Written by Attorney Brad Wilder.
We all know the difference between right and wrong, and many times we know when another is not telling the truth. In some cases, we can even produce evidence to prove it. Equally important, however, is the expectation that none of us should be required to defend against frivolous arguments, claims or lawsuits brought by third parties. The difficulties associated with being a lawyer are only compounded when a client seeks explanation why he/she should have to respond to frivolous allegations or claims. I have never been able to justify nonsense.
In most cases, our legal system runs effectively and efficiently, but then there are the exceptions. What is particularly bothersome is that courts appear to do little to address frivolity and the expense associated with having to respond to it.
From my perspective, judges are the gatekeepers that bear the responsibility of insuring that justice is carried out and the legal system is not abused. This responsibility should include holding accountable those who elect not to tell the truth and those who bring arguments and claims that are unworthy of serious attention.
The last thing I appreciate doing in my profession is trying to explain to my hardworking clients why they are having to defend against frivolity. It seems I am having to address the question far too frequently. Recently, I did not have a good answer for clients who asked why a court is allowing someone to raise claims that were resolved years ago. The only thing I could assure my clients is that a demand for sanctions would be made. Whether the court would grant sanctions is a different issue than whether the court should.
We all know the difference between right and wrong, and many times we know when another is not telling the truth. In some cases, we can even produce evidence to prove it. Equally important, however, is the expectation that none of us should be required to defend against frivolous arguments, claims or lawsuits brought by third parties. The difficulties associated with being a lawyer are only compounded when a client seeks explanation why he/she should have to respond to frivolous allegations or claims. I have never been able to justify nonsense.
In most cases, our legal system runs effectively and efficiently, but then there are the exceptions. What is particularly bothersome is that courts appear to do little to address frivolity and the expense associated with having to respond to it.
From my perspective, judges are the gatekeepers that bear the responsibility of insuring that justice is carried out and the legal system is not abused. This responsibility should include holding accountable those who elect not to tell the truth and those who bring arguments and claims that are unworthy of serious attention.
The last thing I appreciate doing in my profession is trying to explain to my hardworking clients why they are having to defend against frivolity. It seems I am having to address the question far too frequently. Recently, I did not have a good answer for clients who asked why a court is allowing someone to raise claims that were resolved years ago. The only thing I could assure my clients is that a demand for sanctions would be made. Whether the court would grant sanctions is a different issue than whether the court should.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment