Lawyers, When Did Your Client Lose You The Case?

lawyers of reddit what is a detail that your client failed to bring up to you that completely lost you the case opposing counsel isn't it true you hit victim in the face with a break client number marcus hit him with a brick i hit him in the back with a piece of wood to be farmer he'd sent a photo of his wife's beating face to his wife with a message saying something along the lines of this do you want this to happen again he came across very well and caught up to that point but his mask slipped when that came out yay sounds like someone i know he can keep the mask on for a while but it starts to slip when his perceived world isn't reality a buddy of mine cases a public defender a gal was busted on drug charges and told him she didn't have any drugs on her when they arrested her he thought okay we'll use that turns out she didn't have any drugs on her when they arrested her because she just sold them to an undercover cop technically she didn't have any drugs in her lol my house was robbed in addition to all the stuff the thief took he also stole a bunch of my suits and all of my neckties i had a big collection like 100 or so however the thief left fingerprints on a hard plastic box that i kept spare change in fast forward three months the thief is caught in the act of robbing another house in the same neighborhood same detectives on my case and this new theft they fingerprint the guy and the fingerprints match the ones from my house at the thesis arraignment i see him strolling wearing my suit and my tie i tell the district attorney he says there's really no way to prove it however the tie he chose to wear was a one-of-kind street map of san francisco and i still had all the documentation to prove it the district attorney's eyes widen and he informs the judge the judge has the thief placed under arrest again for possession of stolen property the thief's lawyer was dumbfounded it was a nice end to a rough situation i hate that this happened to you but i love this story hahaha custody case client failed to tell me he was previously convicted of felony child abuse for breaking 16 bones in an infant's body sometimes i wish we could stone people company i worked for at the time was doing due diligence before acquiring a small tech startup the ceo of the tech startup was a well-liked guy in the company friendly and outgoing though we had heard rumblings that the co was rather hands-on with the work and with female employees apparently there was a walk away package proposed to the co that would let him keep a sizeable portion of his post acquisition bonus because a young woman who worked in their sales department had filed hr complaints against the co and obtained counsel i sat in on the meeting with the co and the company's retained lawyers while they grilled him about his contacts with the young woman the ceo denied ever having contact with her within the company without multiple other people present those people said his behavior to her in the meetings didn't raise any flags the ceo emphatically denied having any contact with her outside of work the lawyers asked the question a half dozen different ways and each time the co denied any out of work contact later we meet with the woman and her lawyer with the co not present her lawyer gives us a rather graphic card that came with a bouquet of flowers addressed to her from the ceo the guy had an account with a florist linked to his credit card when the company retained lawyers confronted him he said but i never had contact with her it's not like i delivered the flowers myself co got terminated for cause so no walk away package at her request the woman was given pto until after the acquisition then moved to another one of the companies under our umbrella i'm sorry for laughing but reading your comment all i could see was ceo ceo co all over the place and now i can't get the idea out of my head that a pigeon in a top hat wrote this lawyer in the uk i acted for a member of a famous diddler hunting group my client was charged with various offenses relating to his vigilantism most seriously causing grievous bodily harm with intent he wanted me to fight the case on a public interest defense point that is not available to him and statutes or at common law contrary to my advice i followed his instructions as i'm bound to do if the state won't punish diddler properly then it's left to men like my client to take the law into their own hands a horseshit argument for a whole host of reasons his laptop was seized by police and submitted for forensic examination he had a staggeringly huge database of chili p on it he himself was a massive diddler i beat up diddlers in my spare time no one will suspect a thing minor traffic cases can be the worst for this believe it or not because they are short and simple and often times the client isn't there so if you get blindsided by something critical there's often no chance to consult with them to turn things around i had a simple speeding case 70 miles per hour in a 55 no big deal if she does a driving improvement course they court will usually dismiss or reduce those since her driving record wasn't bad when i showed up for her i found out that she had been driving 70 up an unplayed snow lane to get around all the others cars traveling in the lane that had been plowed because they were driving too slow i didn't know it was even possible to drive 70 on fresh snow the officer stated he'd already cut her a break by not writing the ticket for reckless driving and the judge politely agreed he didn't feel comfortable reducing it under those circumstances when i called her up after court to confirm she did claimed she'd just forgotten to mention it now maybe i've lived too much of my life in the south but that just boggles my mind as a detail you'd forget when hiring a lawyer for that incident i would have told her in advance that hiring us was a waste of money not to mention the hassle of taking an eight-hour class and she should probably just go ahead and pay this one i legitimately do that all the time during consults give my honest assessment if the case is even worth doing and so by omitting that detail she harmed herself for no reason at least she took it well and didn't get defensive friend of mine is a defense attorney he was representing a guy with a lengthy record