This should be major, major news. It involves the integrity of my profession, and everything I stand for. He has disgraced our entire profession. In the same way 'Xerox' has become part of our lexicon, in my profession slimy prosecutorial tactics are now known as 'being Nifonged.' He needs to be out.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2901555

"Nifonged" does have a nice ring to it. Just kinda rolls off the tongue.

An inept, corrupt prosecutor DESTROYS the lives of these lacrosse players and the biggest punishment he faces is the loss of his license to practice in the state of North Carolina. Pathetic!!! My understanding is that these young men have no recourse in civil court.

 

So, to summarize. A JUDGE files a $54 million dollar lawsuit against the owners of a dry cleaning business as compensation for a lost pair of pants and some guys who have their reputations annihilated by a rogue prosecutor have no recourse.

An inept, corrupt prosecutor DESTROYS the lives of these lacrosse players and the biggest punishment he faces is the loss of his license to practice in the state of North Carolina. Pathetic!!! My understanding is that these young men have no recourse in civil court.

 

So, to summarize. A JUDGE files a $54 million dollar lawsuit against the owners of a dry cleaning business as compensation for a lost pair of pants and some guys who have their reputations annihilated by a rogue prosecutor have no recourse.

Sounds about right. Hard to rationalize God blessing a lot of what goes on in America these days. Home sweet home...

I wonder about how many people have been railroaded to jail because of sleazy guys like this? It's terrifying...

Perhaps Hearsay can comment on this and I do applaud his sense of duty to bring in as a commented point. In Kentucky ethical violations, etc. are measured by Rule 11 actions. Why are these measures done in such secrecy and guarded commentary? In my particular matter, the words abuse of court procedures to delay and deflect, purposeful and wilfull neglect of responsibility of officer of the court, failure to properly prepare, etc. This involved a significant civil matter, involved personally over 18K in legal fees and the charge back to this clown was measured to the tune of 6,000 and a private censure?!

 

As commented by the judge, it does not happen much and they just need to make a point not hurt his practice!?

Judge leaves courtroom in tears after talking about his lost pants

 

I hope Nifing gets his but IMVHO the legal profession has way to many like this guy. Even if he loses the case chances are that the people he is victimizing will be forced out of business because of what it's costing them to defend themselves. How is that fair or just? And this corrupt judge has the audacity to say he's just protecting ordinary citizens.

 

How much did it cost the Duke players and their families to defend themselves against an overzealous prosecutor who was thinking only of his political career and not the lives that he disrupted.

 

Why is it that our system is set up in such a way that even if you win, you lose and the only people that come out ahead are the attorneys?

 

Major changes need to be made but since attorneys make up a majority of most legislative bodies I won't hold my breath.

 

Before nationalized health care maybe there needs to be nationalized legal care where the government will provide legal services for everyone regardless of wealth? Many lawyers (like John Edwards) like the idea for health care. Shuldn't they practice what they preach?

An inept, corrupt prosecutor DESTROYS the lives of these lacrosse players and the biggest punishment he faces is the loss of his license to practice in the state of North Carolina. Pathetic!!! My understanding is that these young men have no recourse in civil court.

 

So, to summarize. A JUDGE files a $54 million dollar lawsuit against the owners of a dry cleaning business as compensation for a lost pair of pants and some guys who have their reputations annihilated by a rogue prosecutor have no recourse.

I think losing his ability to earn a living is pretty severe. It wouldn't be in just North Carolina, but everywhere. Pretty similar to losing a CPA license forever.

I think losing his ability to earn a living is pretty severe. It wouldn't be in just North Carolina, but everywhere. Pretty similar to losing a CPA license forever.

And yet if it was Joe Citizen who used his job to damage another person for personal gain, not only would he/she lose their job they would likely face civil damages as well.

 

And who wants to bet that regardless of the outcome Nifong has a sweet book deal set up to "tell his side of the story".

 

The attorneys have stacked the deck in their favor at the cost of average citizens everywhere.

 

I understand the concept of prosecutorial immunity and I agree that a some version of it needs to be in place BUT if it can be proven that a prosecutor abused his position and knowingly pursued a bogus case or through misconduct prevented a fair case for the defendents then that shield should not apply.

And yet if it was Joe Citizen who used his job to damage another person for personal gain, not only would he/she lose their job they would likely face civil damages as well.

 

And who wants to bet that regardless of the outcome Nifong has a sweet book deal set up to "tell his side of the story".

 

The attorneys have stacked the deck in their favor at the cost of average citizens everywhere.

 

I understand the concept of prosecutorial immunity and I agree that a some version of it needs to be in place BUT if it can be proven that a prosecutor abused his position and knowingly pursued a bogus case or through misconduct prevented a fair case for the defendents then that shield should not apply.

Don't get me wrong, I think this guy should be prosecuted. Prosecutorial immunity has its place for good reason, but its based upon the good intents of the prosecutor. Immunity should never protect misconduct.

One other thing I heard last night on O'Reilly (and I don't know how accurate it is but it cam from an attorney on his show), since Nifong is in an elected position even if he is disbarred he may not automatically lose his job. If he is disbarred and refuses to resign he could force the state to go to the expense of impeaching him.

These are all very valid points.

