JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
There is no law that says a client get's one shot and has to ride it out to the end, take their beating... and the only recourse is to sue the attorney that represented them... after the fact.
Actually this is exactly what the law is. As one example see Kung v. FOM Inv. Corp., 563 F.2d 1316. "Moreover, while it may seem unfair to Kung that the delays of his attorneys should be visited upon him, litigants are bound by the conduct of their attorneys, absent egregious circumstances which are not present here." Client's case dismissed due to his lawyer's lack of diligence.
 
Actually this is exactly what the law is. As one example see Kung v. FOM Inv. Corp., 563 F.2d 1316. "Moreover, while it may seem unfair to Kung that the delays of his attorneys should be visited upon him, litigants are bound by the conduct of their attorneys, absent egregious circumstances which are not present here." Client's case dismissed due to his lawyer's lack of diligence.
Oh, COME ON!! :s0118:

They should've named that case Kung v. Fu
 
So Albuquerque has a "gun emergency" but New Orleans and Chicago don't? 😆

Even though Albuquerque's murder rate was lower in June than last year at same time.


Currently at 73 murders w/ 83% attributed to firearms.

Meanwhile Chicago at about 1400 shootings and 363 murders as of Aug 3 so definitely more now, lol.

 
Actually this is exactly what the law is. As one example see Kung v. FOM Inv. Corp., 563 F.2d 1316. "Moreover, while it may seem unfair to Kung that the delays of his attorneys should be visited upon him, litigants are bound by the conduct of their attorneys, absent egregious circumstances which are not present here." Client's case dismissed due to his lawyer's lack of diligence.
I realize you are just trying to argue your point, but you keep changing the context to match your argument.

If you recall, the context of the whole discussion was the NM AG "not" giving her highness his notice that he would not, in good conscience, represent the administrative action... and simply went in with the intent to torpedo her highness. That would have constituted professional misconduct... or as you so aptly pointed out... an "egregious circumstance".

In that event the client would not be bound to "ride it out" with the AG and could have called for an extension to seek new council.

But then you switched the narrative again to apply to "absent egregious circumstances" to make further argument.

The law is not one size fits all and what is allowed or not depends on the circumstances of the case... or the context of the hypothetical. While you're not wrong in your arguments, as they apply to your selective context, they do not apply in the original context.

That's all I have to comment on this rabbit hole. It was just a tangent hypothetical..... :s0155:
 
Wow... even CNN is tearing her a new one.


Just hitting some of the highlights with commentary:
 
Last Edited:
Very interesting video in that a beuacrat fired from Oregon is hired in NM and helps install unconstitutional law.

Oregon democrats, a cancer on the nation.
Let us not forget that this is a concerted, organized effort to dismantle the second amendment and disarm the American public. If anyone had any doubts they should be gone now.
They have they're a little agents/operatives everywhere.
 

Upcoming Events

Rifle Mechanics
Sweet Home, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors May 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Handgun Self Defense Fundamentals
Sweet Home, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top