Australian Politics Forum - Lawsuits for climate disasters?

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39949
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #15 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:21pm

Quote:

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

Of course you will. Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument. As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money. Please put $xx into my trust account."

Back to top

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #16 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:29pm

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

I do have some experience with the workings of law.

Me too.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

The legal system isn't hard to understand, ...

As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

All things are possible.

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you.

If you pay a lawyer enough money, they'll argue any case. Just look at the lawyers who defend rapists and murderers.

I could, if I wished to and had enough money, charge you with killing my cat by telekinesis and finding a lawyer to present the case wouldn't be too hard. Of course I'd lose the case, if it ever went to trial (which it wouldn't).

The reason I said the case for charging a company for 'climate disasters' is un-winnable is because of the judges or magistrates, not due to a lack of lawyers.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

#

Gold Member

Offline

A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #17 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:43pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

I do have some experience with the workings of law.

Me too.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

The legal system isn't hard to understand, ...

As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

All things are possible.

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you.

If you pay a lawyer enough money, they'll argue any case. Just look at the lawyers who defend rapists and murderers.

I could, if I wished to and had enough money, charge you with killing my cat by telekinesis and finding a lawyer to present the case wouldn't be too hard. Of course I'd lose the case, if it ever went to trial (which it wouldn't).

The reason I said the case for charging a company for 'climate disasters' is un-winnable is because of the judges or magistrates, not due to a lack of lawyers.

Still, it comes down to a question of relative credibility: the author of the OP who, as far as I can tell, is a lawyer; and you.

You seem to assume that the "... important groundwork [that] is being laid." will have no effect. I guess that just proves that you're a Conservative; the idea that things won't always be as they are is unthinkable.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39949 Gender:	Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters? Reply #18 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:49pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #19 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:52pm

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:05pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:02pm:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:58am:

# wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 9:57am:

...
So let the courts decide.

But they won't be able to, ...

I'm not a lawyer which, to credibly make that assertion, you'd need to be.
namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 11:11am:

... If # wants to put his money into a suit ...

What are you on about?

To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

No, doesn't take an actual law degree to realise how tricky cause and effect rules are. Remember the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea?.

As an example, if you wanted to sue one of the companies in the OP because of damage in a bushfire, flood or hurricane and used the 'increased frequency' argument, you need to prove that the particular event was caused by Co2 released by human action on the part of THAT company. And since natural disaster events like bushfire, hurricane etc have been happening since long before the Industrial Revolution, you wouldn't have any way of doing it.

Qualifications, or the lack thereof, do indicate the credibility of your opinion.

Again:
To quote from the OP: "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable yet, but important groundwork is being laid." In view of the source, I'll take their word for it.

I do have some experience with the workings of law.

Me too.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

The legal system isn't hard to understand, ...

As with climate science, that assertion reveals a high level of ignorance. In my experience, the legal system has its complexities. The law and its interpretation (as distinct from the legal system) is a whole 'nuther thing. Byzantine is how I'd describe it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

I wouldn't take their word for it, the qoute is incorrect. it should read "Lawsuits against private firms for climate disaster compensation may not be winnable ever"

All things are possible.

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

I reckon the author of that article is more credible than you.

If you pay a lawyer enough money, they'll argue any case. Just look at the lawyers who defend rapists and murderers.

I could, if I wished to and had enough money, charge you with killing my cat by telekinesis and finding a lawyer to present the case wouldn't be too hard. Of course I'd lose the case, if it ever went to trial (which it wouldn't).

The reason I said the case for charging a company for 'climate disasters' is un-winnable is because of the judges or magistrates, not due to a lack of lawyers.

Still, it comes down to a question of relative credibility: the author of the OP who, as far as I can tell, is a lawyer; and you.

You seem to assume that the "... important groundwork [that] is being laid." will have no effect. I guess that just proves that you're a Conservative; the idea that things won't always be as they are is unthinkable.

Ground work aside, unless the groundwork complete removes the need for evidence in court cases, it still won't make any difference.

And of course you believe the author of the OP, they agree with your preconceived ideas, which is common with 'progressives'. They'd believe Attila the Hun if he said what they 'knew' to be true.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #20 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:38pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

Quote:

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

Of course you will. Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument. As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money. Please put $xx into my trust account."

You win, you lose, it matters nought, you get paid...

That being said such a case could hurt you or your firm (which is not good for you) an example would be the Gunns statements of claim that were judicially declared to be "unintelligible" and legally "embarrassing". Not to flash on the resume. Even Lord Atkin in his prime and the most favourable of circumstances couldn't get this ginger beer to fizz fragrantly.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39949
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #21 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:42pm

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

Quote:

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

Of course you will. Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument. As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money. Please put $xx into my trust account."

You win, you lose, it matters nought, you get paid...

That being said such a case could hurt you or your firm (which is not good for you) an example would be the Gunns statements of claim that were judicially declared to be "unintelligible" and legally "embarrassing". Not to flash on the resume. Even Lord Atkin in his prime and the most favourable of circumstances couldn't get this ginger beer to fizz fragrantly.

