This happens ALL the time! I got hit by a lady one time and she called her insurance company while I was right there had them on speakerphone and told them that it was 100% her fault. My insurance claim got denied saying that I was the one that hit her. Apparently the insurance company changed her answer. Infuriating!!!
Just wanted to thank you I spoke to one of your reps when I inquired . They were lovely my issue was outside the scope of your organization however I was very happy with who I spoke too
A willful misrepresentation on an official filing document, with intent to defraud, is probably unethical? Man, the Bar Association is finally getting tough!
My insurance company broke ties with a law firm because one of their lawyers did this. We told the firm's senior partners and they ignored our complaint. It wound up working great for us because we hired a lawyer to work at our company rather than hire a firm to represent us. When i left the company, we had complete control over the legal department's behavior rather than relying on an outside firm.
I've had my interrogators' answers changed by my lawyer. I had evidence and put down my contact info. When I got the next revision back, my contact info was removed with no explanation given. They didn't reach out to me to see what the evidence was either. Insurance lawyers are shady af.
Georgia courts operate in front of the jury as if insurance companies don’t exist, so the jury is made to believe that the lawyer for the defendant is the lawyer for the guy who was in the car crash.
IMHO, bring this up in open court so that the judge can do some reaming in front of the jury to make sure that they don't hold this against the defendant.
A lawyer's objective should ALWAYS be to do the best thing for their client. Yes, taking this to court could result in the plaintiff's attorney being dragged over coals, but the length of time that it takes and the cost of the proceeding and continued legal representation is often a burden on the defendant. This is why settlements are often pursued, and this evidence of malpractice can be leveraged to get a far better settlement for your client and a better payout vs taking it to trial. Tldr: do what helps your side the most, not what hurts the other side the most
@@fuzbuzz00 Defendent, not plaintiff - Mike was the plaintiff's lawyer. The other attorney wasn't working for the defendant, he was working for the insurance company. Which is why he didn't bother talking to the defendant and straight up lied. And I also hope that lawyer was at least dragged over the coals, and hopefully sanctioned or disbarred.
@@fuzbuzz00 Actually the lawyer's first and foremost responsibility is to the court. If you know the other side has done bad shit and don't bring it to the attention of the court then you are in trouble too.
Sounds like my divorce lawyer. His assistant copy/pasted his boilerplate divorce papers and sent them to my wife to sign. The wife read the papers and was confused about terms regarding our non-existent children. It's a good thing it was an uncontested, amicable, divorce because my lawyer was not great.
Fairly similar to my second divorce, except her lawyer was under the impression the house was bought jointly. She may have given him that impression. I set him straight - I was buying the house before we met and I made all the payments. I don't know about other states, but in Texas, if you own something before a marriage, you still own it afterword. They only split down the middle that which was acquired during the marriage.
A family member of mine has been married and divorced 4 times. They were all fairly amicable and all completely uncontested. Maybe things are different down here in NZ, but lawyers were never involved.
@@SamuelGeist That's the smart way. Every time lawyers get involved it will inevitably get to a point where the money gained in legal proceedings is less than the lawyer fees.
If I'm on the jury and the defendant says under oath 'I have not been deposed and I have never seen this document before', I'm going to want an explanation. Now I know I don't get to ask questions and civil matters are not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but that's not going to look too bad for them if they bring forwards 'my lawyer committed fraud and so I have ineffectual council', assuming they can back it up
So, ...first, this example is literally one that occurred in a deposition. So, they are not going to say they were not deposed. They are not going to say they've never seen the document before because it was just shown to them. Second, a deposition is not where an attorney and their client exchange information or how they prepare for a case going to trial. Third, usually the opposing party notices and conducts the deposition. So, that means the Plaintiff (injured party) is the one that calls for the deposition of the Defendant. If they were never deposed, that means the plaintiff's attorney didn't do their job. Not the other way around. There may in fact be a huge strategic advantage to not being deposed for the defendant, if for other reason that the plaintiff's counsel will have no idea what they are going to say in court at a trial. So, that in no way will be considered the defense counsel looking bad or being ineffectual. Fourth, nothing done here was fraud. It is customary and in fact expected to answer "deny" in response to every single allegation in a complaint. To do otherwise might expose your client to liability. This paragraph likely had other wording in it that the attorney wanted to be clear was being denied. They can always break it down into smaller parts later, saying deny to some and agree to others. Fifth, clients virtually never read an Answer that is filed on their behalf. Sixth-the defendant can always file an amended answer if needed. Bottom line-this really isn't as bad as it likely sounds and can easily be resolved during discovery. Also, people get a completely incorrect set of ideas from TV and movies that a case would go to court in this state of affairs. Or that it would go to trial at all. 80% of cases settle out of court.
