A lawyer’s job is to build a perfect, airtight case, a fortress of facts and evidence. But that fortress can be instantly demolished by a casual sentence from the one person they're supposed to trust: their own client. It’s the dreaded, "Oh, you should probably know..." moment, where a "minor detail" turns out to be a case-destroying disaster.
An online community asked lawyers for their most jaw-dropping "you should have mentioned this sooner" story. The answers are one example of self-sabotage after another, each one proving to be a lawyer’s worst nightmare.
More info: Reddit
#1
Special education case. Mother and school were fighting about services. We got new assessments that backed up the mother's claims. Local school didn't have the right services, so we arranged a transfer to a larger school not too far away. Good public transit route, some extra-curriculars kid was excited about.
She goes to enroll him in school, says they have a problem with paperwork.
Thinking the transfer info just didn't get there yet, I take a copy and head down there.
No, they wont enroll him because
* not his legal name
* she is not his legal mom
Turns out, she was the bff of a mother who was pregnant and about to be incarcerated for d**g trafficking. BFF says, 'can you take my baby while I'm in jail, I'll get him as soon as I'm out.' She and husband say sure. They sign a piece of notebook paper.
12 years later. smh
You have to think, how did they manage to navigate school and medical stuff for 12 years with no legal custody paperwork? They'd just been using an assumed last name of the pseudo- adoptive couple and, like me, no one had asked. Was only that the school had moved to an online system that checked SS#s against other databases that it was caught.
Anyway, bio mom and dad were still alive and still in a lot of trouble. They consented to the couple that raised him adopting.
Kid missed a week of school while I convinced them that he fit under a homeless youth school stability statute.
Edit: yes, it was the couple that had raised him those 12 years that adopted him.
She goes to enroll him in school, says they have a problem with paperwork.
Thinking the transfer info just didn't get there yet, I take a copy and head down there.
No, they wont enroll him because
* not his legal name
* she is not his legal mom
Turns out, she was the bff of a mother who was pregnant and about to be incarcerated for d**g trafficking. BFF says, 'can you take my baby while I'm in jail, I'll get him as soon as I'm out.' She and husband say sure. They sign a piece of notebook paper.
12 years later. smh
You have to think, how did they manage to navigate school and medical stuff for 12 years with no legal custody paperwork? They'd just been using an assumed last name of the pseudo- adoptive couple and, like me, no one had asked. Was only that the school had moved to an online system that checked SS#s against other databases that it was caught.
Anyway, bio mom and dad were still alive and still in a lot of trouble. They consented to the couple that raised him adopting.
Kid missed a week of school while I convinced them that he fit under a homeless youth school stability statute.
Edit: yes, it was the couple that had raised him those 12 years that adopted him.
Report
48points
#2
As a solicitor, one of the most annoying things I've had happen was, after an hour-long consultation with an older couple about changing the husband's will, the wife hands me a letter from his doctor which says the husband has dementia and does not have capacity to sign medical documents.
Like, you didn't think that was a good place to start?
Like, you didn't think that was a good place to start?
Report
48points
#3
A person involved in a motor cycle accident, who sustained legitimate but not serious injuries, cctv showed the incident, they were very much not at fault.
They decided this was their big payday, claimed they could barely walk, had ptsd, serious back trouble, would never work again, the whole 9 yards.
They neglected to tell their lawyer they had been (i) working a manual labour job (ii) riding motorcycles again (iii) did a bungee jump.
All of which we caught on video/they documented via social media.
They did not get the multi million pound settlement payment they expected and were pursued for fraud. It was a fun phone call after we sent the tape full of evidence.
They decided this was their big payday, claimed they could barely walk, had ptsd, serious back trouble, would never work again, the whole 9 yards.
They neglected to tell their lawyer they had been (i) working a manual labour job (ii) riding motorcycles again (iii) did a bungee jump.
All of which we caught on video/they documented via social media.
They did not get the multi million pound settlement payment they expected and were pursued for fraud. It was a fun phone call after we sent the tape full of evidence.
Report
44points
The entire legal system is built on the almost magical principle of attorney-client privilege. It's the legal version of a confessional, a cone of silence where you can tell your lawyer literally anything (even the really, really bad stuff) and they cannot repeat it to anyone. It's one of the oldest and most important rules in law.
The whole point is to encourage clients to spill every single bean, because a lawyer can't build a proper defense with only half the story. Your lawyer isn't your mom; they're not there to be disappointed in you.
