That Time the Dealer Attorney Put One Over on a Blind Judge.

"SteveLehto" (stevelehto)
09/09/2014 at 13:00 • Filed to: None

Let me tell you about the worst thing I ever saw another attorney do: Put one over on a blind judge.

My client leased a truck which turned out to be defective. During the transaction at the dealer, some of the numbers danced around on the paperwork and $2,000 of his money disappeared. For our purposes, you do not need a mathematical exposition on it. It's just important to know that my client believed he had a separate cause of action against the dealer which had nothing to do with the manufacturer.

At the time, the manufacturer had a litigation prevention program which allowed us to settle cases without filing suit. We utilized that process and reached a settlement. Except for one item: The manufacturer, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! often seeks a universal release to resolve all claims against itself and the dealer for any wrong doing. My client still wanted to chase the dealer for the missing $2,000.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

I discussed it at length with the attorney for the manufacturer and we finally agreed to include language to allow my client to do just that. Our settlement resolved claims against the manufacturer but did not settle "causes of action against the leasing dealer arising from the lease transaction itself, including but not limited to fraud, misrepresentation, theft or conversion by the leasing dealer."

My client got his truck lease unwound. He then filed a small claims action against the leasing dealer. The dealer attorney answered the complaint by filing a blurry unsigned copy of the release with the court – we are not even sure how he got it since the dealer was not a party to our lemon law claim – and told the court that my client had signed a release which barred him from pursuing his claim against the dealer.

This would be open and shut, based on the language which said it did not protect the dealer, right? Oh wait, the judge was blind. BLIND. Keep in mind that I was not at this hearing to help my client but I later ordered a transcript of it. When my client tried to point out that the release being presented to the court was too blurry to read, even for sighted people, the judge asked the attorney what it said. He told the judge it was a release of all claims. The judge asked my client if he had signed it. My client rightly pointed out that the dealership was not a party to the release, and a readable copy showed he was allowed to pursue this claim even though he had signed it. He offered the court a legible copy. The judge said it wasn't necessary and dismissed the case.

When my client told me this I was amazed. I explained to him the process for seeking a reconsideration of the ruling, assuming that the court would do the right thing. At that hearing, the dealer attorney did not bother showing up and the judge berated my client for filing a frivolous action after signing the release – which the judge still had not read even though my client had attached a pristine copy with his filings.

The process at this point called for us to appeal and yes, I jumped back in and started handing this action for my client. At the first hearing in front of a different judge, we were called into chambers. It was clear to everyone what had happened and this judge was angry. "We're here because someone submitted a document to a blind judge – and no one ever told him what it said."

"My client tried to tell him, your honor."

The judge wasn't looking at me. "I'm sending this back with instructions for the court to make note of the language in the release you brought up in your brief."

You'd think that would end it but the first judge was not happy to hear he had been found "wrong" by another judge. I would have thought he could chalk it up to having been misled by the dealer attorney but he went nuts when we showed up in his court.

"Well, I have to say I'm just pretty damn angry about what's happened with this case, all the way around, and, so, I guess I can be fair. Apparently, I dislike everybody equally, and I'll just give everybody a warning straight-out. I want no screwin' around. I don't have time to mess around like with what I'm messing around with in this case. Now, you speak, you speak quick, it'll get decided."

He wasn't just mad at the attorney who introduced the blurry release, he was mad at everybody. Why was he mad at me? I had hinted in my brief that the case might be better off in front of a judge who could read the document and see what my client had been trying to say (at least, if the current judge refused to ask a member of his staff to read the document to him). Later, he did the right thing and sent the case to another judge. One who was less "damn angry." And shortly after, the case settled. The release, which had nothing to do with this case, was no longer an issue and my client got his money.

In sum: attorney handed a blind judge an irrelevant document to get a case dismissed. The dismissal was overturned. The blind judge lashed out at everyone because he had been misled and/or embarrassed. And, this simple matter took 4 separate court hearings to resolve.