I kinda feel bad for the defendant. Sounds like she's got a good basis to argue she had ineffective counsel. How did you deal with that? Edit: malpractice, not ineffective assistance of counsel.
Usually, the defendant has no real skin in the game in lawsuits like this, because as long as the damages are less than their coverage, their insurance covers it.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for an appeal only when there is a constitutional right to counsel, aka when the state has to provide it (like in a PCRA or habeas petition). It doesn’t apply to civil matters or criminal matters that do not have jail time as a potential punishment. Kinda sounds like the defendant may have grounds to go after his attorney for malpractice, though. (Not your attorney, not legal advice)
I think she can even argue malpractice, not just ineffective counsel, so that even if she loses, the judge would make the lawyer (or his law firm) pay for the judgement. They literally filed stuff on behalf of their client, without consulting the client. That's a HUGE no-no, to make representation on behalf of someone who never made those representations. I've seen lawyers get severely reprimanded for similar things. I'm guessing the insurance company just settled everything out of court, because they knew their law firm messed up.
I filed answers for insurers for many years. I NEVER did this. I ALWAYS answered based on my actual client's knowledge and, of course, made sure he knew what was being filed on his behalf as a result. Assuming this is an actual case, he should have been on the horn to the Board of Bar Overseers.
Reminds me of enforcing consumer rights against the airlines here in Canada They always file a reply that basically says “We don’t necessarily deny we flew them. We deny everything else.”
It's only forgery if it was actually used to defraud i.e. used in court or similar. Now since they did put this up in court - otherwise this video wouldn't exist - it is in fact forgery.
In PA a response to a pleading to where the defendant has no knowledge of is a denial with a brief statement such as “defendant is without knowledge and requires no answer.” But the insurance company will just respond without talking to their clients all the time.
My sister hit someone in my car. I was teaching her to drive and she mixed up the gas and brake and t boned another driver who had the right of way. Now we were going slowly, because we were just driving around the neighborhood so no one was injured and the person we hit just got a small dent on his passenger door. But on calling my insurance to explain the situation where i state , "this is 100% our fault" they say we won't cover any damage to your vehicle (just a busted front bumper)but we will sue thier insurance to cover your damage to your vehicle. I said no I do not want to sue him for something that wasn't his fault! Insurance companies are trash
simple answer - The lawyer's client wasn't the defendant: It was the insurance company. the reality doesn't matter if money speaks louder, and from what I've learned, corps would rather pay more to a lawyer than just shell out.
That was shady, unethical AND stupid - to have absolutely no communication. In some cases there's VERY LITTLE communication, and the VERY FIRST (sometimes the only) thing the lawyer tells the client is: "Don't talk to the other side, just give them my number and that's it." (!!!!!!!!!!) That lawyer couldn't even bother to tell this PRIMARY INFO to their client :O
About 20 years ago, I was hit. The cop at the scene said it was obviously the other driver's fault and let me leave fairly quickly. When I went to my insurance company later, the agent said that the police report didn't assign fault to either party, but the cop's diagram of the accident scene made it look like it was my fault. The insurance agent showed me cop's diagram, and it didn't match the accident scene at all. I've spent the last 20 years assuming that the cop must have changed his mind after letting me leave. But watching this video and reading some of the replies are making me wonder if the insurance company altered the police report before showing it to me.
