I Said They'd Pay... They're Paying!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 31 тра 2024
- (0:00) Introduction and recap of previous episode
(1:11) Case of Jessica McGaw and Sobeys Capital Incorporated: Original claim and Lawyers' Misconduct
(3:22) Jury Discharge and Decision to declare a mistrial
(5:01) Cost Implications and Rules of Civil Procedure
(8:23) Plaintiff's cost submissions, potential appeal, and court's decision on the cause of the mistrial
(13:22) Recap of the misconduct of council and its consequences
(16:12) Explanation of joint and several basis and the purpose of the court's order
(18:25) Misinterpretation of urgency in legal proceedings and discussion on the recusal motion
(21:15) The defendant's right to oppose the motion and importance of ordering transcripts in court proceedings
(25:18) Client's responsibility for costs and predictions for future law society discipline proceedings
(26:34) Acknowledgement of Patreon supporters
Patreon: / runkleofthebailey
Locals: runkleofthebailey.locals.com/
BTC address: bc1qdqzpz6ny6w35qyl2rnasshjm60jvwcjgllwcay
All comments for information only. Do not take anything as legal advice--if you have a legal issue, contact a lawyer directly so that you can received advice tailored to your situation. All views expressed are solely those of the creator.
The notion that any client can be forced under any circumstances to pay anything as a result of her attorney's misconduct is very troubling.
I agree with you. I don't understand why the Court didn't require the lawyer to the pay these costs. The client probably doesn't have money to pay for the mistakes of her lawyers. She needs to dump these lawyers and find a compent lawyer to represent her.
Yeah it’s rough but normally only in certain circumstances where the party has done or not done something that’s caused an issue (eg delay or not producing evidence in time etc where it isn’t this sort of behaviour). In this sort of scenario I would expect costs to be personally payable by the attorney which is an order the court can make where their client really isn’t at fault in any way. So if the lawyer completely misconducts themself at a hearing or causing a bunch of unnecessary work for no good reason then the lawyer gets penalised and cannot ask the client to pay that.
Runkle does explain this.
Not a lawyer but it seems like the client got hit with the 15k because they lied in the affidavit.
The choice to ask for the judge's recusal was (theoretically) at the direction of the client. So therefore she's still on the hook for it. The mistrial issue was because of counsel's direct action. Everything that happens in a trial is on the client - even though we know that, many times, the lawyers are a driving force on how things happen.
@@williamromine5715 The court did require the lawyers to pay.
They found out they can ACT like 13yr old boys but their grown man wallet is going to be set ablazzzzz
Can't the client go after the malpractice insurance of their attorneys for the $15k? It seems pretty obvious that the hearing was a direct result of their council's misdeeds.
Absolutely, this is clearly a breach of professional conduct and procedure, which a 'reasonable' lawyer should be expected to adhere to.
I suspect their lawyers aren't going to advise them to do this, so they most likely won't know to do it.
I was wondering the same thing
@@keithduthie If they don't they risk the client coming at them personally which would be bad both financially and when it comes to review by the ethics board.
@@keithduthie I would be firing these lawyers immediately and finding someone new to take the case. I'm sure THAT lawyer would be happy to sue the first group
This is disturbingly childish. I've spoken with lawyers with the mindsets of pre-teens, but I'm embarrassed for any lawyer with any decorum or maturity. Wow. 😳
Why would you be embarrassed for anyone, let alone a lawyer with "any decorum or maturity".... you mean _without_ .
Guys i found the grammar nazi
@@jonathancrosby1583 lol 🤡
@@jonathancrosby1583not even a good grammar nazi. The original comment is written correctly, but "johnlocke_1" was too eager to correct someone to actually read it. The statement makes sense as is.
@@drewclark8799 ikr
"... and I arrange my entire life to ensure I never do". Words of wisdom.
I love that you can re-cap the situation in the first 50 seconds very succinctly. Some law-tubers spend half the video explaining what we already know.
It's also a lack of judgement for the lawyers to want to be paid by their client for their lost work due to their own mistake.
More like theft. Jailtime coming their way possibly.
In the future, it'd be nice if you included a link to the video which a new video is following up in the new video's description. This will help newcomers get up to speed, and let people who saw the old video remind themselves of what had happened.
ua-cam.com/video/2TJ5mGInoQw/v-deo.htmlsi=lp4Du3VEdo0zwXFC
As a newcomer I'm more confused by your first sentence than I am by this case. He summed it up in like 13 seconds
@@5h4d0w5l1f3That he summed it up in 13 seconds was my problem. I wanted to remember a few particular details, but I failed, and couldn't find the first video to jog my memory either. Hence this comment.
