Shulem wrote:What you did was unpardonable, Jersey Girl. Your banning was completely just and fair. You did it to yourself. Own up and shut up.
I hope you learned a little lesson when it comes to threatening people with lawsuits. What you did was really down and dirty -- you should apologize.
But your banning is permanent. Forever.
Paul O
Idly threatening lawsuits is a pernicious, anti-social evil. It is bullying when there is not real legal traction for the claims. Those threats are often used to shake out a 'nuisance value' from the target of those threats.
I am a lawyer. I have litigation experience. I only litigate for clients claims that relate to business, tax, and estate planning issues. I tried a case for plaintiffs early this year, the jury gave us a handsome verdict. The wrongs involved were palpable. The defendant was incorrigible against entertaining the notion that he might have erred. His intransigence in that regard required us to take the case all the way through trial.
When I think someone has been wronged by another in a way recognized by society as expressed through its laws, I believe in pursuing a remedy. I do not think that the offender should be permitted to keep the benefit from his wrong.
Of potential litigation clients, I take less than 1 out of 6 that seek my services for litigation to pursue a claim. (I take most every client that needs a civil action defense--he did not start the suit. Sometimes doing nothing more than scheduling a settlement conference and getting the matter resolved amicably, particularly when this defendant clearly is culpable for the losses suffered by the claimant.)
About the other 5, some are earnestly seeking, when they come in for a consultation, to learn whether they have been wronged in a way the law recognizes. Some depart disappointed, but satisfied that "there's nothing that can be done" within the justice system. About 1 of those 5 ask will ask me if we can't get something out of the target of his angst by sending a threatening letter or maybe even filing suit, "and see what that other person or company will give us".
Most (90%+) of other lawyers I know will do as I do and refuse to do so, upholding the oath we took not to do so. I think our profession, and the justice system as a whole, would fare much better in the marketplace of public opinion if it were not for the less than 10% of lawyers that do engage in idle threats of litigation, to shake down the targets.
I thankfully do not know the particulars of the situation discussed in this thread. I hope that when any litigation threats may have been made by Jersey Girl, she fully thought she had legal basis to file such a lawsuit and fully intended to go through with filing, but has not because of what she may have learned about the facts and legal rules since leveling those threats. As I indicated, idly threatening lawsuits is a pernicious, anti-social evil, particularly when used to stop another from exercising his otherwise protected rights.
) I would suggest that this thread, among other things, is an extreme example of bad form!