They are there to anticipate the other side's attacks. A lawyer's absolute worst nightmare is being blindsided in the middle of a courtroom by a piece of information they should have known from day one. The stories from the online community are a wake-up call about what happens when this privilege is ignored. Take note!
#4
Client comes to me, with his new, wife, complaining that he’s been sued by his ex-wife for failing to pay a $5000 judgment to the ex as part of the divorce decree. Judge orders us to mediation.
During mediation, ex-wife won’t budge that she wants the full $5k. Client claims he doesn’t have the ability to pay it. New wife, in an effort to get her loving husband free from the clutches of his evil ex, offers to give up her large diamond wedding ring to the evil ex. Ex can keep it, sell, it, whatever, but Client had previously told new wife it was worth more than $5k, so it should be enough.
Ex-wife agrees to accept new wife’s ring, subject to an appraisal. Maybe you can see where this is going...
Get a call 2 weeks later from opposing counsel, deal is off. “Why?” I ask.
Turns out the ring was a CZ, worth about $95.
When client met with me and I showed him the appraisal, he said, “Yeah, I knew that was going to happen.”
I stared at him slack-jawed and said, “You knew?”
“Oh yeah, but what was I supposed to do, tell my wife I got her a fake ring?”
“How about telling her, ‘no my love, I gave you that ring, and it is a symbol of my love for you, and that horrible b***h will get it over my dead body. I’ll find another way to pay her,’” I said.
He looked at me and says, “Yeah that would probably have worked.”.
During mediation, ex-wife won’t budge that she wants the full $5k. Client claims he doesn’t have the ability to pay it. New wife, in an effort to get her loving husband free from the clutches of his evil ex, offers to give up her large diamond wedding ring to the evil ex. Ex can keep it, sell, it, whatever, but Client had previously told new wife it was worth more than $5k, so it should be enough.
Ex-wife agrees to accept new wife’s ring, subject to an appraisal. Maybe you can see where this is going...
Get a call 2 weeks later from opposing counsel, deal is off. “Why?” I ask.
Turns out the ring was a CZ, worth about $95.
When client met with me and I showed him the appraisal, he said, “Yeah, I knew that was going to happen.”
I stared at him slack-jawed and said, “You knew?”
“Oh yeah, but what was I supposed to do, tell my wife I got her a fake ring?”
“How about telling her, ‘no my love, I gave you that ring, and it is a symbol of my love for you, and that horrible b***h will get it over my dead body. I’ll find another way to pay her,’” I said.
He looked at me and says, “Yeah that would probably have worked.”.
Report
44points
#5
Spent several hours zealously arguing that my client was severely disabled and couldn’t work due to a back injury. It was so bad that the poor dude couldn’t even sit in a chair throughout the entire proceedings. Rest my case. Opposing counsel calls in a DEC representative who proceeds to produce record after record of my client’s deer hunting activities. He sat in a tree, in freezing weather, for many hours, shot and k****d multiple deer, and transported their carcasses out of the woods all on his own. SMH.
Report
37points
#6
I had a client on a family matter, we were in court and I was going on about how being a father was the most important thing in the world to him and his ex pipes up and says ‘well, he never sees his other children!’
I’m sorry, other children?
That being said, many clients leave out embarrassing things until they get called out on them. Please tell your lawyers all the facts. We’ve literally heard everything and really don’t care. Just let me prepare to explain that your weekend habits of c*****e and s*x dungeons doesn’t effect your ability to parent.
I’m sorry, other children?
That being said, many clients leave out embarrassing things until they get called out on them. Please tell your lawyers all the facts. We’ve literally heard everything and really don’t care. Just let me prepare to explain that your weekend habits of c*****e and s*x dungeons doesn’t effect your ability to parent.
Report
35points
The reason these moments lead to an epic, case-destroying facepalm is that a lawyer's job is mostly about neutralizing the bad facts. As the legal experts at Grand Canyon Law Group explain, your lawyer needs to know every single ugly detail before the other side does. This allows them to prepare a response, challenge the evidence, or get ahead of the surprises.
When a client hides a crucial piece of negative information, they're essentially handing a loaded weapon to the opposition. But this cone of silence isn't a magical get-out-of-jail-free card for all future activities. The one major exception to attorney-client privilege is if a client is seeking advice on how to commit a future crime or fraud. You can't use your lawyer as a co-conspirator to plan your next brilliant heist.
