If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Independent)   There's stupid. There's Peter. There's creationists. And then there's this woman, who sued her lawyer for negligence because he didn't tell her that getting a divorce would mean the end of her marriage   (independent.co.uk) divider line 114
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

16484 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Jan 2014 at 5:24 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-10 10:25:19 PM

Stone Meadow: Oztemprom: Stone Meadow: veedeevadeevoodee: gilgigamesh: So she's one of those Catholics who think her all knowing, all powerful God is taken in by legal hairsplitting.

I'm guessing she was also probably the queen of anal and blowjobs out behind the local pub before she got married in virgin white. Love those Catholic girls!

At the CYO, where they learned to blowwwww ...

Ahem...suck. The word you're looking for is "suck". "Blow" is a figure of speech.

/being a little anal myself... ;)

[blog.digitalaudioservice.de image 560x560]
/not saying you are necessarily a bieber fan
//Married a  Catholic Girl

Okay, I tripped up over my ignorance of Zappa, but that was AWESOME! :)

/not a beiber fan
//but I did marry a Catholic Girl



This woulda been a killer show

www.nndb.com
 
2014-01-10 10:32:30 PM

gilgigamesh: So she's one of those Catholics who think her all knowing, all powerful God is taken in by legal hairsplitting.

I'm guessing she was also probably the queen of anal and blowjobs out behind the local pub before she got married in virgin white. Love those Catholic girls!


I love 'em too. I mean, really. Love 'em a lot. Some can suck the chrome off a bumper...
 
2014-01-10 10:48:56 PM
I am gross and perverted
I'm obsessed 'n deranged
I have existed for years
But very little had changed
I am the tool of the Government
And industry too
For I am destined to rule
And regulate you
I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin' out
From your TV set
 
2014-01-10 10:51:14 PM
Josh Fenderman
 
2014-01-11 12:02:07 AM

LindenFark: The way I read the second to last paragraph, it sounds like the divorce proceedings were a bluff to try to get a lesser "clean break" settlement that does not technically violate her religious beliefs. In which case she is suing her lawyers for not telling her her bluff might be called. Still monumentally stupid, but not quite as brain dead stupid as the headline suggests.


Maybe he logic was clouded by a Catholic Block
 
2014-01-11 12:54:10 AM

CaptSS: Snarfangel: Lawnchair: Reminds me of the page of legalese I had to sign and initial three or four times for cremating my parents that, effectively, said "once we torch them, we can't really put them back together".  There had to have been a lawsuit years ago that caused that form to exist.


I thought cremation was the process of covering dead people in cream, perhaps with a nice chocolate coating.

I believe that is necrophilia with a smattering of scatology.

/yes I have been to /b


That is way too much information.
 
2014-01-11 01:37:42 AM
At least she wasn't a Jewish Princess...
...with overworked gums.
la la la
 
2014-01-11 02:33:34 AM

Gyrfalcon: PunGent: Sigh.  I don't want to have to defend the seemingly crazy lady, but there is one possible point in her favor.

FTA:  "The lawyers failed to regard her Roman Catholic faith and should have recommended judicial separation - a step down from full divorce - as an alternative course of action, she said."

If there was an available legal option, and her attorneys failed to mention it to her, that IS pretty much text book malpractice, at least here in the States.  You don't expect your clients to know the law, that's why they came to you in the first place.

youhadonejob.jpg

Risky, of course, trying to interpret a legal case as reported by reporters.  And I assume the review process over there would take that into account.

Just saying, she may not be COMPLETELY out to lunch.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

The "legal alternative" thing has to do with other reasonable options to the course of action the client is trying to take--i.e., I want to sue for damages, okay, do you want punitive, compensatory, emotional and psychological as well as monetary? Or, you can't sue for breach of contract, shall we try unjust enrichment?

The attorney is NOT on the hook because a woman comes in and says "I want to end my marriage," and he fails to say "Oh but wait, you're Roman Catholic and shouldn't get divorced according to your religion, wouldn't you rather get a legal separation instead?" That's HER job, to tell him she's Catholic and needs to legally end her marriage without divorce. It's not his job to remind her that she's not supposed to get a divorce in her Church.


Again, I agree it's not the attorney's job to know the ins and outs of every religion.  It IS his job to at least MENTION other legal ways of ending a marriage.

Counter example:  John Q. Public goes to his attorney asking to incorporate a small business, and the attorney ONLY tells him about ONE form of public entity, the formal corporation, and draws him up an expensive, but valid, set of formal documents.

He completely neglects to tell him about other valid options like sole proprietorships, d/b/a, s-corp, etc, etc.

Malpractice?

In my book, it might not be, but he's sure as fark not serving his client's best interest.

In my experience, it's best to assume the client (and the occasional judge) knows absolutely nothing about the area of law in which you're giving them advice.

