Lawsuit: In Session Jeygame7816 v. Destined7433 [2024] FCR 125

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Joygame 7816 - represented by Titan Law
Plaintiff
v.
Destined7433,
Defendant

---

COMPLAINT​

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On October 1, 2024, the Defendant placed an advertisement in the DemocracyCraft Discord server seeking work as an attorney (P-001). On October 14, 2024, the Defendant told the Plaintiff, “k” and “Dm whenever u need anything” (P-002), thereby agreeing to be the Plaintiff's attorney and establishing attorney-client privilege as per the Legal Reform Act, which states: “Attorney-Client Privilege shall exist as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter.”
Between October 10 and October 30, the Plaintiff shared confidential information with the Defendant under the protection of attorney-client privilege (P-003, P-004, P-005, P-006). On October 30, 2024, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that an investigation was underway and that he was working for the Department of Justice (DOJ) (P-006). The Defendant then disclosed portions of these confidential communications to the DOJ as part of its investigation (P-007), thereby breaching the Plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege in violation of the Legal Reform Act.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF​

I. PARTIES​

1. Jeygame7816 - Plaintiff
2. Destined7433 - Defendant
3. Razorsharpbread - Lead Investigator and Witness

II. FACTS​

1. On October 1, 2024, the Defendant posted an advertisement in the DemocracyCraft Discord server seeking work as an attorney (P-001).
2. On October 14, 2024, the Defendant agreed to represent the Plaintiff by stating, “k” and “Dm whenever u need anything” (P-002).
3. Under the Legal Reform Act, attorney-client privilege applies as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm about a case or legal matter.
4. Between October 10 and October 30, the Plaintiff shared confidential information with the Defendant, under attorney-client privilege (P-003, P-004, P-005, P-006).
5. On October 30, 2024, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of an investigation against them and revealed that he was working for the DOJ (P-006).
6. The Defendant disclosed portions of their confidential communications to the DOJ as part of its investigation, breaching the Plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege (P-007).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. The Defendant breached the Legal Reform Act by violating the Plaintiff's right to attorney-client privilege.
2. The Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the unlawful use of confidential information in the DOJ investigation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following relief from the Defendant:

1. $20,000 - For the breach of attorney-client privilege.
2. $15,000 - In punitive damages for the Defendant’s conduct.
3. $10,000 - In emotional damages due to the distress caused by the use of confidential information in a false investigation.
4. $10,000 - For loss of enjoyment resulting from the stress caused by the Defendant’s actions.
5. Temporary Disbarment - That the Defendant be disbarred for 2 months due to misconduct.
6. $16,500 - In legal fees, representing 30% of the total case value.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses as applicable)

By making this submission, I affirm that I understand the penalties of perjury and acknowledge that I am subject to perjury charges should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 5 day of November, 2024.


P-001

P-002

P-003

P-004

P-005

P-006

P-007

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

Answer to Complaint​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Joygame7816, - represented by Titan Law
Plaintiff
v.
Destined7433, - represented by Black Widow LLP.
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense disputes that "the defendant breached the Legal Reform Act by violating the Plaintiff's right to attorney-client privilege."
2. the defense disputes the plaintiff's claim for relief that "the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the unlawful use of confidential information in the DOJ investigation."

