Lawyer listed extremely stupid reasons for continuance which was denied, is this malpractice?

by **pete** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:02 am

simply put, a key witness wont be able to show for a court date a week later because the trial was pushed back. The lawyer then requested a continuance since a week later wont work for our side since we wont be able to present our case appropriately. The lawyer did NOT list 6th amendment, 14th amendment as reasons for requesting a continuance, rather, he lists all these dumb stupid things completely irrelevant to the situation which costed a denial and also costed us our trial cause we lost since our key witness couldn't be there! So would you consider this malpractice? I even attempted an appeal and told the judge, my basis for appeal is the fact that 6th amendment guarantees a fair trial and my trial wasn't fair and he still denied my appeal bond. if you get the picture here, clearly the courts knew one side was supposed to win and rigged the trial so we lost. Is this appropriate complaint for the BAR or should i be taking this up to a governmental agency in specific? Attorney general didn't help so what is next?

by **pascoe69** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:05 am

Most courts only require good cause to grant a continuance. Apparently the judge thought there was good cause.

Your next books should be a dictionary and a high school English textbook.

by **adelphos** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:08 am

Your lawyer should have subpoenaed the key witness if the witness really was important to your case. With a subpoena, the witness had no choice but to show up.
Besides, are you a lawyer? Jailhouse legal advice isn't always real legal advice.

by **celeste** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:10 am

Not malpractice. Nex t step is file charges with the bar. Which will also be rejected, because for whatever reasons, your lawyer did do the rigfht things, ev en if you didn't get the decision you wanted,.

by **zadok** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:17 am

Not malpractice. Nex t step is file charges with the bar. Which will also be rejected, because for whatever reasons, your lawyer did do the rigfht things, ev en if you didn't get the decision you wanted,.

by **gerard** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:24 am

I have never in all my years seen a request for continuance that stated any one of the amendments, much less the 6th and 14th. Never.

Why wasn't the witness subpoenaed?

Why do you think costed is a word?

by **chen12** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:26 am

You get what you pay for. A smarter lawyer would have "costed" you a bit more, but what price will you be paying now? Switch lawyers, and try to appeal again. But I doubt that this was malpractice and I wouldn't advise you to attempt anything further without a GOOD lawyer.

by **clem84** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:30 am

Of course that's not malpractice.

It would have been malpractice if the attorney did not REQUEST a continuance. Here, the attorney obviously requested a continuance and I would assume he advised the judge that a continuance was needed because a witness was not available. Arguing the 6th or 14 Amendment was largely irrelevant. And "confronting" witnesses actually involves confronting witnesses for the PROSECUTION . . . not your own witnesses - so I don't think you really have a clear understanding of what those Amendments really involve.

And it was the judge's decision that apparently "cost" you the trial. (There is no such word as "costed.")

I would have subpoenaed the witness anyway if I couldn't get the continuance. And unless the witness was in the hospital, it's difficult to understand why the witness couldn't be there - this was, after all, YOUR witness.

Judges tend to be less sympathetic regarding witness unavailability under these conditions. There is an expectation that you will have control over your own witnesses.

The next step is an appeal because you have to argue the judge made the wrong decision when your attorney requested a continuance.

by **ealahweemah72** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 am

Let's see. The Attorney General of your State was not much help.
Yet, for some strange reason, you believe that a few strangers on the internet can actually help you?

Your lawyer probably knows that waving your idiotic Constitution around under the judge's nose in a probably fairly small, routine civil case, is NOT going to win him very many friends. In fact, he could piss off the judge so badly by doing it, that it could damage your case. So he listed reasons he thought were useful in winning the postponement. The judge considered his request and denied it.

If you take your case before a judge and ask him to make a decision, you are morally, if not legally obligated to accept that decision, even if it goes against you. You are not going to get very far if you go to court with the attitude that you are unable to resolve your problems by yourself, so you ask the courts to resolve them for you, but you will only accept the court's decision if it gives you what you want. Real life doesn't work that way.

Neither your lawyer nor the judge are idiots. They both have extensive legal education. You, on the other hand, let's just say that the jury is still out on that one. If there was a constitutional question to be raised in your case, either of those two would have raised it.

Short answer: Having a fool for a client is not malpractice. It's just a mistake. Perhaps next time, the lawyer will be more careful about who who accepts for a client.

Advertisments:

Useful Links: