sumpnz
Member
Fitch, The way to get around that is to ask for "unspecified damages" in the filing. That way if it got thrown out as frivilous, all the plantiff would have to say is, "well, I was really only going to ask for $1.00."
Man sued by family of man he shot in self-defense
- Thread starter Erich
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Erich
Member
Appreciate it, Sportcat
I'm the fellow who posted the link to the story, and I'm a lawyer.
I don't do plaintiff's work, but I know some good guys who do. (Personally, I defend people who have been convicted of crimes on their appeals - some of whom are innocent and some of whom have had their rights violated - the same rights that we all have - so in a very real sense I'm making sure that the government obeys the rules that We The People set up to control it.) They look at their work as protecting the little guy from the big guys, civilly. If some drunk kid in his daddy's sports car runs a red light and creams your car as you drive to work, these are the guys who make sure you get what's coming to you. In my experience, the majority of them do it the right way, and are honorable members of the profession.
Now, there are certainly frivolous suits and suits that make you wonder, "Gee, how could there be any merit to this?" And, obviously, these suits have lawyers at the helm, so I can see how folks might think that these lawyers are in the wrong. In fact, there are ethical rules in every state that forbid lawyers from bringing frivolous suits.
This case hasn't gone to trial, and it's only in the very preliminary stages. We have a good Bar here in NM, and a pretty solid judiciary, and things generally work out the way that they should. I fully expect that things will work out the right way in this case.
I'm the fellow who posted the link to the story, and I'm a lawyer.
I don't do plaintiff's work, but I know some good guys who do. (Personally, I defend people who have been convicted of crimes on their appeals - some of whom are innocent and some of whom have had their rights violated - the same rights that we all have - so in a very real sense I'm making sure that the government obeys the rules that We The People set up to control it.) They look at their work as protecting the little guy from the big guys, civilly. If some drunk kid in his daddy's sports car runs a red light and creams your car as you drive to work, these are the guys who make sure you get what's coming to you. In my experience, the majority of them do it the right way, and are honorable members of the profession.
Now, there are certainly frivolous suits and suits that make you wonder, "Gee, how could there be any merit to this?" And, obviously, these suits have lawyers at the helm, so I can see how folks might think that these lawyers are in the wrong. In fact, there are ethical rules in every state that forbid lawyers from bringing frivolous suits.
This case hasn't gone to trial, and it's only in the very preliminary stages. We have a good Bar here in NM, and a pretty solid judiciary, and things generally work out the way that they should. I fully expect that things will work out the right way in this case.
HankB
Member
Erich:
Erich, if you would, please update us on this if you hear anything through the lawyer's grapevine. All too often, the regular newspapers never follow up on stories like this.
OP
OP
Erich
Member
I have a pretty good grapevine on this.
Frohickey
Member
Just with the small amount of facts we have, do you think that there are grounds for fines or disbarment for this lawyer? 
Waitone
Member
Erich, glad to hear you have your ear to the ground.
One obvious question--Why doesn't the defendant in the civil suit file a counter suit. In essence saying, "Ok, you can do this but do you really want to go down this road? You may win but there will be a price you will have to pay."
Obvvously money is an issue and so would finding an attorney. It is clear to me the courts and the bar could stop a lot of this crap cold, but for some reason it ain't. So we as citizens get to watch our judicial system victimize someone who obeyed the law.
<I'll stop now, my soap box is too short.>
One obvious question--Why doesn't the defendant in the civil suit file a counter suit. In essence saying, "Ok, you can do this but do you really want to go down this road? You may win but there will be a price you will have to pay."
Obvvously money is an issue and so would finding an attorney. It is clear to me the courts and the bar could stop a lot of this crap cold, but for some reason it ain't. So we as citizens get to watch our judicial system victimize someone who obeyed the law.
<I'll stop now, my soap box is too short.>
Raistlin
Member
Come, now, outlawing nuisance lawsuits? Why, that would be putting lawyers out of work! They couldn't afford their $2-mil+ homes in the Hamptons! You can't be serious!
OP
OP
Erich
Member
If I recall the story correctly after lo these many days, he did file a countersuit.
No, no grounds for disbarrment.