II. DEFENCES
1. In response the the first claim for relief, the defense contends that the defendant did not breach the Legal Reform Act, as the plaintiff did not engage in any formal discussion with the defendant or the defendant's firm "regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter" (Legal Reform Act). The only contact to take place prior to the investigation in question (so far shown in discovery) between the plaintiff and the defendant is in the initial public advertising space, and later in the defendant's direct messages. The defense contends that neither of these mediums of communication constitute "formal discussion," nor does a response of "k" and "DM whenever u need anything" to an interested prospective client. Thus, it is the defense's opinion that attorney-client privilege did not exist.
2. In response to the second claim for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has either not suffered emotional damages, or has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of my client breaching attorney-client privilege, the plaintiff was emotionally damaged. To this, the defense contends that the plaintiff has shown no such evidence, and that the plaintiff has not been dissuaded against seeking further legal counsel despite the plaintiff's claims to emotional distress as a result of past counsel. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that emotional damages not be awarded.
3. In response to the third prayer for relief, the defense contends that, pursuant to the 'Legal Damages Act', "Punitive damages [should] not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous." Furthermore, the defense contends that the defendant's conduct was not "outrageous," and that the 'Legal Reform Act' does not authorize punitive damages. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that punitive damages should not be awarded.
4. In response to the fourth prayer for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has not lost its ability to enjoy and/or engage in certain activities in the way that it did before its alleged harm, nor has the plaintiff introduced any evidence to the contrary. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that damages on the grounds of 'loss of enjoyment' not be granted.
5. In response for the fifth prayer for relief, the defense contests that "temporary disbarment" is not an available remedy for a plaintiff in a civil action, as it is only an available remedy under a criminal action, and only when it is the defendant's second (or more) offence. As a result, it is the defense's opinion that this remedy may not be granted under the law.
6. In response to the sixth prayer for relief, the plaintiff has heretofore failed to "disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court" (Legal Damages Act). Furthermore, the defense contests that, as a result of the plaintiff's counsel charging on contingency (according to plaintiff counsel's advertising), the plaintiff is "prohibited from requesting additional legal fees" (Legal Damages Act).
7. In response to all prayers for relief, the defense contests that no damages, pecuniary or otherwise have been proven to be suffered. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that no damages be awarded to the plaintiff (the seventh point of defense does not address punitive damages).

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of November, 2024.


D-001

---

Current
Black Widow LLP. Managing Partner​

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>OBJECTION - RELEVANCE<br><br>This evidence, D-001, is not relevant because the charges billed to my clients have no bearing on the legal fees I am entitled to collect in this case.[/CENTER]<br>

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

Response to Objection
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION MADE- RELEVANCE
Pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, the plaintiff is “prohibited from requesting additional legal fees" in the event that they are charging their client based off of contingency. D-001 goes to show that plaintiff’s counsel is in fact charging based on contingency, and is therefore not entitled to collect legal fees. And since the plaintiff has requested legal fees, this is, of course, at issue and therefore relevant.

 

[dodrio3]

Your honour you are not able to make objections to objections. And only a response may be given.

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

Apologies, response format has been amended.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure<br><br>The Defence has breached procedures as the answer to complaint should come after the discovery period as per the new court procedures

Answer to Complaint​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Joygame7816, - represented by Titan Law
Plaintiff
v.
Destined7433, - represented by Black Widow LLP.
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense disputes that "the defendant breached the Legal Reform Act by violating the Plaintiff's right to attorney-client privilege."
2. the defense disputes the plaintiff's claim for relief that "the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the unlawful use of confidential information in the DOJ investigation."

II. DEFENCES
1. In response the the first claim for relief, the defense contends that the defendant did not breach the Legal Reform Act, as the plaintiff did not engage in any formal discussion with the defendant or the defendant's firm "regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter" (Legal Reform Act). The only contact to take place prior to the investigation in question (so far shown in discovery) between the plaintiff and the defendant is in the initial public advertising space, and later in the defendant's direct messages. The defense contends that neither of these mediums of communication constitute "formal discussion," nor does a response of "k" and "DM whenever u need anything" to an interested prospective client. Thus, it is the defense's opinion that attorney-client privilege did not exist.
2. In response to the second claim for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has either not suffered emotional damages, or has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of my client breaching attorney-client privilege, the plaintiff was emotionally damaged. To this, the defense contends that the plaintiff has shown no such evidence, and that the plaintiff has not been dissuaded against seeking further legal counsel despite the plaintiff's claims to emotional distress as a result of past counsel. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that emotional damages not be awarded.
3. In response to the third prayer for relief, the defense contends that, pursuant to the 'Legal Damages Act', "Punitive damages [should] not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous." Furthermore, the defense contends that the defendant's conduct was not "outrageous," and that the 'Legal Reform Act' does not authorize punitive damages. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that punitive damages should not be awarded.
4. In response to the fourth prayer for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has not lost its ability to enjoy and/or engage in certain activities in the way that it did before its alleged harm, nor has the plaintiff introduced any evidence to the contrary. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that damages on the grounds of 'loss of enjoyment' not be granted.
5. In response for the fifth prayer for relief, the defense contests that "temporary disbarment" is not an available remedy for a plaintiff in a civil action, as it is only an available remedy under a criminal action, and only when it is the defendant's second (or more) offence. As a result, it is the defense's opinion that this remedy may not be granted under the law.
6. In response to the sixth prayer for relief, the plaintiff has heretofore failed to "disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court" (Legal Damages Act). Furthermore, the defense contests that, as a result of the plaintiff's counsel charging on contingency (according to plaintiff counsel's advertising), the plaintiff is "prohibited from requesting additional legal fees" (Legal Damages Act).
7. In response to all prayers for relief, the defense contests that no damages, pecuniary or otherwise have been proven to be suffered. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that no damages be awarded to the plaintiff (the seventh point of defense does not address punitive damages).

