Where can I find information on how low-income appellants funded their cases? Assume that: the appellant has little or no income and money. the case's legal fees have already been significant; the appellant has already undergone a trial, and likely the County Court and EWHC. the claim for damages costs less than the legal fees, or the claim itself is not monetary. barristers (and/or solicitors) were instructed, possibly expensive QCs. It is unclear whether they were acting pro bono. The official judgements do not reveal the funding for these lawyers; so where can I find this information? Please advise if there are cases that better match the assumptions above: R (on the application of Tigere) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 57 The appellant needed student loans, and so how could she have funded litigation in the EWHC and then EWCA before the UKSC? R (on the application of Reilly and another) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Appellant) [2013] UKSC 68
The official judgements do not reveal the funding for these lawyers; so where can I find this information? Nowhere. The commercial arrangements between lawyers and their clients are private and confidential like any other business transactions. You have no more right to know this then you do to know how your neighbour pays their mortgage. how could she have funded litigation in the EWHC and then EWCA before the UKSC? She may have rich parents or another benefactor who has in interest in her or the outcome of the case. She may have won the lottery. She may be the heiress of a dead rich uncle. By the way, "having" student loans does not mean you "need" student loans. Interest rates on student loans are cheap - if I need to pay $10,000 for a course and have $10,000 earning 5%, I would be nuts to use that if I could take out a loan at 3%.
There is no opinion from the Ninth Circuit. I just checked PACER, and there is a docketed order dated May 18, 2016: Filed order (STEPHEN REINHARDT, MARY H. MURGUIA and JOHN B. OWENS) We have reviewed appellant’s opening brief, appellees’ motion for summary affirmance and appellant’s opposition thereto. We conclude that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. Accordingly, we grant appellee’s motion for summary affirmance. See United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (summary affirmance appropriate where the result is clear from the face of record); see Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388, 1394 (9th Cir. 1987) (judges are immune from civil liability for damages and for declaratory relief for their judicial acts). AFFIRMED. [9981929] (WL) [Entered: 05/18/2016 02:48 PM] I downloaded Jaffe's Ninth Circuit brief and it's a pretty dull work of a crank. I use the RECAP Mozilla add-on, so the Ninth Circuit docket and brief should show up on RECAP soon. Go to https://www.courtlistener.com/ and in "Advanced Search", search on docket no. 15-56328. Based on past experience it should show up in a day or two. But that's the Ninth Circuit brief, not the SCOTUS one you're looking for; unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court is the one US court that is not searchable via PACER. You're limited to the docket, opinions and orders that the Court publishes on its site. For more legitimate cases, briefs can often be found on either SCOTUSBlog or the ABA's briefs page, but not in this case.
This is largely congruent with* the doctrine of laches. The basic idea, under common law, is that you can lose rights by failing to assert them. This is generally important for many reasons, but specifically in the case of appeals: The argument should have been brought before the trial court. Justice is not a game, but it's important to recognize that the party trying to raise the argument had an opportunity to do so already. They have given up their right to raise this argument, and extending them the privilege of doing so is (for the following reasons) not good for the system. Courts of appeals are typically not well-equipped to evaluate factual evidence. It is not their area of expertise. Witnesses or evidence may be less available. It's just not practical to try to adjudicate factual issues on appeal, most of the time. If anyone could get an appeal by bringing new factual arguments, then everyone would do that. You'd bring your strongest argument before the district court, and then if that fails, bring the second strongest before the circuit court. That way, you get an extra trial. This is inefficient. Allowing factual arguments on appeal would encourage attorneys and their clients to strategically bring different facts before different courts. This kind of forum-shopping is harmful because it has little to do with who has the stronger overall case, and more to do with who has the better lawyer. * "Congruent with" is not the same as "an instance of"; this rule is not formally an application of laches. It just happens to share the same justification.
