It’s actually called that. This is the case of a wedding photographer who was sued by the groom, who was a bad lawyer, and it was informative to me in a couple of ways. I did not know that the occupation of wedding photographer was so hazardous — apparently, some people are really demanding and finicky about the little details around their wedding (sometimes, it seems, more so than they are about the marriage), and they’ll go after the photographer if the pictures are not sufficiently flattering. I wouldn’t know about that; at our wedding, we had some people with polaroid cameras wandering around informally. The pictures aren’t so great, but the marriage has been wonderful.
The threatening letter from the lawyer has to be seen to be believed. Here are some excerpts:
I’ve received a few blustering extortion letters from attack-dog lawyers, but never anything as unprofessional and openly vicious as this thing — they usually try to keep the threats veiled and only vaguely unsettling. This jackhole just freely cranked it up to 11, to attempt to intimidate the photographer into settling.
But go read the whole thing. It has a happy ending with the lawyer having to go before the bar and defend himself. Some days, the bad guys lose.
Plenty of explicit mentions of misusing the justice system, in other words an illegal threat.
=8)-DX
Do lawyers sometimes get away with that? This is not the first time I see such a document where a lawyer essencially reveal his life of crime.
There is no legal or professional requirement for lawyers to act in the interest of, or even not in active contravention to, justice, with a minority of mostly procedural exceptions.
Unlike literally every other profession (Hippocratic oath [abridged modern version], engineering ethics, etc.)
When this, and the regime of horrific abuse it enables and abets, are pointed out, the only response is that people who can explain exactly what’s wrong with “NOT ALL MEN!” and “NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE!” start whining “NOT ALL LAWYERS!” and think they can leave it there.
Very satisfying outcome though legal systems that allow for such kinds of abuse are shit.
Azkyroth @3:
I think you are either overstating your case, or have a very broad definition of “mostly procedural exceptions.”
It’s certainly true that there is no general duty on an attorney to “see that justice is done”: your attorney’s job is to zealously represent your interests, not to act as judge and jury and decide “well, you know, you kind of deserve to lose this case” and engineer the result he or she thinks is fairest. That’s just the nature of an adversarial system.
But there are absolutely ethical obligations. In Washington State, for example, where the Poon-Tang case took place, the Rules of Professional Conduct include, among other things:
Rule 3.1, Meritorious Claims and Contentions:
I won’t quote these others, but you can see them at the link:
Rule 3.2, Expediting Litigation:
Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal
Rule 3.4, Fairness to Opposing Party
Rule 3.5, Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal
Rule 4.1, Truthfulness in Statements to Others
I’ll be the first to agree that in general, bar associations don’t do a great job of policing these kinds of ethical breaches — they seem to have their hands full just prosecuting the lawyers who steal client funds and/or just fail to show up in court — but to say that the rules don’t exist is just not true. As evidenced by the fact that the state bar did get involved in this matter.
I have seen stuff like this before. A friend of mine has sworn never to photograph another wedding after one couple tried to insist on getting a refund because it rained on their wedding day.
Apparently they tried the same crap with the caterer as well. :/
I’ve talked to more lawyers since Monday than I have talked to in my entire life. They look human. They seem willing to help, for their fee of course. That said, I had a landlord once who rented to a couple of lawyers. She told me that they regularly sent her lawyer letters to get things done. Each ending with the proviso that if she didn’t act promptly they would sue. Apparently some people think threatening litigation is the best approach. You might think people smart enough to make it through law school would know better.
robro,
You obviously have a higher opinion of what it takes to get admitted to, and graduate from, law school than I do.
A good rule of thumb: any lawyer who likes to add “Esq.” to his or her name is probably a douche.
I feel like a total ingenue, but I completely don’t get why Poon/Tang is funny.
Oh wait, I just remembered urbandictionary.
Now I know. And knowing’s half the battle.
Perhaps. This is a more substantive reply than I usually receive.
Just a note: if you read through the linked story, and then through some of the other materials, the ending is happy in the sense that the photographer got his legal fees paid and the lawyer got smacked down a bit, but apparently the lawyer’s “punishment” consisted entirely of:
1. He had to pay someone else for his defense to the State Bar, rather than acting for himself for free.
2. He was forced to produce some evidence which was somewhat expensive (but nowhere near as much as he was asking for, let alone the amount he was suing for, and almost certainly not enough to put a dent in his finances)
3. He had to go through a mandatory training from the State Bar
4. His reputation was tarnished, probably, somewhat, maybe
Abusive lawyers are like cops who kill unarmed people: unless they were already unpopular with their peers, the “punishment” they receive, if they receive one at all, will be a slap on the wrist. (And also it is pointed out along the way that most of the time, he would have succeeded in at least bankrupting the victim, he just got unlucky by picking on someone who had helpful contacts.)
Azkyroth @3: “There is no legal or professional requirement for lawyers to act in the interest of, or even not in active contravention to, justice, with a minority of mostly procedural exceptions.”
I’m a lawyer, and having just spent two full days researching my obligations regarding an ethical issue, I can tell you with certainty that this statement is not true in the least. A huge number of rules exist that should have prevented this asshole from pursuing this behavior. Whether those rules are strong enough and whether they’re taken seriously enough by attorneys is up for debate, but you’re incorrect to say that there are no standards. Many of us take those rules very seriously; unfortunately, others, like this guy, don’t. The professional as a whole should come down hard on him for that.