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of November, 2024.


D-001
View attachment 49864

---

Current
Black Widow LLP. Managing Partner​

[/CENTER]<br>

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

Response to Objection
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION MADE- BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Opposing counsel is correct, I will withdraw the defense’s response at my earliest ability, and will re-submit it upon the completion of discovery, apologies and thank you.

 

[Jakovus]

Answer to Complaint​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Joygame7816, - represented by Titan Law
Plaintiff
v.
Destined7433, - represented by Black Widow LLP.
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense disputes that "the defendant breached the Legal Reform Act by violating the Plaintiff's right to attorney-client privilege."
2. the defense disputes the plaintiff's claim for relief that "the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the unlawful use of confidential information in the DOJ investigation."

II. DEFENCES
1. In response the the first claim for relief, the defense contends that the defendant did not breach the Legal Reform Act, as the plaintiff did not engage in any formal discussion with the defendant or the defendant's firm "regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter" (Legal Reform Act). The only contact to take place prior to the investigation in question (so far shown in discovery) between the plaintiff and the defendant is in the initial public advertising space, and later in the defendant's direct messages. The defense contends that neither of these mediums of communication constitute "formal discussion," nor does a response of "k" and "DM whenever u need anything" to an interested prospective client. Thus, it is the defense's opinion that attorney-client privilege did not exist.
2. In response to the second claim for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has either not suffered emotional damages, or has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of my client breaching attorney-client privilege, the plaintiff was emotionally damaged. To this, the defense contends that the plaintiff has shown no such evidence, and that the plaintiff has not been dissuaded against seeking further legal counsel despite the plaintiff's claims to emotional distress as a result of past counsel. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that emotional damages not be awarded.
3. In response to the third prayer for relief, the defense contends that, pursuant to the 'Legal Damages Act', "Punitive damages [should] not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous." Furthermore, the defense contends that the defendant's conduct was not "outrageous," and that the 'Legal Reform Act' does not authorize punitive damages. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that punitive damages should not be awarded.
4. In response to the fourth prayer for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has not lost its ability to enjoy and/or engage in certain activities in the way that it did before its alleged harm, nor has the plaintiff introduced any evidence to the contrary. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that damages on the grounds of 'loss of enjoyment' not be granted.
5. In response for the fifth prayer for relief, the defense contests that "temporary disbarment" is not an available remedy for a plaintiff in a civil action, as it is only an available remedy under a criminal action, and only when it is the defendant's second (or more) offence. As a result, it is the defense's opinion that this remedy may not be granted under the law.
6. In response to the sixth prayer for relief, the plaintiff has heretofore failed to "disclose their fee structure along with their proof of representation to the court" (Legal Damages Act). Furthermore, the defense contests that, as a result of the plaintiff's counsel charging on contingency (according to plaintiff counsel's advertising), the plaintiff is "prohibited from requesting additional legal fees" (Legal Damages Act).
7. In response to all prayers for relief, the defense contests that no damages, pecuniary or otherwise have been proven to be suffered. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that no damages be awarded to the plaintiff (the seventh point of defense does not address punitive damages).

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 7th day of November, 2024.


D-001
View attachment 49864

---

Current
Black Widow LLP. Managing Partner​

Struck.

