anna Snorrepot

Anna Snorrepot

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

"One second your honor, I gotta take this."

2

2points

reply

Posted this one a little while ago, but it does fit here.

Not a lawyer, but I have a similar type of experience to share. Where I live, municipal zoning rights are controlled by a board that has a nickname of "The Green Taliban" - so named because they are drop-dead-heart-attack serious about anything to do with environmental regulations (I live in one of the most left-wing, environmentally-conscious areas of the country). Their answer to anything that isn't 100% in compliance with the most stringent environmental codes is almost always "No."

Anyways, this millionaire decides to move out to the area and buys an acreage. His plans for developing the land include creating an artificial cave (for wine-tasting parties) by blasting one into a cliff using mining explosives and creating a new stream by draining a water-body located on the property.

Needless to say, these actions were rather controversial amongst the community and he had to have a public hearing (which I attended) in front of the zoning board to explain himself. After a couple of pointed questions from the board, he loudly groused, "You know, where I come from [a very conservative part of the country, as it turns out], if we want to build a road and there's a lake in the way, we move the lake." That was about the point where I thought to myself, Yeah, you definitely just lost your case. Congratulations on passing into local legend, though.

darkknight109 Report

POST

Lulu Lemons

Lulu Lemons

Community Member • points

posts

comments

upvotes

FollowUnfollow

2 years ago

• Report

Isn't that name a bit offensive? Being green is a good thing and shouldn't be compared to what is widely considered a terrorist organisation

11

11points

reply

View More Replies...

View more comments