Best Way to Get Yourself Disqualified From A Case?

[The Observer]

Are you stuck representing a loser for a client? Or a loser case? Can't figure out a way to get out of the mess? Although there is nothing to suggest that Christopher Hook was looking to do that, his profane interactions with the opposing counsel certainly led to them filing the ex parte request to the court so that they could get Mr. Hook out of their hair.

[jcolvin2]

Are you stuck representing a loser for a client? Or a loser case? Can't figure out a way to get out of the mess? Although there is nothing to suggest that Christopher Hook was looking to do that, his profane interactions with the opposing counsel certainly led to them filing the ex parte request to the court so that they could get Mr. Hook out of their hair.

The attorneys for the defendant are requesting the court to dismiss the action on an ex parte basis, based on Hook's profanity laced communications. Thoughtfully, the defendant suggests that Hook's client (the plaintiff) would not be completely SOL because he could recover any damages by pressing a malpractice claim against Hook.

[LaVidaRoja]

Has the Court ruled on this?

[notorial dissent]

Just filed within the last few days I believe. I can see them getting the attorney removed and sanctioned, deservedly, but I have a hard time seeing that the attorney's behavior is the client's fault or that the client should be penalized for his bad behavior. Their suit would seem to have some merit, whereas the attorney's behavior has none. He either doesn't like insurance companies, that insurance company in particular, or is just bugnutz. Maybe all of the above.

[KickahaOta]

I just love this case. (Come for the insane settlement demands, stay for the homophobic slur!) But it seems like it's more of a Word Salad Bar kinda thing than a Tax Practice & Policy thing.

[Pottapaug1938]

Just filed within the last few days I believe. I can see them getting the attorney removed and sanctioned, deservedly, but I have a hard time seeing that the attorney's behavior is the client's fault or that the client should be penalized for his bad behavior. Their suit would seem to have some merit, whereas the attorney's behavior has none. He either doesn't like insurance companies, that insurance company in particular, or is just bugnutz. Maybe all of the above.

That was my impression, as well. I see a letter, from the Court to the local Bar Association, in the offing as well.

[Dr. Caligari]

I see a letter, from the Court to the local Bar Association, in the offing as well.

I would bet at least fifty cents that there will be a referral to the Bar.

[notorial dissent]

Just filed within the last few days I believe. I can see them getting the attorney removed and sanctioned, deservedly, but I have a hard time seeing that the attorney's behavior is the client's fault or that the client should be penalized for his bad behavior. Their suit would seem to have some merit, whereas the attorney's behavior has none. He either doesn't like insurance companies, that insurance company in particular, or is just bugnutz. Maybe all of the above.

That was my impression, as well. I see a letter, from the Court to the local Bar Association, in the offing as well.

A very STERNLY worded letter I 'm betting.

[The Observer]

The attorneys for the defendant are requesting the court to dismiss the action on an ex parte basis, based on Hook's profanity laced communications. Thoughtfully, the defendant suggests that Hook's client (the plaintiff) would not be completely SOL because he could recover any damages by pressing a malpractice claim against Hook.

But that was not the only thing that the defendants' attorneys requested. They also asked that Hook be disqualified by the court. And most of the remaining requests were targeted at Hook, not his clients. I took this filing to be basically "let's-ask-for-everything-including-the-kitchen-sink" since that would be the best move for their clients. Removing Hook from the case is most likely to happen, but if the judge tosses the case with prejudice also, well that is just cream. I am reasonably sure that the attorneys know that this is a reach, but they are not going to be sanctioned for merely asking.

[The Observer]

Just filed within the last few days I believe. I can see them getting the attorney removed and sanctioned, deservedly, but I have a hard time seeing that the attorney's behavior is the client's fault or that the client should be penalized for his bad behavior. Their suit would seem to have some merit, whereas the attorney's behavior has none. He either doesn't like insurance companies, that insurance company in particular, or is just bugnutz. Maybe all of the above.

Or maybe, just maybe, he attended the Erwin Rommel School of Law.

[AndyK]

Reincarnation of LawyerDude?

[Jeffrey]

All I see is a lawyer advocating vigorously for his clients.

[Dr. Caligari]

Or maybe, just maybe, he attended the Erwin Rommel School of Law.

According to the California State Bar, he attended the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, which is, incidentally, in the process of losing its ABA accreditation because only 25% of its graduates pass the bar exam.

[notorial dissent]

In this case it is NOT ONLY getting disqualified from the case, but his career, and probably life such as it is for him. Brilliant career move.

[The Observer]

According to the California State Bar, he attended the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, which is, incidentally, in the process of losing its ABA accreditation because only 25% of its graduates pass the bar exam.

I woonder how many of their graduates use profanity in the bar exam.

[Dr. Caligari]

I woonder how many of their graduates use profanity in the bar exam.

They use profanity when they get the results from the bar exam.

[TBL]

I dunno how these things are typically handled, but personally after reading this I would grant all the motions and let the plaintiffs sue this idiot. Arguably, they already received enough or close to enough in the initial payout and anything else they feel they are due can come from the lawyer. I can't imagine the plaintiffs did not realize what a complete loon their lawyer was but expected it to be at least somewhat successful. I think that at least on some level you should be responsible for the company you keep, including the lawyer you hire.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Leonard French as published a You Tube video on this. The update appears to be that the judge has asked the plaintiffs to attend court on the 16th to give reason why the ex-parte shouldn't be grated in its entirety and has said that a failure by them to appear could result in further sanctions on top of those requested against THEM!

[notorial dissent]

At this juncture we don't know that the plaintiffs even know what their lawyer has done, they may be as appalled as everyone else when they find out. I remember a similar case a few years ago where the attorney was saying and doing things, like filings, outside of the clients hearing and knowledge that put the client in a really bad position through no fault of their own, other than hiring the bozo. This sounds to be more like an attorney who had a complete break with reality. MTCW.

French had a really good time with this one. He is also not a fan of the copyright trolls or Lieberman??? He even has his own pet sovcit that he has chronicled and seems to keep a bit of track of.

[Dr. Caligari]

Just filed within the last few days I believe. I can see them getting the attorney removed and sanctioned, deservedly, but I have a hard time seeing that the attorney's behavior is the client's fault or that the client should be penalized for his bad behavior. Their suit would seem to have some merit, whereas the attorney's behavior has none. He either doesn't like insurance companies, that insurance company in particular, or is just bugnutz. Maybe all of the above.

The general rule in federal court in the U.S. is that the attorney is the agent of the client and that the client is therefore responsible for anything the lawyer does. If the lawyer's negligence or misconduct results in a meritorious case being dismissed, the client's remedy is to sue the lawyer for malpractice.

Although this is the black-letter rule, not all federal judges are happy about enforcing it strictly. But it sounds like the judge in this case may be planning to do exactly that.