Posted by Korey Humphreys on 2/13/05 1:32pm
Msg #20495

MY UPDATE TO EARLIER MESSAGE

RE: Someone to listen to me while I blow off steam!!


Okay.... I just got off the phone with my attorney that I've used for personal matters a long time ago.

She stated that legal research in the manner that I did it was not UPL. Given the fact that the "client" and I were friends and co-workers actually helps my case out more.

The attorney stated that in MA legal advice is not legal research. Given the fact that no paperwork was ever submitted to the Bankruptcy Court, and I never filled out any Court paperwork disproves what the "client" is trying to say about myself.

My attorney says that I helped out a friend at a reasonable cost for the 30 hours of research time plus the cost of the binder. I charged approximately 11.60 cents per hour to help a "client" in looking up things on the internet and got publicly accessible information (Bankruptcy Rules of Court) for the "client". Therefore, it was a service anyone could have provided. It is not considered practice of law in Massachusetts.

My attorney actually suggested that I slap a civil lawsuit against the Attorney who wrote the letters to the Judge and U.S. Trustee's office for Slander and/or Defamation of Character. In addition, the attorney now representing the "client" acted quickly and neglected to find out other facts before writing his letters to the Judge/US Trustee's office.

Please give me you input as to whether or not you'd slap someone with a Defamation of Character/Slander suite for doing what the "client" and the attorney did.

note: I use the term "client" now loosely. I'd rather referr to the "client" a client rather then friend.

Reply by Fay, CA on 2/13/05 1:41pm
Msg #20500

Re: MY UPDATE TO EARLIER MESSAGE - reasons why .........

This is the reason why you should always let people know what state you are from. You have had legal and not-so-legal opinions from Texas, Missouri, Cucamonga, and other outlying districts. What is necessary is for your own State's interpretation of the law.

It is your own decision as to whether to go forward with a Slander/Defamation of Character lawsuit.


I am a CLDA as well as CSA/CNP.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 2/13/05 3:12pm
Msg #20516

After Further Review...

...I've come to the conclusion I'm the only poster from Missouri in the previous thread & I don't believe I expressed ANY kind of opinion (legal or otherwise) on Kay's dilemma. Mine was simply a question on a related topic.

BTW, being from Missouri...is CLDA short for Clysedale? The only other search engine reference I found had to with the River City Darts (a dart throwing association) in Chattanooga, TN.

http://www.rivercitydarts.com/clda_schedule.htm

Reply by Fay, CA on 2/14/05 11:17am
Msg #20573

Re: After Further Review...Holy Cow!

Will wonders never cease? Your Rivercitydarts.com was quite interesting. To think: CLDA is a dart-throwing industry while the Certified Legal Document Assistant group is a dart-dodging industry. Who'd thunk it.

Reply by Polly_CA on 2/13/05 1:43pm
Msg #20501

If your "friend" was ready to sue you, I'd say go for it. She deserves what she gets for trying to screw with your life. Stick it to her!!

Reply by CarolynCO on 2/13/05 1:52pm
Msg #20502

**Please give me you input as to whether or not you'd slap someone with a Defamation of Character/Slander suite for doing what the "client" and the attorney did.**

This is a decision that only you can make AFTER discussing it at length with your own attorney.

Reply by Bobbi in CT on 2/13/05 1:56pm
Msg #20505

Glad to hear this!!!

Glad to hear your attorney's opinion that you will come out of this OK.

Is it worth YOUR time, aggrevation, and costs to pursue this to the bitter end? Given a choice between the time and costs it could take to pursue a civil case in CT, I would have my lawyer "make them quickly go away," including letters to Judge and U.S. Trustee by "friend's attorney" retracking what attorney said, and let it end there rather than pursue a civil lawsuit. That is simply a CT personal perspective based on a knowledge of the civil cases in CT.

Your attorney can better help you decide how far to go, giving you the best advice regarding your up-front costs, time it will take going through the Court system, and odds of your recovering your costs plus damages. You can never recover your time, stomach acid, tension headaches, and frustration. If your attorney recommends a civil lawsuit and believes you will come out "more than whole," good for you. As a Mass. paralegal, you know better than most how your Court system works, the cost and the time involved to pursue this type of case.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/13/05 2:21pm
Msg #20510

Re: Glad to hear this!!!

