Lawyers, What's Your Best " GOTCHA Moment?

lawyers over at it what was the best gotcha moment you ever experienced doing a boundary dispute a squabble over what was essentially a few inches of land os was a lawyer and an absolutor he was acting for himself the whole a lawyer who acts for himself as a fool for a client thing was bang on for him but he was a deeply unpleasant guy a bully who thought that he was the smartest guy in the room part of his case hinged on wheelie bins and how prior to the boundary having been moved there wasn't space to store a full-size bin beside the house the fact you now could meant clearly the boundary must have moved that was the extent of his evidence it really was sin stuff during the actual trial he pulled the fast one by suddenly producing an old aerial photo ostensibly to show the boundary at the front of the property had also moved a fast one because you have to disclose stuff like that in advance you can't just sit on something relevant and then suddenly whip it out at trial with a flourish whilst he was making his submissions that it should be admissible i looked more closely at it away from the bit of the boundary he said it was relevant to and realized that it very clearly showed a wheelie bin in exactly the spot his case said there couldn't be one told the judge we were happy for the photo be admitted after all got the other side to confirm the data was taken then pointed out he'd just completely fricked his case that photo did him for nearly 50k in adverse costs couldn't happen to a more deserving chapter score one for wheelie bins my client was a woman working at a meat packing plant her glove they would only give her the loose kind because they were cheaper got caught in the machine and she lost her arm we sued the owners of the plant for the glove issue we also sued the machine manufacturer for failing to include the required guard then we suit the distributor for being in the chain of the sale but didn't really think they played much of a role the manufacturer swore they included a handguard and said the plant owner must have used a grinder to take it off during a deposition of the guy that owned the distraction company he shows up with the sale documents he was supposed to have turned over weeks before turns out there was a note and small print at the bottom he didn't know about that said the sale was without the handguard which is against the law i pointed it out and we ended up settling that afternoon with the distributor the woman got all her medical bills paid got money for a prosthetic and got a bunch of pain and suffering damages dang all the money in the world does not replace a lost arm in a protective order hearing a respondent admitted on cross that he choked his partner his attorney looked like his head was going to explode the judge still only granted an order not to abuse he wouldn't grant the stairway or any other relief we asked for go figure tl dr ex-wife gave away custody of my daughter while angrily arguing with the judge not a lawyer was taking my ex to court over custody of my kid i had compiled a 150-page dossier complete with a report from child protective services since there was abuse in the house sold text messages and tons of records of contempt of our previous agreement my daughter has a court assigned lawyer that is normal in these cases which after reading through all the materials and talking to all the parties sided with my lawyer and i the ex decided to represent themselves because hubris i suppose before the case was heard in the hallway outside of the courtroom she gave me an agreement she typed up which would grant me custody as well as some generous provisions for herself i politely declined as we were confident we would be getting a lot more in trail case was called testimonies in she put on the most hilariously insane and embarrassing show for the court in her closing testimony she attempted to hand the judge the agreement she tried to give us judge refused to take it you can't just hand me things that's not how you submit things into evidence i'm not reading that she's arguing with the judge yelling at him and losing her crap in the insane nonsense she was spewing she said and this agreement gives him custody which is one of the things he's after and what i assume was an attempt to show that she's attempting a compromise my lawyer peppers in a quick statement okay so you agree for the father to have full custody she snaps in heated anger yes that's what i agreed to our side falls completely silent and the judge after much effort ends a little outburst gave his final verdict which started with granting me custody and putting her in court mandated therapy she literally gave away custody of her daughter in a heated argument with the judge sucks that she was willing to just give the kid away as long as she profited hope you're doing better i was deposing a guy in a large breach of contract fraud action i asked him if he'd ever been convicted of a crime he said no later in the debt i asked him the question again and there was no objection and he answered number i then whipped out his indictment for felony fraud and his conviction for misdemeanor conspiracy and he denied it was him until i started asking about his co-conspirator his son and then he gave me the oh yeah i remember something about that i was representing mom in a bitter custody fight dad wanted full custody and argued mom was an unfit parent mom wanted full custody because dad had a history of domestic violence towards her and the kids dad's lawyer was doing a good job of painting her in a bad light during his cross-examination and i was starting to get worried his lawyer brought a close family friend as a character witness for dad who said the usual nice things about dad then he said something about them owning chickens i thought that was odd so i asked more questions i was able to get the friend to spill the beans at the dad own chickens for illegal dong fighting and he'd take his minor children to these dong fights and when the children were acting up he'd punish them by forcing them to feed