If there was any real justice, there would be an express path to dismissal for frivolous lawsuits like this along with disbarment for the filing attorneys.
I disagree with the express path to dismissal for seemingly frivolous lawsuits like this but I fully agree with the disbarment for the filing attorneys.
If the risk was directly associated with the attorneys' livelihood of being an attorney there would be much less cases like this and could give the few occasions, where perhaps something should be heard, a better time of it.
What I was thinking was to have the merits of the case reviewed somehow before being allowed to flood someone with discovery requests, dragging case out with extensions, etc. in order to drown someone in legal fees and take up all their time. There'd still be a lot of caveats.
Like you say though, if the attorneys had more on the line, it would likely take a huge dent out of this stupidity.
The problem with that idea is that it presumes a neutral and even court and law system.
When instead the moment it comes to pass it'll just say "LGBT is understood as sacrosanct, your case against the School transitioning your daughter against your will is dismissed as meritless and offensive." You'll never get the chance to plead your case to possible regular people on a jury or otherwise, it'll just be a judge or other deciding to dismiss you on their own opinions and politics.
Like a lot of things in the legal system, it seems horrible and that it should be fixed because of how it gets abused, but its in place to give the innocent and just a fighting chance against a system that would be stacked against them.
I think I got what you were saying and, at its simple core, I agree with you.
It's just that every now and then a case will come along with exceptional circumstances (Or will appear to be at the time) and then a landmark ruling is made which brings a more just world for everyone afterwards even though it wasn't obvious prior to the case.
But lawyers who take on cases like that are already putting their names and future careers on the line and know full well what they are getting into.
Ambulance chasers just looking to get a buck by wasting public court money are the very first ones Shakespeare's Dick The Butcher is referring to in Henry VI.
That's reasonable. If some dummy wants to spend his own money and time to represent himself in court then let him. With the requirement to pay the defendants fees when the case is dropped.
Suing gun companies because someone used a gun in a way you don't like is already specifically illegal under an entire law passed just for that purpose.
If there was any real justice, there would be an express path to dismissal for frivolous lawsuits like this along with disbarment for the filing attorneys.
I disagree with the express path to dismissal for seemingly frivolous lawsuits like this but I fully agree with the disbarment for the filing attorneys.
If the risk was directly associated with the attorneys' livelihood of being an attorney there would be much less cases like this and could give the few occasions, where perhaps something should be heard, a better time of it.
What I was thinking was to have the merits of the case reviewed somehow before being allowed to flood someone with discovery requests, dragging case out with extensions, etc. in order to drown someone in legal fees and take up all their time. There'd still be a lot of caveats.
Like you say though, if the attorneys had more on the line, it would likely take a huge dent out of this stupidity.
The problem with that idea is that it presumes a neutral and even court and law system.
When instead the moment it comes to pass it'll just say "LGBT is understood as sacrosanct, your case against the School transitioning your daughter against your will is dismissed as meritless and offensive." You'll never get the chance to plead your case to possible regular people on a jury or otherwise, it'll just be a judge or other deciding to dismiss you on their own opinions and politics.
Like a lot of things in the legal system, it seems horrible and that it should be fixed because of how it gets abused, but its in place to give the innocent and just a fighting chance against a system that would be stacked against them.
I think I got what you were saying and, at its simple core, I agree with you.
It's just that every now and then a case will come along with exceptional circumstances (Or will appear to be at the time) and then a landmark ruling is made which brings a more just world for everyone afterwards even though it wasn't obvious prior to the case.
But lawyers who take on cases like that are already putting their names and future careers on the line and know full well what they are getting into.
Ambulance chasers just looking to get a buck by wasting public court money are the very first ones Shakespeare's Dick The Butcher is referring to in Henry VI.
That's reasonable. If some dummy wants to spend his own money and time to represent himself in court then let him. With the requirement to pay the defendants fees when the case is dropped.
Suing gun companies because someone used a gun in a way you don't like is already specifically illegal under an entire law passed just for that purpose.