Going to court can be stressful, right, pandas? A lot is at stake, and naturally, everyone wants the outcome to go in their favor. But while most people try to make their case and hope for the best, some are willing to bend the rules, twist the truth, or do just about anything to win. And honestly, some of what people come up with is pretty unbelievable!
We came across an online discussion where lawyers shared some of the most unethical things they've seen people do to win lawsuits. From outright lies to some seriously questionable tactics, these legal professionals have witnessed quite a bit over the years. We've rounded up some of their most surprising stories for you, so keep scrolling to see just how far some people will go to win a case!
This post may include affiliate links.
#1
Obligatory "not a lawyer", but my parents got caught up in a slimy lawyer's talons.
Basically, they had carpet installed in their house in 2005, paid in cash, got a receipt, and went on with their lives.
7 years later, they get a letter from some law firm saying the company they'd had install their carpet never received payment and would press charges if they didn't pay up. My dad, being a paranoid person, had kept the receipt and said he'd see them in court. He did some research, found out what the attorney can and can't do in this situation, and also found out that the attorney had been working with the flooring company for years, accusing paying customers of not paying and collecting excess money from them under threat of lawsuit.
Fast-forward to the court date. Dad shows up knowing his rights, with the receipt stating exactly how much he paid and when. Attorney has nothing except a copy of the invoice for my dad's payment that he leaves in his folder the whole time. Not only does the attorney break almost every rule of court possible, he completely slanders my dad. Calling him "sketchy looking" and "dishonest" even though the receipt is literally right there in front of him, insists that the receipt is fake despite having a copy of the invoice.
My dad lost that case. Before anyone had even left the courtroom, the attorney walked up to chat with the judge, who asked if they were still on for brunch tomorrow. Because it was a super small circuit, this dude had been able to buddy up to a judge to the extent he was allowed to do basically whatever he wanted and still win his cases.
A year later my parents sued the attorney for misconduct and requested an out-of-circuit judge, who essentially told that slimy schmuck to sit down and shut up when he tried to pull something against the rules. They won that case.
Basically, they had carpet installed in their house in 2005, paid in cash, got a receipt, and went on with their lives.
7 years later, they get a letter from some law firm saying the company they'd had install their carpet never received payment and would press charges if they didn't pay up. My dad, being a paranoid person, had kept the receipt and said he'd see them in court. He did some research, found out what the attorney can and can't do in this situation, and also found out that the attorney had been working with the flooring company for years, accusing paying customers of not paying and collecting excess money from them under threat of lawsuit.
Fast-forward to the court date. Dad shows up knowing his rights, with the receipt stating exactly how much he paid and when. Attorney has nothing except a copy of the invoice for my dad's payment that he leaves in his folder the whole time. Not only does the attorney break almost every rule of court possible, he completely slanders my dad. Calling him "sketchy looking" and "dishonest" even though the receipt is literally right there in front of him, insists that the receipt is fake despite having a copy of the invoice.
My dad lost that case. Before anyone had even left the courtroom, the attorney walked up to chat with the judge, who asked if they were still on for brunch tomorrow. Because it was a super small circuit, this dude had been able to buddy up to a judge to the extent he was allowed to do basically whatever he wanted and still win his cases.
A year later my parents sued the attorney for misconduct and requested an out-of-circuit judge, who essentially told that slimy schmuck to sit down and shut up when he tried to pull something against the rules. They won that case.
23points
#2
I started out working for a commercial law firm advising companies on environmental compliance. We had a client who was a large oil and gas distributor which owned a contaminated site in a populated area.
My boss advised the client to transfer ownership of the site to a newly incorporated limited liability company with no assets. That way, when the government ordered the site to be remediated, the client wouldn't be liable for the clean-up.
I left not too long after that.
EDIT: I'm not based in the United States - yes, lawyers exist in other countries too.
My boss advised the client to transfer ownership of the site to a newly incorporated limited liability company with no assets. That way, when the government ordered the site to be remediated, the client wouldn't be liable for the clean-up.
I left not too long after that.
EDIT: I'm not based in the United States - yes, lawyers exist in other countries too.
18points
#3
Criminal defendants charged with stealing an item must be charged with stealing an item FROM someone. That someone must be a legal entity.
I once represented a guy who was charged with stealing dog food. He was homeless and trying to feed his dog. Needless to say, I was sympathetic, so I was willing to pull something of a dirty trick for him.