the chickens during which they would get pepped and scratched by the chickens and obviously the children were terrified of those chickens i could see the color draining from dad's lawyer's face mum got full custody i acted for a plumber who ripped up a tile floor to replace a pipe he installed new tile on top but warned the owners not to walk on it for 48 hours he emphasized not to let their kids or their dogs walk on it either they walked on it but allege the defects were caused by improper install we had an expert do a report which confirmed that it was consistent with proper installation but people walking on it too soon crazy homeowners still went to trial on it in their evidence disclosure they included a series of pictures one of the pictures had in the foreground a tile that was tilted upwards the background very clearly showed a dog's paw pressing down on the other end of the tile that wasn't so much and i got them situation as they got themselves when i was a prosecutor i had a guy who was representing himself he was charged with car theft and evading he was actually able to escape the cops for quite a distance and was captured later his defense was that he wasn't the person i got his calls from jail and he talked so much to his girlfriend about how he had committed the crimes but the look on his face when i told him that i was providing him copies of his jail calls was great i remember an even funnier thing i had another guy who was representing himself it was a residential burglary and one of the elderly neighbors saw the defendant running from the house at trial the defendant was cross-examining the witness and he asked now when you saw this person running away and the witness said you i saw you running away jail calls the baner the criminal defense attorney i've had more than one case that was pretty good until i discovered my guy confessed to everything and more in the jail not the lawyer in the story but the client fighting an unemployment claim my employer caused to be denied we had a phone hearing that the employer didn't show up to so i won based off that but they appealed saying they had video evidence of misconduct so we had to go to an in-person hearing they didn't show up to the first phone hearing and had to explain why they didn't show up and they said i screwed up and didn't open the letter you sent us and my advocate who's a lawyer eyes just went oh as she slowly cocked her head to look at how profoundly stupid it was to admit that we proceeded with the rest of the hearing and they never showed their video that basically just showed me eating lunch on my break and watching netflix that wasn't even the best part of it all my advocate tore my employer to pieces and made it clear i was terminated without good cause the company was actually trying to slowly get rid of its office to hire overseas for support talk to a few people after i was let go and slowly things like people and desks started disappearing and they started hiring overseas i served on a jury that was deciding a medical malpractice case the plaintiff's common bile duct was cast during a gallbladder surgery a risk she was made aware of beforehand she was suing the surgeon who performed the operation the plaintiff's lawyer called as a witness a surgeon who had performed this surgery thousands of time speaking from this breadth of experience he told us this mistake was entirely unacceptable and something that no competent surgeon would do the defense lawyer got up and grilled him for a while to make it clear that this guy made bank by traveling around the country testifying against other surgeons right before he sat down the defense lawyer said by the way have you ever cut the common bile duct during this surgery the case was decided and the jury all but burst out laughing when he answered yes i have a woman was charged with possession of a large amount of sea her boyfriend was a known big-time drug dealer with a long list of priors her story was that four officers a b c d came up to her outside her home and demanded to know where boyfriend was they wanted all sorts of information about boyfriend and his associates when she refused to tell them anything she says officer ray threatened her including pulling out his gun and pointing it at her she also indicated that officer a was wearing street clothes while b c and he were in uniform officers claim she gave them permission to search her home where they found the sea she says she never gave them any such permission and they planted pretended to find the drugs officer a it turns out had been in the newspaper shortly before the case went to trial for various serious incidents of abuse and corruption the prosecution naturally assumes this woman is lying and simply trying to take advantage of the media publicity at trial b c and d testify that they were there with officer e not a once the defense theory developed a bit the prosecutor offered into evidence a handwritten schedule logbook thing that listed which officers were working on each day to show that officer a wasn't even scheduled to work that day there were various reasons this log might not have been admissible and it was never disclosed to the defense until right before they attempted to admit it but i quickly looked it over and somewhat to the surprise of the judge did not object to its admission it did not make any reference to the log until closing argument then showed it to the jury and told them to look at it more closely officer a was not listed as working on the date but the log also shows duty assignments for the officers working officer b is listed as being assigned to the evidence room or some such at the station and officer he is listed as being assigned to a patrol car across town with unrelated officer f along with various other inconsistencies in the officers stories this led to a very speedy acquittal i was involved in a patent dispute years ago that was basically large company going after small company not only did the judge decide we didn't infringe on the patents but he then went on to invalidate the patents due to prior art we were