Years ago I followed a web site called "Web pages that suck," where you could "learn good web design by looking at bad web design." (www.webpagesthatsuck.com/) The wry, critical articles on the web site were re-published as a very popular book by the site's owners. There's probably a market for a book, "Court filings that suck," that would help young lawyers "learn good court filings by looking at bad court filings."
My absolute favorite law story: There was once a man who went to law school, graduated, and took the bar exam. He failed, which wasn't terrible, because Indiana gave people in his position a second chance. He took the bar again, and failed again. But the generous heart of Indiana allows three tries, so he took the bar a third time. And failed yet again. Still, Indiana allowed a fourth try, and so he brought his score up to 0-and-4. Alas, that was it for Indiana and its patience; four chances is all you get. They refused to allow him to take the bar a fifth time. But remember, this was a law school graduate! He knew what to do! And he sued for a fifth try. The trial court ruled against him but, again, he knew what to do -- he appealed. What he overlooked is that appeals courts usually deliver their decisions in writing, and these written opinions are collected in law books, and that's where I read this whole story many years ago, in an opinion that immortalized him and his name as a man who failed the bar four times, and lost the only two times he appeared in court. I, dependably, have forgotten the name, but I doubt I'll ever forget the story. It helped convince me that I didn't want to be a lawyer.
I opted to google Mr. D'Ambrosio after reading this post and found this Reddit thread. It boggles my mind that there are people looking to join on the class action element. Plus, the Trent Law Group is actively engaging in the conversation. I fully expect this shall be a fascinating tale of public self-destruction.
Well, if D’Ambrosio takes umbrage at your characterizations of him, he knows where to go to find a law firm which is ignorant/deluded/mercenary enough to take his case. The Trent firm will probably file the complaint in the International Court of Justice.
Hey, now, diversity jurisdiction continues to provide the valuable function of making access to justice depend on complex technical rules that you need an expensive professional to help you with.
I saw this suit posted somewhere else and immediately thought that it was a legal dumpster fire and an impressive example of the Streisand effect. This guy pretty much ruined his dating life by taking this action when he should have taken the women's comments as good advice for how he should change his dating behavior.
Too bad there's no federal anti-SLAPP law. I think those are some of the most important laws out there and certainly present another reason why litigants should think twice before filing defamation suits.
I also think some litigants and lawyers think that suing many big defendants will generate nuisance settlements making it worth their while. That's doubtful in a case like this and doubly doubtful when there's an anti-SLAPP law in place.
For Just Security, I and a co-author recently wrote a piece on a number of Trump's lawyers who are facing sanctions, discipline, indictment, or two or more of these potential outcomes. Your views on ill-conceived litigation (unconsidered risks and unintended consequences for clients and their lawyers) rings very true to me. Keep up the great and informative work here and in your podcast with Josh Barro.
I remember talking my small business clients down from the ledge of "hurt feelings" and back to the ground of cost benefit review of collection suits against other business owners who failed to pay them. ("But he's my friend. I trusted him" " I took a chance on this new business." etc.). You are right. Case evaluation is a baseline skill for legal competence.
Ken, was there a last straw on deciding to leave Substack?
Folks, I tweeted Ken last night that Platformer had announced yesterday it was leaving Substack. The TL/DR version of its comment? Substack, by pushing certain accounts for reading to certain other accounts, etc., had become a publisher, not just a platform. And it had. And, and this ties to Section 230, IMO, it's also true of Twitter, Facebook, etc. Use an algorithm to control who sees what [and other tools]? You're a publisher.
The fact that the Food Court got a *maybe* you could try it and State Court just got you could try it cracked me up.
Years ago I followed a web site called "Web pages that suck," where you could "learn good web design by looking at bad web design." (www.webpagesthatsuck.com/) The wry, critical articles on the web site were re-published as a very popular book by the site's owners. There's probably a market for a book, "Court filings that suck," that would help young lawyers "learn good court filings by looking at bad court filings."
