Straightshooter
Ultimate Member
Apparently judgement has already been passed by a judge.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
that my friend it the $1 MILLION Question.
All we see is angry man in penguin shirt fighting with 2 deputies who should show ID. Did he really care, one had a badge around his neck, the other (redhead) had his in his pocket.
Lawyers most certainly do work for free (from time to time)...it's called pro bono. Just so we keep things right.No attorney in the world is going to turn down a case - good one or bad one - unless: (i) the client can't pay; (ii) the case presents a conflict of interest vis-a-vis another client; (iii) the client is unsavory; or (iv) the issues involved in the case conflict with the attorney's personal views. Those are the ONLY reasons a lawyer wouldn't take a case. If NO attorney is running to take this case, either item (i) or item (iii) exists. Lawyers don't work for free.
Lawyers most certainly do work for free (from time to time)...it's called pro bono. Just so we keep things right.
Believe me, I understand pro bono. Never say never, but it is extremely unlikely that you will find a lawyer who is willing to take on this kind of case for free. The case would have to involve some compelling issue. Like I said, if NO lawyer is willing to take this case, there's a reason. If the reason is because the plaintiff can't pay, then that just goes to my point above - this isn't the type of case that a lawyer is going to handle pro bono.
OP, you certainly have a way with words. I congratulate you and wish you the best with this case. Thank you for standing up and fighting without giving up like many would do. To pour such a large sum of money in this tells me that you are very certain of the path you have chosen to take.
I certainly hope you have the time to spend on this forum for not only this, but your many other experiences.
Thank you for your service to our country, and keep fighting the good fight!
I do quite a bit of pro bono (for my clients) 1983 litigation. I only do that when the case is slam dunk and I am assured attorneys fees. Or when the client can't afford a lawyer and his case is just. This is just me mind you but when I know the client has spent his money on a previous attorney litigating the same matter it puts a bad taste in my mouth to represent that person for free. I get the feeling that the potential client thinks little of my legal abilities and is having me represent him because he is out of money. I don't live in Maryland so I could not represent you even if I wanted to. However if I were you I'd consider the fact that you are asking for a lawyer to take on a case for free which will tie up years of his life in all likelihood when you were willing to spend 600 thousand dollars on a separate but related legal matter. Ultimately the question you have to answer is why should a potential lawyer look to his inner goodness to represent you when other lawyers were not asked that question rather they were written a check.
A criminal defense attorney may not have the expertise to take on the civil case.You would think a lawyer who already made $600,000 off a client might be willing to do a little contingency or pro bono work for that same client.
Wow, sounds like a train wreck for a first post. That's a lot to swallow without so much as a case citation to public information. Bar counsel, Mr. Grossman, has shown himself to be an equal opportunity prosecutor of those violating the standards of professional conduct, so I am confident if there is anything to these allegations at least he will provide some details at the appropriate time.
Believe me, I understand pro bono. Never say never, but it is extremely unlikely that you will find a lawyer who is willing to take on this kind of case for free. The case would have to involve some compelling issue. Like I said, if NO lawyer is willing to take this case, there's a reason. If the reason is because the plaintiff can't pay, then that just goes to my point above - this isn't the type of case that a lawyer is going to handle pro bono.
The suit would be undoubtedly under 42 usc 1983 against the officers personally (and against their employer if there was "policy or practice" challenged. That's a tough case, given qualified immunity defenses. If the lawyer wins, he gets fees and costs under Section 1988. That's a big *if* Fee arrangements vary all over the map, but typically the client advance some of the costs while the lawyer's fees are contingent on winning.
I do quite a bit of pro bono (for my clients) 1983 litigation. I only do that when the case is slam dunk and I am assured attorneys fees. Or when the client can't afford a lawyer and his case is just. This is just me mind you but when I know the client has spent his money on a previous attorney litigating the same matter it puts a bad taste in my mouth to represent that person for free. I get the feeling that the potential client thinks little of my legal abilities and is having me represent him because he is out of money. I don't live in Maryland so I could not represent you even if I wanted to. However if I were you I'd consider the fact that you are asking for a lawyer to take on a case for free which will tie up years of his life in all likelihood when you were willing to spend 600 thousand dollars on a separate but related legal matter. Ultimately the question you have to answer is why should a potential lawyer look to his inner goodness to represent you when other lawyers were not asked that question rather they were written a check.
How is one expected to have the money for a CIVIL case lawyer if one spent one's entire life savings on the CRIMINAL case lawyer?