for assault basically this guy took an ac unit and threw it at his girlfriend my buddy tells me he was able to get a plea deal for one year probation no jail time the judge is all ready to accept the deal when he asks the defendant if he had anything he would like to say the defendant responds yay i don't know why they charging me with assault i never touched her i just threw an ac at her this is bull's judge rescinded plea deal because of the defendant's attitude lack of remorse went to trial and got a year in jail the idea of having an ac unit thrown at me is honestly terrifying client said his ex owed him a lot of money and that she was trying to get out of paying him back by getting a protective order against him seemed reasonable so i took his case at the hearing it came out that they were never a couple that he was sending adult toys to her residents on a weekly basis and that she never asked for the thousands of dollars he gave her over the years stripper we lost he got laughed out of court and he learned a valuable lesson tell your lawyer the good and the bad stuff before trial my dude in a custody battle where the opposing party claims he has a drinking problem and he denies it one thousand percent even after the real talk i have with him asking him to not hide crap from me and to be honest we go into court and at cross-examination the opposing party provides video evidence of him finishing work driving to an abandoned parking lot to drink a few tall boys and then going to pick up his kid from school every single access visit he not only didn't tell me that he forgot to mention that his ex's brother owns a private investigator firm freaking idiot that he filmed his offenses for his youtube channel the cops didn't even know a witness brought it up on day three of a trial it was a nice quick change of plea that afternoon cases are paralegal negligence case client argued that a lack of street lights and a cyclist he couldn't see was responsible for him hitting a wire pole upon discovery the first respondents report indicated that they found the driver in the driver's seat pants down with p playing on the phone it wasn't difficult to figure out who was negligent at that point your honor if the cable repairman had simply fixed the cable in accordance with professional standard practices my client would have had no other recourse but to keep his ostrich in the corolla on the evening in question employment case we got to the deposition of my client and all set up the first question is please state your name the client looks at me and says can we take a break we do and she pulls me out in the hall to tell me she's lied to me about her identity she's apparently a serial freudster and has changed identities seven times since the 90s she apparently thought the other attorneys had somehow figured it out and that's why they asked the question guy in prison hired me to request a modification of his sentence because he was doing very well completing a lot of optional programs no rule violations etc he had his family come in and pay and everything to get started i asked the family in the client if he had requested modification before because the law said that for his conviction he could only request modification twice for any one sentence regardless of if they were granted or denied swore up and down he'd never filed before you can see where this is going after spending a few hours going over records and preparing documents a copy of the ccs the case record basically finally arrived he'd personally filed for modification six times since he was sentenced with handwritten pleadings that were all denied so the one he hired me for was a waste of time and would never be considered at all i'm a court appointed attorney for qualifying individuals and family matters termination of parental rights case have been fighting to argue that parent is stable working lawfully has a suitable apartment doesn't need psychotropic meds anymore ready to be a parent etc after a few months of negotiating with all the parties and department of children court services we have a pre-trial to try and convince guardians i meet with my client before the hearing to see if anything changed nope all good let's get my kids great that's not happening today but let's try we get going in court my client who is super hot-headed and quick to anger gets riled up and goes off on the guardians screaming in open court it doesn't end there but reveals one that no longer is working two no longer an apartment three doesn't want to have a relationship with guardians despite her kids loving them four won't send her kids pictures of the toys they miss and can't have five plans on moving out of state six thinks they can live as a family off of state aid when she gets then back and is four months pregnant all in the matter of 15 seconds i was too shocked to even react speechless not the image of stability and parental fitness i've been trying to paint since last july client was working really hard to get everything right and legitimately had everything going for her prior to this hearing i was not making false representations or trying to get a monster reinstated this was a true bombshell as i did my due diligence to make sure things were on the up and up and statutory requirements were met things feel part very fast apparently this was a very atypical situation parents typically do a really good job working hard to meet their requirements not my client but the son of the opposing party and presumably the party himself lied about being blind to make himself seem more sympathetic as a witness we didn't know either until he took the witness box their counsel asked him to take the oath and he picked the card up and read it that was the cherry on top of a series of ridiculous events the judge dismissed the whole thing in our client's favor shortly after i was a trainee at the time but my boss who was in her late 60s then said it was the most ridiculous case she'd ever handled comma and he picked the card up and read it i was expecting he easily walked up or sat down not that he was stupid enough to actually read something out i wasn't a lawyer in this role but was a law clerk this was a typical divorce case this particular jury trial was about splitting assets and who would get what it was a long drawn-out case that took about five days right