I'd like to tell you that this story really shocks other attorneys when they hear it. It doesn't. And yes, this is one of the reasons people don't like attorneys. And for the sake of trivia I will tell you that when this took place, Michigan had at least two blind judges on the bench. One was exceptionally good. The other one was the one you just read about. [ Bolded phrases above are verbatim , from the release and from the court transcript.]

Follow me on twitter: !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Steve Lehto has been practicing consumer protection and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! for 23 years in Michigan. He taught Consumer Protection at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law for ten years and wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! . He also wrote !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

DISCUSSION (100)

zeontestpilot > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 13:13

Dang....I didn't know people do this stuff in RL. Normally you see it on tv shows...

zeontestpilot > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 13:13

Dang....I didn't know people do this stuff in RL. Normally you see it on tv shows...

Dunnik > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 13:24

That is some serious legal bullshit.

But at least it got resolved, in the end.

SteveLehto > zeontestpilot
09/09/2014 at 13:26

Truth can be as bizarre as fiction.

Maxaxle > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:28

*more bizarre than fiction.

HiMyNameIsJayAgain > zeontestpilot
09/09/2014 at 14:28

Truth can be as bizarre as fiction.

ThePinnacle > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:28

Jumps to conclusions, doesn't read documents, doesn't let the "little guy" speak, gets angry at everyone when he is proven wrong.... blind or not, sounds like a typical judge to me.

Maxaxle > zeontestpilot
09/09/2014 at 14:28

If you've ever taken a psychology course, even Psych 101, you'll realize that a TV show character is just an aspect of a person taken a little too far.

SteveLehto > ThePinnacle
09/09/2014 at 14:29

You speak with much wisdom. But usually, we only suspect the judge hasn't read anything. Here, it was painfully obvious.

titsinmymitts > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:30

Steve, why were you not present with your client at that hearing? Did your client request to go to the hearing alone?

lone_liberal > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:30

A typical case of American blind justice. Were there glossy pictures with circles and arrows?

The Devil Drives a Mustang (Rotary Pending) > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:32

The Venetians actually forbade blind people signing documents. The logic was that if you couldn't read the document then how could you know what it was you were signing. It's a little harsh; in the modern world it would be a severe handicap. But there is something to be said for it.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:32

Of each one, sat down. Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,

And Obie stood up with the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy

Pictures, and the judge walked in sat down with a seeing eye dog, and he

Sat down, we sat down. Obie looked at the seeing eye dog, and then at the

Twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows

And a paragraph on the back of each one, and looked at the seeing eye dog.

And then at twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy pictures with circles

And arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one and began to cry,

'cause Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American

Blind justice, and there wasn't nothing he could do about it, and the

Judge wasn't going to look at the twenty seven eight-by-ten colour glossy

Pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each

One explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.

revarthurbelling > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:32

Is it true blind people can hunt in Michigan? I heard that on a David Sedaris tape - "6 to 8 black men."

SteveLehto > titsinmymitts
09/09/2014 at 14:32

The hearing in question was a small claims court lawsuit (which initially does not involve attorneys). It was for $2,000 and my fee would have made it uneconomical. The dealer bumped it to district court and my client thought he would try it on his own even though the dealer then had sent an attorney. And then [insert rest of story here].

ThePinnacle > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:33

Thanks. Unfortunately that wisdom has been gained through my trials and tribulations in traffic court :) I still win though! (Thank goodness for CA's trial by written declaration option)

pirates-ecu > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:34

how the hell is there not language in place to remove judges that are not physically able to conduct proceedings.

SteveLehto > revarthurbelling
09/09/2014 at 14:34

I believe so. I don't think MICH is the only state that allows it either.

SteveLehto > pirates-ecu
09/09/2014 at 14:36

The other blind judge I mentioned knew how to do it. He had all the pleadings translated to braille and he knew the material before him just as well as the attorneys did. It CAN be done. In the present case, all the judge needed to do was ask someone else (like his clerk) to read the document to him.

pirates-ecu > lone_liberal
09/09/2014 at 14:36

touche sir.....

fumy story, my final project for first semester English in college was a paper on an influential song to a time period. Of course i did Alice's restaurant.

