To Protect and to Serve II

#10,151
#10,151
37L1 said:
As long as we are discussing reform. . .
The same should go throughout the justice system to include removing judges' immunity and to allow lawyers' liabilities to include non-clients.

Wonder how that would work out?
Click to expand...
Allow lawyers’ liabilities to include non-clients, how? Like if the lawyer wins a case in a dishonest way they can get sued?
 
#10,152
#10,152
Velo Vol said:
I think we found a limit.

Click to expand...

That is a perfect example of the wrong type of policing, and there are two reasons for it.

- Hardheaded officers refusing to de-escalate the situation in a need to be "right"
- Fear of being sued if they don't properly investigate the situation to its conclusion

A smart officer would have left as soon as the dude said he was fine, and wrote a small CYA report to cover themselves in case he wasn't
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols and NurseGoodVol
#10,162
#10,162
RockyTop85 said:
Allow lawyers’ liabilities to include non-clients, how? Like if the lawyer wins a case in a dishonest way they can get sued?
Click to expand...
Regarding malpractice where it was reasonably foreseeable that negligent service or advice to or on behalf of the client could cause harm to others.
Increasing attorney liability will result in more careful legal representation, a higher degree of professional care, and greater diligence. The role of an attorney should be more like that of an advisor and consultant rather than a mere scrivener. Charleson v. Hardesty, 839 P.2d 1303 (Nev. 1992). Fur-thermore, it has been argued that expanding liability for attorneys will bring all professionals under the same standard, eliminating the special privileges that attorneys enjoy above other professionals, such as physicians and accountants.

Both sides argued here:

https://www.lucascavalier.com/publications/FTD-1207-StrickTafflin.pdf
 
#10,163
#10,163
37L1 said:
Regarding malpractice where it was reasonably foreseeable that negligent service or advice to or on behalf of the client could cause harm to others.
Increasing attorney liability will result in more careful legal representation, a higher degree of professional care, and greater diligence. The role of an attorney should be more like that of an advisor and consultant rather than a mere scrivener. Charleson v. Hardesty, 839 P.2d 1303 (Nev. 1992). Fur-thermore, it has been argued that expanding liability for attorneys will bring all professionals under the same standard, eliminating the special privileges that attorneys enjoy above other professionals, such as physicians and accountants.

Both sides argued here:

https://www.lucascavalier.com/publications/FTD-1207-StrickTafflin.pdf
Click to expand...

My knowledge of the law is too limited to have a strong opinion on that without reading some of the cases and seeing more examples. The only one they really got into was the beneficiary of a will.

It seems like the factors set out by the states that allow suits under that theory already address all of the immediate objections I had with it, like foreseeability.

In the criminal justice context there are a ton of reforms to post conviction standards and possibly malpractice that would help but malpractice has a big hurdle to overcome before it creates meaningful criminal justice reforms because malpractice in the criminal setting generally requires exoneration.
 
#10,164
#10,164
RockyTop85 said:
My knowledge of the law is too limited to have a strong opinion on that without reading some of the cases and seeing more examples. The only one they really got into was the beneficiary of a will.

It seems like the factors set out by the states that allow suits under that theory already address all of the immediate objections I had with it, like foreseeability.

In the criminal justice context there are a ton of reforms to post conviction standards and possibly malpractice that would help but malpractice has a big hurdle to overcome before it creates meaningful criminal justice reforms because malpractice in the criminal setting generally requires exoneration.
Click to expand...

RockyTop85 said:
The way qualified immunity is currently being defined by courts is asinine and demonstrably harmful to society.
Click to expand...

The way malpractice in the criminal setting is currently being defined by courts is asinine and demonstrably harmful to society. Not to mention the ineffectiveness of the ABA, that goes out of its way to turn a blind eye and even protect attorneys who don't deserve it. Discipline from the American Bar is a joke. When the rules for taking action are written by attorneys for attorneys, what is the expected result? That's what you get, nothing.

Judges often act like they are gods because, well, they are in their courtroom. Some of the decisions made and opinions rendered push the limits of belief. If you are going to address the topic of qualified immunity, don't just stop at the police. Raise the "bar" throughout the entire legal system. Why should attorneys enjoy greater protection than doctors and accountants? Why should judges not be held accountable for decisions that endanger/cause harm to others?

None of this stuff is easy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, davethevol and NurseGoodVol
#10,165
#10,165
Blake25p said:
Not really seeing what the officer did wrong. Sounds like the issue would be with the complainant. FYI if you impede an investigation (which sounds like this was) you can be arrested.
Click to expand...
Just because the police are suspicious during an "investigation" is not a reason for someone to give up their right not to be bothered if they have done nothing wrong.
 
#10,166
#10,166
37L1 said:
The way malpractice in the criminal setting is currently being defined by courts is asinine and demonstrably harmful to society. Not to mention the ineffectiveness of the ABA, that goes out of its way to turn a blind eye and even protect attorneys who don't deserve it. Discipline from the American Bar is a joke. When the rules for taking action are written by attorneys for attorneys, what is the expected result? That's what you get, nothing.

Judges often act like they are gods because, well, they are in their courtroom. Some of the decisions made and opinions rendered push the limits of belief. If you are going to address the topic of qualified immunity, don't just stop at the police. Raise the "bar" throughout the entire legal system. Why should attorneys enjoy greater protection than doctors and accountants? Why should judges not be held accountable for decisions that endanger/cause harm to others?

None of this stuff is easy.
Click to expand...
I think we agree in principle, or at least I agree with your intentions, I’m just not sure I agree with the specifics of how to do it. Not because I disagree with the proposal(s) I just don’t see how they’d be effective or workable.

Like the ABA is just a professional organization. They don’t do licensing or discipline. It’s like a think tank for better legal policy like the Brookings Institute. Licensing and discipline is handled by individual states. It’s why most of the lawyers here chortle when a certain poster goes on some supercilious rant about the “BAR association” giving lawyers marching orders. They put out a magazine, some legal education classes, and every so often they recommended best practices that attorneys can follow or not. That’s it. I’m not even a member. TN is okay at sanctioning dishonest or irresponsible lawyers but it’s licensing, not quality control. The market handles the latter.

Also, according to that article, the only difference between attorney malpractice and other professions is third party liability. I don’t have a strong opinion on it one way or the other because I don’t see how it helps in this context. It’s an idea, but I don’t see how it’s a solution.

Also, almost every decision a judge makes harms somebody. If I sue you and you sue me one of us wins and the other gets harmed. Pushing all tort liability onto judges doesn’t make any sense, and most of the beef I see here is directed at appellate law, emotionally reactionary, and not always informed as to what actually happened and why.

The legal/lawyer reforms that would create meaningful changes in the field of criminal justice are changes to post-conviction relief standards ie raising the bar of attorney performance at trial and raising the constitutional burden for prosecutors. That would open up more access to remedies for the people who were actually harmed, rather than trying to graft in a solution through third party liability. If, at that point, the current malpractice standards and the threat of embarrassment from being told they didn’t do their job well isn’t enough to incentivize performance then maybe revisions to malpractice standards would be warranted but it’s hard to tell because we almost never reach the issue of malpractice of the attorney because of these outside factors.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top