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>OBJECTION - RELEVANCE<br><br>This evidence, D-001, is not relevant because the charges billed to my clients have no bearing on the legal fees I am entitled to collect in this case.[/CENTER]<br>

Overruled.

Response to Objection
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION MADE- RELEVANCE
Pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, the plaintiff is “prohibited from requesting additional legal fees" in the event that they are charging their client based off of contingency. D-001 goes to show that plaintiff’s counsel is in fact charging based on contingency, and is therefore not entitled to collect legal fees. And since the plaintiff has requested legal fees, this is, of course, at issue and therefore relevant.

Struck.

Objection

<br>IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT<br>OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure<br><br>The Defence has breached procedures as the answer to complaint should come after the discovery period as per the new court procedures


[/CENTER]<br>

Sustained.

Response to Objection
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION MADE- BREACH OF PROCEDURE
Opposing counsel is correct, I will withdraw the defense’s response at my earliest ability, and will re-submit it upon the completion of discovery, apologies and thank you.

Struck.

I would like to remind all parties to adhere to Court Rules and Procedures. The Defendant was not summoned, and if you speak again out of turn, you will be found in contempt of court. I will issue the Writ of Summons shortly, and only then you may state your presence or start speaking in this court.

 

[Jakovus]

Writ of Summons

@.Destined7433 is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Jeygame7816 v. Destined7433 [2024] FCR 125.
.​

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

Apologies your honor, the defense is present.

 

[Jakovus]

Discovery will last 72 hours from now. Submit interrogatories, evidence, and witness lists in this timeframe.

If extension is needed, notify the court in due time.

I remind the parties of the possibility of an in-game trial, should both parties be amenable to it, and I encourage you to consider it.

 

[dodrio3]

The Plaintiff Wishes to call the following witnesses:

1. Jeygame7816 - Plaintiff
2. Razorsharpbread - Lead Investigator

The Plaintiff also wishes to submit the following evidence

P-008 (Titan Law Legal Fees Policy)

P-009 (Proof of Representation)

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

The Defense wishes to submit the following evidence:

D-001 (proof of representation and payment structure)

Furthermore, the defense would like to request an in-game trial in this matter.

---

Current
Black Widow LLP. Managing Partner​

 

[dodrio3]

The plaintiff does not wish for an in-game trial.

 

[Jakovus]

Seeing as parties are dissonant on whether to conduct an in-game trial, this case will proceed on the fora.

 

[Jakovus]

I call on the Defendant to deliver Answer to Complaint within 72 hours. Failure to do so will result in a default judgement.

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

Answer to Complaint​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Joygame7816, - represented by Titan Law
Plaintiff
v.
Destined7433, - represented by Black Widow LLP.
Defendant


I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1.The defense AFFIRMS that "On October 1, 2024, the Defendant posted an advertisement in the DemocracyCraft Discord server seeking work as an attorney."
2. The defense PARTIALLY DISPUTES that "On October 14, 2024, the Defendant agreed to represent the Plaintiff by stating, “k” and “Dm whenever u need anything,” as the defense agrees that these statements were made, but not that they constitute an attorney-client relationship, or a formal agreement to represent the plaintiff.
3. The defense AFFIRMS that "Under the Legal Reform Act, attorney-client privilege applies as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion with a lawyer or law firm about a case or legal matter."
4. The defense DISPUTES that "Between October 10 and October 30, the Plaintiff shared confidential information with the Defendant, under attorney-client privilege"
5. The defense PARTIALLY DISPUTES that "On October 30, 2024, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of an investigation against them and revealed that he was working for the DOJ," as the defendant did reveal that they were employed by the DOJ, but the defendant was not the one to bring up the investigation.
6. the defense DISPUTES that "The Defendant disclosed portions of their confidential communications to the DOJ as part of its investigation, breaching the Plaintiff’s attorney-client privilege."
7. In response to the first claim for relief, the defense DISPUTES that "the defendant breached the Legal Reform Act by violating the Plaintiff's right to attorney-client privilege."
8. In response to the second claim for relief, the defense DISPUTES the plaintiff's claim for relief that "the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the unlawful use of confidential information in the DOJ investigation."

