Yes, everybody’s entitled to file a lawsuit: but really, shouldn’t there be some process by which lawyers are sanctioned for filing frivolous lawsuits the waste the court’s time and cost other people money?
Edward Hairston, a 39-year-old Ohio man, had been buying lottery tickets in a pool with his co-workers for eight years. In June he stopped working because of a back injury, and stopped paying into the pool.
On August 5, his co-workers won a $99 million jackpot and Hairston has filed suit claiming he’s entitled to his share.
No, there are no extenuating details here. He just wants a share of the winnings, and he found an attorney willing to take his case.
It would be a waste of a good poll to ask whether Hairston has a valid case, so instead I’ll ask this:
They are punished for filing frivolous lawsuits; the question is should they be punished more often.
Come on people, really? Everyone should agree he *is* entitled to his fair share! And if I were on the jury I’d find in his favor in a heartbeat.
Let me get out my calculator here. Hmmm. He contributed 0% so his share works out to be … carry the one … yep, $0.00
Then I’d also charge him with the court fees.
If I were you, I’d check that calculation again. To make sure there aren’t any roundoff errors.
(I guess we finally got out of that heat wave. (I live in Tempe.))
As to the poll, my opinion wasn’t there: “Lawyers should be killed.”
Well, he filed the suit, so he IS paying the court fees. At least we agree on that much…
David, the likelihood of an attorney being punished for bringing a frivolous lawsuit is so remote as to be meaningless. He’s probably more at risk of being struck by lightning as he enters the courthouse.
And this is a perfect test case: if Hairston’s lawyer isn’t punished, then it’s a safe be that all lawyers are safe.
It would be more correct to say that “the number of lawsuits which are LEGALLY frivolous is far smaller than the number of lawsuits that are publicly perceived as frivolous”. The bar of non-frivolosity is fairly low… not only is it OK as long as there’s any interpretation of law that supports the case, it’s even OK if NO interpretation of law supports the case, but the plaintiff can make a reasonable claim that the case law should be changed.
People love to complain about frivolous lawsuits. The problem is, actual frivolous lawsuits are quickly disposed of and don’t remain in the public eye, if they ever get there in the first place. Most of the “frivolous lawsuits” people complain about are the ones that go to trial, where the plaintiff wins some amount of damages that seems unjustified. But, if the plaintiff wins, then the case by definition is not frivolous.
This is not to say that lawyers don’t bring some dubious cases to court… they do… but they are ethically bound to pursue their client’s interests and wishes to the best of their ability, and sometimes the client doesn’t listen when they get told that they’re really unlikely to win.
The source of sanctions for frivolous suits are in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11. The way the states implement them vary. There are two possible sources of sanctions; the opposing party may ask for them, or the judge may order the lawyer(s) to show cause and prove that they haven’t violated Rule 11(b). Opposing parties don’t like to ask for sanctions because the legal club is a small one, and lawyers who are on opposing sides of this matter may later wind up on the same side of another. And judges don’t like to find that suits are frivolous on their own because it seems like taking sides, and they like to be perceived as impartial. Therefore, the way to tell a judge thinks a suit was frivolous is to read the court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice; some of them don’t hide their criticism.
This case isn’t frivolous; there is a material fact at issue that will determine the outcome. It’s this: When the workers formed a pool for lottery purposes, they created a general partnership (it is very easy to form a partnership without meaning to do so.) Now, did they intend to create a partnership that would “invest” capital in the lottery every week, or did they intend to dissolve the partnership after the lottery drawing and create a new partnership for the next one? You can bet that there’s no paperwork associated with this partnership and there’s no way for the court to take the matter out of the hands of the jury and decide as a matter of law which of these two situations actually existed. If only one partnership was created, and not a series of partnerships, then the plaintiff, as a partner when that partnership was created, is entitled to a share even if his capital input has been zero lately; partners remain partners unless and until actually removed from the partnership. So, there’s a chance that, legally speaking, the guy IS entitled to a share; if so, determining what that share should be will be challenging. Remember, the guy has the plaintiff’s duty to prove his interpretation, where he’s entitled to a share; he loses a tie.
I’d say that there’s a 99% of a non-zero settlement offer, .9% chance that it goes to a verdict and the guy gets nothing or a trivial award, and .1% chance that it goes to a verdict and he gets a substantial award. These odds are for entertainment purposes only and should not be used for wagering.
You must be a lawyer, James. Because only a lawyer could see this as a legitimate claim and come up with such a bullshit reason.
If not a lawyer, Todd, then certainly a devil’s advocate.
I’m not a lawyer, but I have a legal education.
I’m sorry the real world doesn’t live up to your expectations.
If nothing else, this case should prove to you the importance of figuring out the details if you go into business with someone (and yes, a lottery pool IS a business) because if there’s any serious money involved, people will come out of the woodwork with claims on it. If you do your legal preparation ahead of time, they’re easily handled.
I’d give the guy a “non-zero settlement offer.” I’d offer to hit him in the face with a hammer as many times as it took until he smartened up.
This guy’s a grade-A a–hole. He has no moral right to this. The fact that he can find a lawyer to take the case indicates what vermin many lawyers are. It’s for just this reason that my office lottery pool has very explicit written rules and a weekly update of who has paid up and the explicit rule that if you don’t pay, you don’t play.
I do believe that people have the right to representation before the courts, but there should be penalties for wasting resources with cases without merit.
I would think his part of the partnership dissolved when he quit working there AND because he stopped contributing to the weekly money pool.
I’d be willing to give him a larger percentage than just the one week’s contribution… I’d give him a percentage based on his total contributions from June 6th through August 4th.
Oh yeah… STILL $0.00.
In legal terms, it is very easy to fall into a partnership, and very difficult to get out of one. This is because most cases involving partnerships that find their way into the court system involve partnerships that fail and leave debts behind.
You don’t get out of a partnership just because you quit putting money into it… if you could do that, a partnership that was starting to fail would have ALL the partners stopping putting money in and claiming to be out of the partnership, and therefore not liable for its debts.
To a lawyer, there is no simple, casual activity that can’t be complicated and turned into a fee.
Actually, it’s the other way around. This situation is complicated because there were no lawyers around when they set up the pool. If there had been lawyers around when this pool was set up, this complication would have been avoided.
If there had been lawyers around when this pool was set up, the terms would still be under debate.
Right. It’s a private situation that needs no intervention by the courts. It’s one thing if there’s a community leader who makes the decisions in these disputes for free, another if some guy wants a cut of the action.
I really like James Pollock’s posts on these things. They put some of these things in a different legal perspective.
Like it or not, we live in a society with rules. Whether these rules are obvious or intuitive is hard to say. But in my experience, they’re neither obvious nor intuitive.
I’ve been involved in situations in several countries where I’ve been unsure of the legal situation. Where I’ve asked advice from lawyers, the fees were very worth it (excepting maybe the USA, sadly).
This article is a good example of a legal situation where people claim “common sense” or “moral rights”. Singapore Bill is informed, even if his tone is harsh. The rules may be against the paying members of the office pool without the written agreement. When you know that, cool. When you refuse to accept it – refuse to conform to the rules, it’s a problem. When you say that the people who know the rules should be exiled, that’s just plain shooting yourself in the foot.