The hilarious and horrifying irony of the stories in this online thread is that most of these clients had full, iron-clad protection to tell the truth... and they chose to sabotage themselves for no reason at all.
#7
My client was badly hurt in a car accident and promised me he was never hurt in one before.
He was actually “hurt” in 44 prior accidents, all of which he filed claims for, which is how I found out when the mediator showed me the defense’s ISO report. The f****n look on my clients face lmao.
He was actually “hurt” in 44 prior accidents, all of which he filed claims for, which is how I found out when the mediator showed me the defense’s ISO report. The f****n look on my clients face lmao.
Report
32points
#8
Working on a file for a non-EU company participating in a public tender within the EU. To summarize in a nutshell: when a government agency needs to build something like a building or a bridge, they have to organise what is called a "tender procedure" to w**d out the charlatans, fraudsters and to enter into a contract with the most advantageous tenderer. Such a procedure is organised according to strict rules and a lot of things are public to ensure equal opportunities for every company, and to prevent bribery, collusion, fraud etc. Serious stuff.
One of the conditions to be eligible for such a tender is that your company and its directors have not been found guilty for certain crimes (eg breaking labour laws, money laundering, corruption) as you are assumed to be untrustworthy. If you had such an issue in the past, you can fess up and try to argue this risk has been eliminated thanks to a "self-cleaning" procedure (getting rid of the bad apples in your company, basically).
Our client assured us that they never had any such issues, were never convicted, yadda yadda. Just one of the many steps in a procurement procedure.
Years later, when the construction was well under way, it turned out they lied and directors in their home country had been found guilty for bribery of government officials.
The contracting authority got rightfully spooked and argued our client wilfully lied when tendering for the contract. The consequence is that... you were never eligible in the first place and retroactively the tender should be annulled to restart the procedure.
When asking our client W*F happened and why they didn't tell us so we could have tried to argue the self-cleaning exemption, they said that they didn't think it seemed relevant, it was widely known in newspapers (in the language of their home country...) so they assumed they didn't have to tell the authorities, and besides, many CEOs in their home country get convicted of bribery and pardoned when the oppositon party gets reelected so what's the big deal?
Literal millions of dollars and several years of thousands of people's energy down the drain... Because they lied on a form...
One of the conditions to be eligible for such a tender is that your company and its directors have not been found guilty for certain crimes (eg breaking labour laws, money laundering, corruption) as you are assumed to be untrustworthy. If you had such an issue in the past, you can fess up and try to argue this risk has been eliminated thanks to a "self-cleaning" procedure (getting rid of the bad apples in your company, basically).
Our client assured us that they never had any such issues, were never convicted, yadda yadda. Just one of the many steps in a procurement procedure.
Years later, when the construction was well under way, it turned out they lied and directors in their home country had been found guilty for bribery of government officials.
The contracting authority got rightfully spooked and argued our client wilfully lied when tendering for the contract. The consequence is that... you were never eligible in the first place and retroactively the tender should be annulled to restart the procedure.
When asking our client W*F happened and why they didn't tell us so we could have tried to argue the self-cleaning exemption, they said that they didn't think it seemed relevant, it was widely known in newspapers (in the language of their home country...) so they assumed they didn't have to tell the authorities, and besides, many CEOs in their home country get convicted of bribery and pardoned when the oppositon party gets reelected so what's the big deal?
Literal millions of dollars and several years of thousands of people's energy down the drain... Because they lied on a form...
Report
32points
#9
Had a client charged with being a Convicted Felon in Possession of a handgun. She had been in a car that had gotten into a shootout on the interstate (in the middle of the night in a rural area at least). She was the passenger and her car pulled into the state trooper post in the county I practiced in. Her car was shot to s**t so it was obvious something happend, but there was a gun in the car, she had a 30 year old felony theft conviction, so she was charged. She had some crazy story for what happened but it was obvious that it was a d**g deal gone wrong, however that didn't matter for her charge really.
The discovery was really light, the driver of her car wasn't a Convicted felon, and it didn't appear the state police had investigated the fact there was another car obviously shooting at my client even though the genesis of the shootout was just up the road in that same post's jurisdiction. Short of it was she had some legitimate defenses.
