Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
If only this was the case. Personally I would prefer a lawyer who lives in the real world. Defamation claims often incorporate fairly emotional language, particularly if malice or aggravated damages are claimed. If Mr Riggio did blaime Parneros for the sale falling through and acted as claimed, the pleading is very relevant as is. And, in the US, I expect at least the defamation part of the trial will be before a jury. So much for "emotional language" not being used. Cases indeed should be decided on their merits in a courtroom. Sadly, this is not always the case. Courts are very sensitive to publicity about cases before the Court, but they cannot control it perfectly.
|
I understand what you're saying, but I still think the emotional pleading should be left for the jury — not in press releases or in the motions. I'm also not convinced that "real world" lawyers need this kind of emotional, juvenile language. I think the FACTS (providing there are valid facts to bolster the case) are much more effective when presented in a cold, calculated, step-by-step manner. It makes the lawyer look competent and confident — even if he's only bluffing.