I queued him up for trial. As soon as the first witness was sworn in, I moved to dismiss. The entity he was charged with stealing from? “Wal Mart.” That is not a legal entity. I think the real name was Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. or something.
Case immediately dismissed. Since a witness had been sworn in, double jeopardy prevented them from trying him again.
I once represented a guy who was charged with stealing dog food. He was homeless and trying to feed his dog. Needless to say, I was sympathetic, so I was willing to pull something of a dirty trick for him.
I queued him up for trial. As soon as the first witness was sworn in, I moved to dismiss. The entity he was charged with stealing from? “Wal Mart.” That is not a legal entity. I think the real name was Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. or something.
Case immediately dismissed. Since a witness had been sworn in, double jeopardy prevented them from trying him again.
11points
If you've ever read about a major lawsuit in the news or come across a high-profile legal case in a book, you probably know how complicated things can get. From serious allegations to lengthy court proceedings and huge financial settlements, a lot is often at stake for everyone involved. But while we hear about the big cases, we don't always understand how the legal process actually works. So, since today's collection revolves around lawsuits, let's take a closer look at what they involve.
#4
When I was working as a public defender in the Detroit state court I ROUTINELY saw cops lie about the existence of video recordings of an event. The law says they have to have the cams running when they make a stop, but in all the cases I saw not a single cop was ever able to produce a video. Either the video had “malfunctioned,” been “accidentally deleted” after the event, or the camera was “broken.”
It was a weird place to work. The cops very much viewed the defense lawyers and the legal process as their enemy. I’m sure there were a lot of unjust outcomes as a result.
It was a weird place to work. The cops very much viewed the defense lawyers and the legal process as their enemy. I’m sure there were a lot of unjust outcomes as a result.
10points
#5
From LegalEagle, more a grievous malpractice:
Some lawyers tried to use ChatGPT to write their brief.
The language model hallucinated and invented court cases and references. They filed it anyway.
Opposing party candidly asked the judge:
"We don’t seem to be able to find the mentioned cases in any of the legal databases. Could they please provide sources?"
Judge frowned.
Lawyers sweated, tried to play dumb and asked for time while they used again ChatGPT to write the fake cases.
Judge was not amused.
They got only fined and humiliated.
Some lawyers tried to use ChatGPT to write their brief.
The language model hallucinated and invented court cases and references. They filed it anyway.
Opposing party candidly asked the judge:
"We don’t seem to be able to find the mentioned cases in any of the legal databases. Could they please provide sources?"
Judge frowned.
Lawyers sweated, tried to play dumb and asked for time while they used again ChatGPT to write the fake cases.
Judge was not amused.
They got only fined and humiliated.
10points
#6
A friend of a friend woke up in a hospital. He has no idea what happened but he was brought out of an induced coma from a bike wreck. The car he ended up under was owned by a lawyer. The lawyer and a cop forced the doctors to get the guy out of a coma long enough to sign a statement when no family was present. The lawyer never mentioned to the doctor that it was he who was driving and not a person he represented. The lawyer then went on the sue for damages on his car by the guy and his bicycle.
8points
For starters, the American legal system generally distinguishes between civil and criminal cases. Criminal cases involve the government prosecuting someone accused of breaking the law, while civil lawsuits usually deal with disputes between individuals, businesses, or other parties. According to the United States Courts, a civil lawsuit typically begins when someone, known as the plaintiff, files a complaint against another party, called the defendant.
And what's the goal? Well, unlike criminal cases, which can result in imprisonment, civil lawsuits generally aim to resolve disputes or compensate someone for harm they've suffered. A successful case might result in financial compensation or a court order requiring someone to do or stop doing something. Interestingly, many lawsuits never even make it to trial because the parties reach an agreement outside the courtroom.
#7
I recently overheard the lawyer I work for tell someone to try to get her husband to hit her again in order for her to file a TRO against him, and make their case stronger. I was speechless.
8points
#8
The prosecution (state) asked for a continuance (more time to prepare their case) and the judge denied it. So they just dropped all charges and then refiled them the next day to get around the judge’s decision. Nothing anybody could do about it.
7points
#9
Mom had her 7 year old daughter lie on the stand. Mother claimed bodily injuries from a motor vehicle accident. She forced her 7 year old daughter to testify at trial. The mother coached the daughter to say that the mother was in the car at the time of the accident. It became very apparent that the mother was not in the car at the time of the accident because the mother couldn’t recall where the accident occurred or which parts of the vehicles were damaged.