I had met with her multiple times, discussed her case in depth, and was preparing for trial. About two weeks from trial in passing she mentioned that a state trooper had interviewed her at the state police post, which was annoying because at this point the case was 7 or 8 months old. So I look through the discovery again, don't see anything, but file a motion asking for any recordings of interviews. Sure enough the prosecutor was sitting on it, which is shady as f**k, unethical, and common practice for that prosecutor office. I get the interview and all of four minutes in she tells the cop not only did she know the gun was in the car, but that she had been the one shooting. That pretty much k****d every defense I had.
We had a come to Jesus talk the next day and she took her offer which was the minimum of five years to serve.
The discovery was really light, the driver of her car wasn't a Convicted felon, and it didn't appear the state police had investigated the fact there was another car obviously shooting at my client even though the genesis of the shootout was just up the road in that same post's jurisdiction. Short of it was she had some legitimate defenses.
I had met with her multiple times, discussed her case in depth, and was preparing for trial. About two weeks from trial in passing she mentioned that a state trooper had interviewed her at the state police post, which was annoying because at this point the case was 7 or 8 months old. So I look through the discovery again, don't see anything, but file a motion asking for any recordings of interviews. Sure enough the prosecutor was sitting on it, which is shady as f**k, unethical, and common practice for that prosecutor office. I get the interview and all of four minutes in she tells the cop not only did she know the gun was in the car, but that she had been the one shooting. That pretty much k****d every defense I had.
We had a come to Jesus talk the next day and she took her offer which was the minimum of five years to serve.
Report
31points
So, what possesses a person to hire an expensive legal expert, look them directly in the eye, and then lie to their face? It might seem too dumb to comprehend, but according to legal experts, it's an incredibly common and deeply human phenomenon. The decision to hide the truth from a lawyer almost never comes from a place of logic. Instead, it comes from a place of pure, unadulterated emotion.
The first and most powerful reason is simple, cringeworthy embarrassment. As the lawyers at Mundahl Law point out, clients want their lawyer to be on their side, to see them as the "good guy." It's a deeply human impulse to hide the parts of the story we're ashamed of, even from the one person who is legally bound not to judge us.
Another common reason is a form of magical thinking fueled by fear and denial. Some clients operate on the "if I don't say it, it's not real" principle, a strategy that works about as well as a toddler covering their eyes and thinking they're invisible. Finally, there's the client who thinks they're a master strategist, carefully hiding "bad" facts to "help" the case, a move that is guaranteed to backfire big time.
#10
In-house attorney here but I interned for a judge at our court of common pleas during law school. There was a case of a guy that asked two early 20 girls a ride from the mall to a gas station. He told them he would pay them cash for the trip.
During that trip, he sat in the back seat and had advised that he had a pellet gun that closely resembled a hand gun. He said he had only pulled it out to show the girls but never did anything further. That had been his testimony during all the proceedings. He willingly takes the stand and the prosecutor is questioning him about the gun and how he handled it. This dude willingly admits that he held it to the passengers temple threatening to shoot her with what she believed to be a real gun. He also corrected the prosecutor during questioning telling him that he never stated it wasn’t a real hand gun.
That jury verdict came about as fast as one could.
During that trip, he sat in the back seat and had advised that he had a pellet gun that closely resembled a hand gun. He said he had only pulled it out to show the girls but never did anything further. That had been his testimony during all the proceedings. He willingly takes the stand and the prosecutor is questioning him about the gun and how he handled it. This dude willingly admits that he held it to the passengers temple threatening to shoot her with what she believed to be a real gun. He also corrected the prosecutor during questioning telling him that he never stated it wasn’t a real hand gun.
That jury verdict came about as fast as one could.
31points
#11
How about a tiny twist, with some lawyer on lawyer shenanigans?
Other lawyer filed a document with a pretty big mistake on it. Basically they confused 2 very similar motions and mixed them up. This mistake made it useless. (No evidence MSJ with traditional MSJ relief requested if anyone cares).
So I go out of my way to be a nice lawyer and let them know they made a mistake. They told me, in nice lawyer talk, to f**k off. I go out of my way *again* to say, in nice lawyer talk, that if this stupid b******t motion goes to a hearing I will be quite cross and will f*****g ask for attorney’s fees. (In lawyer culture, this is considered a d**k move).
Fast forward to the hearing. After insurance attorney finishes their impersonation of a competent attorney, I explain the basic defect to the judge. I also explain that I told opposing counsel the following - what’s wrong, how to fix it, and that I will be asking for fees. Then I asked for fees. After that, a few things happened quickly.
