The Guinn Law Firm Blog

First, I apologize for the lateness of this blog. Work has been busy and unfortunately I do not get paid for writing this blog. However, it would be nice if I was.

I became a solo practitioner because I wanted to. I wanted the ability to take time off when I wanted to and to practice the type of law that I want to. Many of my counterparts that I graduated with are making a lot more money than I am in their lofty offices and I sit here on a Saturday working at my tiny table. However, most of their work is research-based while I get direct interaction with clients and immediate time in the courtroom. So, I believe I am ahead of them in a lot of ways.

However, just because I am both a solo attorney and a new attorney I am not someone who can be bullied. I recently had a criminal case in which the individual had to pay restitution to the company he stole from. This is a very large company and one that everyone has heard of. The matter should have been closed and, after representing my client in court, my client never should have had to deal with this company again.

But, my client recently contacted me because this company wants more money from him or else they will sue. Of course, he is scared and asked me to deal with it. I sent them an email that basically said they can go ahead and sue. I practically dared them to. I told them that it will cost them more in attorney’s fees then they will ever get from my client. Plus, I would bury their attorneys in so much paperwork that it would be a year or more before this case goes to trial. Part of me hopes they will sue because I would love to get into a long court battle with them. But, they likely won’t.

Litigation is a lot like playing poker. There is a lot of bluffing that goes on. This company attempted to bluff by threatening suit in an attempt to get money from my client. I called their bluff and they will likely retreat. But maybe they won’t. If not I will be sure to keep you informed.

Now for a commercial break. If you or someone you know has been threatened with suit or is dealing with a collection company please let me know. I am happy to help.

Most people think being an attorney is a glamorous job. This notion is likely fueled by watching too many episodes of “Law and Order.” Hollywood likes to portray the “fun side” of being an attorney by showing attorneys in the courtroom arguing cases while wearing 3 piece designer suits. Hollywood will also show attorneys in large offices with solid wood desks, leather chairs, and rows of books behind them.

If this place actually exists I would like to go. In fact, I would leave right now if I was able to.

So what is the reality of being an attorney. The truth is most attorneys, besides yours truly, do not have any sense of style. I once saw an attorney go to court with a bright green sport coat like the one award to golfers at the Masters. It was awful. Other attorneys customarily arrive to court without wearing a tie. Business casual is now what most attorneys wear.

As for the offices they are often small and cramped. The floor is covered with client files and papers. The desks are small and often not made of real wood. And what about all those law books? Not likely to have that many because those books can cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

In fact, I don’t own any of those fancy law books due to the price. I have to go to the local law library, which is only open Monday thru Friday from 8 to 4, to get the answers I am searching for. Thankfully this is a free service and I use it every chance that I get.

Also, I don’t have a secretary. I answer my own phone, organize my own files, and send out all of my own mail. Simply put, I can’t afford a secretary. It would be nice but it is not feasible right now. In fact, it may never be feasible.

Plus, I do hours of research and work all the time, which is something Hollywood likes to leave out.

TV often shapes our view of the world until we encounter reality. Such is the case with students leaving law school. There are almost zero jobs for attorneys out there right now due to the fact that more and more people simply refuse to hire an attorney to do anything. They would rather find the answer online and take care of it themselves. I don’t think this is a good idea but people continue to do it. Courts don’t make this easier by having “fill in the blank” complaints and other court papers for people to fill out.

I do enjoy being an attorney and I wish my life as an attorney was similar to what Hollywood portrays. But it isn’t and I can live with that.

I don’t like debt collectors. It isn’t because of the student loan debt that I have. It is because of the underhanded tactics that they like to use. I have had a few run-ins with debt collectors on behalf of clients. In the first case I was able to get it dismissed. Why? The debt collectors didn’t have enough information to prove that my client owed the debt. The debt collector actually told me, before deciding to dismiss the case, that “We are interesting in settling this for a sum of money.” I told him, “My client isn’t.” The next case is ongoing but I finally convinced them that they can take the monthly payment that my client could afford to pay ever month or sue and get nothing. They took the amount I proposed. I have other cases besides those that I am working on right now.

Here is a secret. Debt collectors don’t like to sue because they often do not have the evidence to prove that the person owes a debt. Also, it will cost the debt collectors more in money than the debt is worth.

Now it may seem like I am telling you to not pay off your debts. No. If you owe a debt you should pay it. That is the right thing to do.