6points
Now, there are plenty of reasons someone might file a lawsuit. Think about car accidents, medical negligence, or a business failing to honor a contract. Workplace disputes involving discrimination or wrongful termination, along with defamation cases where someone's reputation has allegedly been damaged by false statements, are another common area. And that's just the beginning! Legal disputes can also involve stolen creative work, copyright infringement, property disagreements, divorce, or child custody. So, while we often associate lawsuits with huge companies or wealthy celebrities, ordinary people can find themselves involved in legal battles, too.
#10
I got the physical evidence thrown out because the officer reached into my client's pocket before patting the outside first. Because that the was the only evidence that my client committed a crime, the prosecutor was forced to dismiss the entire case.
6points
#11
I got in a no injury car accident, gave the cops my insurance which had both my name and my dad's name. I'm a male with a name that is normally a females name. Cop wrote the ticket to my dad because he assumed who I was by names on the insurance. When I went to court to pay the fine, the judge told me I couldn't represent my dad. When I explained that he was living very far away from the accident and I was the driver, the judge said well you have no ticket, and your dad obviously wasn't the driver, so case dismissed.
Report
6points
#12
For a year I worked for the most unethical attorney I have ever met. Here are my top two stories:
He took on a client that was injured at work. Since the attorney normally does defense work, the doctor came back saying the injury was clearly not work related. The attorney called the doctor to inform him that he represented the employee and not the employer in this case. The doctor then wrote a report that the injury was clearly work related.
One afternoon the attorney's assistant ran into my room and said I need to go the courthouse right now to defend the attorney in a traffic case. Attorney told me he had no run-ins with law enforcement before, had never been ticketed before, and would just like to get supervision. I go in front of the judge and present this information and I get him supervision. I go back to the office and curiosity got the best of me. I searched his criminal record. Yeah, turns out he had another outstanding speeding ticket and you could see his mugshot for domestic violence.
Oh, and he tried to fine me $5,000 for going to a doctor's appointment on my lunch break. Yup at that point I literally walked out.
He took on a client that was injured at work. Since the attorney normally does defense work, the doctor came back saying the injury was clearly not work related. The attorney called the doctor to inform him that he represented the employee and not the employer in this case. The doctor then wrote a report that the injury was clearly work related.
One afternoon the attorney's assistant ran into my room and said I need to go the courthouse right now to defend the attorney in a traffic case. Attorney told me he had no run-ins with law enforcement before, had never been ticketed before, and would just like to get supervision. I go in front of the judge and present this information and I get him supervision. I go back to the office and curiosity got the best of me. I searched his criminal record. Yeah, turns out he had another outstanding speeding ticket and you could see his mugshot for domestic violence.
Oh, and he tried to fine me $5,000 for going to a doctor's appointment on my lunch break. Yup at that point I literally walked out.
5points
And just to give you an idea of how widespread litigation is in the United States, a 2022 article by Munich Re cited an estimate of approximately 40 million lawsuits filed across the country each year. The article also reported that large American companies spent around $22.8 billion on litigation in 2020, citing Statista. That's quite a lot of money going toward legal disputes!
#13
I knew of a criminal defense attorney that had a slight foreign accent. When he had a lost cause of a case, in court he would sometimes play up the accent heavily, pretend to understand less English than he really did, generally play dumb, etc. This was juxtaposed with one of the best prosecutor offices in the country who were all very polished. His hope was the jury might feel sorry for his client and acquit him even if they thought he was guilty because it felt like he never had a fair shot.
It was a fine line to walk to do that and not piss off the judge though lol.
It was a fine line to walk to do that and not piss off the judge though lol.
5points
#14
I am a lawyer. I specialize in tax and litigation (civil, not criminal tax). The biggest loophole is money. Can you pay your lawyer to be as creative and annoying as you can. It's literally that simple.
Trump is a very good example of this. Bog down the court with motion practice, beg for continuances, and throw absolutely everything possible you can because you can. You won't see a Public Defender or a Low Income Clinic attorney do this. There is simply not enough of them.
Trump is a very good example of this. Bog down the court with motion practice, beg for continuances, and throw absolutely everything possible you can because you can. You won't see a Public Defender or a Low Income Clinic attorney do this. There is simply not enough of them.
Report
5points
#15
I went to court and watched my lawyer boldly lie... He asked me something before going in that I confirmed and stated the exact opposite to the judges face. When we were leaving a couple other lawyers complimented him on his speech. Most of them lie and everyone knows it... Whoever is the better lier often wins and it is acceptable which is a bit of a loophole if you ask me.