1. Judge asks the walnut if my explanation was accurate.
2. Walnut says no.
3. I reach into my briefcase and grab an email from me to walnut.
4. Walnut *immediately* objects. In a pre-trial hearing. Like a f*****g walnut.
5. Judge ignores walnut and reads email.
6. Judge rules against walnut and awards fee.
7. Walnut says I should have mentioned the email sooner.
Other lawyer filed a document with a pretty big mistake on it. Basically they confused 2 very similar motions and mixed them up. This mistake made it useless. (No evidence MSJ with traditional MSJ relief requested if anyone cares).
So I go out of my way to be a nice lawyer and let them know they made a mistake. They told me, in nice lawyer talk, to f**k off. I go out of my way *again* to say, in nice lawyer talk, that if this stupid b******t motion goes to a hearing I will be quite cross and will f*****g ask for attorney’s fees. (In lawyer culture, this is considered a d**k move).
Fast forward to the hearing. After insurance attorney finishes their impersonation of a competent attorney, I explain the basic defect to the judge. I also explain that I told opposing counsel the following - what’s wrong, how to fix it, and that I will be asking for fees. Then I asked for fees. After that, a few things happened quickly.
1. Judge asks the walnut if my explanation was accurate.
2. Walnut says no.
3. I reach into my briefcase and grab an email from me to walnut.
4. Walnut *immediately* objects. In a pre-trial hearing. Like a f*****g walnut.
5. Judge ignores walnut and reads email.
6. Judge rules against walnut and awards fee.
7. Walnut says I should have mentioned the email sooner.
30points
#12
Ok, here we go. defending a lady in a simple neighbor dispute. neighbors said she assaulted them with a hose and threatened their kids, case was pretty weak bc my client was an old lady and she adamantly denied everything. anyways, it’s just a small evidentiary hearing in front of the judge so there was no discovery ahead of time or anything like that. anyways, my client is on the stand, come to find out they have video footage of her smearing dog s**t on their house, printing out photos of their kids and writing racial slurs on them (family was Jewish), and covering her house with racist signs (like, papering her entire house). needless to say my jaw dropped. client then perjured herself on the stand-they play a video where it’s obviously her, but she repeats “that’s not me” over and over. most painful court moment of my life.
29points
If you want to see this dynamic play out on a world-historical scale, look no further than President Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal. For months, Nixon's legal team was engaged in a brutal war, fighting subpoenas and building a complex defense around the central idea that the President was unaware of the cover-up.
Their entire strategy, their public statements, and their arguments to Congress were all built on one crucial assumption: that there was no definitive proof, no "smoking gun," linking Nixon directly to the obstruction of justice from the beginning. Then came the tapes. After the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to hand them over, his own lawyers finally got to listen to the infamous recording from June 23, 1972.
Nixon's chief counsel was "visibly shaken" after hearing it. The tape was undeniable proof that Nixon had been personally involved in the cover-up just six days after the break-in. It was the ultimate "you should have mentioned this sooner" moment in American history. The lawyers' entire case evaporated instantly, Nixon's political support vanished overnight, and he was forced to resign just a few days later.
#13
Special Ed case. School district was supposed to be providing services to the child in the home. Clients told us the school district had never sent anyone to provide the services, they hadn’t heard from anyone in the district about scheduling, etc. Brought this up during a prehearing conference with judge and opposing counsel. After the conference, opposing counsel sends me pages of affidavits and documentation of all the times the school district employees went to the house and were refused entry by my clients for various reasons (or clients just didn’t answer the door when they were clearly home). Clients had no explanation about why they lied to me. They fired us shortly after and I was not sad.
Report
27points
#14
Immigration (deportation defense) case. Our defense against deportation required showing “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” that my client’s US citizen children would suffer if he was deported. I had reviewed the law and facts of the case with him ad nauseam. He and his wife had reviewed their testimony with me a number of times. The children’s hardship did not seem like it would be strong enough to win the case because the parents told me that the kids were relatively healthy, doing well in school, and didn’t have any other noteworthy issues. All of the documents that they brought in supported their testimony. While testifying in court, the wife admits that they have a child (that they had not mentioned before) with a rare medical condition that required trips across the state to see a specialist every few months. During a short recess so I could figure out why they hadn’t disclosed this at any point in the last 3 years, they confessed that a family member who “knew a lot about this stuff” told them that having a citizen child with a serious medical condition hurt their case. The judge denied my request for a continuance to get evidence and expert testimony for the medical issue because they had ample time to provide the evidence before and hadn’t disclosed this, and ultimately, the judge denied the application because he found that that portion of their testimony lacked credibility due to it being disclosed at trial and they hadn’t provided corroborating evidence.
