A lawyer hasn't noticed the author's name

This story needs to be told in your family from generation to generation
It's truly legendary.
He's never going to top this moment again.
“Your honor, I move to strike that from the record”
On what grounds?
“It’s devastating to my case!”
Not exactly related but reminds me. My friend is a lawyer in the financial sector. During one of the first trials he had, he was questioning a plaintiff that had said the bank mis-ingested his funds, when they had actually been following his directions. (This guy did this at several banks-having them do risky investments and then suing for damages when he lost money saying the bank did the risky investment without asking.)
My friend says to the guy something like “would it surprise you to know that while you lost money in this brokered account, you had a second self managed account at another bank where you invested in the same [name of investment]”
Guy goes “yes”
My friend throws his hands up in the air and says loudly “SURPRISE!!!” like the way you would at a birthday party.
Judge suppressed laugh, shakes head, gives my friend a warning.
Totally worth it imho
I try to avoid banks that eat my money...correctly or incorrectly.
Sometimes getting the judge to reprimand you works in your favor. I was helping out a friend with a small claims case, and my state doesn't allow small claims parties to have representation, but many people consult lawyers anyways to prepare their cases, and the attorneys will attend hearings and just sit in the back of the courtroom.
I showed up on the day of my friend's hearing looking every bit the part of the high-priced lawyer - slick black suit and briefcase, perfectly done hair, expensive watch, etc. I very conspicuously sat right behind my friend in the first row of the gallery when he was called up, and when the judge asked him a very simple question, he conspicuously turned around so I could nod at him. The judge instantly chewed me out and reminded my friend he wasn't permitted to have representation, but the defendant got an eyeful of how serious my friend was. Judge sends the two parties out for their mandatory settlement conference, and despite the defendant stonewalling for 2 months leading up to the hearing because he thought we weren't serious, we had a settlement in 15 minutes.
The judge didn't appreciate the stunt but I got a couple knowing smiles and smirks from other attorneys in the back of the courtroom.
You're not supposed to eat the money. Maybe you meant mis-invested?
My grandfather had a similar moment when he was a witness. The lawyer ask if he was an expert in his field and he replied, “yes.” Then the lawyer asked how many (edit: patents) parents he had to which he replied, “I have no idea.” Then the lawyer said, “if you have no idea, how can you be an expert?!” To which my grandfather replied, “when you have as many as I do you stop counting.”
I think you have a typo there.
There is a wonderful typo in your comment, please don't fix it. :)
Of course I know him, he's me!
The lawyer advice I have heard is: Never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.
Also no lawyer would argue with an expert on anything, except for law maybe but even then the lawyer should be the one steering the examination.
I learnt that in the Harvey Spectre School Of Lawyering.
I knew a guy who went to an interview after getting his PhD. For general reference, a PhD just tells people that you can learn and operate pretty independently and you're never going to work in your specific area of research because it's just so narrow. Anyways, this guy at the interview hands over a few papers and says "We're trying to implement this sort of thing here, do you have any experience doing anything like this?" The guy took a quick look at the papers and asked the interviewer to look at the first author on those papers, because he had written them in the course of his PhD.
...did he get the job?
Weird way to open a story about a guy being interviewed for a job implementing his own research specifically, but ok
Lawyer: How do you know what the author meant? Dad: I'm about to ruin this man's whole career
I work in a consulting firm and something very similar happened. Members of my team were defending a client’s position on an issue that related to some specific OECD guidelines. The challenging party incorrectly referenced something not knowing that the lead on my team was one of the key contributors to the specific guidelines. They were polite about it but they explained that they wrote the guideline and the interpretation was incorrect.
Sorry if I’m a bit vague, since it’s work related I don’t want to give all the details.
edit: grammar
You did a good job, pal.
"You can't know that, Bernie!" "Yes I can. I wrote the damn bill!"
The old story.
Lawyer, "how did you know the patient was dead?"
Doctor, "because his brain was missing."
Lawyer, "Is it possible he could not of had a brain and still be alive?"
Doctor, "I suppose it is possible he could not have a brain and be practicing law some place."
It's a minor thing in the scope of life, so feel free to ignore, but it's "could have" or "could've," but not "could of."
Sounds like the doctor was a shitty writer.
That’s what I was thinking - shouldn’t it be clear in a medical journal what the author is talking about?