That would a huge gamble and if anyone brings the cop in for testimony, if it goes to trial of course, would be completely unethical and could get the insurance commissioner to shut down operations. Also people can request police reports.
Please don't discriminate against foreseeing lawyers? If they see the future, let them write it up. Up to me, People like Mike should be lawyers, if they can recall it all.
Yes, you are correct. Because the insurance company is paying and they hired that attorney. But people use the term loosely sometimes to refer to any defendant.
Our family had something like this in a divorce case (separate field but still legal basis). The dates and income amounts on paperwork was WAY lower than reported previously, and pieces of documents were repeatedly changed without being disclosed (basically trying to hide it). Attorney said we have to sign it regardless. We tried to fight it to have the numbers corrected, but we couldn't. I genuinely don't understand how it's legal but I don't doubt it happens all the time in all kinds of legal scenarios.
@@fullfungo I totally agree with you, but what else do you do when the agreements keep getting repealed and replaced with worse ones while you don't comply and your attorney is billing you every single time you ask about it with absolutely no improvement? I should also clarify that the "attorney" was our attorney, not opposing counsel.
@@TheFinalChapters Again, I totally agree, but sometimes that's not possible either. We were told by many sources (including our own attorney and other attorneys we asked for a second opinion from) that we cannot fire our attorney. By the time we realized they were either misinformed or lying, it was too late. No attorney would take the case because it was too far along.
@@MikeRafiLawyer oh i know, im just joking about how that lawyer sees the situation. lets be honest, even if TECHNICALLY the defendant is the client, the one they actually are defending is that company.
Going to get flamed for saying this, but this is normal. He's right it's unethical, and maybe even illegal, but also not unusual. It's an insurance lawyer, they get case loads in terms of trucks not hours; They pretty much use automated responses and paperwork until someone catches them in their bs. And most lawyers don't. So they get away with and keep doing it because it works.
So do you have an ethical responsibility to report the unethical behavior of the attorney for the insurance company? That seems like something that should be brought to the bar association
This happens ALL the time! I got hit by a lady one time and she called her insurance company while I was right there had them on speakerphone and told them that it was 100% her fault. My insurance claim got denied saying that I was the one that hit her. Apparently the insurance company changed her answer. Infuriating!!!
That sounds HIGHLY illegal, damn. Isn't the insurance company literally lying in a legal case then?
@@Wasa8i2That's insurance for you, one of the most legally enforced scams to ever blight this planet.
@@Wasa8i2 Insurance companies routinely engage in denial of reality, ask any typical American doctor and they'll probably have a rant prepared.
Insurance companies are so scummy
Some insurance companies have taken to denying all claims, and then only addressing the appealed claims. It makes them more money that way...
BRO GOT THE 7/11 LAWYER🗣️🗣️🗣️💀💀🥶🔥
9/11 was a part time job.
In Japan, that would mean he had a mid/average/decent lawyer...
Is that because Japanese lawyers are particularly bad or because Japanese 7/11s are particularly good?
@@absp2006 yes let me bring up how japanese 7/11s are better than american ones in a video about an american lawyer
??? you're just glazing japan
Yep, graduated from the bathrooms
Just wanted to thank you I spoke to one of your reps when I inquired . They were lovely my issue was outside the scope of your organization however I was very happy with who I spoke too
Thanks so much for sharing.
A willful misrepresentation on an official filing document, with intent to defraud, is probably unethical? Man, the Bar Association is finally getting tough!
Fucking perjury more like! Probably criminal imho.
Only probably?
I laugh when I see when the Bar Association endorses for public offices. It's alway like, oh look, I found the shyster candidate.
@@joseph1150ok antisemite
Lol ha!
My insurance company broke ties with a law firm because one of their lawyers did this. We told the firm's senior partners and they ignored our complaint. It wound up working great for us because we hired a lawyer to work at our company rather than hire a firm to represent us. When i left the company, we had complete control over the legal department's behavior rather than relying on an outside firm.