However, I want to make you aware of the things that debt collectors are doing. For instance, they often threaten people with prison. There is no such thing as debtor’s prison. You can’t go to jail because you owe a debt. They will threaten you with a lawsuit. Depending on the amount you owe this threat means nothing because it will cost them more to sue then they will get on the debt.

Also, don’t be fooled into thinking you owe a debt that you actually don’t. There is a group in New York that is calling people under the guise of being debt collectors and threatening people if they do not pay the debt. Unfortunately, people have been fooled by their tactics and have paid only to find out these people are thieves and that they never owed a debt in the first place. These debt collectors have even threatened to commit acts of sexual assault on individuals if they are not paid.

If you are being threatened or harassed by a debt collector please let me know. You have better things to do with your time then to worry about these people. I will be more than happy to deal with these people and work out a payment plan that works for you, and not for them.

If you do not believe you owe the debt I will force them to prove it or I will threaten legal action to make them go away. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied or harassed by these people. Instead, let me take care of them.

I have to admit that I love lawyer jokes. There are those lawyers that don’t and get really offended if they hear one. Why? It is good to laugh at yourself or your profession every now and then. Honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is.

Here is one of my favorite lawyer jokes:

The devil visited a lawyer’s office and made him an offer. “I can arrange some things for you,” the devil said. “I’ll increase your income five-fold. Your partners will love you; your clients will respect you; you’ll have four months of vacation each year and live to be a hundred. All I require in return is that your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, and their children’s souls rot in hell for eternity.”

The lawyer thought for a moment. “What’s the catch?” he asked.

Here is another one:

A client who felt his legal bill was too high asked his lawyer to itemize costs. The statement included this item:

“Was walking down the street and saw you on the other side. Walked to the corner to cross at the light, crossed the street and walked quickly to catch up with you. Got close and saw it wasn’t you. — $50.00.”

Despite these jokes and the stereotypes about lawyers being rude and greedy, my clients often convey to me just how much they appreciate the work that I am doing. It is nice to feel that you are doing something good for someone and that they genuinely appreciate it. That is worth more to me than any amount of money a client could pay me. Too many lawyers get over concerned about themselves and lose focus of their clients. I don’t.

I called a potential client today that I had corresponded with over email. I introduced myself and he said, “Sweet.” He was genuinely happy to hear from me. Not the typical response a lawyer typically gets when he talks to a client.

Now it may seem like I have a very high opinion of myself. I actually don’t. I tell people all the time that the main reason I became a lawyer is because I wanted to help people. I believe that this attitude and constant focus on the clients has enabled me to have so much appreciation from my clients.

Other lawyers, as well as people in other professions, need to take the same approach if they want their business to succeed and they want to feel the same gratitude that I get from my clients. However, this is just my opinion.

Many of you who are sports fans have likely been following the Plaxico Burress story. If not, allow me to recap. Last November Burress, who at the time played for the New York Giants, was in a club and had a handgun concealed in his sweatpants. Why he had the handgun is unclear. But, at some point in the evening, the gun began sliding down his leg. Burress attempted to grab the gun, but “fumbled” and the gun fired, hitting him in the leg.

This week a grand jury actually indicted him on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and a single count of reckless endangerment in the second degree. Both of these are felonies. Burress could get a 3 and a half year sentence for these crimes.

Now, New York City has a high crime rate. I am sure the police are stretched to the limit. Additionally, I am sure prosecutors have a ton of cases that they are handling at any given moment. Due to these circumstances, I am somewhat surprised that New York City is expending all of this time and money to go after one celebrity.

You really have to ask yourself if this prosecution of Burress is actually more of a witch hunt due to his celebrity status. Maybe the grand jury only consisted of Jets fans. Who knows? But it seems like this is a waste of time and money. If I was in a club and did the same thing would I be charged? Maybe. But I would likely pay a fine and be done with it. Being shot by my own gun would be punishment enough.

Many people have said that since Burress is a celebrity that he needs to be punished. After all, his celebrity status should not allow him to escape prosecution. I agree. But he is also a person and should not be punished more severely than another human being would for the same offense. The law needs to be applied equally to all people and should not be applied more severely to an individual simply because he is a celebrity.