 

Rule 11 is at play in every state and federal court. You all are correct that it is not utilized very often. I cannot tell you why. In 10 years of private practice, I can recall filing only 1 motion for Rule 11 sanctions, which I did not get. The case settled before any ruling was made. Certainly, there is some element to it that "those in glass houses," and we don't go after one another because of that. However, the large majority I think is that there is very little in any case that is filed that is black and white, there is always a whole lot of grey on both sides and therefore you rarely can meet the standard for calling something "frivolous."

 

As for prosecutors, this type of stuff goes on every day in every state in the union. This one just got a lot of press. I don't subscribe to AllTell's theory that the system is set up to benefit lawyers, and anyone who has ever had a government lawyer knows why we don't want universal legal practice, but I do agree with him that the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity should not protect knowing violations of the law.

I think losing his ability to earn a living is pretty severe. It wouldn't be in just North Carolina, but everywhere. Pretty similar to losing a CPA license forever.

 

I agree with you to a point. However, the possible punishment in no way addresses the damage wrought upon the Duke kids. IMO this is much more important that the loss of one's ability to earn a living especially since this prosecutor cut his own throat. Career suicide is a self inflicted punishment.

I don't subscribe to AllTell's theory that the system is set up to benefit lawyers, and anyone who has ever had a government lawyer knows why we don't want universal legal practice, but I do agree with him that the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity should not protect knowing violations of the law.

How is it not? In a civil action that goes to court if I'm the defendent and I prevail I'm still out whatever it cost me to pay my attorney and in most cases it is substantial. Unlike the plaintiff my attorney wants to be paid, he's not working on contingency. I have in effect been penalized when the proponderance of the evidence (i think that is the term) did not prove that I did anything wrong. How many winning defendents have had to close businesses, have lost homes, etc. even when they won. I ask again how is that right and just? The same is true in a criminal case.

 

As to universal legal practice, why would that be any less desireable then universal health care? Heaven know many attorneys favor that. We hear the outcry because the poor can not access the same level of health care as the rich so that system should be changed to level it. Why shouldn't the same be true of legal care that people that are less then wealthy can get? If I'm accused of a crime why shouldn't I have access to the same level of legal care as say a Paris Hilton who can aford to pay a large sum to fight a relatively minor matter or an OJ Simpson who can get away with murder because he can afford a "dream team" of attorneys?

How is it not? In a civil action that goes to court if I'm the defendent and I prevail I'm still out whatever it cost me to pay my attorney and in most cases it is substantial. Unlike the plaintiff my attorney wants to be paid, he's not working on contingency. I have in effect been penalized when the proponderance of the evidence (i think that is the term) did not prove that I did anything wrong. How many winning defendents have had to close businesses, have lost homes, etc. even when they won. I ask again how is that right and just? The same is true in a criminal case.

 

As to universal legal practice, why would that be any less desireable then universal health care? Heaven know many attorneys favor that. We hear the outcry because the poor can not access the same level of health care as the rich so that system should be changed to level it. Why shouldn't the same be true of legal care that people that are less then wealthy can get? If I'm accused of a crime why shouldn't I have access to the same level of legal care as say a Paris Hilton who can aford to pay a large sum to fight a relatively minor matter or an OJ Simpson who can get away with murder because he can afford a "dream team" of attorneys?

 

I am going to respond with as much restraint as I can, because I do not want to become dragged into an emotional battle. I want you to know that I respect all of your viewpoints, and you present them well, and you and I have had some good discussions about these things over the last couple of years.

 

But here is the fact. The vast majority of Plaintiffs in this country are small businesses. They sue people far more than any other type of individual Plaintiff. They sue other small businesses. They make a lot of frivolous claims, themselves, and are far more responsible for the costs of the court system than individual plaintiffs who file suits.

 

Second, in the vast majority of cases involving substantial dollar amounts, the Defendant has an insurance policy that provides the cost of defense. They might be out their deductible, but even that is not in every case. This makes sense because Plaintiff's attorneys usually won't even take the case if their is not insurance, and 99.9% of all cases settle within the policy limits, so very few Defendants are "losing everything."

 

Third, the fact that you receive a defense verdict does not equate to you having done nothing wrong, just as OJ Simpson being found not guilty does not mean that he did not kill Nicole Brown Simpson. Trust me, judges are more than willing to clear their dockets by granting the defendant summary judgment before a trial, and in cases where the defendant is clean as a lily they always make motions for summary judgment. When those motions aren't granted, it means there is enough proof for a jury to decide.

 

Finally, I will agree to your "loser pays" proposal on attorney fees, if you will agree that the sword cuts both ways. If a Plaintiff wins, OR SETTLES, for even so much as $1, then the Defendant has to pay for all of the Plaintiff's attorney fees, costs, and expenses required for bringing the suit.

 

You know as well as I do why the insurance industry will never, ever, agree to that. For the same reason the public high schools in the KHSAA will never, ever agree to hiring private investigators to investigate recruiting. They don't want the microscope pointed in their direction.

 

I'm not going to get into allegations that lawsuits drive insurance rates up. By now you know that its not true.

 

As for universal legal practice, I am opposed to that as I am opposed to universal health care. Just as you know that with such health care you will get cruddy treatment, by the same token you will get cruddy legal work.