The Trousers Trial -- Judgment is now in...

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:36 pm

I am reading the 23 page judgement, on the first page it says part of the money he was seeking was for attorney fees. He was representing himself, but wanted what he would charge himself for representing himself? So did he right himself a bill?

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 12:36 pm

I have to agree, I doubt the Chungs will ever see a dime from this guy.

If he doesn't loss his job over this then our judicious (spelling?) system is even more screwed up then I thought.

While I do have to agree that consumers need to have the right to take action against businesses that try and screw them over, I don't see how this case was supposed to stand up for that... this guy just went so overboard it wasn't even funny.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:12 pm

I read the opinion yesterday, and it is clear that the presiding Judge thought the plaintiff/Judge was out there. I expect that the presiding Judge will enter attorney fee sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 against the plaintiff. Now will the defendants ever see a penny of that? Who knows.... but I would suspect that this will result in the plaintiff losing his job as an Administrative Law Judge and possibly losing his license to practice law as well. While that is good it does make it difficult for the defendants to collect their fees back from the plaintiff.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:21 pm

^^^ From everything I read it sounds like he hasn't even paid his ex-wife's attorney, which he was ordered to do so. So I am guessing he will be ordered to pay it but will claim bankruptcy or something and not pay it.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 1:48 pm

Surely the 'judge' can be counter sued by the state as a 'vexacious litigant'? I believe the penalty can be punitive just like 'contempt of court'.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 5:06 pm

Cookie_Wookie:

It is the defendant that will ask for sanctions against the plaintiff. Under most states (and federal) Rule 11 of Civil Procedure if you file papers and continue litigation when you know it is all a bunch of crap you can be held accountable for attorney fees for the other side. The interesting thing is that if this guy had hired counsel and done the same thing his hired counsel could have been held personally liable. In my state it does not even matter if you are not an attorney. If you represent yourself you will be held to that standard.

So this plaintiff is in the sling. The penalty should be even worse for him since he is a lawyer. He almost certainly will lose his job over this and should lose his law license over this as well.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:52 pm

@ The Man - Wookie is just fine Smile

Dont quote me on this but I'm pretty sure that here, they just cut out the middle man and bring you up before the beak as a 'vexacious litigant'. Frankly, I think this is one case when the plaintiff should counter sue him for every penny he has including his pants. Though getting him disbarred wouldnt be a bad outcome. This just smacks of someone throwing their weight around with some poor soul lower down the social scale then themselves.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 6:59 pm

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

@ The Man - Wookie is just fine Smile

But Cookie_Wookie sound so much more warm and fuzzy Razz

Yes, I wish there was a way to put this guy in the dock and seek more sanctions. I am not a bankruptcy expert, but I would hope that if they got a fee sanction against this guy that he could not discharge it in bankruptcy and they could chase him for the rest of his life until he paid. I'd love to make his life miserable by doing that.

This guy is exactly what gives lawyers a bad name. Frankly it is the fact that there is no big news article that the DC Bar has started disbarment proceedings that gives us an even worse name.

Atleast with Nifong (Duke Rape Case) the bar started disbarment proceedings fairly quickly.

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 7:03 pm

The Man wrote:

ChocolateChip_Wookie wrote:

@ The Man - Wookie is just fine Smile

But Cookie_Wookie sound so much more warm and fuzzy Razz

Hmm...I like that. Warm and fuzzy.

I shall respectfully plead the 5th on this one. I am out of my depth, that's why people like me have to hire these...ummm....people. I do like the term though. It has a nice ring. Vexacious....vexacious....

EDIT : "Something vexes thee...yes, he does, off with his head.." Things were so much more civilised then.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

Only certain debts/claims are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, and I don't think Rule 11 sanctions are one of them. They are typically things like child support, taxes, fraud and other bad acts -- restitution for crimes being one of them. Still, I don't think this would work.

Under the new Chapter 7 bankruptcy laws however, I don't know that he would even qualify as a Debtor....

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:34 pm

Can the state bring proceedings for contempt of court against a vexatious litigant? For a punitive outcome? Here, the High Court can make an order that someone is a vexatious litigant, but it just means that they cannot start civil proceedings without permission.

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:53 am

Oh hold on Eight. I remember reading about this bloke who kept bringing court cases against companies for imagined slights, essentially, any time they turned him down for a job. On his 50th case or something, the judge finally lost it, threw the case out, branded him a 'vaxacious litigant', awarded the considerable costs against him and sent him down for 30 days for contempt of court. He can never bring a case to court again (you are right on that).

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 Mar 2006 Posts: 7103 Location: Yes

They don't do that in the U.S. that I'm aware. In some instances you can move the court (as I have done) to exercise control over a party's pleadings (i.e. prior review), but in terms of a general branding, I've not heard of that.

Most states have "wrongful use of civil proceedings" or "abuse of process" type private actions which allows the winning defendant(s) to then start a new suit against the former plaintiff alleging lack of probable cause and being possessed of bad faith. Your damages in such a case would be the fees you paid to defend, plus any damage to reputation or business, and punitive damages, if appropriate.

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:37 pm

JMRazor wrote:

but in terms of a general branding, I've not heard of that.

He wasnt actually branded although I gather the judge would have liked to. Who knows though, with nearly 1000 years of judgements on the books I'm sure you can find a suitable precident somewhere. If you can charge university students for not turning up at an exam wearing a sword you can probably find something to work with in there.

The Trousers Trial -- Judgment is now in...	View next topic View previous topic