I've had my interrogators' answers changed by my lawyer. I had evidence and put down my contact info. When I got the next revision back, my contact info was removed with no explanation given. They didn't reach out to me to see what the evidence was either.
Insurance lawyers are shady af.
*lawyers not insurance lawyers lol
Below you there's a comment talking about the same with a divorce lawyer.
Because he thinks the client is the insurance company not the defendant.
He is... not entirely wrong. That's who's paying the bill, after all.
Bingo
Georgia courts operate in front of the jury as if insurance companies don’t exist, so the jury is made to believe that the lawyer for the defendant is the lawyer for the guy who was in the car crash.
Mostly because it is. They hired him, they pay him well to lie for them so they can deny claims.
IMHO, bring this up in open court so that the judge can do some reaming in front of the jury to make sure that they don't hold this against the defendant.
A lawyer's objective should ALWAYS be to do the best thing for their client. Yes, taking this to court could result in the plaintiff's attorney being dragged over coals, but the length of time that it takes and the cost of the proceeding and continued legal representation is often a burden on the defendant. This is why settlements are often pursued, and this evidence of malpractice can be leveraged to get a far better settlement for your client and a better payout vs taking it to trial.
Tldr: do what helps your side the most, not what hurts the other side the most
@@fuzbuzz00go for the settlement but if it goes to court, threaten credentials
Pleadings aren't evidence. This is idiotic.
@@fuzbuzz00 Defendent, not plaintiff - Mike was the plaintiff's lawyer. The other attorney wasn't working for the defendant, he was working for the insurance company. Which is why he didn't bother talking to the defendant and straight up lied. And I also hope that lawyer was at least dragged over the coals, and hopefully sanctioned or disbarred.
@@fuzbuzz00 Actually the lawyer's first and foremost responsibility is to the court. If you know the other side has done bad shit and don't bring it to the attention of the court then you are in trouble too.
Sounds like my divorce lawyer. His assistant copy/pasted his boilerplate divorce papers and sent them to my wife to sign. The wife read the papers and was confused about terms regarding our non-existent children. It's a good thing it was an uncontested, amicable, divorce because my lawyer was not great.
oh man.
if she had any grounds to contest the divorce, your lawyer handed her a golden ticket with a gaffe like that.
Fairly similar to my second divorce, except her lawyer was under the impression the house was bought jointly. She may have given him that impression. I set him straight - I was buying the house before we met and I made all the payments. I don't know about other states, but in Texas, if you own something before a marriage, you still own it afterword. They only split down the middle that which was acquired during the marriage.
A family member of mine has been married and divorced 4 times. They were all fairly amicable and all completely uncontested. Maybe things are different down here in NZ, but lawyers were never involved.
@@SamuelGeist
That's the smart way. Every time lawyers get involved it will inevitably get to a point where the money gained in legal proceedings is less than the lawyer fees.
Let me guess, she would’ve been the main custodian.
Because the real client is the insurance company, and they will deny everything to avoid payment.
If I'm on the jury and the defendant says under oath 'I have not been deposed and I have never seen this document before', I'm going to want an explanation. Now I know I don't get to ask questions and civil matters are not 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but that's not going to look too bad for them if they bring forwards 'my lawyer committed fraud and so I have ineffectual council', assuming they can back it up
So, ...first, this example is literally one that occurred in a deposition. So, they are not going to say they were not deposed. They are not going to say they've never seen the document before because it was just shown to them.
Second, a deposition is not where an attorney and their client exchange information or how they prepare for a case going to trial.
Third, usually the opposing party notices and conducts the deposition. So, that means the Plaintiff (injured party) is the one that calls for the deposition of the Defendant. If they were never deposed, that means the plaintiff's attorney didn't do their job. Not the other way around. There may in fact be a huge strategic advantage to not being deposed for the defendant, if for other reason that the plaintiff's counsel will have no idea what they are going to say in court at a trial. So, that in no way will be considered the defense counsel looking bad or being ineffectual.
