"Wee for Wii" Family Wins in Court

Funkenpants wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

A lawyer who is constantly involved in pointless or frivolous suits will be ostracized, possibly fined, possibly disbarred.

I worked in law firms for several years and ended up working on many pointless or frivolous commercial claims (among others that were more worthy), but the legal standard of frivolous is so restrictive that you really have to be nutso to get disbarred or fined because of it.

Bingo.

Funkenpants wrote:

I worked in law firms for several years and ended up working on many pointless or frivolous commercial claims (among others that were more worthy), but the legal standard of frivolous is so restrictive that you really have to be nutso to get disbarred or fined because of it.

Yeah, look at how long it took Jack Thompson. And he tried really hard.

But in popular parlance, "frivilous" seems to mean-this person shouldn't win/have won. And maybe toss around a term like caveat emptor.
Then there are all the - don't think our courts should make people "rich" or make their own law or civil courts are not made to punish people, and on and on.

And I did say, disbarred or ostracized by the legal community. It is really hard to practice if other lawyers and judges think you are an idiot. Then you just go onto Larry King I suppose.

Don't we want a strict standard lest people with real claims get left out for fear of censure?