I notice that you're throwing shade at how my first sentance was worded. That is fair. I dislike it too.
@@delta3244 I concur. Having just found this channel, it’s difficult to tell which videos are in sequence as their titles vary and upload dates can be months to years apart. It’s not necessary, but certainly would be helpful.
I don’t see why the Client should pay $15K from the recusal motion, it wasn’t done with their interest in mind. It was entirely to cover the negligence of council.
She SWORE to facts that were not true in an Affidavit. I would think that she will receive that amount from her lawyers....for misleading her.
I only listened once through, but sounds too me that client was suppose to submit an affidavit outlining costs. Client failed to outline costs and made false statements due to not ordering the transcript.
I'm guessing that the court is assuming the plaintiff approved the motion by their counsel, so the motion was filed in their name. They got bad legal advice, but they're still ultimately responsible for what their counsel does in their name. It would be interesting to see what happens if the plaintiff comes out and says "Hey, these chumps filed that motion to recuse without telling me!" I imagine that would be a completely different story.
@@Jesses_Travels clients council you mean? Why would it be in the clients interests to do that
@@zachklopfleisch8501 yeah true, it could be filed without the clients knowledge, would just be the cherry on the cake.
Oooh! A Canadian bench slap!?!?! I collect and savor US bench slaps but this is unique and awesome!
There are US judges who wouldn't have been this subtle and would have been asking these lawyers why he shouldn't personally report them to the bar for discipline.
I have witnessed US Judges swear from the bench over this type of behavior. The Canadian bench must still be very very polite.
@@keith_jones I've also seen US judges blatantly chew someone out in a way that clearly mocks them. When that happens it's very hilarious.
Apart from cultural differences, I guess it is very different in written form than in the heat of the moment.
The judge has had time to cool down, to think the best way of action. Also, to write something you usually need to concentrate into the hand at task. Both of which means that being unprofessional in a written deposition would look worse than just a few heated words during a session.
Remember that the judge is required himself to uphold the decorum of the court; his decisions might be final in his courts but he may be subject to some kind of recusal/recall/impeachment/review. And even if none of those happen, showing that he is unable to control himself might help whoever is in the receiving end in winning an appeal.
From what I've seen, the level of professionalism among US judges at least in the lower courts, is remarkably low. I've seen (in official videos of the Courts) behavior that would likely get a Canadian judge booted from the Bench. Too damned many of them seem to be auditioning to replace Judge Judy (ptooey!).
@@d614gakadoug9 keep in mind we have many more judges than Canada because Canada's population is much more concentrated. That means we, in the US, have much more variety than Canada. There's also a cultural difference between the US and Canada meaning that US judges tend to be more pointed and blunt with their decisions. We also get more judges that give very humorous decisions.
The court needs to come down hard on the lawyer who filed the motion describing juror #1 as a Nazi in the Maya trial.
Fr this is bad but John's Hopkins team were worse
@@mary-janereallynotsarah684 Yeah, this seems more like a fratboy prank whereas JHACH lawyers purposely defamed a JUROR.
I think the court does need to come down, but for accusing #1 of comparing Sally Smith to an SS agent. Because it is vexatious, along with their other crap
@Magda0070 They didn't "describe Juror #1 as a Nazi". That is a misrepresentation of what was said. They claimed that Juror #1 had a bias against Dr. Sally Smith because he (Juror #1) was associating HER with the Nazi SS. At no point do they claim that Juror #1 is a Nazi/associated with Nazis. Their claims, even if true, wouldn't be enough to disqualify Juror #1.
@@kassiopiajudkins2722 thanks, I think I jumped to the conclusion. Devils advocate….even if true that would not disqualify him from the jury.
Kudos to this Judge!!! Never, ever, ever should this kind of behavior be allowed anywhere, especially in alleged Law Society Members. Personally, I think the Judge was a little light in the penalty...it should have included a refresher class in Kindergarten.
This is forever going to be a model case in the field of FAFOlogical studies.
' see what these lawyers did? don't ever do that'.
@@shortandopinionated yep just that
'Don't be like these lawyers.'@@shortandopinionated
FAFOlogical?