Wasn't my case, but a buddy of mine bought a house down in Rhode Island about fifteen years ago; everything was fine, right up until the day of the closing, when he went for the walk-through.  House was still full of furniture, clothes, etc, etc.  Turned out the seller's counsel hadn't managed to actually get his sweet little old lady of a client to understand that selling her house meant she had to, you know, move out of it.

My buddy's not an asshole, and was able to extend his financing, so they all worked out a deal to give her a month to find an apartment, hire movers, etc.

Absolutely true story, by the way.  It's never happened to me in fifteen years, but on a related note, early on, I learned to double-check that the Seller was actually bringing the damned house keys to the closing.

Sellers were divorced, and each thought the other had the keys.  Nothing irritates a buyer client like having to hire a locksmith to get into their shiny new house.

Never assume, is what I'm saying.

Also, expect incompetence :)
 
2014-01-11 07:19:49 AM
"What do you mean I can`t carry on taking all the money from this man for the rest of his life simply because we had sex at one point? That must be illegal. I`ll try to take YOUR money!"
 
2014-01-11 09:33:19 AM

PunGent: The attorney is NOT on the hook because a woman comes in and says "I want to end my marriage," and he fails to say "Oh but wait, you're Roman Catholic and shouldn't get divorced according to your religion, wouldn't you rather
Again, I agree it's not the attorney's job to know the ins and outs of every religion.  It IS his job to at least MENTION other legal ways of ending a marriage.



Well, as most judiciaries frown on manslaughter/homicide, short of divorce there are NO other legal ways of ENDING the marriage. A separation, trial separation, agreeing to sleep on the couch in turns, all that jazz, does not end the marriage per se. A person who is not divorced cannot legally marry someone else in most of the civilized world outside of the Middle- East, or, to put it bluntly, most of the civilized world. Excluding a few whacky LDS offshoots, of course.
 
2014-01-11 11:41:23 AM

PunGent: Gyrfalcon: PunGent: Sigh.  I don't want to have to defend the seemingly crazy lady, but there is one possible point in her favor.

FTA:  "The lawyers failed to regard her Roman Catholic faith and should have recommended judicial separation - a step down from full divorce - as an alternative course of action, she said."

If there was an available legal option, and her attorneys failed to mention it to her, that IS pretty much text book malpractice, at least here in the States.  You don't expect your clients to know the law, that's why they came to you in the first place.

youhadonejob.jpg

Risky, of course, trying to interpret a legal case as reported by reporters.  And I assume the review process over there would take that into account.

Just saying, she may not be COMPLETELY out to lunch.

You have GOT to be kidding me.

The "legal alternative" thing has to do with other reasonable options to the course of action the client is trying to take--i.e., I want to sue for damages, okay, do you want punitive, compensatory, emotional and psychological as well as monetary? Or, you can't sue for breach of contract, shall we try unjust enrichment?

The attorney is NOT on the hook because a woman comes in and says "I want to end my marriage," and he fails to say "Oh but wait, you're Roman Catholic and shouldn't get divorced according to your religion, wouldn't you rather get a legal separation instead?" That's HER job, to tell him she's Catholic and needs to legally end her marriage without divorce. It's not his job to remind her that she's not supposed to get a divorce in her Church.

Again, I agree it's not the attorney's job to know the ins and outs of every religion.  It IS his job to at least MENTION other legal ways of ending a marriage.

Counter example:  John Q. Public goes to his attorney asking to incorporate a small business, and the attorney ONLY tells him about ONE form of public entity, the formal corporation, and draws him up an expensive, but valid, set of form ...


I do have to wonder if there wasn't at least some measure of attorney negligence involved here.

Now, with your example, a member of the general public isn't necessarily going to know about all of the options for creating a business entity, as it may not be something he has ever encountered before.  With a divorce, a member of the general public can be assumed to know that they are attempting to end a marriage, and if a member of the public asks for one, it would likely be assumed that it's what she wants to accomplish.  Still, it would seem prudent to spend two minutes mentioning other options that might be available.

But even if the attorney doesn't have the obligation to discuss other options like the judicial separation (which I'm reasonably certain doesn't exist anywhere in the US, I'd never heard of it before, and it appears to be a completely different concept from a legal separation) there is most certainly an obligation to make sure that the client understands the documents that are being signed and presented to the judge.  All the divorce documents I've ever seen actually explicitly say what they're doing, it's not really possible to understand the document without understanding that the marriage is going to be terminated.
 
2014-01-11 12:08:31 PM
Britain: the Florida of Europe.
 
2014-01-11 12:29:26 PM

Kittypie070: Britain: the Florida of Europe.



Filled with old people, frostbacks, and theme parks?
 
2014-01-11 10:49:15 PM

dready zim: "What do you mean I can`t carry on taking all the money from this man for the rest of his life simply because we had sex at one point? That must be illegal. I`ll try to take YOUR money!"



She probably saw him smiling, after the paperwork had been signed, and had "buyer's remorse".  I'm of the opinion that he is a very lucky man.
 
Displayed 14 of 114 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report