II. DEFENCES
1. In response the the first claim for relief, the defense contends that the defendant did not breach the Legal Reform Act, as the plaintiff did not engage in any formal discussion with the defendant or the defendant's firm "regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter" (Legal Reform Act). The only contact to take place prior to the investigation in question (shown in discovery) between the plaintiff and the defendant is in the initial public advertising space, and later in the defendant's direct messages. The defense contends that neither of these mediums of communication constitute "formal discussion," nor does a response of "k" and "DM whenever u need anything" to an interested prospective client constitute a "formal discussion" or an attorney-client relationship. Thus, it is the defense's opinion that attorney-client privilege did not exist.
2. In response to the second claim for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has either not suffered emotional damages, and/or has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate such a claim. The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendant breaching attorney-client privilege, the plaintiff was emotionally damaged. To this, the defense contends that the plaintiff has shown no such evidence, and that the plaintiff has not been dissuaded against seeking further legal counsel despite the plaintiff's claims to emotional distress as a result of past counsel. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that emotional damages not be awarded.
3. In response to the third prayer for relief, the defense contends that, pursuant to the 'Legal Damages Act', "Punitive damages [should] not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous." Furthermore, the defense contends that the defendant's conduct was not "outrageous," and that the 'Legal Reform Act' does not authorize punitive damages. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that punitive damages should not be awarded.
4. In response to the fourth prayer for relief, the defense contends that the plaintiff has not lost its ability to enjoy and/or engage in certain activities in the way that it did before its alleged harm, nor has the plaintiff introduced any evidence to the contrary. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that damages on the grounds of 'loss of enjoyment' should not be granted.
5. In response for the fifth prayer for relief, the defense contests that "temporary disbarment" is not an available remedy for a plaintiff in a civil action, as it is only an available remedy under a criminal action, and only when it is the defendant's second (or more) offence pursuant to the 'Legal Reform Act'. As a result, it is the defense's opinion that this remedy may not be granted under the law.
6. In response to the sixth prayer for relief, the defense argues that, as a result of the plaintiff's counsel charging on contingency (according to plaintiff counsel's advertising, proof of representation, and proof of fee structure), the plaintiff is "prohibited from requesting additional legal fees" (Legal Damages Act).
7. In response to all prayers for relief, the defense contests that no damages, pecuniary or otherwise have been proven to be suffered. As a result, it is the opinion of the defense that no damages be awarded to the plaintiff (the seventh point of defense does not address punitive damages).


(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 12th day of November, 2024.

---

Current
Black Widow LLP. Managing Partner​

 

[Jakovus]

I call on the Plaintiff to deliver their Opening Statement in the next 72 hours. Immediately after the Plaintiff, the Defendant will have 72 hours to post their Opening.

Notify the Court in reasonable advance if an extension is needed.

 

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour, the main argument that the defence has given us is that “the plaintiff did not engage in any formal discussion with the defendant” and “The only contact to take place prior to the investigation.” However, none of this is required as per the Legal Reform Act, which states, “Attorney-Client Privilege shall exist as soon as a client or potential client engages in a formal discussion.” The second they engaged in the discussion, attorney-client privileges were afforded to the plaintiff.

 

