Taxpayer Legal Malpractice suits.

[nicki]

I know that this is a stretch and I have my flame suit on.

The LCAV is offering to defend cities/counties for free, but like a medical Doctor or in fact any profession, that doesn't give them a shield from professional malpractice.

If the LCAV did not come forward to offer to defend undefendable positions, many of these cities/counties would settle.

As a result of the LCAV actions, the cities/counties will be liable for damages that they would not otherwise have to pay (Alan, Don and Jason's legal fees).

I know that if a person presents themselve as a competent medical doctor and offers "free services", they are still liable for medical malpractice.

If a Doctor offered to perform a free circumcision and in the process left you 4 to 5 inches short, you certainly could sue for damages if you were left with an angry inch.

I know that if I hired attorneys and their legal work quality was what the Brady Bunch/LCAV have filed in legal cases, I would fire them.

If I had an employee that hired them, and I lost a lawsuit that I could have settled cheaply, but know I have a large judgement against me, I would fire the employee, then sue the Law Firm for Legal Malpractice.

In perspective, the taxpayers are supposed to be the bosses over the elected officials (employees) and if the elected officials screw up by contracting with an incompetent lawfirm, aren't the taxpayers a injured party?

This wouldn't be something Calguns would do, rather it would be something local Taxpayer rights groups could consider. Of course there is nothing to stop us from bringing to their attention.

So, I have donned the Flame suit.

Nicki

[J-cat]

If a Doctor offered to perform a free circumcision and in the process left you 4 to 5 inches short, you certainly could sue for damages if you were left with an angry inch.

Nicki

You have a way with words that will brighten anyone's day.

[sighere]

You are correct. The offer to defend might sound good to a city facing legal fees in defending a lawsuit. However, as you say if they lose the case and wind up on the hook for costs and fees to the prevailing party, the "free" representation is not so free. Anyone, a municipality included, needs to actively participate in their own defense. Naturally LCAV attorneys will be biased and urge the city to fight rather than settle or change their policies to conform with the law.

In this early stage of the game, the LCAV attorney can easily make the argument that:
1. The level of scrutiny for 2A cases is not settled.
2. 12050 still does grant "discretion", and most lawsuits out there today are not challenging 12050 head on, so there is truly case and controversy to be hashed out.

Naturally, we hope cities will begin to settle/lose these cases. As more and more do the above argument will begin to fail, and cities will be put on notice that "free" legal representation may just get them a big fat attorney bill when they lose.

These are truly exciting times!

[Purple K]

You get what you pay for. Free can be VERY expensive!

[snobord99]

First, the taxpayer probably won't have standing. As true as it is that the taxpayers are the ones who have to foot the bill, it's pretty well settled that taxpayers don't have standing just by virtue of being a taxpayer.

Second, there doesn't seem to be malpractice. Whether one settles or goes to trial is ultimately the client's decision. Just because an attorney convinces you that you can win doesn't mean they've committed malpractice. It's like if you rear-end someone and you hire an attorney. The attorney says "I think we can show the other party was liable" and you believe them and decline to settle and proceed to trial, losing that doesn't then mean the attorney committed malpractice. If that was the case, every client who loses their case could claim the attorney committed malpractice. Malpractice is much more serious than "he lost when he told me he could win."

[HowardW56]

You have a way with words that will brighten anyone's day.

Or make a minor procedure terrifying...

[383green]

It takes unique skill for one to threadjack themself in their original post!

[Merle]

Or make a minor procedure terrifying...

IIRC, SF is now attempting to ban circumcisions. Makes you wonder about the arguments from those who have done on their children for religious (1A) or on woman (14A) purposes.

[753X0]

Irrelevant...

IIRC, SF is now attempting to ban circumcisions. Makes you wonder about the arguments from those who have done on their children for religious (1A) or on woman (14A) purposes.

Neither. It's all about Gavin's 'preferences".

[mymonkeyman]

Taxpayer standing is difficult but anyone can file a complaint with the state bar.