One reaction to the Supreme Court’s Barrett v. Jones, Funderburg decision yesterday
Grady Tollison writes:
As I read Barrett, et al. v. Jones, Funderburg, Sessums, Peterson and Lee, PLLC, the only interpretation is that if a group of lawyers acting in concert in the collective interest of the group moves the court collectively to move a case to arbitration as the act of the partnership and one of the partners bribes the judge to accomplish the goal that was sought on behalf of the partnership and the non-bribing partners, even though they sought the same exact result in a motion before the court in the partnership interest, are not held accountable the party that opposed the partnership is punished by the delay . That is troubling for the legal profession. It does not seem reasonable that it was not in furtherance of the partnership seeking to accomplish by bribe what the entire partnership was trying to accomplish by motion. I do not see the distinction between , but that is just me after more than forty years of reading decisions by our and other courts of record.
Grady F. Tollison
I don’t understand Tollison’s lack of understanding.
Suppose Scruggs had decided the way to handle the Barretts was to hold their children hostage and threaten to kill them if the Barretts didn’t dismiss their suit with prejudice.
That’s what the partnership wanted, right? The suit gone?
So Scruggs would’ve accomplished the same goal the partnership was actively pursuing. But I’m perfectly okay exonerating the partners for Scruggs’s going off the reservation, provided they didn’t know about it.
(But I freely confess to legal ignorance here. What if Scruggs had been in charge of the tax filings and had defrauded the IRS — would the p’ship be criminally liable then? Some case law is what needs to be discussed here. really.)
Izzat a 100% perfect copy of Mr. Tollison’s statement? It doesn’t scan smoothly, and multiple uses of “not” in the same sentence are like mountain road switchbacks. But I think I follow what he’s saying. Or not. He musta dictated that letter and signed it without reading it.
Suppose two lawyers, A and B, form a joint venture to represent a victim of a car crash. A is in charge of filing the complaint. For some reason, there are no “red flags”, A blows the statute. The client sues A and B. B argues that blowing the statute was certainly not something that was contemplated when he and A entered into the joint venture, and that A’s negligent conduct is outside the scope of the joint venture. In sum, B argues that A is the only possible defendant.
What’s the ruling and why?
I say their liability is joint and several. Simple tort negligence case. Two or more defendants … let the defendants sort it out between/among themselves after the plaintiff has recovered his damages. Same as suing the surgeon, the anesthesiologist, the radiologist, and all the other usual suspects.
Good grief Grady. That’s the longest sentence I’ve ever seen.
“Scoreboard, scoreboard…”
Ben, it’s cut and paste
BREAKING NEWS. New Federal Magistrate for the Southern District is Keith Ball. Judge Winston Kidd’s name has been submitted for the Fifth Circuit.
Anderson, would that hostage,threat scenerio use the family & friends network supportive of state officials and politicians or would Dicky use his might to assign a special group to handle such matters. Just wondering
I’m with Ben. These are the same rules that apply to everyone else, why should it be different for lawyers? Isn’t that sort of thinking what got us here to begin with?
Like I said, I don’t know p’ship law, but it seems inequitable for there to be no exceptions.
Partners A and B want to buy some land from C who won’t sell. B, unknown to A, holds C at gunpoint to make C sign a deed.
Why is A equally liable for B’s tort?