In law, as in football, the best defense is a good offense. Sue the other party, and the very first thing her lawyer is going to do is look for a counterclaim. Guess what that counterclaim is going to be? Guess who is going to be forced then to pursue the UPL case against you just to verify that what she did is not slander? Guess what attitude the bar is going to take when a layman sues a lawyer under those circumstances? Guess what organization is going to make sure that all kinds of legal talent is available to establish the UPL claim?

Has your lawyer actually ever tried a tort case?

Reply by Ted_MI on 2/13/05 3:28pm
Msg #20518

Re: No, a tort is not something that comes out of an oven

For those of you non-lawyers who don't know, the word "tort" as used by Hugh in the phrase in the preceding post "Has your lawyer actually ever tried a tort case?" merely means a "civil wrong". As you can imagine it is a very broad term.

Now can some torts also be criminal matters? Yes. A good example is assault.

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 2/13/05 3:37pm
Msg #20521

Noting Hugh's Self Proclaimed Proclivity for Women...

...of ill repute, I initially was under the impression he was referring to a tart. Glad we cleared that up!

Reply by HisHughness on 2/13/05 3:57pm
Msg #20526

Re: Noting Hugh's Self Proclaimed Proclivity for Women...

Please specify big-bosomed women of ill repute, Dennis. Virtuous women need only own a liquor store and have a trust fund.

Reply by Paul_IL on 2/13/05 3:38pm
Msg #20523

Re: Glad to hear this!!!

Lawyers covering for another lawyer?!!! Imagine that!!!

Reply by ZLee_Califia on 2/13/05 3:07pm
Msg #20514

Re: "Malicious Prosecution" In pro per/In pro se

Glad that you no longer are worried about this affecting your future work, etc.,...Just for fun though, wouldn't it be just desserts to file against the attorney/"friend" "In pro per/se" for a "Malicious Prosecution?" The law can be fun.

Reply by ItsMe123 on 2/13/05 3:09pm
Msg #20515

Guess a Civil Case would do Wonders For a Person In a BK

reall think this out. Does one who wants to file a BK want to be involved in an upcoming civil case. Sounds like a lot of Hog wash to me.

Reply by ItsMe123 on 2/13/05 4:32pm
Msg #20531

Hey you lawyers--how would an upcoming tort affect the bk

seems if you started a suit or was to become a defendant in a suit, it would affect the filing. However, I do not know.

Reply by Ted_MI on 2/13/05 9:00pm
Msg #20543

Re: Hey you lawyers--how would an upcoming tort affect the bk

ItsMe123,

In your preceding two posts you asked two questions:


Does one who wants to file a bankruptcy want to be involved in an upcoming civil case?

and

Seems if you started a suit or was to become a defendant in a suit it would affect the filing.


In response to your first question, I am not sure if anyone ever really wants to be involved in a civil case, particularly as a defendant. One it's a hassle, two it costs money as you usually have to retain an attorney to defend you, and three you may be subject to a judgment against you. But oftentimes one does not have a choice; one has a suit filed against them. Often times bankruptcy is filed to forestall the filing of a suit, such as foreclosure.

There was an interesting study that was just released that showed that about half of the personal bankruptcies were due to catastrophic (or maybe major would be a better word)medical events. And the vast majority of people who filed for bankruptcy under these circumstances had health insurance!!

In response to your second question, if you were a defendant in a lawsuit, it is not so much that it would affect the bankruptcy filing but conversely that it would be affected by the bankruptcy filing. Once a petition in bankruptcy has been filed, there is an automatic stay of most lawsuits and judgement creditor actions. I use the word "most" as there are definite exceptions, certain causes of action which are not affected by the bankruptcy filing.

Reply by Ted_MI on 2/13/05 3:59pm
Msg #20527

Re: "Malicious Prosecution" In pro per/In pro se

Zlee,

I don't know if your suggested course was tongue in cheek or not. Maybe it was; if not, I don't believe there is any basis for such a cause of action (at least at this time). Because I don't believe that Korey has been prosecuted. As a general statement, that is a necessary element in such a cause of action. Two others are that the prosecution has to be resolved in your favor and that malice has to be established.

Plus the fact, if the potential defendant is contemplating bankruptcy, she (or he) probably is not going to be that collectible.

Reply by ZLee_Califia on 2/13/05 4:17pm
Msg #20530

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

Yes, Ted_MI, you're right, my response was somewhat "tongue-in-cheek," thinking back to some comedy skits of yore re court cases. It was the "Intent" to harm a friend via the law that got to me. On second thought, "Demurrer" also works to stave off those who would dare to throw their lawsuits into the ring. In California, it never hurts to be creative to survive the slings and arrows.