I am not excusing what Burress did. It was stupid and someone could have been hurt. However, the media and legal witch hunt against him is wrong. A fine and probation would be more appropriate instead of wasting valuable tax dollars pursuing an individual who does not pose a threat to the public. There are more serious criminals that New York City could be spending its time pursuing instead of a man who shot himself in the leg.

I was at home today doing some legal work. Part of what I do is respond to people who have legal questions via Law Guru. It is completely free of charge and anyone can ask a question. Often I give them the best advice that I can and then urge them to contact me free of charge. Most questions I get are fairly answerable. One common question that I usually get is, “I was just charged with possession of crack [or insert your drug of choice]. It’s my first offense. What will the judge give me?” Well, I am not the judge so I really don’t know. Nor can I read the judge’s mind. In fact, how would I know what sentence you are going to get? I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you ask the judge?

Today I got an interesting question. Perhaps the most interesting question that I have ever received. Here is what it said, “Is it possible to take legal action against soda companies, for marketing an addictive product that has caused my teeth to rot and my self esteem to decline due to the appearance of my smile?”

Wow. That is exactly what I thought as I sat here at my desk in my boxers and tank top. By the way, that is often what I wear when I work. Now, that may be a disturbing image to some of you. But, to others it is likely one of lust and pleasure. I digress.

What an interesting lawsuit. Would I win? Probably not. Would it be fun? Yes. The defense that the soda companies would bring up would be choice. One does not have to drink their product. But, is soda addictive? Now that is another story. There has been litigation regarding cigarettes over this very issue. Why not soda?

Is soda addictive? That is the question that I seek to answer. In fact, I do have a craving for an ice cold Diet Mountain Dew as I think about it. The argument could be made that soda is addictive. Would I win? Now that is another story entirely.

So I want to ask all of you, readers of my blog, what you think. Is soda addictive? Also, please tell me where you are from and how you learned about my blog. You can even tell me if you think that I, the “people’s attorney,” have a chance of winning this case. I am trying to actually see how many people actually read my blog. My guess is about eight people. But I could be wrong.

Please email me your answers at danguinn@theguinnlawfirm.com. I look forward to hearing from you. If this turns out to be a class action lawsuit I will likely be contacting you. You may qualify as a plaintiff.

Disclaimer-Sexual assault is a heinous crime and is inexcusable. I do not cry “foul” when anyone is found guilty of this act. That being said, read further at your own risk.

Recently Ben Roethlisberger, two-time Super Bowl champion quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers, was sued by a woman who claims he sexually assaulted her a year ago in Nevada. Now, the legion of die-hard, towel waving Steeler fans are providing “max protection” for their favorite quarterback, denying that he had anything to do with this “bump and run.” To them, there is no way he violated her “Steel Curtain.” Additionally, his supporters claim that this is nothing more than an “encroachment” and a “cheap shot” in an attempt to get money from him. However, critics of Roethlisberger claim that he was “out of bounds” and should be “penalized” for this “illegal procedure.”

Now, it is clear from the facts that this “play” occurred last year in Nevada while Roethlisberger was at a celebrity golf tournament. According to the complaint, this woman was a “coordinator” of sorts for Harrah’s Casino, where Roethlisberger was staying. Apparently, he called her to his room because he claimed his television was not working properly. According to the complaint, when she came to the room to fix the television, he sexually assaulted her.

However, Roethlisberger is not the only one named in this lawsuit, further evidence that this lawsuit is for money. In fact, the accuser is “piling on” anyone who had anything to do with this incident. The lawsuit also names eight employees of Harrah’s Casino that the accuser claims covered up this “man to man coverage.” She is pulling a “Hail Mary” by suing them for defamation since supposedly they claimed she is sexually promiscuous. They are crying “foul,” claiming that this is nothing more than an “illegal formation.” Additionally, they are claiming that this is between Roethlisberger and her and that their presence in this lawsuit has the effect of “too many men on the field.”

Now, what most people have been quick to point out is that this woman never reported this “foul” to the police. Therefore, since a year has passed, this is obviously about money. We really don’t know why she did not go to the police. Rape is a heinous crime and people respond to it differently. Only two people know what actually occurred in the room.

Not surprisingly, this lawsuit has “blitzed” Roethlisberger “on this blind side.” He has attempted to “move out of the pocket” by denying that anything occurred. His claim is that the woman is a “bandit” who only wants money from him.