5points
But here's where things get particularly interesting. Some lawsuits result in extraordinarily large payouts, sometimes referred to as nuclear verdicts. These are jury awards worth $10 million or more. According to a 2022 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform, the median nuclear verdict increased from $19.3 million in 2010 to $24.6 million in 2019. That's a rise of 27.5% over the period studied.
#16
I racked up parking tickets in law school, only to find out that the district had changed but the signs were never removed. The street behind the school was in a different district-one with no time limit on parking. The neighbors didn’t want students parking for hours on end so they treated it as de facto timed parking.
I defeated the tickets but only after the contentious hearing where the hearing office asked me why I thought it was ok to park wherever I wanted despite the signs. I said the signs don’t matter if they’re not legal and he said enforcement (meter maids) go by the signs, not the map. I asked if I could just put up signs wherever I wanted to not have people park and they would enforce it? He didn’t have answer for that one…
It really bothered me that the school made a big deal about getting a dispensation on parking time during exams, because the exams were an hour longer than you could park.
I defeated the tickets but only after the contentious hearing where the hearing office asked me why I thought it was ok to park wherever I wanted despite the signs. I said the signs don’t matter if they’re not legal and he said enforcement (meter maids) go by the signs, not the map. I asked if I could just put up signs wherever I wanted to not have people park and they would enforce it? He didn’t have answer for that one…
It really bothered me that the school made a big deal about getting a dispensation on parking time during exams, because the exams were an hour longer than you could park.
Report
4points
#17
Heard of at least one case where the defendant was charged with carrying a loaded firearm without a license, but the count had to be dismissed because it turns out the idiot had loaded it with the wrong caliber bullet. The police lab tried repeatedly to get the gun to fire in the range using the defendant's bullets, but even they couldn't make it work. So technically the firearm didn't count as "loaded" under the statute. It wasn't quite case dismissed, because there was a lesser charge that still applied to an unloaded firearm, but it was a much less severe charge.
Not sure if that's a "loophole," but it's one of the funnier and more harmless get-out-of-jail-free cards I've seen.
Not sure if that's a "loophole," but it's one of the funnier and more harmless get-out-of-jail-free cards I've seen.
Report
4points
#18
Convicted criminal was on furlough. A program with the jail where you can be released on an ankle monitor while still serving your sentence. He cut the monitor, ran and was caught. Indicted for Escape.
Case gets to trial and the prosecutor puts on a pretty straightforward case. people from the jail and ankle monitor company and arresting cops testify. Then the defense moves to dismiss. Prosecution has failed to prove escape.
There was actually a different law called unlawful evasion that applied to escaping off furlough program. this was extra confusing because escape is the correct charge for cutting an ankle monitor if you are serving your sentence on ankle monitor. Which you can do sometimes. But if you start in jail and get out on an ankle monitor as part of a furlough program then the crime is unlawful evasion.
Prosecutor was furious. Because the defense could have dismissed the case at any point. Arraignment up to trial. But he never said anything. So the guy sat in jail for months awaiting trial on a charge he could get dismissed. Judge ordered the case dismissed.
There was some small debate about whether he could be retried or not, because did double jeopardy attach if he was never actually charged with the right crime? But the DA wasn’t going to highlight the embarrassment and just let it go. A crime (and slam dunk case) with a 6+ year sentence dismissed for a few months in jail.
Case gets to trial and the prosecutor puts on a pretty straightforward case. people from the jail and ankle monitor company and arresting cops testify. Then the defense moves to dismiss. Prosecution has failed to prove escape.
There was actually a different law called unlawful evasion that applied to escaping off furlough program. this was extra confusing because escape is the correct charge for cutting an ankle monitor if you are serving your sentence on ankle monitor. Which you can do sometimes. But if you start in jail and get out on an ankle monitor as part of a furlough program then the crime is unlawful evasion.
Prosecutor was furious. Because the defense could have dismissed the case at any point. Arraignment up to trial. But he never said anything. So the guy sat in jail for months awaiting trial on a charge he could get dismissed. Judge ordered the case dismissed.
There was some small debate about whether he could be retried or not, because did double jeopardy attach if he was never actually charged with the right crime? But the DA wasn’t going to highlight the embarrassment and just let it go. A crime (and slam dunk case) with a 6+ year sentence dismissed for a few months in jail.
Report
4points
Of course, a large payout doesn't automatically mean someone has done anything dishonest. Some cases involve devastating injuries, serious negligence, or enormous financial losses. And when the cost of living and medical treatment increases, the amount needed to compensate someone for their losses can increase, too.
