mine Previous column Comments on the judge’s decision to reduce attorney’s fees partly based on courtesy (or lack of courtesy) have caused some interesting discussions. Some people believe that judges should play a more active role to ensure that lawyers behave appropriately. Others believe that if lawyers are in the best interests of their clients, they must sometimes be enterprising.
Almost everyone believes that lawyers should always maintain civilized behavior. But the problem is that they can’t keep doing it. This is because civilization generally tends to benefit the winner.
Someone told me that sometimes being uncivilized is a manifestation. Opposing lawyers may be good friends, but their clients expect their lawyers to object, especially if they receive a substantial salary. Therefore, even if the opposing lawyers hope to effectively solve this problem, they cannot solve it if the client does not allow it.
If the lawyer has good reason to believe that the opposing lawyer is lying, how should the lawyer respond? Scott Greenfield said that even using the civil euphemism of a liar would still be offensive.
But what if you oppose the lawyer Yes Lie, don’t you call him a liar because it’s uncivilized? The court was correct because it evolved into “destructive reciprocity” and wasted time that could have been used for “social production purposes.” Regardless of what this means, the judge is required to have time to “supervise hostilities.” But what would you do if a lawyer lied in the most popular tone? Of course, you can answer with similar politeness, that is, the lawyer’s statement of facts will give off an unpleasant smell, which tends to attract a lot of flies, but even so, it still feels bruising.
As I mentioned before, if civilization is a factor in deciding a case, when can lawyers cross the line until they act uncivilized? We can agree that physical conflict meets this standard. The same goes for sending threatening e-mails to opposing lawyers who threaten profanity. What if the objecting lawyer or his client does not submit documents when requested by the lawyer? Is that an uncivilized move? If the standard is determined by the personal sensitivity of the judge or the offending lawyer, there will be problems.
Let us look at this matter from another angle. Suppose a customer faces eviction for not paying rent due to COVID-19. One day, the eviction process will start. The client had no money because he was fired and he spent all of it on food and medicine. Assuming that the client has no choice, should his lawyer say to the client: “I’m sorry, but I have to take a civil attitude towards opposing lawyers because he is right”?
The result of implementing civilized rules may hinder lawyers’ statements to clients facing debt collection, deportation, or deportation. If enthusiastically defending their cases may lead to sanctions because someone thinks they are uncivilized, will lawyers tend to represent these people? Do I need to point out that most people facing these problems are people of color?
If judges and those who firmly believe in civilization at all costs will advise lawyers on what they should do if civilization does not help their poor clients return home or stay in the United States.
In short, perhaps a distinction should be made between uncivilized behaviors designed for harassment and procrastination and cases of enthusiastically pleading their clients. I know that sometimes this line is fuzzy, but I am sure that the judges realize that every dispute cannot be resolved peacefully.
Steven Chung is a tax attorney in Los Angeles, California. He helps people with basic tax planning and settlement of tax disputes. He also expressed sympathy for those who have a lot of student loans. You can contact him via email firstname.lastname@example.org. Or, you can connect with him on Twitter (@stevenchung) And establish contact with him LinkedIn.