Did Roethlisberger know there as a “safety blitz” coming in the form of lawsuit? If not, this woman has pulled a “quarterback sneak” on Roethlisberger. But if so, there is the possibility that she contacted him in an attempt to get a “nickel” or a “dime package” from him. However, Roethlisberger is hiding behind his “offensive line” of attorneys who are on the “defense” claiming that this is only about money since the woman did not go to the police.

Now, if I were Roethlisberger’s attorney I would suggest that he call an “audible” and admit that the sex occurred. Essentially, this would be a “play action pass” in an attempt to “fake” the accuser and it may score the “touchdown” that he needs. That would put her on the “defense” and force her to prove that there was no consent. Now, she might try to “chop block” him with some physical evidence of the supposed sexual assault, if she has any. However, it is likely that Roethlisberger “move out of the pocket” and pull a “boot leg” that will allow him to escape unharmed.

Likely these two sides will enter the “neutral zone” and settle out of court. However, NFL Commissioner and Czar for Life, Roger Goodell, is lurking out there like a “free safety” ready to “clip” Big Ben with a massive fine in an attempt to put him on the “artificial turf” Don’t be surprised if Goodell pulls a “safety blitz” and suspends Roethlisberger for a few games. If so the hopes of a repeat performance in the Super Bowl will rest on their “back-up quarterback.”

Moral of the story-Big Ben, and all athletes, should avoid being caught “one-on-one” with any “tight ends” in a hotel room

Many of you who are rampant ESPN viewers or rabid basketball fans may have heard the news that the SEC’s insider-trading lawsuit against Mark Cuban was dropped recently. Now for those of you who don’t know who Mark Cuban is he is the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team. He is also involved in many different companies throughout the United States. In November of 2008 the SEC filed a lawsuit against Cuban. They alleged that Cuban sold his shares of Mamma.com prior to a stock dilution of the company which saved him roughly $750,000. The SEC further claimed that he sold his shares because he learned about the dilution from an inside source in the company and agreed not to sell based on this information.

Now, what is insider trading? For those of you who haven’t see the movie Wall Street here is the best example that I can give you. Let us say that I own a lot of Microsoft stock. When I say a lot I mean a bunch. Let us say I own 15% of the stock that Microsoft has sold. Then I find out from a source within Microsoft that they are going to file for bankruptcy. I agree to keep this information to myself and not sell my stock. However, I lied. I actually have no intent of doing that. Instead I decide to sell my stock before the bankruptcy is made public, thus saving myself a lot of money. If the SEC came after me for insider-trading I would likely be found liable. I sold my stock based on information that was not public, thus saving myself money that I would have lost otherwise. Also, I agreed not to sell my stock.

That is what the SEC alleged Cuban did. He sold his stock based on insider information that he learned from a company source. The problem was they didn’t make out their case and it was thrown out by the judge. The judge ruled that the SEC did not allege in their complaint that Cuban agreed not to trade his stock based on the information that he learned from the source in the company. This is a key element of the SEC’s claim that they had to allege in order to have a viable claim against Cuban.

What does this mean in simple terms. When one files a lawsuit he must state a claim on which relief can be granted. Essentially, the SEC had to show that Cuban agreed not to sell his stock based on the information he learned. The judge said, “Sorry SEC. You failed to state a claim for insider-trading. So, I am going to throw your lawsuit out.”

The SEC employs some of our nation’s top law school graduates and they can’t properly fill out a complaint for insider-trading? Maybe they need to rethink who they hire. One of the directors at the SEC said they were going to review the ruling and weigh their options. What he really meant was “We are going to find out who messed up and fire them.”

The government now has egg on its face. They love to go after high profile people like Mark Cuban, Martha Stewart, Barry Bonds, Michael Vick, or Marion Jones. And they usually win because they have a lot of resources and a lot of really good attorneys. However, this time they messed up in a big way. They did not have a good case but choose to pursue it anyway despite the fact that they did not have a strong claim.

The government needs to step back and realize that they cannot go after everyone and win. Just because they are “the government” does not mean that they are allowed to bully people whenever they feel like it, no matter what those people do. I am all for the government going after legitimate criminals but not shrewd businessmen who make smart business decisions. To do so is oppressive and it wastes taxpayer dollars.

Now, the SEC can go after Cuban again. The judge gave the SEC 30 days to amend their complaint or they can also appeal the judge’s ruling. Let’s see what they do.

