Court Analysis
Why Attorneys think the law is unpredictable.
Clients often ask attorneys to make clear and certain predictions about the outcome of their case. But attorneys (including us) are extremely reticent to too confidently promise specific results, even in the face of favorable circumstances.
This page is designed to highlight exactly why law firms are often hesitant to give clear predictions.
Why it is always perilous to put your grievances before a judicial officer.
What do we mean when we say judges have unpredictable opinions?
Here is an example:
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that consumers cannot expect boneless chicken wings to actually be free of bones, rejecting claims by a restaurant patron who suffered serious medical complications from getting a bone stuck in his throat.
In a 4-3 ruling, the court said “boneless wings” refers to a cooking style, and that the claimant should’ve been on guard against bones since it’s common knowledge that chickens have bones.
Court’s don’t always see your way, even if your reasoning is sound by common standards. Us? We are more upset that breaded chicken breast can now technically be sold as a ‘Wing’ in Ohio.
And there are many other examples of stunning judicial questions like:
What this means for you:
Your attorney shouldn’t be afraid to litigate. Motions practice is a regular part of our job. But be ready to get thrown some curveballs by the robes behind the bench.
How this can be used to your advantage:
Judges are people. This makes them fallible, but it also makes them sympathetic and compassionate if you tell your story right. Find an attorney that can cut to the essential bones of your narrative to preserve the best path forward while still advocating for your best interests.
Most of the time, Judges are more interested in getting things ‘right’ (as they see it) than punishing people. The trick is to get them to sway in your favor with masterful storytelling. This is part of the attorney’s role.
Court cases where Judges show their humanity:
US v States, 242 Fed. Appx. 362 (7th Cir. 2007):
“This case is unbelievably frivolous. We AFFIRM.”
From the Supreme Court:
“A fish is, of course, a discrete thing that possesses physical form. See generally Dr. Seuss, One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish (1960).”
In 1985, a sovereign citizen sued himself in a bogus tax avoidance scheme. The court remarks:
“In the circumstances, this result cannot be unfair to Mr. Lodi. Although it is true that, as plaintiff and appellant, he loses, it is equally true that, as defendant and respondent, he wins! It is hard to imagine a more even handed application of justice.”
When the police arrested a bystander who caught a drunk driver, and let the drunk driver go. The court remarked:
“For those who worry that qualified immunity can be invoked under absurd circumstances: Buckle up.”
When confronted with a procedural nightmare, the 2nd Federal Circuit exclaimed:
Our principal task, in this diversity of citizenship case, is to determine what the New York courts would think the California courts would think on an issue about which neither has thought.
Schedule a no obligation case evaluation
Other pages you may be interested in
