Anybody can decide if they have got the money to fight a case if they don't like a particular thing, and they complain to the watch committee, local council or whatever.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Cagey trial lawyers have figured out there's a pretty good likelihood their case - no matter what its merit - will literally get its day in court because of favorable judges.
Most criminal defendants do not get adequate representation because there are not enough public defenders to represent them. There is a lot that is wrong.
The case decided on Thursday, though, seemed promising to takings fans because it wasn't about compensation. It was about the requirement that any government taking must have a 'public purpose.'
I met with people who are already very angry with the tribunal.
It's extremely damaging to a fair trial to have people reaching judgment about the case in the newspapers and on the radio before the facts are heard in a case.
If the laws could speak for themselves, they would complain of the lawyers.
I will defend anyone as long as the client gives me total control of the case and pays up front.
Unfortunately, no matter how frivolous the lawsuit, you still, of course, have to pay people to defend you on it.
You sit up there, and you see the whole gamut of human nature. Even if the case being argued involves only a little fellow and $50, it involves justice. That's what is important.
I have numerous people who have expressed a willingness to be plaintiffs.
No opposing quotes found.