Posted on 06/17/2007 6:25:09 AM PDT by MindBender26
A group of local lawyers all went to dinner least night.
Topic was Nifong and the damages NC will pay to the accused. There are questions of sovereign immunity, of course, and other issues but we all agreed that this was only the tip of the litigious iceberg.
In the civil litigation that is sure to follow, Nifong is one target, with few dollars, etc. The real targets will be the Duke 88. These are the professors who signed the now infamous letter adjudging the lacrosse players guilty and worse. That letter was then published as a full page ad in local newspapers and reprinted across the country..
These professors acted as individuals, with no corporate protection, insurance or shield. They acted outside their employment by Duke, etc. As such, they can be attacked and picked off, one at a time, with full and unrestricted individual liability, as targets of libel, slander and false light litigation. With no insurance, they wil even have to pay for their own lawyers.
Plaintiffs are well within statute of limitations.
Of course, as soon as one professor is served, he/she will go running to his/her lawyer. Their lawyer will play “let’s make a deal” by implicating others. Then they will sue the most hated professor, which will set the high dollar damages expectation for the rest of the cases. Others will then want to settle fast.
Even better, each of the three plaintiffs cam move separately against all 88 individually. The profs will fold like a house of cards.
Lots of fun. Big dollars.
And I am equally amazing to hear that attorneys have stopped even threatening lawsuits for fear of being disbarred and fined.
Let’s hope that a brave and ruthless attorney emerges from the sea of “ethical officers of the courts”, to put the screws to your “88”.
The more I learn about the law and lawyers, the more I agree with him too.
(Boy that's depressing.)
Those questions are easier anyway. I'm cursing BarBri right now...
Conspicuous by their absence were departments of mathematics, physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering and business.
That works for me too.
If you get 95% of the multi state questions right, it would be virtually impossible to flunk the bar exam. If you spell your name correctly on the essay questions, they give you a 55.
Great observation and point taken!
Since when are officers of the courts overly concerned with ethics?
Isn't there a high percentage of politicians who are/were "officers of the court"?
Can a lawyer/"officer of the courts" enter the Kingdom of Heaven?
Commonly seen with blue moons.
Good point, but there is a strong tendency to want to shift the cross hairs onto the other defendants.
I suspect each of the defendants sees some liability on their part and using worst case analyzes...
But I'm not an attorney, so I'd gladly leave that call to others.
Since the ad was written, it can be considered libel, not slander. Libel is far more serious.
That law is already on the books.
"If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong...the priests and the judges...shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: So shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you" (Deuteronomy 19:16,18-20).
Gasp!
Yeah, my wife repeats herself too ....
Why are professors any different than, say, this thread, where FReepers suggested there was nothing new about gang bangs amongst athletes??
Professors are held to no higher professional standard than any other citizen with a First Amendment privilege.
Even better!
These professors acted as individuals, with no corporate protection, insurance or shield. They acted outside their employment by Duke, etc. As such, they can be attacked and picked off, one at a time, with full and unrestricted individual liability, as targets of libel, slander and false light litigation.
Good! They SHOULD be sued.
I am no fan of the trial bar and cases such as the $54 million “dry cleaning” suit screams for tort reform; however, I would 100% support any and all civil litigation on this case. Libel, slander laws are on the books to protect individuals wrongfully defamed and a successful civil suit will give them a measure of redemption while punishing the wrongdoers. This is the essence of why the courts were established in the first place, in my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.