Reply by Ted_MI on 2/13/05 11:20pm
Msg #20552

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

Zlee,

Conceivably or a motion for summary judgment. You might be interested to know that while I was in law school I clerked for a circuit court judge for a while. I was able to sit in on several cases that went to trial. One of them involved malicious prosecution. Yes, the plaintiff had been prosecuted, yes, the plaintiff prevailed in that proceeding. Now whether she (or he) established malice in the civil case and obtained money damages that I honestly don't remember. But it was a very interesting case.

Reply by ZLee_Califia on 2/14/05 7:09pm
Msg #20609

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

Ted_MI

Thanks for supporting this hypothetical. Yes, interesting that you actually witnessed such a case early on in your career. I could see where it would've been interesting. Thanks for the information. ...Until the next "backseat" opinion.....Enjoy...

Reply by HisHughness on 2/14/05 7:45pm
Msg #20612

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

Is there any state -- or commonwealth -- in the U.S. that still uses demurrers? I was licensed Nov. 1, 1971 in Georgia, and that state, like most others, had bidden "adios" to demurrers aat least two years before that. I wouldn't even know what a demurrer looks like; never seen one.

Reply by PAW_Fl on 2/14/05 8:16pm
Msg #20614

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

HisHughness quizzically quipped: "Is there any state -- or commonwealth -- in the U.S. that still uses demurrers?"

I believe California rules still refer to demurrers. And I do know that New Hampshire Superior Court still references demurrers in Code 131-134 - Answers and Demurrers (see http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/sror/sror-h3-131.htm for details). Particularly code 134 which states: "134. A demurrer shall be entitled like an answer, and its form shall be in substance: "The defendant says the plaintiff is not entitled upon his bill, to the relief prayed for, because", etc."

Reply by Ted_MI on 2/14/05 9:25pm
Msg #20624

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

Hugh,

Well, I must say you make me feel a bit better. I recognized the term when she used it, but couldn't remember exactly what it meant. So I went to google and did a search. I did find a definition (don't remember the source) which is as follows:

A demurrer is a formal objection to the legal sufficiency of an opponent's pleading.

And there did seem to be a fair amount of case law in which the word was used. Don't know how recent those cases were though.

Reply by HisHughness on 2/14/05 9:53pm
Msg #20628

Re: "DEMURRER" Might Work

"Demur" is not exclusively a legal term. It simply means to object, or to express reservations, and is a perfectly good Anglo-Saxon (actually, French) that is found in contemporary usage with some frequency. Nor is demurrer a legal term, per se, though in that form it seems almost to have been completely pre-emted by the judicial system.

And now, I suspect, there are several hundred readers of this forum who know far more than they ever wanted to know, or needed to know, about demurrers.

I did, though, want to stress that "demur" is not the same as "demure." The difference can be clearly seen when one pairs them in a sentence, as in "When you say that Brenda/TX is not at all coy, I have to demur; she is the most demure and modest of women, as are all of the feminine gender from Texas."

Reply by Dennis D Broadbooks on 2/15/05 5:30am
Msg #20646

I Must Demur...

...when you refer to "ALL of the feminine gender from Texas" as being demure. If that were the case Hugh, you don't stand a chance in your desperate search for that coveted woman of ill repute to fulfill your wildest dreams & expectations.

Reply by Lee/AR on 2/13/05 3:38pm
Msg #20522

Mostly, 'your' lawyer will tell you what you want to hear AND what will line his pocket. Suggest you read His Hughness & Bobbi/CT.... and then ask your lawyer the 'right' questions, in that order.

Reply by Paul_IL on 2/13/05 3:40pm
Msg #20525

Whats this? Lee thinging you know more than the lawyer that was consulted.

Reply by Korey Humphreys on 2/13/05 6:05pm
Msg #20537

To: Lee/AR

Normally you'd think that! However, my attorney is strictly Pro Bono!!! She doesn't charge me a dime because she knows of me and my family "from a distance".

She has worked on things with me many times to date... and has never requested any monetary gain. She's free. She's good. She's well resepected.. and her track record speaks for itself.

Reply by Reginald Wilks on 2/13/05 5:33pm
Msg #20534

Korey

Glad to hear your lawyers take on the issue.

It is my opinion that you should do what you think is best for you. It is my opinion that the attorney who wrote to the Judge and U.S.Trustee's office should be contacted by your attorney and should be forced into some form of giving you back your good standing before the Judge and U.S. Trustees offices. But, that's just my opinion.