I can see the exchange happening, just that at least in a medical context you think it would be clearer.
well of course l know him, he's me
Hey ben
Also, if he's called in as an expert witness, he's allowed to make claims about events that he did not directly witness. So the lawyer is double dumb presuming that he can override the statement of an expert witness in their respective field of expertise.
This story is false and has been floating around the internet for nearly 2 decades in one shape or another.
how can you be sure? source?
Day mode peasant.
Dark mode users have weak eyes.
Maybe he actually leaves his house when it's sunny. You know it stead of chilling in his parent basement.
Exactly. Like the lawyer didn't know who his professional expert really was...during cross-exam.
Could’ve been a mistake lawyers go through tons of cases everyday so making a small mistake like forgetting the dude’s name could be possible
Source: 2 family members in law and they just seem really forgetful and stressed all the time
I’ve also heard this exact story/joke before. There’s no way it’s true.
This sounds fake as hell, honestly. The lack of any specific detail makes this sound like OP just thought of a cool scene.
The thing is though, to have a medical journal/article admitted as evidence, you would have to have an expert testify on it (preferably the one who wrote it, but if not, then someone who is an expert in the field). To have an expert testify, you would first do a deposition and have an expert report. This would have come up well before trial.
Also, lawyers can’t testify. They can explain law, but they aren’t experts on medicine. So for the lawyer to turn around and say “so what this means...” is procedurally improper. He has the expert there. He would ask the expert “please explain that in layman’s terms.”
Surprises in civil trials are very rare because of all the discovery done beforehand.
Or he doesn’t have exact details to share? Plus this was a legal case so some discretion is normal.
It's not the prose it's the lawyer delivering testimony and then asking a question he didn't know the answer to that tells me it's fake. Stuff like that just doesn't happen in real trials. For starters he'd have to enter the book into evidence by name and author and would obviously know the witness' name.
It's one of those courtroom drama scenes that's too dramatic to happen in real life unless everyone is incompetent.
Let's be real. If you're questioning the authority of the person to whom you are making an appeal to authority, you've already lost your argument.
He knows it, he wrote that damn book!
and then everybody clapped
Can confirm this is true. I was also applauding.
I can imagine one of those incredibly loud singular ecstatic "HAH"'s from the judge as that happened.
there are some pretty bad lawyers out there, so its def believable
Perhaps, the counsel can argue that the witness has no integrity, going against his own book to defend the one who paid him to appear in court
That bottom part belongs in
He's me
Love it. Reminds me of Bernie Sanders: “I wrote the damn bill!” Lol
I'm not american, and I don't know much about how it works over there, but how is writing a "bill" guarantee that you know that it's going to work?
Of course I know him. Hes me!
I would really love to know what abstract thing, or out of context paragraph the lawyer was trying to argue on.
Literally the "dont cite the deep magic to me, witch" meme irl
That is a justice-boner-for-life moment
Sounds like there needs to be a new edition with some clarification.
Or a lawyer highlighting one sentence completely out of context.
"Global warming is not a problem. Its the result. The problem is fossil fuel emissions." - some expert.
Then the lawyer highlights the first sentence and says "Global warming is not a problem" according to the experts!
I work as a professional witness in matters related to electrical engineering. Lawyers make me want to vomit.
Hahaha lawyers amirite
Best story I’ve ever read on this sub!
This story has zero basis in truth. If you think this happened and are also in the market for real estate please contact me as I have some beach front property in Idaho currently available
Was his name Albert Einstein?
And then everyone clapped
Someone link to the Bernie clip!
Was the lawyer's name Ty Beard?
😮😮😮😮. Ooohh shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
Ooh, story time! My dad is a lawyer. He’s working on a case that ultimately goes to trial. The first day of trial, he and opposing counsel are setting up their respective counsel tables to prepare for the day. Opposing counsel sets down a single text book about the area of law involved. My dad smiles, walks over, and says to the guy, “Would you like me to sign it for you?” In front of opposing counsel’s client.
It was my dad’s book. He won.
Ofcourse I know him - he's me.
To be honest, this is fucking stupid. The fact that your dad wrote the book does not necessarily mean he is automatically right about the valid interpretations about his writings. However, what I find even more stupid is that the lawyer couldn't provide a good rebuttal.
"Death of the author" doesn't apply to the intepretation of medical textbooks. This isn't Catcher in the Rye.
Reposting comments from other Reddit threads for karma?