It depends on how they “won”. If it was a full hearing with a jury and everything, that’s public record. If it’s arbitration, that’s probably not public record.
Bragging about a “win” in arbitration, and making something that’s not a public record, into a public record, is usually a problem.
With the current wording, while you can infer from context, the outcome of the case, it isn’t explicitly stated by the lawyer. The largest disclosure here is from the party that feels they were “wronged”, and the lawyer is simply stating that “this person wasn’t my client” (more or less). You fill in the rest.
The fact that the commenter was not their client is not disclosing any private information, nor any information about the matter that’s being discussed. It’s a simple statement of irrefutable fact. (Or fact that can be proven at least)
If the lawyer crosses a line by discussing case specifics, like what the matter regarded (divorce, custody, property, whatever), or the outcome of that case, when it is not a matter of public record, can land them in serious hot water.
I would assume, again, from context, that the matter is not presently a part of public record.
I reworded Agnew’s response because I misread it as if a client used es ex-spouse’s account to write the review [in es behalf], and not that the losing ex-spouse wrote this scathing review.
You’re thinking too hard about this, the lawyer left this response open ended on purpose as an ad. Regardless if the lawyer won or lost the case, the implication here is that they won, so they are so good at their job, the opposition cries about it.
got confused enough that I believe this should have been written this way:
Legally, I don’t think the lawyer can brag about such a win on a public forum.
It’s very very likely she can’t say more than that the comment is from the ‘ex-spouse of a client’ without risking libel or something.
It’s up to the reader to infer the context.
The same way as: “there are only two types of people in the world, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data.”
Why would a lawyer not be allowed to do that? Genuinely curious because I would expect information on who won court cases to be public anyway?
It depends on how they “won”. If it was a full hearing with a jury and everything, that’s public record. If it’s arbitration, that’s probably not public record.
Bragging about a “win” in arbitration, and making something that’s not a public record, into a public record, is usually a problem.
With the current wording, while you can infer from context, the outcome of the case, it isn’t explicitly stated by the lawyer. The largest disclosure here is from the party that feels they were “wronged”, and the lawyer is simply stating that “this person wasn’t my client” (more or less). You fill in the rest.
The fact that the commenter was not their client is not disclosing any private information, nor any information about the matter that’s being discussed. It’s a simple statement of irrefutable fact. (Or fact that can be proven at least)
If the lawyer crosses a line by discussing case specifics, like what the matter regarded (divorce, custody, property, whatever), or the outcome of that case, when it is not a matter of public record, can land them in serious hot water.
I would assume, again, from context, that the matter is not presently a part of public record.
That makes sense, thanks.
I can also infer the wrong conclusion from the same data… which is why I misread Agnew’s response at first.
Maybe the lawyer lost the case. The response is even more brilliant in this case !!
🤣
That type of ambiguity is fine.
It’s the “who actually wrote this: the client, a relative, or an opponent?” that confuzzled not just me.
That isn’t clearer at all.
Mines, or Agnew’s response?
I reworded Agnew’s response because I misread it as if a client used es ex-spouse’s account to write the review [in es behalf], and not that the losing ex-spouse wrote this scathing review.
Your version was worse, I understood the original just fine.
How would u write it so my former confusion wouldn’t misread?
I’m not sure, it made sense to me.
It didn’t to me at first read, and my upvoter.
Now, if I was in a similar position, I would respond:
I don’t think either folks were joking m8.
Jokes require setup, I don’t even see a punchline.
https://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/ha-ha-only-serious.html
bad certificate
Yeah, one would think ESR of all people would get his shit together here. OTOH it’s just a static web page, not handling sensitive user info.
That’s what you’d think is being implied, but it’s a lawyer so who knows if this is the case
You’re thinking too hard about this, the lawyer left this response open ended on purpose as an ad. Regardless if the lawyer won or lost the case, the implication here is that they won, so they are so good at their job, the opposition cries about it.
Tis the opposite, I misread the response initially.