2007-09-07 - 10:19 p.m.
Here's my proposal: Fact or fiction??
IF fiction, its a wonderful proposal for a novel idea. I need to get those books on how to get published that tell the right lingo for a proposal;
IF FACT: A job opportunity. And STILL a great book proposal. Perhaps then even a better book idea as truth is often stranger than fiction:
However an unexpected stressor occurs which shakes the very core of the good hearted, dedicated attorney and renders the attorney so upset and disgruntled and frankly DEPRESSED about this work on the case.
You see, one of the bosses of the firm made it clear IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that this attorney is not to invest time on this case.
The attorney however struggles with feeling like this client DESERVES a fair fight. The attorney pours a glass of wine to calm nerves and stays late at the office AFTER HOURS and works his/her butt off on the file that he/she was ordered to stop work on.
After all, the attorney is still on record as the advocate for that client.
Then in the MOST UPSETTING event of all, the very day of a pivotal hearing, the attorney IS TOLD BY THE BOSS THAT HE IS GOING TO COURT ON THIS CASE- and he/she, the retained attorney, IS NOT (After all, the client retained THE FIRM)
THere is SOMETHING VERY STRANGE GOING ON.
TO MAKE MATTERS WORSE
A FILING WAS MADE THE VERY DAY OF THE CASE, IN A CLEAR FORUM SHOPPING MOVE, IN THE NAME OF THIS GOOD HEARTED KIND CAPABLE ATTORNEY WHO IS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO DO HIS/HER JOB and the case WAS THAT DAY PULLED FROM A COURT WHERE IT WAS TO BE HEARD and placed on the DOCKET at another court which is one in which the SOCIAL MORES are that the Federal Rules of Evidence are more strictly and narrowly construed than in the original court the case was on the docket for. Despite the fact of BOTH courts ostensibly applying THE SAME LAW and SAME STANDARDS, the DE FACTO REALITY IS THAT THEY BOTH HAVE A NORM WHICH HAS A FEW SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETING PROCEDURAL REGULATIONS.
HE/She continues to drink at the office after hours.
Now his/her family life is suffering.
HE/She was afraid to not go along with the directives as the job feeds his/her family-- but now this is so overwhelming that her family is compromised by his/her depression and loss of faith in his/her work and loss of faith in the firm and ability to truly help people as he/she felt called to do. The attorney's ability to trust is severely undermined.
NOw the hired attorney's spouse has had enough, and the hired attorney who spiraled into drink loses his/her marriage as the spouse is leaving.
That is the last straw! The attorney quits, hangs his/her own shingle, and hires the client as an office assistant. The attorney felt so responsible for harm already done in the case, that hiring the client was the only possible way left to offer help which the attorney felt ethically obligated to do.
The attorney and former client joined forces in a TORT suit for damages against the old firm. Emotional distress and economic harm are the grounds which they both claim as a result of the firm's treatment of both that one attorney and client.