That $39k award

Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.

I sure hope the momentary victory was worth it.

Lynn K.

"Lynn K." wrote:

Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.


OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

"Lynn K." wrote:

Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.


OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

"Lynn K." wrote:

Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.


OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

"Lynn K." wrote:

Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.


OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

THe attorney can only give advice - they may have told the client that
it wasn't worth it but the client still wanted to follow through...

Shelley & Rusty
http://rusty.bump.us


Amy Dahl wrote:

"Lynn K." wrote:


Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.



OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

THe attorney can only give advice - they may have told the client that
it wasn't worth it but the client still wanted to follow through...

Shelley & Rusty
http://rusty.bump.us


Amy Dahl wrote:

"Lynn K." wrote:


Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.



OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

THe attorney can only give advice - they may have told the client that
it wasn't worth it but the client still wanted to follow through...

Shelley & Rusty
http://rusty.bump.us


Amy Dahl wrote:

"Lynn K." wrote:


Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.



OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

THe attorney can only give advice - they may have told the client that
it wasn't worth it but the client still wanted to follow through...

Shelley & Rusty
http://rusty.bump.us


Amy Dahl wrote:

"Lynn K." wrote:


Chris had mentioned a recent Orange Cnty case where a man was awarded
$9k for vet bills and $30k for the loss of his dog. (the Bluestone
case) It's precedent setting because it's the 1st case in CA that has
awarded more than the market value of the animal & actual costs.
Chris also said that he was uncomfortable after talking to the
plaintiff. I can see why. I met tonight with some animal law
attorneys and we chatted briefly about the case as we were waiting for
someone. The presiding Superior Court judge noted the $30k portion of
the jury award as illegal and uncollectable. But more than that - the
plaintiff racked up more than $500k in legal bills, $70K and $80k of
which are to 2 different law firms that are currently suing him
because those amounts are still unpaid.



OK, stupid question here. Isn't it his lawyers' responsibility to know
the award is illegal and uncollectable, and to advise him to quit?

Amy Dahl

"Shelley B" wrote in message
...
THe attorney can only give advice - they may have told the client that
it wasn't worth it but the client still wanted to follow through...

Then why would the attorney continue - when he had a pretty good idea that
he wasn't going to get paid for his work? It's not like he was assigned to
the case by the court.
--
~~Judy
Spenser - Carbor Talk of the Town, NA
Sassy - Can CH Carbor Back Talk