Your honor, I was waiting on the court's ruling on my motion to reconsider, as it would have effected my questioning of the witness. Furthermore, the defense asks for leeway as the deadline had only passed by four minutes.
Your honor, several other questions of this nature had been asked, and opposing counsel had at no point objected to these questions until now. The plaintiff has testified that evidence of "loss of enjoyment or emotional damages" was entered. I am simply asking that the witness expand on their answer.
Sustained
Overruled
With all due respect, you could have asked for an extension. It is not my job to anticipate or forsee your planning or the content of your questions.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT
Good morning your honor, and may it please the court.
Your honor, in the beginning of this case, I told you that this is a case of damages. This, of course, still rings true. The plaintiff in today's case requested for $71,500 in damages. Specifically, the plaintiff made six prayers for relief. First the plaintiff requested $20,000 for the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege. Your honor, it is clear that the evidence has not supported this prayer for relief in two major ways:
1. The plaintiff has failed 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 has only proved that the defendant made contact only through personal DMs and in a public advertisement forum (Legal Reform Act). The evidence has shown that neither of these methods of communication constitute a "formal discussion," nor does the plaintiff's belief that there is attorney client privilege. If this were in fact the case, your honor, then attorneys all across Redmont would fear talking about their conversations on a regular basis, as anyone they interact with could have believed that there was attorney client privilege.
2. The plaintiff has failed to prove, through a balance of probabilities, that the plaintiff has suffered any monetary damages as a result of the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege. Furthermore, the plaintiff has failed to show that the law permits monetary damages to be awarded solely on the grounds of a breach of privilege without proven monetary damages. The 'Legal Reform Act' permits monetary damages to be awarded solely on the grounds of a breach of privilege without proven damages. Pursuant to this law, a client (plaintiff) may only sue the lawyer or law firm for "any losses that can be proven in court." The plaintiff has failed to prove any such losses.
The plaintiff's second prayer for relief was $15,000 in punitive damages. In today's case, the plaintiff had to prove, through a balance of probabilities, that "the conduct of the [defense] in causing the [plaintiff's] harm is outrageous" in order to be awarded punitive damages. Not only, your honor, has the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant's conduct was in any way "outrageous," but the plaintiff has also failed to prove any 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. In order to be awarded emotional damages, the plaintiff had to 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 has utterly failed to show these damages in today's case, through a balance of the probabilities. 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." Despite the plaintiff's baseless testimony to the contrary, the plaintiff has failed to prove that this case satisfies the elements of "loss of enjoyment." Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that, through the alleged breach of attorney-client privilege, the defendant 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 nor has the plaintiff shown a loss of enjoyment in any aspects of our community or in any subsequent activities. As a result of this, and as supported by the plaintiff's own witness, razorsharpbread, as well as a general lack of evidence, the plaintiff has failed 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. Your honor, this remedy is simply not available to the plaintiff. 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,
The plaintiff would have this court believe that the plaintiff has suffered $56,500 in damages, and that the defendant's conduct was so outrageous as to warrant $15,000 in punitive damages. Your honor, in regard to punitive damages, there was no malice in the defendant's actions, nor was there any intention of wrongdoing. These facts, in conjunction with the nonexistent and at best minimal damages allegedly suffered, it is certain that the conduct of the defendant was in no way "outrageous." In regard to the rest of the damages alleged, the plaintiff has repeatedly failed to prove, through a balance of the probabilities, the elements required for each of the plaintiff's prayers for relief. The fact of the matter is, your honor, the defendant is in no way liable for the greatly inflated damages requested by the plaintiff. It is for the above mentioned reasons that the defendant asks that the court find the defendant not liable.
Thank you.