Fourth, nothing done here was fraud. It is customary and in fact expected to answer "deny" in response to every single allegation in a complaint. To do otherwise might expose your client to liability. This paragraph likely had other wording in it that the attorney wanted to be clear was being denied. They can always break it down into smaller parts later, saying deny to some and agree to others.
Fifth, clients virtually never read an Answer that is filed on their behalf.
Sixth-the defendant can always file an amended answer if needed.
Bottom line-this really isn't as bad as it likely sounds and can easily be resolved during discovery. Also, people get a completely incorrect set of ideas from TV and movies that a case would go to court in this state of affairs. Or that it would go to trial at all. 80% of cases settle out of court.
I kinda feel bad for the defendant. Sounds like she's got a good basis to argue she had ineffective counsel. How did you deal with that?
Edit: malpractice, not ineffective assistance of counsel.
Usually, the defendant has no real skin in the game in lawsuits like this, because as long as the damages are less than their coverage, their insurance covers it.
I think (if they lose) they can sue their defense attorney for malpractice, similar to how dr's get sued when they screw up and goof someone's life.
Ineffective assistance of counsel is grounds for an appeal only when there is a constitutional right to counsel, aka when the state has to provide it (like in a PCRA or habeas petition). It doesn’t apply to civil matters or criminal matters that do not have jail time as a potential punishment.
Kinda sounds like the defendant may have grounds to go after his attorney for malpractice, though.
(Not your attorney, not legal advice)
I think she can even argue malpractice, not just ineffective counsel, so that even if she loses, the judge would make the lawyer (or his law firm) pay for the judgement. They literally filed stuff on behalf of their client, without consulting the client. That's a HUGE no-no, to make representation on behalf of someone who never made those representations. I've seen lawyers get severely reprimanded for similar things. I'm guessing the insurance company just settled everything out of court, because they knew their law firm messed up.
That council should be disbarred and fined
Sounds like an insurance company lawyer 😂
😂
I filed answers for insurers for many years. I NEVER did this. I ALWAYS answered based on my actual client's knowledge and, of course, made sure he knew what was being filed on his behalf as a result.
Assuming this is an actual case, he should have been on the horn to the Board of Bar Overseers.
You should be a lawyer
💀
SOOOOO true
This is profound! 😲
You’re never gonna believe what I’m about to tell you…..
😅😅😅😅
Reminds me of enforcing consumer rights against the airlines here in Canada
They always file a reply that basically says “We don’t necessarily deny we flew them. We deny everything else.”
In our parts of the world we have a word for it, I think it was "forgery".
Documents in a court filing that the lawyer also signed with his own name. We can add fraud and purgery.
That's not what forgery means.
It's not forgery it's simply fraud.
@@youcancallmemaurice If he signed his clients name, that's forgery.
It's only forgery if it was actually used to defraud i.e. used in court or similar. Now since they did put this up in court - otherwise this video wouldn't exist - it is in fact forgery.
In PA a response to a pleading to where the defendant has no knowledge of is a denial with a brief statement such as “defendant is without knowledge and requires no answer.” But the insurance company will just respond without talking to their clients all the time.
He DID speak to his client: the insurance company.
My sister hit someone in my car. I was teaching her to drive and she mixed up the gas and brake and t boned another driver who had the right of way. Now we were going slowly, because we were just driving around the neighborhood so no one was injured and the person we hit just got a small dent on his passenger door. But on calling my insurance to explain the situation where i state , "this is 100% our fault" they say we won't cover any damage to your vehicle (just a busted front bumper)but we will sue thier insurance to cover your damage to your vehicle. I said no I do not want to sue him for something that wasn't his fault! Insurance companies are trash
Should lose his license
So they did the typical insurance company thing.
Do insurance companies ever have ethics, though?
not that I've ever seen in my 55 years+
Ethics are bad for shareholders
Do the small headgear wearers that own and run the insurance companies have ethics?