before the closing arguments the attorneys wanted to talk to the judge it seems as though a couple of days prior the couple decided to get back together and instead of telling the judge and their lawyers they just kept it a secret we heard four days of evidence arguments brought in experts such as land assessors financial planning people and the like and they were back together one of the attorneys asked to be dismissed from the case immediately and walked out the courtroom the judge had to dismiss the jury and that the couple was adamant that they didn't think that them getting back together was a detail any of their attorneys needed to know yes in some states there are jury trials for divorces however this particular case wasn't for the divorce but for a cause of action stemming from the divorce marital property it was a jury trial i'm a public defender in an area with lots of mus m makes most people talk a lot so i can't tell you how many clients forget to mention that they got to the jail still high and called their mom girlfriend buddy on the recorded jail phone and not only confessed to the crime but also brainstormed whatever alibi or version of events i'm relying on to defend them i'm seeing this question a lot so i'll add some info here this is not legal advice just explaining things a bit more calls to a lawyer are privileged and generally go through dedicated lines that aren't recorded depending on the facility calls to family friends etc through the normal phones are not privileged are generally recorded and can be used in court there are usually printed signs near the phones and a recorded warning before each call that this is the case i heard of a guy trying to appeal his disability benefit being revoked he was supposedly a paraplegic but the opposition had over 10 minutes of video footage of him walking running and even jumping over a fence after the one-minute mark the judge said okay i've seen enough please leave credit card theft fraud case when i was a young lawyer back in the late 80s i was trying this guy on a cc case and the witness was the department store clerk before video surveillance the state relied heavily on witness identification as she described the customer that was purchasing the very unique clothing her store sold i asked her how could she be so sure it was my client she looked at my client who was wearing the most obnoxiously yellow shirt imaginable and said because not only does he completely match the description i just gave you but he's wearing the exact same shirt i sold him the jury convicted him and i learned that day to better prepare my clients for trial there's a rule you're supposed to follow when questioning trial witnesses in that rule is to never ask a question you don't know the answer to despite this rule lawyers often ask small apparently inconsequential questions which are necessary to set the scene but are so inconsequential or obvious that their answers are fairly presumed this case was an exception to that general presumption the defendant was arrested on a warrant and transported to jail after booking him into jail the officer returned to his vehicle and discovered a baggy of drugs sitting right in the middle of the back seat the defendant was charged with possession at trial the officer explained that he routinely searches his vehicle before his shift starts and after any time he transports someone in the back seat the defense attorney tried to poke holes in the story but the officer's testimony was remarkably call consistent the officer was fastidious about checking his vehicle the appearance of the drugs coincided with the defendant's presence in the vehicle then as the defense attorney was running out of questions he threw out the question was there anyone else in the backseat of the vehicle it was a hail mary even when there are multiple arrests police tend not to transport more than one rsd at a time if they can help it there was no reason to believe anyone else could have feasibly been in the back seat with the defendant though it's no surprise to you the defense attorney and prosecutor were stunned when the answer came back as yes turns out the defendant was with his girlfriend when he was arrested and the officer courteously agreed to drive her to her apartment before taking her boyfriend to jail this fact was not included in the police report the officer never told the prosecutor and shockingly the defendant never told his attorney there was a palpable pause as this fact sunk in since there was another person in the back seat there was more than enough reasonable doubt proofs were concluded and the prosecutor threw out a half-hearted closing the not guilty verdict was a given because of this case i learned to never assume a fact no matter how obvious it may seems i am actually a lawyer but i was only watching this trial not participating so the case was that woman a had hit woman b in the head with a heavy beer pint at a bar and woman b got pretty serious injuries the defense claimed that woman a had not hit anyone with the pint but instead had just thrown the pint into a random direction and it happened to hit b in the head thus it was an accident and not a battery well the prosecution had a cctv tape from the bar and it was shown at the trial and the tape clearly showed in hd as they walked behind b and smashed the pint to her head so hard that the pint shattered on impact i looked at the defense lawyer and his jaw literally almost hit the table the prosecutor also noticed this and asked something along throne a and the defense lawyer said that due to technical difficulties he couldn't get the cctv tape open on his computer when he was reviewing the evidence woman a was found guilty so yeah i was completely dumbfounded my father is a judge i remember him talking about a case where a woman was suing for a severe back injury that she said was preventing her from working and taking care of her kids and so on in the middle of the trial the pen rolled off the table and she is bending over trying to reach it from her chair but pen was too far away so she stands up and bends over and picks it up and goes back to her seat as if nothing is out of the ordinary my dad is just looking at her and she snaps at my dad and goes what are you staring at my dad asked her if she was okay and her response was that she was fine her attorney