No, no grounds for disbarrment.
sumpnz, I presume that in states with laws rewarding 'reverse damages' for frivolous lawsuits, that 'unspecified damages' are not allowed. I've seen court TV a couple times, and if they don't name a figure, the claim gets thrown out. Even if they don't name a value in the initial paperwork, it would have to come out during the trial.
As far as the damages go, I don't think the family doing the suing is very rich, so they probably view it as a 'nothing to lose' proposition.
Oh, and I'm really interested in how this turns out. I don't catch the final news too often, so I always wonder.
As far as the damages go, I don't think the family doing the suing is very rich, so they probably view it as a 'nothing to lose' proposition.
Oh, and I'm really interested in how this turns out. I don't catch the final news too often, so I always wonder.
Frohickey
Member
Okay, so if the dead robber's family doesn't have any money, and the suit is pursued because there is nothing to lose, and the live victim does, isn't this just a case of penalizing the victim and full-employment-for-lawyers act?
Erich, so, in your opinion, does the dead robber's family's lawyer suffer any consequences at all?
Erich, so, in your opinion, does the dead robber's family's lawyer suffer any consequences at all?
Depending on how poor the family is, it'd vary between one more stain on the family's credit report, to a judgement that could be filled if they won the lottery.
I'd want to worry the lawyer more myself...
It's always a fine line bewteen disallowing junk lawsuits and making it too expensive for a poor person who has been truley wronged to even try to sue a rich corporation. I think a fine the lawyers approach might work, as they're the one's who know best. And if you keep it in the judge's discretion, it can waived as a threat for the bad ones.
I'd want to worry the lawyer more myself...
It's always a fine line bewteen disallowing junk lawsuits and making it too expensive for a poor person who has been truley wronged to even try to sue a rich corporation. I think a fine the lawyers approach might work, as they're the one's who know best. And if you keep it in the judge's discretion, it can waived as a threat for the bad ones.
grislyatoms
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 404
Hi, Erich, I am here in New Mexico too.
I remember distinctly hearing on the radio and television (for whatever that's worth) that Mr. Rose had to be admitted to the hospital very shortly after the incident with chest pain and shortness of breath.
"Now, family members of Chavez have filed a wrongful-death suit against Rose, saying he didn't try to help the teen after the shooting."
That's a silly expectation to begin with, but expecting this man to help this kid while he is having (what sounds to me) a heart attack is outrageously ridiculous!
"Rose has filed a counter suit."
I really, really hope he wins the countersuit.
"Because the only person who is responsible for the death of Carlos Chavez is Carlos Chavez," Rose said.
Spot on, Mr. Rose.
I will be watching this one closely as well.
I remember distinctly hearing on the radio and television (for whatever that's worth) that Mr. Rose had to be admitted to the hospital very shortly after the incident with chest pain and shortness of breath.
"Now, family members of Chavez have filed a wrongful-death suit against Rose, saying he didn't try to help the teen after the shooting."
That's a silly expectation to begin with, but expecting this man to help this kid while he is having (what sounds to me) a heart attack is outrageously ridiculous!
"Rose has filed a counter suit."
I really, really hope he wins the countersuit.
"Because the only person who is responsible for the death of Carlos Chavez is Carlos Chavez," Rose said.
Spot on, Mr. Rose.
I will be watching this one closely as well.
OP
OP
Erich
Member
Howdy, neighbor! Nice handle - you wouldn't be a Sandia Man, would you?
grislyatoms
Member
- Joined
- May 31, 2004
- Messages
- 404
Thanks.
Sandia Man? Is that some sort of neolithic caveman? If so, whether I am or not is still under debate
If you are asking if I live near Sandia Peak, I do! Westside ABQ!
Sandia Man? Is that some sort of neolithic caveman? If so, whether I am or not is still under debate
If you are asking if I live near Sandia Peak, I do! Westside ABQ!
OP
OP
Erich
Member
Sandia Man was some sort of neolithic caveman, but it's also a term of reference for the folks that work out at the Sandia Labs. The "atoms" portion of your handle was what got me wondering.
I used to be a Westsider, but now I live in the foothills. Both are gorgeous.
I used to be a Westsider, but now I live in the foothills. Both are gorgeous.
- Status