DUDE THIS JUST HAPPENED TO US TOO! Is this just something common that defense does on their Answer??
@talzumon101 If appointed by state, Yes. The more cases they can close/get through, the more they get paid. The out outcome doesn't matter.
simple answer - The lawyer's client wasn't the defendant: It was the insurance company. the reality doesn't matter if money speaks louder, and from what I've learned, corps would rather pay more to a lawyer than just shell out.
That was shady, unethical AND stupid - to have absolutely no communication. In some cases there's VERY LITTLE communication, and the VERY FIRST (sometimes the only) thing the lawyer tells the client is: "Don't talk to the other side, just give them my number and that's it." (!!!!!!!!!!) That lawyer couldn't even bother to tell this PRIMARY INFO to their client :O
Sounds like a case for removal from the bar.
About 20 years ago, I was hit. The cop at the scene said it was obviously the other driver's fault and let me leave fairly quickly.
When I went to my insurance company later, the agent said that the police report didn't assign fault to either party, but the cop's diagram of the accident scene made it look like it was my fault. The insurance agent showed me cop's diagram, and it didn't match the accident scene at all.
I've spent the last 20 years assuming that the cop must have changed his mind after letting me leave. But watching this video and reading some of the replies are making me wonder if the insurance company altered the police report before showing it to me.
That would a huge gamble and if anyone brings the cop in for testimony, if it goes to trial of course, would be completely unethical and could get the insurance commissioner to shut down operations. Also people can request police reports.
Please don't discriminate against foreseeing lawyers? If they see the future, let them write it up.
Up to me, People like Mike should be lawyers, if they can recall it all.
What?
Youre quite the intellectual design
Their client isn't that person, it's the insurance company. No wonder they're a liar
In his case, isn't the insurance company the client?
Yes, you are correct. Because the insurance company is paying and they hired that attorney.
But people use the term loosely sometimes to refer to any defendant.
Time for that attorney to #HonorYourOath !!!
He filed a document swearing to a lie
I'm sure that lawyer was immediately elevated to judge. incompetence and immorality is their specialty.
Our family had something like this in a divorce case (separate field but still legal basis). The dates and income amounts on paperwork was WAY lower than reported previously, and pieces of documents were repeatedly changed without being disclosed (basically trying to hide it). Attorney said we have to sign it regardless. We tried to fight it to have the numbers corrected, but we couldn't. I genuinely don't understand how it's legal but I don't doubt it happens all the time in all kinds of legal scenarios.
"Attorney said we have to sign it regardless"
You were gaslighted.
You never “have to” sign anything. That’s called scaring someone into doing shit they don’t wanna do.
@@fullfungo I totally agree with you, but what else do you do when the agreements keep getting repealed and replaced with worse ones while you don't comply and your attorney is billing you every single time you ask about it with absolutely no improvement?
I should also clarify that the "attorney" was our attorney, not opposing counsel.
@@frqubit You get a new attorney, among other things.
@@TheFinalChapters Again, I totally agree, but sometimes that's not possible either. We were told by many sources (including our own attorney and other attorneys we asked for a second opinion from) that we cannot fire our attorney. By the time we realized they were either misinformed or lying, it was too late. No attorney would take the case because it was too far along.
That fking suit tho
My LAWYER layering 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 YOU go Mr Rafi🎉🎉🎉🎉
Definitely sounds like it’s unethical-feels like it’s implicitly overriding a client’s right to always decide to settle
Did you make a Bar complaint?
When the defendant is more honest than the lawyer. 💀
now i have this image in my head of the MPAA lawyer from south park “I AM ABOVE THE LAW!“
Billie is the plaintiff
Defense lawyer: deny
Happens.
Perfect lawyer answer. "Probably did something unethical."
It is permissible during depos and at trial to cross examine a party on pleadings they or their atty filed in court. Most ppl don’t know that!
"you answered in behalf of a client you never spoken to" that's the beauty of it, his client was the company, not the defendant.
His client was the defendant.