able to show are the good old days before first to file came to pass my favorite was a proceeding that actually led to disbarment of the opposing attorney opposing that he was sent discovery requests that he never responded to multiple emails were sent and nothing moves to compel and the atti shows up furious that we file a motion and are wasting the court's time says we're playing games and claims that he's sent multiple emails and we aren't responding opposing that he produces emails that supposedly show he's been begging us to respond after looking at the produced emails and then looking at my calendar we see that the date and the time stamp doesn't match the day in the time stamp turns out the atti doctored an email he prepared last week and changed the date but forgot to change the day judge was furious and chewed him out about professionalism and ethics for 15 minutes meanwhile we just sat quietly it was actually uncomfortable to watch this idiot then get angry at the judge and tries to say that it was his i.t guy's fault lying is an extreme no no for attorneys our legal system depends on us being honest he was disbarred later that year my only full trial contractor ripping off my client who was no son i went through entire contract where each sub was listed and he agreed to each line as being part of contract he agreed that amount was to be paid to the subs he agreed to the total what he failed to do was list any profit my last question was where is your profit in this contract no answer from him as written he was working for free case dismissed by judge without me having to present my side most of mine are my own clients admitting the crime to police but not realizing it so it's less gotcha and more time for oakley oh i thought i was still driving in the parking lot when i put down my phone yeah that's the charge too there was no weapon i'm the weapon welp there's no way i was going speed i was only going other speed well over the limit etc i represent tenants in eviction proceedings landlords being landlords i have lots of gotcha stories the most recent one was last week in a classic he said she said case that is the entire case depended upon whom the jury believed when the landlord was sworn in prior to testifying she unnecessarily said yes on the bible when asked to tell the truth the whole truth etc our testimony however was evasive she avoided answering almost every one of my questions she even avoided answering some of her own lawyer's questions during a recess but still in the middle of her testimony she was seen outside the courtroom in full view of the jury whispering with her lawyer and a family member about obviously what she was supposed to say on the stand when she got back up the first thing i did was ask her what she was talking about with her lawyer and her family member outside the courtroom i demanded to know whether they were telling her how to answer my questions a lawyer objected the judge overruled the objection and ordered the witness to answer the witness responded my life is my life during closing arguments her lawyer tried to argue that she must have been telling the truth because she swore on the bible even though she didn't have to that meant according to him that she took her oath more seriously than the average person impliedly my client who wouldn't bother swearing on a bible when not asked to do so in my response i agreed with the landlord's council that his client must take her oath to tell the truth seriously she must have taken it so seriously in fact that she refused to lie under oath when her truthful testimony would have sunk her case so instead she just refused to answer almost every question put to her the jury came back in about 30 minutes with a 12-0 verdict in the tenant's favor verdicts in my state do not have to be 12-0 in civil cases a verdict can be reached with nine votes in my line of work unanimous verdicts rare even in the most obvious cases also the conversation in the hallway was not privileged because there was a third party there but even if the family member had not been in the conversation i would still be allowed to ask whether they had discussed her testimony as long as i don't ask what they said to each other someone told me this the lawyer was describing the theft the footprints make it seem as though he didn't go to the basement and the defendant said actually we did i think it was a judge judy clip where the woman is listing a number of items stolen from her by an ex-boyfriend jewelry credit cards electronics and a certain amount of money there wasn't dollar sign x cash in there immediately followed by that side judges do when people are that dumb done not the lawyer but happened to my father-in-law he had a lucrative commercial construction business and was ready to retire and sell it he got a buyer and part of the deal was receiving a portion of the profits for several years somehow the company had no profits but there was all sorts of evidence of wealth new cars etc the new owners slip up he kept on the head secretary who loved my father-in-law she gave dad the information he needed at trial the new owner was on the stand nope we're really just struggling to break even dad attorney asked what is his corporatation before there was an answer the buyer's attorney literally jumped up and said your honor we would like to discuss a settlement new buyer started a second company dad's company was buying the supplies and new company was getting paid it's called cooking the books i heard this from my lawyer eight months into the case 12 hours into a deposition the client stood and said i'm sick of this i made it all up ex-wife x trying to fight ex-husbands new girlfriend ng ng is in her car trying to flee while x is beating on car blocking escape and grabbing at door handles to get in but doors are locked after x briefly moved out from the path of the car ng begins to drive away slowly x noticing the car starting to leave dives onto the hood of the car slides off gets run over at slow speed and breaks bones several surgeries later xu's ng alleging negligence in hitting x with