Nah.....we are not supposed to 'client shop.' We are supposed to take whatever walks through the door, and we are supposed to represent them, provided all appropriate advices are given to them, and we adhere to ethical advocacy standards/restraints in Court.

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #22 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 5:34pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:42pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 4:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 3:21pm:

Quote:

If you have experience, then you'll be able to answer the question: "Will it ever be possible to find a lawyer who'll argue such a case?"

Of course you will. Lawyers do not 'judge' the merit of their client's argument. As I used to say to all my clients, "If you want me to go to Court as your representative and argue that today is Christmas Day, I'll do what I can, but you need to know that I am wasting your time and money. Please put $xx into my trust account."

You win, you lose, it matters nought, you get paid...

That being said such a case could hurt you or your firm (which is not good for you) an example would be the Gunns statements of claim that were judicially declared to be "unintelligible" and legally "embarrassing". Not to flash on the resume. Even Lord Atkin in his prime and the most favourable of circumstances couldn't get this ginger beer to fizz fragrantly.

Nah.....we are not supposed to 'client shop.' We are supposed to take whatever walks through the door, and we are supposed to represent them, provided all appropriate advices are given to them, and we adhere to ethical advocacy standards/restraints in Court.

A solicitor has a discretion to knock back work provided such a rejection would not be an infringement of legislation such as the racial discrimination Act 1975.
A barrister provided a client can pay an acceptable fee and the barrister is free or otherwise not engaged and it is in his or her field and within their capacity, skill and experience and they are not obliged to refuse under rules 95, 97, 98 or 99 under the cab rank rule they have a duty to act and are obligated under Rule 21 however it does not always happen that a person or entity ends up being represented....go figure.
I can't for the life of me see how this could be contorted sufficiently to have even a shred of merit. It fails on multiple levels. It would, in this case, , on my view, be an improper abuse of court process to allege serious misconduct where I had no reasonable grounds for doing so...and there were no reasonable, or in fact any, prospects of success.
This dog won't hunt Monsignor.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39949
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #23 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client. I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Back to top

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #24 - Jan 26^th, 2014 at 10:02pm

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client. I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Here is an example you remember Konrad Kalejs accused of having committed war crimes and they were going to extradite him? His solicitors approached Robert Richter a prominent Jewish Lawyer in Victoria (surprise, surprise) who considered taking him on but chose not to citing conflict of interest. So while there is a high duty to a client second only to the court they have to be a client for the duty to kick in.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #25 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:15am

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client. I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth

A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #26 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 6:59am

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:15am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client. I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth

A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society

If you want to split hairs it's actually the administration of justice (as carried out by the courts)....truth is more of an aspirational goal.

Back to top

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #27 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm

namnugenot wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 6:59am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:15am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client. I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth

A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society

If you want to split hairs it's actually the administration of justice (as carried out by the courts)....truth is more of an aspirational goal.

What is the point of the legal profession under these modern corporatised standards?

In the USA the medical profession has also moved in this direction. Many doctors opt to not partake in the Hypoocratic oath when graduating. Why? Ask the lawyers. Apparently it sets them up for law suits if they promise to DO NO HARM TO PATIENTS and also to commit themselves to training other doctors for NO FEE.

If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for?

A hair worth splitting in up my opinion.

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

namnugenot

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 639
NSW
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #28 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 1:39pm

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

namnugenot wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 6:59am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Jan 27^th, 2014 at 2:15am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 26^th, 2014 at 6:39pm:

All of that is unsourced but there are some truths in there, all of which is consistent with what I have posted about constraints.

"In my day," the Rule was that we could not refuse to act for a client. I am aware that these days, firms will claim......"So sorry, we don't do that sort of work," but while the fundamental professional obligation is to the Court, the next most obligatory is to the client.

Actually the fundamental responsibility of law firms and its legal professionals is to the truth

A concept that has been corporatised and therefore at best incidental to what these legal structures do in society

If you want to split hairs it's actually the administration of justice (as carried out by the courts)....truth is more of an aspirational goal.

What is the point of the legal profession under these modern corporatised standards?

In the USA the medical profession has also moved in this direction. Many doctors opt to not partake in the Hypoocratic oath when graduating. Why? Ask the lawyers. Apparently it sets them up for law suits if they promise to DO NO HARM TO PATIENTS and also to commit themselves to training other doctors for NO FEE.

If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for?

A hair worth splitting in up my opinion.

Lawyers work within a system...same as everyone else.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39949
Gender: male

Re: Lawsuits for climate disasters?
Reply #29 - Jan 27^th, 2014 at 3:45pm

Quote:

If a lawyer's primary responsibility isn't to exposing the TRUTH - the only way true justice can be served - then who are these people? What do they represent? Who do they work for?

That's easy. Their client and the client's interests.....there are professional and ethical constraints.....but none of them direct that Lawyers must be seekers of the 'truth.'

The 'truth' as an absolute is a slippery beast ~ almost impossible to nail down in any legal contest. Almost always, my client's truth is the complete opposite of the truth according to the client of my opponent yet we are each in Court to maximise the likelihood the Court will conclude that our client's truth is more believable.

Back to top

IP Logged