@@BeeHashI'm guessing it stands for "F Around and Find Out" lol
I love that Judge! They must pay. I am pleased with the FAFO in this decision.
Omg, ive been brutally mocked by the opposing lawyers while giving testimony. I called the lawyer unprofessional for shreiking and yelling at me for 2 days and she lost her mind and went on a 30 minute tirade saying she was very professional.
How did the judge allow that? Even as a lay person I know that judges are the rulers of their domain, and don't like people misbehaving.
@@arthurmoore9488Judges definitely do not.
@@arthurmoore9488 Generally it's the council who the witness is favorable to that should be raising objections when the other council crosses a line in either tone or content of their cross-examination. Judges are only the Arbiter of Law (decides if laws and rules are being followed kind of thigs) while Juries are Arbiter of Facts (decides who's telling the truth and if things fit into either box they're supposed to decide on.) If the council crosses ethical and/or rule lines, the judge can admonish the council, but really the lawyers to make sure each other are keeping the other side in check. If @mcrow9599 did have the experience in the witness box they described, the onus really fell on the lawyer who called on them to sit in the witness box to keep the other party's behavior in check. I think council could have stopped that 30-minute tirade about professionalism by objecting on the grounds of relevance and being argumentative.
I'm pretty dure that we can all agree that the plaintiff needs new counsel...
Did the costs the lawyers had to pay include the court costs as well? The court room, the judge, the court employees needed to run the court (court reporter, baliff, etc), plus all the jury pay (little as it is) obviously shouldn't be paid for by taxpayers. The fault lies with the counsel for causing the mistrial and the court's time and resources were wasted for the duration of the hearing and that shouldn't be borne on the taxpayers who expect good value for their money - not to have some litigant waste it away frivolously that requires the courts to hear the case from the beginning and throw away what already happened.
Yes. We didn't review the cost analysis, but it would certainly claim all of the payroll and room-use costs for the 5 day "rental." They're not going to analyze each drop of carpet cleaner actually used by the night janitor that week, but the court knows its own annual baseline costs of doing business averaged out by day or hour.
Auction that corvette baby!
Shouldn't the Plaintiff's lawyers also have to reimburse her for the money she paid to them that was wasted by their behavior?
I’ll stand corrected, but isn’t that what the full indemnity order is requiring? Maybe a lawyer in the comments can clarify.
Not a lawyer, but my guess is that plaintiff will have to separately sue the lawyers in a civil case to get money back. I’m almost certain that she will win, but that extra step will likely still be needed
@@daisyvelasco5338 and also sue for the $15k, if these boneheads are stupid enough to continue dragging their own name through the mud by fighting any of it.
Sort of. For the $100,000 CAD judgement, the court is requiring the lawyers pay that bill and not pass it on to the plaintiff. But the mitigating factors on the judgement over the emergency filing of the plaintiff herself was also involve (by saying things under oath that were different from what she swore in an affidavit), the plaintiff was partly responsible and will be required to pay the $15,000 CAD judgement in that instance.
The question will be if the plaintiff can sue her own council for malpractice because of what went on within the trial and after, I don't know. She may be able to recoup the $15K CAD. Maybe.
@@DarcyCarmen (If I remember correctly from the video) Full Indemnity means that instead of a prorated or reduced amount, the party has to pay the full amount. It has no bearing on if the client or the lawyers had to pay it. When the court was taking about the civil rules of procedure (I don't remember which rule), that was the part that dealt with who pays what.
I am so pleased you followed up on this. It is a fascinating case and the lawyers seem very immature. I am shocked that the lawyers incurred costs for their own client in trying to get rid of this judge who had called them on their poor behaviour.
Thanks @Runkleofthe Bailey for another great episode! Question: what recourse does the Plaintiff Client have to recover thrown away costs of her own? Would the Justice rule on this, or would it be a law society / malpractice insurance issue? Thanks
$17293
... and *five cents*
Three cheers for the spicy court. What they did was inexcusable on every possible level.
Thanks, Ian. Glad you seem to be feeling better!
Doesn't the plaintiff need to sue her lawyers and hire some new ones?
Never seen a judge do an "F you"....like this! lol
I didn't know you made furniture that's great.
Hi Ian, this is off topic but relevant to you and your channel.
I can't afford a membership but I can let the commercials run.
You and Ryan Reynolds are the only people that I do that for.
Best to you and yours🎉❤
Could the plaintiff sue their counsel for the 15k they're on the hook for?