In this context, the phrase "there are no equitable considerations that would require the court to reduce or deny reimbursement for the parents" largely refers to defenses to claims arising under the law of equity as applied historically in the chancery courts of England, and more recently, to claims of a type that would have been brought in equity courts if there were still a separate equity court system. Two of the more common equitable defenses are "unclean hands" and "laches". The equitable defense of "unclean hands" applies when the person seeking relief has engaged in misconduct of some kind in the same transaction. For example, if "the student was denied a FAPE at their public school placement" because the student had previously been expelled for beating up another kid (especially if this had nothing to do with the reason that a FAPE is needed) or because the parents ignored a deadline for filing the application for a FAPE at their public school of which they had reasonable advanced notice, that student's parents might be denied reimbursement under the doctrine of unclean hands. The equitable defense of "laches" applies when unreasonable delay on the part of the person seeking relief causes prejudice to the person from whom relief is sought even in the absence of a date certain deadline or before a date certain deadline expires. For example, suppose that "the private school was an appropriate placement" but it had tuition three times as high as two other private schools in town. If the other two less expensive private schools had vacancies for months after the student was denied a FAPE at their public school placement, but had no room for new students a week before school started leaving only the much more expensive private school with any vacancies, the request might be denied, or limited to the amount that would have been paid if the parents had applied to other private schools more promptly, under the doctrine of laches. Other equitable defenses include the duty to mitigate damages (e.g. there might be reimbursement for private school tuition, but not for late fees and interest that could have been avoided), impossibility and impracticability (e.g. no public or private placement is capable of addressing the fundamental problem that the child is in a catatonic state), acts of god/force majeure (e.g. the student was denied a FAPE because the school was destroyed in a hurricane and the school district had to shut down the schools for everyone for a semester), implied waiver or estoppel (e.g. after the student was denied a FAPE the student was enrolled for regular classes at that public school without complaint and without trying to find a private school placement), spoliation (e.g. the records needed to determine eligibility were intentionally destroyed by the applicant before the hearing), fraud as a defense and not a claim (e.g. the parents lied in their reimbursement application), payment (e.g. the student was denied a FAPE by two schools and already received reimbursement from another one and is not entitled to a double recovery), release or accord and satisfaction (e.g. a settlement agreement was already reached with the school denying reimbursement or agreeing to a particular reimbursement).
Because in a civil case you have two equally involved sides. If I claim you damaged my car which cost $10,000 to repair, it's not only that you lose $10,000 if you lose the case, but I lose $10,000 if you win the case. Therefore the burden of proof should be equal in both directions. Assume a kid at an expensive boarding school is accused of causing $10,000 damage to the headmaster's car, and instead of suing for damages, the headmaster took the $10,000 out of the kid's school fees and tells the parents that the kid will be thrown out if they don't pay another $10,000. We have the exact same argument, but now the headmaster would be in court and accused. If the burden of proof was "proven beyond reasonable doubt", in the first case the parents would have to pay if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the kid was responsible; in the second case they would only get their money back if it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that the kid was not responsible.
You could bring a motion to compel for failing to respond substantively to a motion to admit which is objected to, just as you could for an interrogatory. The process is the same. Normally, a request to admit would not be deemed admitted if a substantive objection was filed by the deadline, even if there was no express admission or denial. Only if the objection were completely and utterly meritless would a judge be likely to order that the request to admit would be deemed admitted in that case since the response was a de facto non-answer and the objection was a mere sham. @Iñaki Viggers states in his answer: the purpose of a request for admissions is [to attempt] to stipulate --rather than to discover-- the facts on which plaintiff and defendant agree. This is not really true. A request to admit is a discovery tool to prevent you from having to prove up what should be non-controversial facts that might nonetheless take time or documentation to prove at trial and to gather evidence for in advance of trial. The questions in a request to admit are typically ones that the other side would not willingly stipulate to (for example, because they'd like to be able to offer testimony to explain a seemingly unfavorable fact) but may not be able to deny. If a party denies a request to admit and then offers nothing to support the denial in discovery practice or at trial, that party risks court sanctions for the groundless denial. Good litigation practice is also always to include some requests to admit that are effectively outcome determinative to give the opposing party a chance to screw up and essentially default the case by not responding on time.
