Hmmm…
But hasn’t it been proven that in fact he was, as he was mentally abused by these people and then rendered delusional because of their behavior. So his past mental health was a “disability”, making him part of a protected class???
So …
Certainly at the time, and since the police put zero effort into investigation, they couldn’t know how it was effecting his mental state. How fragile he was …
Which was something he suffered and worked to improve since forever…
But they didn’t even seem to even try to understand his complaints such that they may have determined that his distress and the harassment was creating a potentially much bigger problem for a person with a history.
Even if the end result was simply that during an assault at the hands of these people he mentally broke and now can’t defend himself with his side of what happened.
She did, but we know she can’t keep her story straight, like ever. So she wants to be a victim, permanently harmed, but also the heroin who overcomes…
And she tries to go back and forth thinking no one will notice to hypocrisy of the two personas.
The protected classes are age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership, and pregnancy and maternity.
If you want to go with “disability”, as in mental illness, then you have to prove that the discrimination was BECAUSE of his membership in the protected class.
In other words, the botched investigation wasn’t mere police incompetence, and it wasn’t because they believed the little blond lady over the strapping tall man. You’d have to prove that the police discriminated against him (failed to investigate) because of the mental illness.
If you use the find feature (the magnifying glass on the upper right hand corner) and limit it a particular thread and use a word or phrase that you recall, or even the poster’s name, it can be rather helpful. Not perfect, but handy.
Just FYI, they seem to have made a major upgrade to the website… so navigate it a bit before you try - I have no idea if it will work as before. My previous link gave me a 404 error, but I navigated around to find this part.
Question for the legal people here - I was watching a YouTube livestream by a group of lawyers (family law and defense council). The discussion was primarily about domestic abuse and legal options and what the family law attorney mentioned (If I understand the discussion correctly) was that him being hired by a client might be protected by privilege. Outside of a court case, he said that if another lawyer asks if he is representing the client (for example, the spouse’s lawyer), he does not have to disclose that information.
So my question is, up until what point in a case can a lawyer keep this information hidden? Clearly JK and KK are well past this point, but I’m just curious what the process here is.
By the way, both attorneys in the livestream mentioned that they warn clients that its not good for 1 attorney to represent both partners. They mentioned that there might be ethical issues and issues regarding privilege if the couples ever went to court - something about how conversations might not be protected under privilege? Would any of the lawyer peeps here be willing to expand on that?
Wow! I don’t like the new version. And I’m a bit concerned there are only a few counties listed. Perhaps only counties with active sessions are shown now.
okay so, the question of privilege specifically in the context of family law is a problem.
The presence of another party generally implies that the communication is not confidential, even if both parties are clients of the same attorney. If you are involved in a joint defense, then that’s fine. If, however, you and the other spouse are in an adversarial proceeding, the communication isn’t privileged to both parties.
In other words, multiple attorneys can represent one client and enjoy privilege, but one attorney can’t represent two clients, speak to both of them at the same time, and have that communication be privileged as it relates to either of them. This is a stated exception to privilege in my state:
" (5) Joint Clients. As to a communication relevant to a matter of common interest between or among two or more clients if the communication was made by any one of them to an attorney retained or consulted in common, when offered in an action between or among any of the clients;"
There’s ethical issues with having the same attorney. The attorney’s sworn duty is to zealously protect and pursue a client’s legitimate interests. If you are representing two clients where protecting the interests of one is to the detriment of the other, then you have an ethical situation that violates the professional standards.
No, the business is the client. This goes to the issue of incorporation structure but most businesses are incorporated in structures that limit the liability of their individual owners/shareholders/etc.
The “inc” in incorporated business name relieves the owners of personal liability. So a business can go bankrupt but the owners are not personally bankrupt.
