Quote:
Originally Posted by rcentros
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.
|
Interesting. I agree with you that lawyers, like any profession or trade, run the gamut from brilliant to incompetent. Otherwise I see where you are coming from but I can't agree. The real world is a rough place, and humans are far from perfect, myself included. But if he was sacked on a pretext when the real reason was that he was blamed for the collapse of the sale I can't think of any materially different way to plead it in the proceedings. And to leave it out would prejudice the case.
I should also point out when I refer to pleadings here I am referring to the allegations of fact in the originating process. These allegations must be sufficient to justify your claim if they can be proven to be more probable than not by evidence. There are some particular matters where you must also provide detailed particulars of your claim. You can't leave part of it out and bring it up before a jury later. The legal rules applying to not only pleadings but also things like discovery, further particulars, deposing witnesses etc. are all directed at ensuring that each party is well aware of the opposing case. This has obvious benefits. Neither court rules nor judges generally condone deliberately taking ones opponent by surprise.