At the end of the semester he came up to me and said it was the best one out of the class, but he was never going to let people do it again, because i gave him the 25 minute version on cd to listen to.

revarthurbelling > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:36

Yeah, he said Texas also allows it, but only Mich. allows the blind to go out on their own. I don't see how they can aim. Weird.

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:36

Why does the U.S. allow blind Judges?

pirates-ecu > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:38

Thank you for a rational and quick reply. I have always enjoyed reading your articles.

SteveLehto > revarthurbelling
09/09/2014 at 14:38

I thought the hunter needed to have someone with them but I never researched it. I do love David Sedaris though!

SteveLehto > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 14:39

Because most of them can do their jobs quite well, with accommodation (like putting documents into Braille). One of the best judges I was ever in front of was the other blind judge I mentioned. Without question.

revarthurbelling > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:39

The story linked above is classic, too. I just about pissed my pants listening to it on CD when I first heard it. And the Michigan blind hunter part is only the intro to the real story. :)

SteveLehto > pirates-ecu
09/09/2014 at 14:40

Thanks! And if you haven't already, follow me on Twitter so as to not miss any. @stevelehto

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:42

I'll take your word for it since you're a lawyer and all, still seems kind of foolish though considering how important their job is and how much their decisions affect other's lives.

heeltoehero > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:45

Thursday morning I have to take my Orientation to the Profession workshop, which is my last step before admission to the NY Bar. It's a morning long seminar where disgraced attorneys come in and share stories about the different ways they've been sanctioned or threatened with disbarment. Even with that, it appears that the profession that will tolerate a level of chicanery I could not fathom.

zeontestpilot > Maxaxle
09/09/2014 at 14:45

I have, but it's been at least 7 years. Makes sense though.

SteveLehto > heeltoehero
09/09/2014 at 14:46

They really do a walk of shame like that?! Sounds morbidly fascinating. Please, please write me afterwards and tell me about it. Lehto@kennon.com

StevenG > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:48

Why is there no recourse against this lawyer? Clearly he tried to deceive the court.

David E. Davis > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:48

You must cringe all. the. time. at some of the things fellow legal "professionals" try to get away with..

SteveLehto > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 14:50

His argument was that the document was blurry and he THOUGHT it said . . . there was a gray enough of an area there for him to work with.

heeltoehero > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:50

According to what all of my friends tell me. Only applicants from the Second Department (Westchester, Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau, and Suffolk Counties) have to take the class. Everyone else gets by with just passing the MPRE.

http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/ori…

SteveLehto > David E. Davis
09/09/2014 at 14:51

Most of it is not all that remarkable but once in a while . . . This column was inspired by someone asking me what the "worst" thing was that I ever saw. I hate to say it but something else might top it if I keep thinking about it.

SteveLehto > heeltoehero
09/09/2014 at 14:52

Wow. It boggles the mind.

StevenG > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:52

I can't understand that.

There is no grey area, the document is illegible and as such should be replaced with a legible copy. You should not be allowed to guess at what a document says. This seems like such a simple thing to resolve, almost as if lawyers don't want the legal system to work.

SteveLehto > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 14:54

Some just want to game the system. Sadly, leeway is often granted to participants (both attorneys and judges) who argue that there is a gray area.

While the attorney was quite wrong here in my opinion, I found the judge's actions even worse. But, it's all a matter of degrees.

forgotmylastburner > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:56

So, how do you file a complaint against a judge if they get caught blatantly not doing their job? Do you just file a bar complaint like you would against any other practicing attorney? Is it even worth a damn to do it?

Jonee > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 14:57

Kinja'd!!!

It saves on blindfolds.

StevenG > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:57

This is why I could never be a lawyer.

The law should be written more clearly, the system should not allow for this amount of grey area. If you attempt to put a blurry document into evidence you should be sanctioned just for the attempt. It is simply inexcusable.

The judge was pretty bad, and for some reason this system allows for that. Judges should be reviewed yearly and this sort of stuff should result in removal.

Diesel > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:57

Kinja'd!!!

KurtAKX > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:58

What's that saying?
Justice is blind?

SteveLehto > forgotmylastburner
09/09/2014 at 14:58

There is a thing called the Judicial Tenure Commission in Michigan with which one can file a complaint. As to what it would be worth is a matter of debate.