My absolute favorite law story: There was once a man who went to law school, graduated, and took the bar exam. He failed, which wasn't terrible, because Indiana gave people in his position a second chance. He took the bar again, and failed again. But the generous heart of Indiana allows three tries, so he took the bar a third time. And failed yet again. Still, Indiana allowed a fourth try, and so he brought his score up to 0-and-4. Alas, that was it for Indiana and its patience; four chances is all you get. They refused to allow him to take the bar a fifth time. But remember, this was a law school graduate! He knew what to do! And he sued for a fifth try. The trial court ruled against him but, again, he knew what to do -- he appealed. What he overlooked is that appeals courts usually deliver their decisions in writing, and these written opinions are collected in law books, and that's where I read this whole story many years ago, in an opinion that immortalized him and his name as a man who failed the bar four times, and lost the only two times he appeared in court. I, dependably, have forgotten the name, but I doubt I'll ever forget the story. It helped convince me that I didn't want to be a lawyer.
I opted to google Mr. D'Ambrosio after reading this post and found this Reddit thread. It boggles my mind that there are people looking to join on the class action element. Plus, the Trent Law Group is actively engaging in the conversation. I fully expect this shall be a fascinating tale of public self-destruction.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AWDTSGisToxic/comments/1939wa2/important_lawsuit_press_coverage/
Well, if D’Ambrosio takes umbrage at your characterizations of him, he knows where to go to find a law firm which is ignorant/deluded/mercenary enough to take his case. The Trent firm will probably file the complaint in the International Court of Justice.
Hey, now, diversity jurisdiction continues to provide the valuable function of making access to justice depend on complex technical rules that you need an expensive professional to help you with.
This harkens back to the days of regular Prenda Law updates on Popehat. I miss those.
Funny enough to regret that “Win A Dream Date With A Litigious Douchebag!” doesn’t end with Ken auctioning off a date with himself.
Congrats on leaving Substack!!
Great post.
I saw this suit posted somewhere else and immediately thought that it was a legal dumpster fire and an impressive example of the Streisand effect. This guy pretty much ruined his dating life by taking this action when he should have taken the women's comments as good advice for how he should change his dating behavior.
Too bad there's no federal anti-SLAPP law. I think those are some of the most important laws out there and certainly present another reason why litigants should think twice before filing defamation suits.
I also think some litigants and lawyers think that suing many big defendants will generate nuisance settlements making it worth their while. That's doubtful in a case like this and doubly doubtful when there's an anti-SLAPP law in place.
Again, great post--fun to read, as always.
For Just Security, I and a co-author recently wrote a piece on a number of Trump's lawyers who are facing sanctions, discipline, indictment, or two or more of these potential outcomes. Your views on ill-conceived litigation (unconsidered risks and unintended consequences for clients and their lawyers) rings very true to me. Keep up the great and informative work here and in your podcast with Josh Barro.
FYI, our piece is here: https://www.justsecurity.org/90509/trumps-lawyers-face-sanctions-discipline-and-indictment-how-should-the-legal-profession-respond/
Maybe the point of the story- dont be a A**h*** and no one will post about you
Huzzah on the planned move. I've been lurking on Substack for free and would be delighted to pledge on the new platform.
I remember talking my small business clients down from the ledge of "hurt feelings" and back to the ground of cost benefit review of collection suits against other business owners who failed to pay them. ("But he's my friend. I trusted him" " I took a chance on this new business." etc.). You are right. Case evaluation is a baseline skill for legal competence.
excellent, as usual. I hope I’m on the notification list when you change hosting services.
Ken, was there a last straw on deciding to leave Substack?
Folks, I tweeted Ken last night that Platformer had announced yesterday it was leaving Substack. The TL/DR version of its comment? Substack, by pushing certain accounts for reading to certain other accounts, etc., had become a publisher, not just a platform. And it had. And, and this ties to Section 230, IMO, it's also true of Twitter, Facebook, etc. Use an algorithm to control who sees what [and other tools]? You're a publisher.
Anyway, here's the Platformer piece: https://www.platformer.news/p/why-platformer-is-leaving-substack