Jan 11, 2012 · Female lawyer who stands just 3ft 8ins in court sues witness who laughed hysterically at her and started singing ‘Hi Ho’ A dwarf prosecutor in is suing a man she called as a witness in a court case - after he broke down laughing in court at her size.
Jan 12, 2012 · A dwarf prosecutor in is suing a man she called as a witness in a court case - after he broke down laughing in court at her size. Silke Schoenfleisch-Backofen, 39, is a little lady with a big name, and an even greater sense of right and wrong. She may stand only 3ft 8in high but Ms Schoenfleish-Backofen punches well above her legal weight as many villains in Frankfurt have …
3ft 8in lawyer sues witness who laughed at her and sang 'Hi Ho' dailymail.co.uk/news/a... 11 comments ... The article suggests that the witness was on the stand and refusing to answer questions during the incident. ... Ted Cruz says it's 'offensive' and an 'insult' that Biden pledged to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. yahoo.com ...
Similarly, a lawyer who might be permitted to simultaneously serve as an advocate and a witness by paragraph (a)(3) might be precluded from doing so by Rule 1.9. The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party.
The problem can arise whether the lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing.
A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.
[2] The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as proof or as an analysis of the proof.
Whether the tribunal is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the nature of the case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer's testimony, and the probability that the lawyer's testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses.
An attorney was working late one night in his office when, suddenly, Satan appeared before him. The Devil made him an offer. “I will make it so you win every case that you try for the rest of your life. Your clients will worship you, your colleagues will be in awe, and you will make enormous amounts of money. But, in return, you must give me your soul, your wife’s soul, the souls of your children, your parents, grandparents, and those of all the your friends.” The lawyer thought about it for a moment, then asked, “But what’s the catch?”
What’s the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer? A bad lawyer might let a case drag on for several years. A good lawyer knows how to make it last even longer.
The Hindu says, “I’m humble, I’ll sleep in the barn.”.
When Grandma Goes To Court. Lawyers should never ask a Mississippi grandma a question if they aren’t prepared for the answer. In a trial, a Southern small-town prosecuting attorney called his first witness, a grandmotherly, elderly woman to the stand.
That claim we can certainly put to rest, in that the story of the old lady on the stand who delivers scathingly accurate character assessments of the lawyers present appeared in a self-published collection of jokes and anecdotes by British author Charlie Walker in 2000.
Not to mention he cheated on his wife with three different women. Yes, I know him.”. The defense attorney almost fainted and was seen slipping downward in his chair, looking at the floor. Laughter, mixed with gasps, thundered throughout the court room and the audience was on the verge of chaos.
Female Lawyers Penalized For Assertive Behavior Required By The Job. Although assertiveness and self-promotion are often needed to succeed in the legal field, women often feel that they must walk a tightrope. If they are too assertive, then they are criticized for not behaving in a ladylike fashion.
Female Supreme Court justices are more likely to be interrupted, with 65.9% of all interruptions on the court directed at the three female justices on the bench (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan). The same apparently applies to lawyers questioned in the present study with almost half of the female lawyers surveyed being interrupted in meetings, compared to only about a third of men. “White men don’t realize how much ‘space’ belongs to them or that they unconsciously feel that they own space. They frequently interrupt others, but if a woman on a conference call states her thoughts, she’s immediately criticized as interrupting,” described one female lawyer in the study.
2. List hiring qualifications. In order to eliminate bias in hiring, organizations should write down exactly what qualifications are expected for a particular job.
1. Use metrics. Keep track to determine if there are pay differences, difference in performance ratings, or difference in types of assignments given to different groups. In particular, organizations should examine if these metrics differ by gender, race or parents returning from leave.
As if it’s not bad enough to get paid less, have clean-up duty, and suffer frequent interruptions, female lawyers in this study also reported that they have fewer networking opportunities and less access to prime assignments then their male counterparts.
In public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Sondland implicated Mr. Trump and Pompeo in the purported "quid pro quo" and claimed top government officials knew of the arrangement. Mr. Trump was ultimately impeached by the House on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress in December 2019.
Gordon Sond land compared to John Dean. Gordon Sondland compared to John Dean 06:01. Washington — Gordon Sondland, the former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union who was a key witness in the 2019 impeachment proceedings against former President Donald Trump, filed suit against the U.S. government and ex-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday, ...
Sondland, who was fired after his bombshell testimony in the impeachment probe, said he incurred nearly $1.8 million in legal fees and accused Pompeo of abandoning his pledge that the State Department would cover his costs for political convenience. "If Pompeo did not have the authority to bind the government, Pompeo went rogue ...
Trump. The lawsuit says Sondland was reimbursed $86,040 for his legal costs, but he argues that is far less than Pompeo's promise for "full reimbursement" by the federal government.
Calling his testimony "highly fraught, highly charged and highly risky with tremendous consequences," Sondland's lawyers said he learned that "testifying truthfully and candidly before Congress as cameras roll was in fact a fireable offense in Pompeo's" State Department.
Recalling a conversation with the counselor to the Department of State, Ulrich Brechbuhl, in early February 2020, Sondland said he was advised the Trump administration wanted to "purge everyone" connected to the impeachment trial, and Brechbuhl asked for his resignation. Sondland, however, refused to resign, arguing he did nothing improper.