Autojunkie > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 14:58

This is absolutely amazing and disgusting all the same. My concern and hope for your client is that, and please tell me it was so, that he not only received his $2000 back, but was also reimbursed for all costs above and beyond. I know it's small claims court, but I'm sure your client had to have racked up another couple thousand in legal and other fees.

Dest > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 14:59

If they can't base opinions on their sight (such as how the people are dressed and such) they'll probably make better decisions based on the facts infront of them!

SteveLehto > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 15:00

There is a lot of burnout in the profession. Some turn to drugs. Other write stories that wind up on Jalopnik.

Once in a while you hear of an attorney getting spanked but not that often. Judges are elected in MICH and are rarely removed from the bench. Usually it takes a well-publicized crime or something startling to even get it onto the radar.

SteveLehto > Autojunkie
09/09/2014 at 15:01

I can tell you that the matter settled. And by that I mean an offer was made which my client accepted and the matter was dismissed. I'd rather that none of this happened but it ended appropriately.

Vizzini > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:03

Thanks for that clarification. I couldn't figure out how the dealer could be represented in small claims court. We used to have a coffee cup in the office that said something to the effect of "the role of a lawyer is to protect clients from other members of the profession." Bummer your client had to learn that first hand, but it sounds like there might not have been much even you could have done to keep that hearing going the right direction.

SteveLehto > Vizzini
09/09/2014 at 15:03

I'll have to remember that quote. Thanks for the note.

TheCraigy > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 15:04

Sometimes a blurry document is all you have. Before modern word processors, often times original documents were difficult to read, and carbon copies, faxes, early xerox, etc. were barely legible. Even today adobe will murder a scanned document, and attorneys, paralegals, judges, clerks, secretaries can be woefully inept at copying and saving records properly. Add in actually damaged documents (flood, fire, smoke, coffee, simple age or actual attempted destruction) and it's simply not a perfect world.

drdude > heeltoehero
09/09/2014 at 15:06

I must know more about this... I want to hear their stories.. they should be recorded for the internet to see.... lol

StevenG > TheCraigy
09/09/2014 at 15:06

We are not talking about a document before the time of modern word processors. Nor was their any of those forces in place. This sounds like a document made blurry on purpose.

Bearded Bastard > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:07

not to mention it should have been a slam dunk for him alone. This just ended up becoming an extremely freak accident

Autojunkie > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:08

I know you're bound by law and a a degree of common decency, to not talk numbers. I'm just glad to hear the client was not disappointed.

It's always been a fear of mine that I would have to pay to get back what is legally mine. Fortunately, I've never had to take anyone to court. Small claims or otherwise.

TheCraigy > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 15:08

Thanks for reading my post.

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > Dest
09/09/2014 at 15:09

Yeah, I wouldn't want a Judge that can't see video evidence for himself.

StevenG > TheCraigy
09/09/2014 at 15:09

You're welcome. Your post did not however address the issue at hand.

The fact that lawyers suck at this sort of thing would be corrected quickly if courts treated it harshly.

forgotmylastburner > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:09

lol. It seems that if any bar complaint is worth it is a matter of debate. I'm pretty sure my public defender buddies keep a running total of the completely frivolous ineffective counsel complaints they receive from "clients" that are surprised when they demand to go to trial with a slam dunk case against them and inevitably get a guilty handed to them.

On a side note Steve, your posts are one of the main reasons I keep coming back to Jalopnik. Thanks for the always informative/interesting stories and taking the time to, seemingly, respond to every comment on them.

jwaves2007 > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:10

I can believe a lemon law claim although I have only seen three actual cases in my 20 years in the car business. I can also believe a dealer may have done some shady work with a customers $2000. I have a hard time that both things happened to the same guy. There has to be more to this story.

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > Jonee
09/09/2014 at 15:10

Clever ... I do agree Justice should be blind, however, Justices should probably not be.

SteveLehto > Bearded Bastard
09/09/2014 at 15:12

Yes, a waste of time and court resources.