the car as i'm deposing x she claims to have never touched the car before it hit her never punched or kicked the car never broke the windshield wipers never grabbed the door handle to try to open the door never dove on the hood just yelling i asked what ng was doing during this time and x describes ng as deer in headlights staring straight ahead locked in her car both hands on the steering wheel how did you know the doors were locked that one got dismissed pretty quickly videotaped their position too made sure that one was recorded this is one of the best stories on here it's so subtle but so sweet colombo type moment i had a problem with my cell provider and my cell phone wasn't receiving a signal where my cottage is located even though it was clearly marked as an area that would receive a full signal on their map i went back to provider and told them of my problem and they gave me a different phone with the same results i then took back the phone and charger because they were useless to me at the time this was over 20 years ago they then sued me in court i had a picture of the phone screen showing no bars while standing on my dock their lawyer argued that the picture could have been taken anywhere then the judge piped up i know where your cottage is i have a cottage nearby i switched providers because i could hardly get a signal where i am there's no way you'll get a signal from ex provider then the judge ripped into the representative from the cell company and their lawyer it was a good day i sat in on a criminal trial and the defense basically had no defense other than there were documents lying around with the name jack smith and our client's name is john smith so there might have been someone else living in the house hiding the drugs in the very last minute of closing arguments the prosecutor stood up and said i'm really tired of you spending all week pretending you don't know who jack is when you know very well your trial binders which have been sat on your desk all week say jack smith because that's what he goes by husband and wife charged with drug sales wife had given a full admission to the cops and ended up pleading before trial the drugs were found in a shed with tools that the husband admits are his but he denies knowing anything about the drugs i go to trial against husband and during his testimony he says something about traditional family values on cross i start asking about his relationship with his wife he admits that he's in charge of the finances admits she has to ask permission to spend money he ends up saying that she doesn't do anything without his permission i then ask him if he knows she admitted to selling drugs he did so wouldn't she need his permission to do that of course she would he says no further questions jury comes back guilty in less than half an hour obligatory not a lawyer but my grandparents had the longest running divorce settlement in la history in the 70s my grandpa refused to pay his alimony one year he went to hawaii and sent my grandma a postcard that said something along the lines bit more wittingly i'm enjoying all of your alimony money look at what i'm doing with it she drove it straight to her lawyer and it was game over for gramps the divorce was about five years long it was the longest divorce in their city at the time i'm sure it isn't anymore my grandpa was ordered to pay her a few thousand dollars a month plus health insurance car insurance a car and a few other things until she got a job or remarried grandma chose to do neither to this day he is sending her a check she can't medically drive anymore but her car is rotting in the garage just to spite him so he has to pay the car insurance bills i was prosecuting a traffic ticket and ended my opening statement with something similar to by the end of the day you'll agree that the officer caught the defendant going 65 in a 50 defendant representing himself stands up and says while he may have clocked me going 65 and a 50 judge stopped the trial excuse the jury and was like you just confessed so are we changing your plea to no contest or what this is texas where you have a state constitutional right to a jury trial on literally anything as a 18 year old computer store owner i had a guy sue me because his computer was a lemon well he chose to represent himself to which the judge said only an idiot would represent himself begged the guy to postpone and get a lawyer nope so the guy rambled for 20 minutes and made himself look like a complete redneck [ __ ] who just didn't know how to use computer so then it was my turn my lawyer stood up and said some legal phrase to the effects of the plaintiff failed to ask for any damages therefore we ask for summary dismissal gravel bang granted mr plaintiff i told you that you needed an attorney dude when even the judge tells you to get a lawyer maybe you should get one my client was being sued in china we decided to sue them in us to convince the chinese judge to dismiss the case so it can be heard in the u.s we filed suit and we got the other side to accept service during the chinese court hearing the opposition wanted have the chinese court hear the case the chinese lawyers got shut down because they signed for the service in the u.s implying that the u.s court is the proper jurisdiction and venue the opposing chinese lawyers were fired the next day if you are new to the channel you can subscribe i publish new videos every day until then check another video so bye for now

Channel: Updoot

Views: 91,458

Rating: 4.8594756 out of 5

Keywords: gotcha moment, lawyers, lawyer stories, in court, court stories, gotcha, best lawyer moments, best lawyers of all time, #updootst, updoot, updoot reddit, updoot everything, reddit on tap, toadfilms, pewdiepie, reddit, askreddit, funny reddit, reddit stories, top posts, reddit top posts, reddit cringe, comedy, reddit compilation, r/, r/askreddit, top posts of r/, askreddit reading, best reddit posts, top posts of all time, people of reddit, askreddit question, ask reddit, subreddit, sub

Id: GEFQj4ddpZ8

Length: 24min 41sec (1481 seconds)

Published: Tue Jul 21 2020