I have had a lot of questions from friends and colleagues in recent weeks about how does the President choose who gets on the Unites States Supreme Court. After all, there are so many judges out there, how can one choose? This flurry of questions is due to the President picking Justice Sonia Sotomeyer for a position on the high court.

Well, I really don’t think there is any exact formula or method. But, I do have a theory on factors that they use. For arguments sake I will assume Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed as the latest justice on the Supreme Court. Plus, just for fun,I will evaluate my own chances of getting on the high court.

Law School the Justice Attended:

The justices all attend ivy league law schools. These are the schools that everyone who want to be an attorney dreams about being accepted into but very few ever do. Why do people want to get into these schools? Because their graduates get good jobs. They get the premier law clerk positions or the six-figure salary as a new associate while graduates of other law school compete for every other job.

Plus, people just think their graduates are smarter. When one says, “I attended Harvard Law School” it simply sounds better than “I attended Joe Blow School of Law.” By the way, there is not really a “Joe Blow School of Law.” At least not that I know of.

Let us look at the justices on the Supreme Court and see where they went to law school
Justice Roberts-Harvard Law School
Justice Alito-Yale Law School
Justice Ginsberg-Columbia Law School [Transferred there from Harvard Law School]
Justice Kennedy-Harvard Law School
Justice Stevens-Northwestern University School of Law
Justice Scalia-Harvard Law School
Justice Thomas-Yale Law School
Justice Breyer-Harvard Law School
Justice Sotomayor-Yale Law School

As you can see they all went to ivy league law schools. Harvard and Yale appear to be the big ones if you want a position on the high court. Since I went to Thomas Cooley Law School, which was a perfectly good law school, it does appear that I will have a chance at a position on the high court.

Worked as a Law Professor

A majority of the justices have been professors at law schools. This makes sense because the justices are essentially intellectuals, more so than attorneys, and have to have a strong knowledge of the law.
Justice Roberts-Georgetown University Law Center
Justice Alito-Seton Hall University School of Law
Justice Ginsberg-Rutgers School of Law and Columbia Law School
Justice Kennedy-McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific
Justice Stevens-Not a professor but was a lecturer at University of Chicago School of Law and Northwestern University School of Law
Justice Scalia-University of Chicago School and Law and University of Virginia School of Law
Justice Thomas-Never was a professor
Justice Breyer-Harvard Law School
Justice Sotomayor-New York University School of Law and a lecturer at Columbia Law School

The only one who was not a professor was Justice Thomas. So, what are my chances? As of this writing I am not a law professor nor do I have any offers on the table. So my chances still are not good.

Age/Health

This is one of the key factors. No president is going to pick an older justice due to the concern that they will die quickly. Justices have such an influence on the law and legal precedent that the President wants them to serve for the longest period possible. Also, no President is going to appoint an individual who is unhealthy. Why appoint someone who is just going to die sooner rather than later?

The oldest member of the United States Supreme Court at appointment was Justice Ginsberg at age 60. Since I am only 33 and in good health I do have a slight advantage here.

Clean Closet

With the exception of Justice Thomas and the Anita Hill issue, all of the other justices really did not have any skeletons in their closets. With regards to myself, I will plead the 5th.

Judicial Views

This depends entirely on which party the President is affiliated with and whether the Senate majority is of the same party. For example, George Bush was able to get both Justices Roberts and Alito nominated easily due to have a Republican majority. Similarly, Obama will have an easy time getting Justice Sotomayor nominated due to there being a Democratic majority. Out of all of the factors I have listed, this one is the biggest. A President wants someone who will bend judicial precedent in accordance with his political views, whether they are liberal or conservative.

Serving as a Judge

This is an absolute must. The Senate has to be able to have evidence of how a nominee to the Supreme Court has ruled on various issues. There is no set time limit that they must have served as a justice but the longer the better.

Other Factors

Race and sex are often the key factors, along with judicial views. For instance, when Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated he was filing in the seat left by Justice Marshall, who was also an African-American. Now, surprisingly, President George Bush did not replace retiring Justice O’Conner with a woman. Additionally, race or sex can be a major issue if a President wants to add to his legacy. For example, President Obama will be the first President to appoint an Hispanic woman. Also, President Bill Clinton will be known for appointing the first Jewish woman onto the high court.