Potentially, but more practically they’ll probably drive for a reduction in fees.
If they do litigate they’ll probably attack all the work/fees incurred. It’d be a mess given they have trial in October and would need to find new counsel and get them up to speed.
I love it when the Court actually enforces the rules with an iron fist, it restores my confidence in the legal system which has suffered greatly in recent years.
Triphex Corp salutes your victory in this wildly infuriating matter!
So the witness has now been publicly embarrassed. What legal relief do they have?
Doubt any monetary or reputation damages could be proven.
Like they’re not going to have employment opportunities unfairly prejudiced against them or anything like that because some lawyers made fun of them.
You'd be surprised.@@Henrydingus01123
It all depends on if the witness can prove any harm occurred under both Canadian and the Province of Ontario's Laws, and can the witness demonstrated they were harmed in some way that can be equated to money. (At least the standard in the US is to demonstrate that someone did something against the law and it created a measurable (in dollars, even if the harm wasn't monetary in nature) harm to you.
Let's say I said something bad about you. In the US, this is usually covered by laws on Defamation. Saying bad things about people isn't always illegal, but if it falls under Defamation, it is. Defamation generally comes in two flavors (Slander/spoken versus Libel/written). Since I'm going around town saying this, it's going to be slander. (But it doesn't matter, since they generally function the same.) You don't like it, so you sue me. Well, Defamation has a few hurdles. The first hurdle is truthfulness of the statements at question. If the items I'm saying are true, then most of the time your case falls apart there. (I'm generally allowed to say bad things about you, if they're true.) But let's say I'm lying. The next hurdle is that it has to have the ability of cause you some harm. Let's say I'm ranting and raving in my home about how you're a nose-picking, bed-wetting simpleton, but only my cats are there to hear me. You'd have no case in that case, because where's the harm. Likewise, if we're having an argument, even in public, and I call you out for being a nose-picking, bed-wetting simpleton. Again, no harm, even if there's people present, because it's a discussion between you and me.
And it's not like I'd be able to change the opinions of either of us. So still no case. But let's say I'm not arguing with you nor am I ranting somewhere private with no other humans around. Let's say I'm going around telling people that you are a nose-picking, bed-wetting simpleton. Now there's where the damage can be done, because I'd be soiling your reputation. If you were able to prove I was damaging your reputation by telling people all around about the false exploits of your nose-picking and bed-wetting, then you'd be awarded damages according to the law. (And that's varies wildly by statute.) But there would be monetary damages, especially if you showed how damaging those remarks were. Did you lose out on potential jobs due to the inflammatory nature of the remarks? Did your mom and dad chuck you out of the house. Did your spouse leave you because they felt the remarks were true?
In the witness's case, I don't think it would be defamation. It's not like the lawyers were deliberately showing their screen to the juror and pointing this out. There may be other laws this would fall under. But I'm not a lawyer, especially not one in Canada, so someone else would need to speak about the specifics. And if the witness could prove actual harm as outlined in the color of law, then there may be some more money the council of the plaintiff would need to pay. (Pretty sure the plaintiff herself could get dropped from the lawsuit pretty quickly because of the circumstances.)
@@jackielinde7568Runkle just released a video that covers the (sometimes funny) errors that arise from assuming that Canadian laws are the same as those in the US.
My grandfather who was a lawyer said, Never represent yourself, you'll just have a fool for a client. And he meant lawyers too. Knowing the law means you should be the first person to know when it's not on your side.
Thanks for the follow up! We hear y’all say so often that the judges would bring down the hammer if you guys did one thing or another, it’s really good to see it actually happening! This was gross.
I am learning so much just watching your videos!
Thanks Ian. You always make it fun & informative
Good episode Ian. THANKS! 😁
Awesome update. Thank you very much.
I have not seen a lot of your videos but have enjoyed every one I have seen! It's nice to see someone explain the system to those that do not know how it works. Keep up the good work!
Go vote for Ian!
I enjoyed hearing your insights and clarifications. Thanks!
I have to say that Google's auto-closed captioning system is funning. It replaced several words with Runkle... including Rule. Maybe it's a fan?
Thanks for the other half!
Hopefully this incident will be taught in law schools everywhere as a warning.
"Here at Frat Bro Law, we exude the frat bro life! Sports cars! Babes! Beer bongs!"
I just imagine they haven't moved on from their unprofessional college behavior.
So glad that juror spoke up about this
It's sad that lawyers have to be subject to the same inconveniences and treatment us mere mortals have to endure.