Report
25points
#15
I filed a bankruptcy for a person. A few weeks later, they indicated that a creditor continued to contact them, and had taken money out of their bank account, which is obviously a big no-no for people in bankruptcy.
It was Monday. I knew that if I wanted to file for sanctions, I I had to file the motion by Friday, so I wasn’t going to jump right into it. It’s best practice to try to get a creditor to correct their behavior first.
I called the original payday loan store. I called the national branch. They took messages daily, nobody was contacting me back. I asked for supervisors. Nobody was willing to talk about the situation, and I became increasingly frustrated. I’m not a yeller and I’m not particularly forceful, but even I was reaching my limit. I called my client daily to explain that it made no sense that they were being evasive, but I was working as hard as I could.
On Friday, I talked to some lower level grunt and explained that I needed a call back in an hour from a person who can clarify the situation, or the sanctions motion is being filed. I read off my time spent on the case, which would translate into thousands of dollars in sanctions if we were successful.
I finally get a manager. He, very politely, tells me that the client took out the loan after the bankruptcy was filed. I remember deflating like a popped balloon. My client had taken out a relatively big payday loan a week after the bankruptcy; they confessed that they knew it wasn’t included in the bankruptcy, but thought the lender would go away if an attorney got involved.
That’s probably mild compared to the things that I see in bankruptcy, but most I probably shouldn’t disclose. One of the major tenets of bankruptcy is that a debtor has to make a full and honest disclosure of their income, expenses, assets, and debts, so naturally, there are tons of reported cases of people hiding things to try to get out of their debts without surrendering assets.
It was Monday. I knew that if I wanted to file for sanctions, I I had to file the motion by Friday, so I wasn’t going to jump right into it. It’s best practice to try to get a creditor to correct their behavior first.
I called the original payday loan store. I called the national branch. They took messages daily, nobody was contacting me back. I asked for supervisors. Nobody was willing to talk about the situation, and I became increasingly frustrated. I’m not a yeller and I’m not particularly forceful, but even I was reaching my limit. I called my client daily to explain that it made no sense that they were being evasive, but I was working as hard as I could.
On Friday, I talked to some lower level grunt and explained that I needed a call back in an hour from a person who can clarify the situation, or the sanctions motion is being filed. I read off my time spent on the case, which would translate into thousands of dollars in sanctions if we were successful.
I finally get a manager. He, very politely, tells me that the client took out the loan after the bankruptcy was filed. I remember deflating like a popped balloon. My client had taken out a relatively big payday loan a week after the bankruptcy; they confessed that they knew it wasn’t included in the bankruptcy, but thought the lender would go away if an attorney got involved.
That’s probably mild compared to the things that I see in bankruptcy, but most I probably shouldn’t disclose. One of the major tenets of bankruptcy is that a debtor has to make a full and honest disclosure of their income, expenses, assets, and debts, so naturally, there are tons of reported cases of people hiding things to try to get out of their debts without surrendering assets.
Report
23points
So, what have we learned today, future defendants? The moral of the story is simple. Your lawyer is the one person in your life you are legally and financially incentivized to be completely, brutally honest with. They are your professional secret-keeper, your real-life "get out of jail free" card (metaphorically speaking).
Hiding a crucial fact from them is not going to make the problem go away; it's just going to make the eventual outcome much, much messier. So please, for the love of all that is holy, just tell your lawyer. They can handle it. What they can't handle is a surprise witness, a hidden videotape, or the "minor detail" that the stolen jewels are, in fact, still in the glove compartment of your car.
Which one of these cautionary tales had you facepalming the hardest? Let’s cringe together in the comments!
#16
Child Custody case where I represented grandparents seeking conservatorship of a preteen girl from bad bio parents. Asked all the usual questions in preparation about their home, who lives there, any criminal or CPS history, who the child would be around or alone with. Nothing remarkable. Child care plan involved the girl riding bus home from school and spending a couple hours at home before grandparents returned from work.
During the hearing, it comes out on cross of my client that their son who had recently been released from prison and is required to register as a s*x offender was residing in a trailer home on the property. (Where he would have a couple hours per school day with potential access to the child...)
We still won because the parents were horrible. Client later explained that we only asked them about people living *in the home* and it didn’t seem relevant to them. /facepalm
In our firm, crucial information the client didn’t tell us is referred to as “having a s*x offender living in the backyard.”.