leaned over and said something to her and she then loudly started complaining about her back and how much her back hurt but no one believed her lol you know and it's not even my stories but my dad's he was working as a fraud investigator for an insurance company i have a few stories of his but here's two of them guy was claiming theft of multiple items but mainly a ring things weren't adding up so my dad and the insurance company's lawyer decided to do a depot of him guy shows up and is doing the depot when my dad notices the guy is wearing the exact ring he's claiming was stolen my dad slides a note to the lawyer telling him the guy's wearing the ring once the note got slid the guy realized what happened and put his hands under the table and took the ring off they asked him to stand up and lo and behold the ring fell to the ground another one is a guy claiming a break-in and theft immediately things weren't adding up as the window was broken out instead of in the guy submitted polaroids of items he claimed were his like tvs and such thing is in the polaroids you could see the reflection of the store they were in on the glass he also claimed numerous cds records but oddly enough every single one started with an r s or a t we're talking one hundreds of cds records my dad was about to deny the claim in person but noticed he had a gun on the table so decided to do it over the phone ready for an escalation later the same guy was arrested for beheading a prostitute and throwing her head in the river that went from zero to life in a heartbeat this one ended my marriage well it was the start of the end of marriage my husband lost his job in the title mortgage business applied for unemployment got denied i decide to help him with his appeal hearing i asked him multiple times before the hearing is there anything you did that caused them fire he says no absolutely not they fired him out of nowhere hearing day comes he testifies under oath that he did nothing wrong was a good employee no issues upon cross-examination the other attorney pulls out documents from one of his real estate closings documents he forged and backdated had to admit he perjured himself needless to say he didn't get unemployment and he didn't sleep at home that night not my case which is a gift from above really civil trial before a jury for injuries and prop damage from a mva and punitive damages because defendant was intoxicated at the time of the accident let's call defendant dui almost doesn't need to be said but before dui ever stepped foot in court they would have been prepped repeatedly first for the deposition and then for trial testimony with the standard questions were there any prior incidents arrests convictions anything that can be used to impeach any of dui's testimony yada yada over hours denies everything and is as clean as a clean whistle thus at trial defence council dc puts dui on the stand to give them an opportunity to tell the jury of their contrition for this one time error in judgment describe the difficult time dui was going through at the time and otherwise show themselves to the jury as an upstanding member of society in order to reduce punitive damages it goes well then plaintiff's counsel pa gets to cross i'm going to paraphrase what allegedly happened next which is purely hearsay pa earlier you testified that this was a one-time mistake and you've learned your lesson is that correct dui yes pa isn't it true that you've already been convicted of dui in another state dui sits silent as dc immediately objects but it's properly overruled and dui must answer since what happens next is impeachment i'll skip the objections but suffice to say they were being fired off as rapidly as a machine gun and just as rapidly overruled dui yes pa and isn't it true that in your prior dui a child died you can imagine what's happening in the courtroom and most importantly amongst the jury and you think it's over stick a fork in dui it's done but then pa goes for the jugular do you remember the name of that little child that you killed while you were driving while intoxicated emo this question is one for the ages more powerful than the old when did you stop beating your wife because no matter how you answer and that is why you never ever lie to your attorney not me but my mentor this is the reason you never asked questions that you don't already know the answer to in court during the trial with the judge on a divorce matter the wife brought up that he had abused her during the course of their marriage client whispers to my mentor that that is absolutely not true on the stand during his portion of testimony my mentor asks at any point in the marriage did you lay your hands on your wife one time we were having an argument and i held her down on the couch until she stopped arguing with me what my mentor said it was like she could see it happening in slow motion and all the alarm bells were going off in her head because he had never mentioned this end apparently to him this was not abuse the judge gave wife a lot more money as a result and husband was baffled my mentor was fuming eta husband admitted this was the only time he had laid hands on wife my mentor was more peeved because she had thought the case was in the bag since wife had abandoned the kids with husband to run off with her lover down in florida and literally only came back to the state to get the divorce done husband had been noted as being a great dad to the kids and a good figure in the community hence why she was so dang shocked at his answer but your honor i wasn't using my hands if you are new to the channel you can subscribe i publish new videos every day until then check another video [Music] so bye for now

Channel: Updoot Everything

Views: 37,997

Rating: 4.864924 out of 5

Keywords: lawyers, hard case, lawyers losing cases, losing the case, courthouse, stupid criminals, #updootst, updoot, reddit, r/askreddit, askreddit, ask reddit, r/, \r, r\, best of reddit, reddit stories, reddit story, top posts, funniest posts, funny, funny posts, funny reddit stories, funny askreddit, reddit funny, askreddit funny, askreddit stories, reddit stories 2019, people of reddit, sub, reddit cringe, memes, toadfilms, updoot everything, updoot reddit, story, stories, rslash, comedy, fresh

Id: v1Wk32Snbrk

Length: 25min 44sec (1544 seconds)

Published: Tue Aug 04 2020