@@MikeRafiLawyer oh i know, im just joking about how that lawyer sees the situation.
lets be honest, even if TECHNICALLY the defendant is the client, the one they actually are defending is that company.
Going to get flamed for saying this, but this is normal. He's right it's unethical, and maybe even illegal, but also not unusual. It's an insurance lawyer, they get case loads in terms of trucks not hours; They pretty much use automated responses and paperwork until someone catches them in their bs. And most lawyers don't. So they get away with and keep doing it because it works.
If I were a lawyer, I would immediately file ethics charges against that lawyer in the Bar.
Typical Insurance lawyer.
How does that even happen? What did you do after that?
"Probably" unethical?
You’re so sharp - they probably do this all the time
Must have been M&M
Sounds like you may have earned yourself another case after that one
Poor guy
Probably did something unethical ? The 'probably' is redundant .
Dude's a lawyer. Unless the other lawyer was convicted/punished for that, he's giving himself an out for slander charges
Lawyers like that deserve jail time
I don’t need a law degree to know that that’s a stupid thing to do.
sounds like typical insurance companies behavior
Why
Do I feel like that lawyer would have been sweating bricks in the courtroom?😂😂😂😂
"Deny EVERYTHING, Baldrick."
"You are Pte. Baldric?"
"NO!"
I used to wonder how people end up with getting charged with a felony. After experiencing things like this I have no doubt and fully understand.
Unethical?! Isn’t that illegal? Isn’t that some form of perjury?
It meets the definition as I understand it.. but I'm no lawyer.. I'm betting there is a term to describe it that isn't perjury.
Insurance company lawyers: Clearly cream of the crop!
thank you J.D. Vance
GET ‘EM, Mike!!!
Lawyer: "Deny everything"
"Just for the record you are Jane Smith?"
Jane Smith: "No I'm not."
When you get caught up, deny you said it and blame someone else.
"Oh I totally agree with you and it seems clear that I'm gonna lose this case. Would you be available to represent me for suing my current attorney?"
That's literally fraud. That lawyer should be behind bars.
So do you have an ethical responsibility to report the unethical behavior of the attorney for the insurance company? That seems like something that should be brought to the bar association
oh no, he definitely answered on behalf of his client, the insurance company, exactly like he was supposed to.
Law by Mike:Goofy intro to law and general law knowledge
Mike Rafi:Straight up smooth lawyering
Are we surprised? This is EXACTLY what insurance companies do.
It's always funny that this greaseball lawyer acts surprised when other greaseball lawyers act like greaseball lawyers.
Idk if you already made a full video on it yet, but I'm generally interested in hearing about how everything went down!
Hope you ate their lunch!
The judge Judy soundtravk 😂😂
I'll bet the client was still charged "billable hours" as IF they'd had a conversation!!!
That's insane. Really hope the judge called (or calls) in that attorney to show cause.
Props for not just taking advantage of the defendant and trying to uphold a minimum ethical standard.
Served!
I’m gonna steal this
Great work bringing up bird law.
Oh shit Mike!! Did he lose his license or bar number or whatever makes him a legit attorney ?!!
How does that situation get fixed?
This is just as bad as lawyers who peer pressure people into perjury or false statements.. especially in divorce
That's the business model of all insurance - investment - companies. Deny, deny, deny.
"Probably?"
Sincerely, a prosecutor.
"probably". Yup, that there is lawyerspeak for 'definitely'.
Nothing unusual about deception when it comes to lawyers.
The lawyer and client “Uh oh spaghettios”. 😮😮
the AI pictures look like shit
I can’t believe an insurance lawyer did something unethical.
Take his license.
he'd make a good actor
Sir, the plaintiff has lost both his arms and legs
Lawyer - Deny
That's some major legal malpractice, along with purjory and falsifying a coutr filing.
Why??? Well, you know ... insurance company 🤬🤬🤬
"That ain't right!"
Bro really is trying to lose his license
Report him to the bar. That's a license revoking action if there ever was one