rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | reply to P Ness
Re: The solution is simple...
I don't know the facts but if, as it sounds, Vonage proved the call went through (twice), sue the lawyer. Leave the woman alone. The lawyer is the enabler. |
|
UHF
All static, all day, Forever
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-24
clubs:
 ·Qwest.net
 ·Callcentric
 ·surpasshosting
 ·Dish Network
·Future Nine Corpor..
| said by rradina  :I don't know the facts but if, as it sounds, Vonage proved the call went through (twice), sue the lawyer. Leave the woman alone. The lawyer is the enabler. Yes, if true it sounds like it may be an instance of malicious litigation, a very serious charge. |
|
LinuxJunkie
join:2005-01-19
Cyberspace
| reply to rradina
Actually, that's wrong. An attorney is supposed to do whatever the will of their client(s) is/are -- not what they personally believe. The only truth is the fact that he could have refused to represent her -- but then again, how many attorneys do you know that are going to turn down money. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| No, attorneys are required by ethical standards to refuse to pursue cases which totally lack merit.
Attorneys should perform a basic evaluation of the facts prior to filing suit. In situations where there isn't time prior to filing (e.g., the statute of limitations is about to run out) then they are under a duty to evaluate their case as soon as possible.
So, attorneys who don't turn down bad cases are risking ethics violations.
The real problem here is that America does not follow the rule on attorney's fees that the rest of the world does. Elsewhere, the LOSER PAYS both sides' reasonable attorneys' fees. That deters most worthless cases from being filed.
Here, the attorney cranks up the word processor, pays a negligible filing fee, demands millions, takes a third of whatever he gets, and has virtually no risk that he'll have to chip in to pay the defendant's costs if the case is worthless. THAT is the problem.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
mjcrocket
Mjc
join:2000-12-02
Abingdon, MD
| reply to rradina
said by rradina :I don't know the facts but if, as it sounds, Vonage proved the call went through (twice), sue the lawyer. Leave the woman alone. The lawyer is the enabler. Vonage sent the call to an unattended answering machine in the building where the 911 center happened to be located. The office where the answering machine was located had nothing to do with the operation of the 911 center! Translation; the lady did register or set up the Vonage 911 service. Vonage sent the call to the wrong number. |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :Here, the attorney cranks up the word processor, pays a negligible filing fee, demands millions, takes a third of whatever he gets, and has virtually no risk that he'll have to chip in to pay the defendant's costs if the case is worthless. THAT is the problem. calvoiper It's not quite that simple. But hey, I'd hate to rain on everybody's attorney bashing parade. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| If you're saying the attorney does a little bit more, I did forget to add the phrase "hires a whore of an 'expert' who renders an opinion totally divorced from scientific fact" from the list of attorney activities.
If you're saying that American rule on attorney's fees isn't the problem, I'd like to hear more.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | No matter what I say, it really wouldn't matter to people like you. |
|