During the hearing, it comes out on cross of my client that their son who had recently been released from prison and is required to register as a s*x offender was residing in a trailer home on the property. (Where he would have a couple hours per school day with potential access to the child...)
We still won because the parents were horrible. Client later explained that we only asked them about people living *in the home* and it didn’t seem relevant to them. /facepalm
In our firm, crucial information the client didn’t tell us is referred to as “having a s*x offender living in the backyard.”.
Report
23points
#17
Had a guy with a DUI. Asked about any criminal history, he said no. So I started the paperwork for ARD for him (it's a first time offense program that seals the record and drops the charges once completed).
Get to the courthouse, talk to the DA, find out the guy had another DUI a year prior. Also was on probation from the first one still. His excuse for not telling me was the first DUI was made up and he wasn't intoxicated, but pled guilty anyway. Unfortunately I ended up representing him for both bases, did not get paid nearly enough for the s**t I went through, but I did manage to keep him out of jail so he could take care of his elderly mother. Made him give up his vehicles though.
Get to the courthouse, talk to the DA, find out the guy had another DUI a year prior. Also was on probation from the first one still. His excuse for not telling me was the first DUI was made up and he wasn't intoxicated, but pled guilty anyway. Unfortunately I ended up representing him for both bases, did not get paid nearly enough for the s**t I went through, but I did manage to keep him out of jail so he could take care of his elderly mother. Made him give up his vehicles though.
22points
#18
Police officer: I know [Mr. Defendant], I’ve arrested him on 3 prior occasions and he always gets away.
After 7 attempts to prep this witness to find out what can k**l the case and his career, he stonewalled me every time. I even said I’d prep him during his night shift. This case hinged upon the police officer’s credibility.
Now the police officer shocks the court and me with his bias against the defendant.
Anyway, if I knew about this bias, I would’ve dismissed the case. Now, the police officer is on an official court ruling as a non-credible witness. His career is over. All because he decided he was too important to be prepped as a witness.
If I didn’t document every time I contacted him to schedule prepping, I would’ve had h**l to pay at my office.
After 7 attempts to prep this witness to find out what can k**l the case and his career, he stonewalled me every time. I even said I’d prep him during his night shift. This case hinged upon the police officer’s credibility.
Now the police officer shocks the court and me with his bias against the defendant.
Anyway, if I knew about this bias, I would’ve dismissed the case. Now, the police officer is on an official court ruling as a non-credible witness. His career is over. All because he decided he was too important to be prepped as a witness.
If I didn’t document every time I contacted him to schedule prepping, I would’ve had h**l to pay at my office.
Report
19points
#19
I had a client charged with shooting and paralyzing Victim. He was ID’d by a woman in the house that knew him, but the witness was potentially biased.
Client says he wants to fight the case. We then discuss whether it should proceed “time waived” or “time not waived.” The difference is how quickly the case is set for trial. “Time not waived” means the trial is set within 60 days. “Time waived” means the trial can start in more than 60 days.
The importance was that my client told me he was not at the scene. I stressed the importance of being honest and that everything is confidential. He again said he was not at the scene. I told him we could get cell phone records to confirm that his phone was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the shooting. And if we could show that it was active (meaning he was using it) it could help cement his alibi. I also said, “but if you were at the scene, we should set this time not waived so the DA cant get your cell phone records.” Client says to set it time waived and get the records.
So... several months and a lot of work later... the cell phone records literally show him at the f*****g crime scene at the time of the shooting. It also leads to more evidence more directly linking him to the shooting. The records also managed to implicate his friend as being involved. It toon the case from being borderline to a slam dunk for the DA.
It’s even more ridiculous than this but it’s kinda off topic.
Edit: Okay... some more of the ridiculousness...
I share the details of the cell phone data with client. He has no reaction, and offers no explanation for his prior statement that he wasn't at the scene. I explain that the DA does not yet have this information, so we should try and accept a deal now before the DA finds out because he will most likely revoke the current offer when he does. Client insists on a jury trial.
I explain that it's Client's call whether we go to trial or not -- I'm here to offer advice, and he's free to reject that advice. But I think it's a really bad idea because the DA will get the info before trial. When he does, the offer is going to skyrocket. Client continues to insist on a trial. My final words are -- "that's your call. But commit to your decision. If you reject the current offer, then try and plea later, the offer is going to go through the roof. If you want to plea, do it now."