What Kind of Cases Do Large Law Firms Take On A Pro Bono Basis? There are three main paths to pro bono representation by a large law firm. One is to have a personal relationship with a firm or someone in it, in a way that causes one or more lawyers to see you are part of their community, when you are in a potential legal dispute that poses a grave risk of injustice to you which you have no ability to afford a lawyer to assist you with. A pretty typical example of this would be a law firm that has a receptionist or a child of an office manager, for example, who is being stalked by a violent ex-boyfriend who needs a protection order, which a lawyer in the firm agrees to provide for free. Some times former clients who have fallen on hard times after a long paying representation can fit in this category as well. Often these disputes are &quot;small potatoes&quot; cases too minor to arouse the interest or ire of clients or prospective clients, and that are unlikely to change the law itself. Another way to get pro bono representation from a large firm is to have a legal problem that fits into some sort of adopted cause of the law firm that doesn't conflict with its usual client base. For example, it is fairly common for large law firms to take on the pro bono representation of someone who is likely to have been wrongfully convicted of a serious crime and is not sophisticated enough to represent themselves in the matter. A representation like this can provide trial court experience that young lawyers in large firms rarely get, rarely conflicts with the firm's representation of large businesses and rich people, and provides a moment in the lives of the participants in which they can remind themselves that the legal system can be used in skilled hands to secure justice for justice's sake, rather than merely to advance a paying client's interests. Assisting refugees seeking asylum, helping marginal small business owners comply with their tax obligations, and assisting a low income person with a case that has the potential to establish good precedents (e.g. regarding property rights) for your paying clients are other popular options. Typically, these kind of pro bono representations are &quot;pet causes&quot; of particular lawyers in the firm and those lawyers proactively look for opportunities to locate people for whom representing them pro bono can advance the cause. Finally, a fair amount of pro bono work comes in the nature of civic involvement with a legal angle, such as serving on the board or as a general counsel for a non-profit organization or church, or in some special one time transaction for a non-profit like a bond offering for a new building. Often, the non-profit or civic organization is one in which people somehow connected to the firm are involved. In almost all cases, large law firms are also image conscious and will only take cases that would reflect well on the firm if they were reported upon in a newspaper story from a reporter willing to listen to their side of the story. In a pro bono case, the law firm wants to be on the side of the case where they are wearing the &quot;white hats&quot; (i.e. the good guys). When Do Law Firms Have A Policy Of Declining Pro Bono Representation? On the other hand, in addition to actual direct conflicts, where the law firm represents the other side of a dispute with you, which of course, no one would expect the firm to represent you in on any basis, most large law firms have a class of potential clients that they refuse to accept because they constitute &quot;business development conflicts.&quot; Firms that are hired by insurance companies to represent defendants in personal injury cases will almost never take on a personal injury plaintiff. Firms that represent residential landlords will almost never represent a residential tenant. Firms that represent big businesses that do business with the general public will almost never take on a consumer protection lawsuit for a consumer. Firms that represent manufacturing and utility companies won't take on lawsuits to enforce environmental laws. Firms that represent employers don't represent unions. They don't take on these kinds of clients both because their existing and prospective clients don't like it from an appearances and &quot;loyalty to the cause&quot;/solidarity perspective, and because they don't want to end up making precedents as a result of their skillful representation that end up hurting most of their clients. Finally, law firms almost never represent someone who can afford their services on a paying basis for the work in question. Similarly, law firms like to represent pro bono clients who are appreciative and reasonably tolerable to deal with. Law firms don't want to represent a client who is a headache to interact with without even getting paid to do it, unless very high principles indeed are at stake.
If you sue a person for a tort X, one of the things you have to prove is that the defendant did do X. A baseless belief that it must have been so-and-so will do you no good. You do not have to have iron-clad evidence of your allegations, for a civil suit, but you have to show with a preponderance of evidence that the claim is true. A combination of "hates me" and "provably did this a number of times in the past" could well suffice. As for damages, it depends on what harm you actually suffered. If you get fired and you show that it was because of a false allegation, you would probably have to take this to the big court, since small claims court handles amounts in the $5,000 range (jurisdiction-specific).