I had a judge in family court Friday using words like unexceptible, extremely disturbing, completely wrong. He went on for about ten minutes. He was pissed but on my side. I think I'll get my children back.
Ian, Thanks for the update. I was interested to know what happened to these guys.
This was good!
When you think a shovel is not sufficient, so you get a backhoe.
Thanks Runkle.
Very satifying 😂❤
When the court says "shocking" that is a very strong word for the court to use.
Not even close to being the end, Ian... Law Society hearing and investigation...and trial if warranted. The client also fires her law firm (rightfully so), sues them (rightfully so) and then must hire another law firm which must prepare for a new trial and the suit against the old lawyers. Other questions to be answered include whether or not the lawyer's professional liability insurance will cover such an intentional act and what sort of discipline the Law Society may dish out. And then there is a review of the submitted costs which can be ordered also (maybe by another judge). And perhaps appeals. What a mess.
Unrelated but I'd love to see you go over the morgentaler case. Ik it's a contentious topic but its an important one nevertheless and I know you'd deliver the information effectively
Listening to this. Certainly during the Part 2 section, this sounds like a train wreck. We are just sitting back and watching.
I love a sassy judgment!
Can the jurors sue for wasting their time? I know I'd be thoroughly po'd if I was on that jury and the idiots at the plaintiff's table made those five days totally pointless. It was bad enough sitting for five days on a jury for a malpractice trial that was evidently NOT malpractice from about an hour in. But at least we sat through the idiot witnesses for the plaintiff (pro tip: have your expert witnesses agree on the mechanism of malpractice, and NOT have competing theories, it doesn't help your case!) and got to give the defendant the verdict he deserved.
Not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt. But I'm going to say that the juror's on the panel don't have an actionable item to sue under. Sure, the idiots wasted everybody's time by doing something the judge would have to declare a mistrial. And, yes, the jury had to rearrange their collective lives due to being selected for this case. But there's a few things to considered:
1. The jury was (probably) being paid. (This varies, but most of the US courts I'm aware of either have some sort of stipend to cover travel expenses and a small Per-Day peridium. And if Canada is like the US, there's probably a legal requirement for employers to cover days when their employees are serving on a jury. So regardless how the case went, they were already financially compensated.
2. Even if the jurors didn't get selected for this case, there's a good chance they might have been selected for a different case. Hard to argue luck of the draw.
3. While the council for the plaintiff said some spicy things about the juror who reported them in their pleadings, that's between the lawyers on both sides and the judge. It's not likely they could claim defamation. It's not like the council for the plaintiff could poison anyone's mind about that juror.
Plaintiff's about to sue their council for that 15k.
I would think that the Plaintiff's counsel (both of these lawyers) shouldn't be allowed to practice law...
HST yes its a sales tax, or as some Canadians have dubbed it "Harper Sales Tax", Instead of "Harmonized Sales Tax".
Turn on CC and go to 4:15 😂😂
Can we please see Judge Carroll do the same slapdown on JHACH for their egregious attacks on Juror #1, & not turning over the IJ report??? PLEASE??? 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
This sounds similar to the nonsense happening with Juror #1. Judge Carroll may have more precedent setting rulings, this time dealing with contamination of the jury pool outside of the courtroom.
QUESTION: Does Canadian Legal System have a provision for lawyers having malpractice insurance, and if so, at what point would the plaintiff be able to go after her council for malpractice? While she dodged the $100,000 CAD, she's still on the hook for the $15,000 CAD and her trial got restarted and delayed till next year.
Replay crew! What an awesome judge and an example of what I pray Judge Carroll does on the 15th regarding the ridiculous and insulting conclusion Reddit came up with and JHACH attorneys ran with. It’s such a below the belt motion that I think any judge should be required to report any attorney that did something that is this despicable. If Judge Carroll doesn’t take a very hard line on this I do believe that it will have a very negative and long lasting ripple effect on our jury system.
"inadvertent' you mean like not seeing a stop light and plowing down 8 people, killing 3 and hospitalizing 5?
The materials in question WERE presented to the Jury in a court of law. There is a very clear due process immaterial of incompetence. Failing to follow that due process which includes presentation of oneself and materials will result in penative, punitive and contemptuous damages.