You guessed it. The jury is literally walking into the courtroom and I hear this, "pshhhhh. Psssst." I look over and ask him what's up. He says, "I know you said not to do this, but I want a deal." He pled. Because of his shenanigans his offer increased by roughly 300 percent. He would be out of prison if he took his original offer, and I think he has well over a decade to go currently.
There's actually more but I don't think I can share it because it's so unique that it would make it easy to identify the case.
Edit #2: Wow -- thanks for the award! My first!
Client says he wants to fight the case. We then discuss whether it should proceed “time waived” or “time not waived.” The difference is how quickly the case is set for trial. “Time not waived” means the trial is set within 60 days. “Time waived” means the trial can start in more than 60 days.
The importance was that my client told me he was not at the scene. I stressed the importance of being honest and that everything is confidential. He again said he was not at the scene. I told him we could get cell phone records to confirm that his phone was not at the scene of the crime at the time of the shooting. And if we could show that it was active (meaning he was using it) it could help cement his alibi. I also said, “but if you were at the scene, we should set this time not waived so the DA cant get your cell phone records.” Client says to set it time waived and get the records.
So... several months and a lot of work later... the cell phone records literally show him at the f*****g crime scene at the time of the shooting. It also leads to more evidence more directly linking him to the shooting. The records also managed to implicate his friend as being involved. It toon the case from being borderline to a slam dunk for the DA.
It’s even more ridiculous than this but it’s kinda off topic.
Edit: Okay... some more of the ridiculousness...
I share the details of the cell phone data with client. He has no reaction, and offers no explanation for his prior statement that he wasn't at the scene. I explain that the DA does not yet have this information, so we should try and accept a deal now before the DA finds out because he will most likely revoke the current offer when he does. Client insists on a jury trial.
I explain that it's Client's call whether we go to trial or not -- I'm here to offer advice, and he's free to reject that advice. But I think it's a really bad idea because the DA will get the info before trial. When he does, the offer is going to skyrocket. Client continues to insist on a trial. My final words are -- "that's your call. But commit to your decision. If you reject the current offer, then try and plea later, the offer is going to go through the roof. If you want to plea, do it now."
You guessed it. The jury is literally walking into the courtroom and I hear this, "pshhhhh. Psssst." I look over and ask him what's up. He says, "I know you said not to do this, but I want a deal." He pled. Because of his shenanigans his offer increased by roughly 300 percent. He would be out of prison if he took his original offer, and I think he has well over a decade to go currently.
There's actually more but I don't think I can share it because it's so unique that it would make it easy to identify the case.
Edit #2: Wow -- thanks for the award! My first!
Report
19points
#20
Here's another. I wasn't actually an attorney yet, I was clerking for a firm and helping other attorneys on cases. We had a personal injury case for a car accident. Guy got rear ended by a very wealthy doctor. He was never going to be able to work again, mid 30s. Life completely ruined because she was staring at her phone while merging onto a highway going 15 MPH over the speed limit.
The case was set for trial. That's an automatic red flag, as 99% of them settle. No one wants to risk the trial. Couldn't figure out why. We thought we would get him around 2.2 million. Other side was offering 700k.
So I'm going through the massive file trying to figure out what they have that we don't know about. Looking at his medical, I saw he tested positive for m**h a few months after the accident. I was part of the jury selection that morning, and we had 2 people with doctorates, several with masters and professional licenses, most college educated. Really not good for a guy who didn't make it through highschool and was a laborer who decided to sit at home and smoke m**h after his accident.
Ended up settling right before the trial was supposed to start. We got a little more out of them, but far below what we expected. The guy was adamant about not settling, but we talked him into it. He would've been screwed as soon as they brought that up.
The case was set for trial. That's an automatic red flag, as 99% of them settle. No one wants to risk the trial. Couldn't figure out why. We thought we would get him around 2.2 million. Other side was offering 700k.
So I'm going through the massive file trying to figure out what they have that we don't know about. Looking at his medical, I saw he tested positive for m**h a few months after the accident. I was part of the jury selection that morning, and we had 2 people with doctorates, several with masters and professional licenses, most college educated. Really not good for a guy who didn't make it through highschool and was a laborer who decided to sit at home and smoke m**h after his accident.
Ended up settling right before the trial was supposed to start. We got a little more out of them, but far below what we expected. The guy was adamant about not settling, but we talked him into it. He would've been screwed as soon as they brought that up.
Report
18points