Maura Haynes, then head of casualty at Munich Re US, discussed this in the company's article. She explained how rising medical expenses and inflation could influence the compensation juries consider appropriate. At the same time, larger verdicts can create financial challenges for businesses and insurance companies.
#19
Not me, but a professor I had, who specialized on advocacy for victims of human trafficking (basically, helping victims of trafficking avoid deportation).
A salon was raided in connection to a suspected human trafficking ring. The tip turned out to be good, multiple people were arrested, and several victims were taken into custody.
Among them was a 4 year old boy. None of the victims knew him, "he helped clean the salon." Traffickers wouldn't fess up as to where he came from. The kid didn't know his own name, where he was from, where his parents were, or where they were. When the judge asked the kid for his name, he replied "Spiderman!" When they asked for his real name, he told them "Peter Parker!" Yeah, you get the idea.... anyway, prosecution wanted him gone because he was in the US illegally. Not sure where prosecution thought he'd get sent, but whatever.
Now here's a neat thing.... there's a federal statute on refugee eligibility. This particular statute hadn't been cited in over 60 years, but for all intents and purposes was still good law. The statute on question basically says, "if a victim of human trafficking is an unaccompanied minor is under X age and does not know their country of origin, they are to be granted asylum immediately, no court discretion." Now I have to emphasize, this law hadn't been used in literal DECADES, and was effectively forgotten by courts and legislature as a past relic that somehow slipped through immigration reforms over the years. But it was still valid.
My professor intended to cite this statute. The prosecutor was terrified of creating new case law, and offered to drop charges if this statute wouldn't get brought up. Professor agreed, bc client's interests.
In a strange twist of fate, the prosecutor passed away, and the newly assigned prosecutor said he would not honor any preexisting deals. Prof is like, "fine, let's make some case law!" New prosecutor panics and asks to go back to the original deal, which is accepted.
A salon was raided in connection to a suspected human trafficking ring. The tip turned out to be good, multiple people were arrested, and several victims were taken into custody.
Among them was a 4 year old boy. None of the victims knew him, "he helped clean the salon." Traffickers wouldn't fess up as to where he came from. The kid didn't know his own name, where he was from, where his parents were, or where they were. When the judge asked the kid for his name, he replied "Spiderman!" When they asked for his real name, he told them "Peter Parker!" Yeah, you get the idea.... anyway, prosecution wanted him gone because he was in the US illegally. Not sure where prosecution thought he'd get sent, but whatever.
Now here's a neat thing.... there's a federal statute on refugee eligibility. This particular statute hadn't been cited in over 60 years, but for all intents and purposes was still good law. The statute on question basically says, "if a victim of human trafficking is an unaccompanied minor is under X age and does not know their country of origin, they are to be granted asylum immediately, no court discretion." Now I have to emphasize, this law hadn't been used in literal DECADES, and was effectively forgotten by courts and legislature as a past relic that somehow slipped through immigration reforms over the years. But it was still valid.
My professor intended to cite this statute. The prosecutor was terrified of creating new case law, and offered to drop charges if this statute wouldn't get brought up. Professor agreed, bc client's interests.
In a strange twist of fate, the prosecutor passed away, and the newly assigned prosecutor said he would not honor any preexisting deals. Prof is like, "fine, let's make some case law!" New prosecutor panics and asks to go back to the original deal, which is accepted.
Report
4points
#20
Not a lawyer, but close to one. In law school in Finland, they were taught about a case where a man was on trial for failing to pay back a loan.
His lawyer argued that he shouldn’t be convicted of delinquency (no idea what the actual terms are in English, bear with me) because he never had intended to pay the loan back in the first place.
And he won the case.
The reason was because the prosecutor had made a mistake: he had prosecuted the man only for the lesser charge of being delinquent in making payments, and forgot to write up the alternative charge of outright fraud.
So the court had to rule that there was reasonable doubt whether the man actually committed the act he was on trial for.
His lawyer argued that he shouldn’t be convicted of delinquency (no idea what the actual terms are in English, bear with me) because he never had intended to pay the loan back in the first place.
And he won the case.
The reason was because the prosecutor had made a mistake: he had prosecuted the man only for the lesser charge of being delinquent in making payments, and forgot to write up the alternative charge of outright fraud.
So the court had to rule that there was reasonable doubt whether the man actually committed the act he was on trial for.
Report
3points