Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Attorneys 'Messed Up' and Gave Wrong Evidence to Other Side" video.

I had no problems understanding Steve’s presentation. It’s Civil Procedure and professional responsibility. Sure, it’s complicated stuff—which is why we turn to Steve to help explain it. If you had trouble following the material he presented, I suggest you watch it again. Make notes of whatever is still giving you trouble and ask about it in the comments. Steve is here to explain complicated topics, not spoonfeed you, but if you make a sincere attempt to understand (such as multiple viewings and writing things down), nobody will fault you.
27
@jerradwilson Holy crap, I didn’t notice it was 35 minutes long. It seemed like 15 or 20 minutes. I think if I didn’t understand something in this video, I would have given it a second listen, and kept a pencil and paper handy to take notes of what I wasn’t getting. I might it might not give it a third listen before posting my questions as a comment.
27
@minealsomine9663 You’ll be fine if you keep your nose clean, avoid any and all appearance of wrong doing, and avoid any connection to legal entanglements of any kind. With any luck, you won’t be subject to any court orders because a court will never order you to do anything. If you don’t trust to your luck, maybe go live in the woods and shun contact with people.
8
@FallGuyManiac They didn’t realize the full nature of their mistake at the were notified of it by the plaintiff’s lawyers. According to one account that I read, the defense attorneys didn’t send documents, per se. They sent a link to a file server that contained the data that was on the phone. The file server belonged to a previous attorney on the case. If this is true, it’s possible that Jones’ attorneys didn’t know what was on the server. If this is what happened, it would explain why Jones wasn’t warned.
6
@Belgarath1966 from one account, the attorney wasn’t even in possession of the phone/files. The attorney had a link to a server containing the files. The server was owned by one of the previous attorneys. It’s possible that the attorney did a cursory check of the files, saw material they had already produced, and didn’t really know what was in all the files. That would have been the mistake: Incorrectly assuming you knew what was on the server before sending the link.
6
@Scott34750 The judge wasn’t even angry on behalf of the defense (not completely, anyway). He was angry at the piss poor job the prosecutor was doing as “The People’s” representative and as an officer of the court.
5
@wojcikrc lol, Steve asked us to avoid politics in the comments, and to stick to the topic, which is civil procedure and professional responsibility. Just couldn’t resist, could you? Perhaps you’d like to share your opinions about the Covid vaccine, the 2020 election, and the events of January 6th? Just kidding, please don’t.
5
@wojcikrc I thought people like you liked to do your own research. Why are you asking someone else to do your work? Do you lack a sense of personal responsibility? Minh didn’t make an extraordinary claim. The default judgement and the reasons for it are well known to anyone following the case, even at a superficial level.
3
@kevinbarry71 This is a good point. I’ve imagined a humorous scenario. The lawyer describes the problem. The client freaks out, but the lawyer reassures him, “All I have to do is object, and the evidence will have to be excluded.” Then, later, “no objections, your honor”. 😄 The lawyer never told the client whether or not he would object, only that he could. I don’t think it happened like that, but it’s funny to think it might have.
2
Yes, everyone has the right to due process. Accused people “get off” on due process technicalities, but that’s not an indication of a weakness in the system or of unethical defense attorneys. It’s an indication that due process is a bedrock principle of justice and the rule of law. I think the ideal is that defense attorneys serve “in the interest of justice”. Doing their best to defend their client with the rules is “in the interest of justice”.
1
@july8xx or the junior level lawyer (the underling) thought he was being put on the hook to protect more senior lawyers, and it didn’t have anything to do with his feelings about the client.
1
@FireMageLayn I’m thinking along your lines along with, “I’m not going to be disciplined by the Bar to protect one of the partners. I spent considerable time and money on my law school education. Why risk it? I can always get a job at another firm that puts a higher premium on ethics and professional conduct.”
1