Replay crew 😊
I am picturing two attorneys working in an unheated basement for the next five years to pay back the firm.
someone's malpractice insurance is gonna go up in rates
was a great video you touched on Joint and several do you have any other videos where you explain how that works as far as if judgement is found in favour of plaintiff how that judgement effects all the defendants even though one may be more liable then the other. Also do have one that explains punitive damages or how courts may award punitive and why. Thanks
Sounds like these are family Lawyers!
If I understood this correctly not only is this poor woman on the hook for 15K due to her lawyers poor Behavior she's also stuck using them at the retrial because of the reusable work. Problem is there is most likely going to be friction between the lawyers because of the judgment against them rendering them less effective. I hope that when there's goes to the Law Society the woman is awarded 15,000 at least to compensate her for her lawyer's misconduct which she had no control over and should not cost her
And the judge said counsel, brought lawyering into disrepute. The most disreputable profession brought into disrepute??? 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
I somehow think you'd never get into that situation in the first place. So whilst I understand why you are glad of not being in that situation, I have a lot more faith in you than that.
Sounds to be like an honest judge responded correctly to some foolish lawyers.
Spicy stuff indeed. Canadian justice is a nest of vipers.
If these guys are partners in a firm, I don't think they will get a bonus this Christmas.
Can the plaintiff get the money she's paid to these a-holes back, and the penalties she's been ordered to pay?
Can the defense lawyers represent the plaintiff for the purposes of filing a motion to have the second round of costs payable by counsel and/or for a malpractice case against counsel? They'd be on the same side for that, technically... right? Lol.
Could the client sue their lawyers for the 15k (and probably any costs they have also paid getting the case to where it is now seeing as suing your own lawyers prob means they ain’t going to be your lawyers for much longer?)
I would assume that there is a high chance of them getting new council, due to causing the mistrial, and it would seem the plaintiff would have a reasonable case to sue the council for all their own times, and trouble invested in the first case and the delay in any resolution of the original concerns. Not just the $15,000 in question.
If I was the client of these two I would be asking the firm to give me new lawyers and that I'd be refusing to pay the extra 15k for their stupidity
Missed the first video, but good gosh I would be furious if I was anyone but these idiot lawyers.
Given the language the court used here, does the client have a reasonable shot at recovering this from their incompetent lawyers?
And secondly, why hasn't the judge ordered costs payable to the plaintiff by her lawyers as well?
@@DylanYoungI would think yes. I hope she's shopping for a malpractice lawyer right now.
That the plaintiff's attorneys were charging billable time here but clearly not paying attention to the actual proceedings should bw an ethics breach brought before the state bar.
You sound better. Hope you feel better too.
I wonder if plaintiff can sue their counsel for all the throw- away and additional costs they have incurred caused by the lawyers' bad practices?
If the client signed that affadavit, she should have thought a little before signing. Will she have recourse to sue counsel to try to push this back on them?
Under what circumstances are Canadian civil trials before a jury?
When you see someone else caught in a dumpster fire of their own making it is natural to feel glad that you didn`t get involved.
So $100,000 today and if you prevail, another $40k payday? SWEET!!! Might it be better for Plaintiffs counsel to drop this case???
With the way the plaintiff’s counsel is carrying on, what’s the over/under on how long before the law school they supposedly graduated from files a petition asking for the diplomas back on the grounds of being made to look bad?
Does anyone know how to find the lawyer's website?
Hello Ian.
If I was one of these stupid lawyers I would have paid twice as much as requested just to keep things as quiet as I could.
Perhaps Howard Hunter (HH) should find himself a lawyer. He should for sure bring a toothbrush and his checkbook at the next hearing... just in case
Those are lawyers or just clowns? Anyway the circus 🎪 was not in the Court of this judge! Great respect for the judge!
The judge made a determination that only part of the costs were "thrown away" after this scenario I would be hiring different lawyers from a different firm so how could any of the work product from the first firm be reused by whoever took over?
The work product in question was that of the other side, who we have no reason to think will not be retained.
I understand that, but would not at least a decent part of their work be "thrown away" also, trial prep, prep of factums, witness costs, experts costs etc.@@boobah5643
I kind of agree that this judge should not have been the one to rule on the costs, as close as he was: you don't want a judge who's upset because they disrupted "his" court. He says "I'm in the best place to analyze costs, but the costs could have been submitted to any judge.
Clearly, the cost decision was the responsibility of the presiding judge. With regards to the lawyers, you have a lead lawyer who was experienced, senior lawyer and founder of law firm; second lawyer was young associate (bar admission 2021).