[Anaphase_Andy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good evening your honor, and may it please the court.
Your honor, this is a case of damages. In their complaint, the plaintiff has requested $71,500 in damages. The evidence in this case will not support these prayers for relief, of which the plaintiff has made six. Firstly, the plaintiff has requested $20,000 for the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege. The evidence will fail to support this request in two ways:
One, the plaintiff will fail to prove, through a balance of probabilities (Judicial Standards Act), that the defendant and the plaintiff engaged in "a formal discussion... regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter," as the plaintiff will only prove that the defendant only made contact with the plaintiff through personal DMs and in a public advertisement forum (Legal Reform Act). Neither of these forms of communication constitute "a formal discussion."
Two, the plaintiff will fail to prove that the plaintiff has suffered monetary damages as a result of the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege through a balance of probabilities, and the plaintiff will fail to prove that the law permits monetary damages to be awarded solely on the grounds of a breach of privilege without proven damages. Pursuant to the 'Legal Reform Act,' a client (plaintiff) may only sue the lawyer or law firm for "any losses that can be proven in court." The plaintiff will fail to prove any losses via a balance of probabilities, as is their burden of proof.
The plaintiff's second prayer for relief is $15,000 in punitive damages. In order for these damages to be awarded, the plaintiff bust prove, through a balance of probabilities, that "the conduct of the [defense] in causing the [plaintiff's] harm is outrageous." Not only will the plaintiff fail to prove that the conduct of the defense was "outrageous," but the plaintiff will also fail to prove harm to the plaintiff in the first place (Legal Damages Act).
The plaintiff's third and fourth prayers for relief are a combined $20,000 for emotional damages and for loss of enjoyment respectively. To collect emotional damages, the plaintiff must prove, through a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff "suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions" (Legal Damages Act). The plaintiff will fail show these damages through the evidence and testimony provided in this case, as no such evidence or testimony will substantiate this prayer for relief. In order to collect damages on the grounds of "loss of enjoyment," the plaintiff must prove that they have "[lost] their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." The plaintiff will fail to show the that this case satisfies the elements of "loss of enjoyment." Furthermore, the plaintiff has alleged that, through the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege, the defendant has caused a loss of enjoyment for the plaintiff. Despite this prayer for relief coming as a result of obtaining legal counsel, the plaintiff has shown no issues or hesitation to obtain more legal counsel. As a result of this, and as a result of the points mentioned above, as well as a general lack of evidence, the plaintiff will fail to show damages on the grounds of emotional damages, and loss of enjoyment (Legal Damages Act).
The plaintiff's fifth prayer for relief is temporary disbarment. Pursuant to the 'Legal Reform Act' a plaintiff may only sue for the losses that can be proven in court. The laws in question simply do not permit the disbarment of a practicing attorney through a civil action. Furthermore, pursuant to the same law, a defendant may only be disbarred in the event that the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege is charged as an indictable criminal offence, and only if it is the defendant's third or higher offense, none of which applies to the defendant or this case.
The plaintiff's sixth and final prayer for relief is $16,500 in legal fees. Pursuant to the 'Legal Damages Act,' "If [an attorney is] representing a client on a contingency basis, wherein their fees are contingent upon the outcome of the case, they are prohibited from requesting additional legal fees." The plaintiff has shown, in plaintiff's #008, that the plaintiff counsel is representing their client on a "contingency basis for plaintiff representation" (P-008). As a result, the plaintiff may not collect legal fees from the defense.

Your honor,
Time and time again throughout today's case, the plaintiff will fail to substantiate any of their prayers for relief through a balance of the probabilities, and so too will they fail to prove any of the plaintiff's claims for relief for the same reasons listed above. The evidence shown by the plaintiff will prove only three things: that an informal conversation took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, that aspects of this conversation were shared with a third party, and that the plaintiff's counsel is representing the plaintiff on a contingency basis. None of this shows, through a balance of the probabilities, any grounds for the collection of damages of any kind, nor does this prove any of the plaintiff's claims for relief to the burden of proof set upon the plaintiff.

It is for these reasons, your honor, that the defense asks that the court come to a judgment of not liable for the defendant, thank you.

---

Current
Black Widow LLP Managing Partner​

 