TheCraigy > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 15:12

In most cases, as Steve suggested, there is no way to prove bad faith. There is always sleaziness that gets through, which is why there is a judge and jury there to assess credibility.

Vizzini > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:12

Oh, it's so much more fun when the judge comes right out and tells you he hasn't read any of the papers in preparation for the hearing he had already delayed six weeks. (At least we won that one, after the presiding judge pestered the hearing judge for not getting a ruling out for two months after the hearing.)

SteveLehto > forgotmylastburner
09/09/2014 at 15:13

I enjoy these conversations as much as the articles. I block out time from my afternoon to respond! And if you haven't already, follow me on twitter and you won't miss any posts. @stevelehto

Jonee > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 15:16

Why not? I'm sure there are cases where a literally blind judge wouldn't work, but I don't see where not seeing would be an impediment to understanding law in general.

SteveLehto > jwaves2007
09/09/2014 at 15:16

I've been doing this kind of law for 23 years. There is no "more" to this story as far as that goes. It was highly unusual and was the result of several odd things happening along with a few actors who - shall we say - made sure they got odder.

I've personally worked on more than a thousand lemon law cases if I had to estimate. So, this was one-in-a-thousand (if not more).

agjios > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 15:17

How exactly do you believe that vision equates to intellect? Why shouldn't disabled people, if properly qualified, be allowed to hold any position of authority?

SteveLehto > Vizzini
09/09/2014 at 15:17

I've had that happen too. At least everyone is on the same page then.

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > Jonee
09/09/2014 at 15:17

Video evidence, for one. Not all cases are decided by juries and even if they are the Judge should use all evidence at his disposal to determine an appropriate sentence.

StevenG > TheCraigy
09/09/2014 at 15:18

Which is the problem I was trying to address. By not allowing documents that are blurry, perhaps only when clear versions are available and punishing those attempts this could be stopped. In this case lawyer 1 shows blurry version, at that time force him to claim no clear document exists. Lawyer 2 shows clear document, and charge lawyer 1 with perjury.

This judge failed to do that, from my own experience juries might be worse. From the outside looking in voir dire is the process of eliminating any juror who might actually be able to do that.

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > agjios
09/09/2014 at 15:19

Whoa dude, way to go over the cliff. Please don't infer what I meant without asking. I never said vision = intelligence and I never said blind people can't hold important positions.

-Tom- > StevenG
09/09/2014 at 15:22

Why is there no recourse against the JUDGE. He clearly isnt competent and capable of doing his job.

jwaves2007 > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:23

I am sure that you probably weed out more cases than you take. I would guess 50 to every one. That would probably include fraud and lemon law cases. It is extremely rare to have both. Throw in a blind judge and I would say one in a million.

heeltoehero > drdude
09/09/2014 at 15:23

The stories already exist. Google your state and "disbarred" and you can read all manner of disbarment opinions.

Jonee > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 15:24

Sure, and I think a blind judge would recuse himself from any case that required viewing evidence. But, for the majority of civil cases, I think being blind has no effect. Documents like contracts, etc. are easily translated to Braille.

StevenG > -Tom-
09/09/2014 at 15:28

Good question, Steve Lehto basically said because they don't have a method to deal with that.

The more of these I read the more I realize the best method is to try to avoid any and all legal entanglements.

SteveLehto > jwaves2007
09/09/2014 at 15:28

Yes. And it also depends on the state. I practice in MICH which has a decent lemon law and a lot of car sales. In states with lesser laws or fewer car sales, there are not as many cases. My phone rings all day long and I talk to everyone. Most of them do not have cases that I take. You will also note that I was not even going to handle the second case in this story (the fraud one). I just got involved when it got strange.

BiancaOvekp > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:28

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

factsonly1 > Voice of C. Montgomery Burns
09/09/2014 at 15:30

If we allow tony stewart on a race track then we can allow blind people to be judges.

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > Jonee
09/09/2014 at 15:30

Since the idea of a recuse is voluntary for Judges, I don't think that would occur as often as you would hope.

Also, photographic evidence, for two.

asenna > SteveLehto
09/09/2014 at 15:31

Man came in said, "All rise." We all stood up,