3 ms·

For sure, but the difference there is that someone was actually severely wronged. The worst that happened here was some people had time wasted. I think a punis

For sure, but the difference there is that someone was actually severely wronged. The worst that happened here was some people had time wasted. I think a punishment where the lawyer had to pay for all the time he wasted for the judges and various legal clerks (and his client) would be sufficient personally. He is unlikely to make the same kind of mistake again I would think.

cratermoon 3y ago
> The worst that happened here was some people had time wasted. At least one party to the suit, if not both, are going to end up spending extra money. Plus it wasted public resources – the time of the judge and court staff, and their salaries, and more – and cost taxpayer money. Your remedy of having the lawyer pay might bankrupt him, and it doesn't really make whole the other party. In cases where one party has limited financial resources or perhaps is close to death (thing capital punishment, or malpractice), this isn't just waste. Someone could be severely wronged.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
that is not a meaningful difference when the issue is that both professions can use tools but are responsible for the results of using them, and thus obligated to apply their professional judgement before and after using a tool that can hurt people (in this case, their clients, at least)