[dodrio3]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good evening your honor, and may it please the court.
Your honor, this is a case of damages. In their complaint, the plaintiff has requested $71,500 in damages. The evidence in this case will not support these prayers for relief, of which the plaintiff has made six. Firstly, the plaintiff has requested $20,000 for the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege. The evidence will fail to support this request in two ways:
One, the plaintiff will fail to prove, through a balance of probabilities (Judicial Standards Act), that the defendant and the plaintiff engaged in "a formal discussion... regarding a case, potential case, or other legal matter," as the plaintiff will only prove that the defendant only made contact with the plaintiff through personal DMs and in a public advertisement forum (Legal Reform Act). Neither of these forms of communication constitute "a formal discussion."
Two, the plaintiff will fail to prove that the plaintiff has suffered monetary damages as a result of the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege through a balance of probabilities, and the plaintiff will fail to prove that the law permits monetary damages to be awarded solely on the grounds of a breach of privilege without proven damages. Pursuant to the 'Legal Reform Act,' a client (plaintiff) may only sue the lawyer or law firm for "any losses that can be proven in court." The plaintiff will fail to prove any losses via a balance of probabilities, as is their burden of proof.
The plaintiff's second prayer for relief is $15,000 in punitive damages. In order for these damages to be awarded, the plaintiff bust prove, through a balance of probabilities, that "the conduct of the [defense] in causing the [plaintiff's] harm is outrageous." Not only will the plaintiff fail to prove that the conduct of the defense was "outrageous," but the plaintiff will also fail to prove harm to the plaintiff in the first place (Legal Damages Act).
The plaintiff's third and fourth prayers for relief are a combined $20,000 for emotional damages and for loss of enjoyment respectively. To collect emotional damages, the plaintiff must prove, through a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff "suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions" (Legal Damages Act). The plaintiff will fail show these damages through the evidence and testimony provided in this case, as no such evidence or testimony will substantiate this prayer for relief. In order to collect damages on the grounds of "loss of enjoyment," the plaintiff must prove that they have "[lost] their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm." The plaintiff will fail to show the that this case satisfies the elements of "loss of enjoyment." Furthermore, the plaintiff has alleged that, through the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege, the defendant has caused a loss of enjoyment for the plaintiff. Despite this prayer for relief coming as a result of obtaining legal counsel, the plaintiff has shown no issues or hesitation to obtain more legal counsel. As a result of this, and as a result of the points mentioned above, as well as a general lack of evidence, the plaintiff will fail to show damages on the grounds of emotional damages, and loss of enjoyment (Legal Damages Act).
The plaintiff's fifth prayer for relief is temporary disbarment. Pursuant to the 'Legal Reform Act' a plaintiff may only sue for the losses that can be proven in court. The laws in question simply do not permit the disbarment of a practicing attorney through a civil action. Furthermore, pursuant to the same law, a defendant may only be disbarred in the event that the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege is charged as an indictable criminal offence, and only if it is the defendant's third or higher offense, none of which applies to the defendant or this case.
The plaintiff's sixth and final prayer for relief is $16,500 in legal fees. Pursuant to the 'Legal Damages Act,' "If [an attorney is] representing a client on a contingency basis, wherein their fees are contingent upon the outcome of the case, they are prohibited from requesting additional legal fees." The plaintiff has shown, in plaintiff's #008, that the plaintiff counsel is representing their client on a "contingency basis for plaintiff representation" (P-008). As a result, the plaintiff may not collect legal fees from the defense.

Your honor,
Time and time again throughout today's case, the plaintiff will fail to substantiate any of their prayers for relief through a balance of the probabilities, and so too will they fail to prove any of the plaintiff's claims for relief for the same reasons listed above. The evidence shown by the plaintiff will prove only three things: that an informal conversation took place between the plaintiff and the defendant, that aspects of this conversation were shared with a third party, and that the plaintiff's counsel is representing the plaintiff on a contingency basis. None of this shows, through a balance of the probabilities, any grounds for the collection of damages of any kind, nor does this prove any of the plaintiff's claims for relief to the burden of proof set upon the plaintiff.

It is for these reasons, your honor, that the defense asks that the court come to a judgment of not liable for the defendant, thank you.

---

Current
Black Widow LLP Managing Partner​

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

For the second time in this cases the defences council had failed to obey court policy and has posted an opening statement without being printed to a second time. I request that this be struck from the record and that the defendant seek new council who understand court procedure.

 

[Jakovus]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

For the second time in this cases the defences council had failed to obey court policy and has posted an opening statement without being printed to a second time. I request that this be struck from the record and that the defendant seek new council who understand court procedure.

Overruled

Before jumping to such conclusions I would request from the Plaintiff's counsel to read my instructions more thoroughly. Please keep in mind that objections are not a vehicle for insults, nor is it your duty to advise the opposite party on their counsel.

Now that that's cleared up, I will post summons for witnesses soon.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour we are still awaiting witness summons.