Therefore, that is my opinion based on years of watching people getting nominated on the Supreme Court. There is no exact reason why one person is selected over the other. There are many justices who are more than qualified to serve as justices. Often it is just luck and your political connections.

As for me, I have a better chance of winning the lottery than I ever do of serving on the high court. Oh well. It is their loss.

In 2006 there was a “mockumentary” released called Borat. In it an actor portrayed a journalist from some far away country who comes to America. The film chronicles this man’s interactions and interviews with people across this country. It was a widely successful film that has remained in the public eye, and caught my attention, due to the lawsuits that have resulted from it

Apparently many of the people portrayed in the film did not know it was all a set-up. Apparently, they thought this man was a real journalist. However, this journalist was nothing more than an actor. Of course, this was all caught on film for viewers to see. Obviously, once people realized this they were not happy and many resorted to legal action.

First, how could they not know they would be on film? After all, did they not see the cameras that were filming them? I don’t know what they were told about the purpose of the cameras but when a camera is filming you need to be aware of what you are doing and take some responsibility for your behavior.

Second, I wanted to talk about some of the lawsuits that resulted from this film because I find them quite amusing. I wonder how much of a retainer their attorneys took or if the attorneys just wanted to gamble that they would actually succeed and make some quick cash.

One lawsuit involved a man on a sidewalk whom Borat attempted to hug. The man’s reaction was not typical. He ran down the street screaming and telling Borat to stay away from him. The man’s name was Jeffery Lemerond and he sued for “public humiliation” amongst other things.

The court dismissed the case because the footage was deemed “newsworthy.” Why? I have not read the entire decision but my opinion is that a man running down the street screaming is newsworthy. Wouldn’t it be to you? It would be to me. It is in public and catches the attention of those people around him.

In fact, this is not a typical occurrence in this land we live in. What would have been the difference if a stray camera caught this and it was broadcast on the news? Additionally, the man’s reaction was not typical of what one would expect from a random hugger. If someone wants to hug me I typically hug them back. Even if I don’t want to. I don’t run away screaming. After all, I am a man and not a wimp like Jeffrey.

Additionally, the man claimed that the film’s producers did not get his permission to use the footage. How could they? You ran away Jeffrey. I imagine the public humiliation Jeffrey felt was due to his friends and co-workers who saw the film, recognized him, and have probably teased him unmercifully. I would if it was someone I knew.

The second lawsuit that caught my attention was a group of South Carolina frat boys. According to them they were supplied with alcohol by the film crew. While they were being filmed they said numerous things that were very stupid. Typically the things you say when you are drunk are stupid. And typically they are things that you don’t want to say on camera.

However, these boys knew they were on camera and even signed releases. Additionally, they were in an RV when this was filmed. How could they not see the cameras? Their excuse for why they appeared on camera drunk. They were told that the film would not be released in the United States.

So it is okay to be exposed to humiliation and ridicule in other parts of the world, especially when you are unaware of it. But not when your friends will see it, which is what likely occurred since this movie was extremely popular amongst college students.

These boys claimed that the film made them “the object of ridicule, humiliation, mental anguish and emotional and physical distress, loss of reputation, goodwill and standing in the community.” Additionally, they claimed that it has been difficult for them to find work. The judge threw out this lawsuit, as well he should have. It was not the film that made them the object of ridicule but their own stupid actions. Maybe they would be able to find a job if they spent more time studying in college as opposed to drinking.

In my opinion, the law is not designed to protect people from their own stupidity. Especially when one engages in the stupid act of their own free will and without the assistance of anyone else. Some people would disagree with me on this point. My opinion is that these lawsuits were the product of greed. The movie was successful and the individuals wanted their piece of the pie.

Lawsuits are supposed to be to assist people who have been legitimately injured by the acts of another. They are not something that should be abused or used whenever anyone is slightly “offended,” “embarrassed,” or gets “their feelings hurt.” Please. People need to get thicker skin and take some accountability for their own actions. As an attorney I make every effort not to file frivolous lawsuits. Anything that I file is first carefully researched and then evaluated to see how successful it will be. There is no point in wasting the court’s time, or mine, with a lawsuit that has zero likelihood of being successful.

Now, the actor in Borat does have a new movie out in which he does many of the same things while playing another character. Let us see what lawsuits, if any, result from this film. Hopefully they are just as stupid and ridiculous.