Is it bad to have communication with opposing party outside of court? I started a claim against someone. The level of court does not require lawyers. The defendant rejected all my claims through the court, but contacted me by email saying he wishes to meet in person to discuss them. My initial reaction is this is a bad idea, but I'm wondering if there's any legal reason why I shouldn't meet with him? One of the reasons I found it necessary to take legal action in the first place, was he refused to talk to me and said he blocked my messages. I guess now he's unblocked me. In the past he's done tricks where he pretends to give me an option, but then a short time latter says since I never replied he assumes I want to do x. I don't want him to be able to use any of these arguments in court. If I don't meet or reply to his email, can he then say I'm refusing to negotiate? He is a very dishonest person.
No, it’s not bad In fact it can do a great deal of good. It’s entirely possible that you will negotiate a settlement that is better for both of you than court. Negotiations undertaken in such circumstances are inadmissible in court - the legal term is without prejudice. The reasoning is that is good public policy for parties to be able to resolve disputes without needing a court and that they should be free to make admissions, concessions and offers without the threat that these will be used against them if they do need to go to court. Be careful about accusing people of things like ‘dishonesty’ First, interpretation of other people’s behaviour depends a lot on where you stand. If you are in dispute with someone you are likely to attribute motives to them that may not be there or may not be apparent to a more detached observer. For example, offers can be withdrawn at any time prior to their acceptance - doing so is not “dishonest”. Second, (dis)honesty is a question of fact, not opinion, and it involves more than whether someone is always truthful - people can tell falsehoods and still be honest. Stating that someone is dishonest when you can’t prove that they are, in fact, dishonest is defamation.
If you do not get anything from this "contract", and all it says is that you will pay someone a sum of money "on demand", it does not meet the basic requirements to form a contract, and in particular, there is no consideration being received by you. It would therefore not be a contract and would have zero legal force. If you do receive consideration, demonstrating that you signed the contract under duress will require specific legal advice, and you need a practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction.
I haven't reviewed the filings, but I can tell you that it's perfectly routine for lawyers to describe the other side's position as &quot;plainly without merit,&quot; with no regard for the actual merits. The lawyer's job is to make his client look good, in court and in public; the existence of this question shows that he's doing a good job at least on the latter half of that equation. But in truth, it's such a generic thing to say that no lawyer who hears it will actually think it means anything. In all likelihood, the filing is like most others, in that it makes a good case on some points and a bad case on others, and the opposing lawyer's job is to argue that all of them are bad. In the rarer case that a filing is actually &quot;plainly without merit,&quot; courts can and sometimes do impose penalties under Rule 11, which allows for sanctions against parties and attorneys who make factual assertions that are not supported by reality or arguments that are not supported by the law.
For a start: don't use the words &quot;scammer&quot; or &quot;swindler&quot; Stick to what you can 100% prove is true. State facts: don't draw conclusions. This happened, then that happened, then I did this, then he did that etc. Let the person you are communicating with draw their own conclusions. However, don't say anything! You say &quot;I am in the process of suing him&quot;. Therefore, everything about or connected with the case is sub judice. Anything you say could prejudice your case and may be contempt of court.
Consider that stuff "court costs" or "court fees." They are actually often things not related to the court, like environmental fee, or emergency medical something or other, or park poop bag fee. Pretty much whatever either the legislature or administrative decision makers what to put on there. And FWIW, if you were not texting get your phone records and bring them to court to prove that you did not send any texts in or around that time.
As a comment by @DavidSchwartz notes, this is not wrong. Questions of law but not fact are allowed. It is worth noting that the line drawn is arbitrary. In Colorado, where I practice, jurors issue written questions (pre-reviewed by the judge and counsel for all parties before being presented) to witnesses at the close of the testimony of each witness called by a party to testify. This is very helpful to counsel, as it provides indirect evidence of whether the jury understands what they are being told, and often juries will directly ask questions that for tactical reasons, both parties have refrained from asking that go to the heart of the matter. It also frequently clarifies misunderstandings that trained legal professionals assumed were not made about terminology. This is more problematic in criminal trials, where jury questions could provide evidence pushing a case over the threshold of proof needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution failed to provide, than in civil cases with a preponderance of the evidence standard. Also, as a matter of reality, when jurors ask questions, counsel often loathe to object even when they have valid grounds to do so, for fear of offending the decision-maker, unless it is really critical to keep certain information away from the jury.
The solicitor is allowed not to accept a case. If your ex-wife asked him to prepare papers, and he feels that she is getting ripped off, it is absolutely understandable that he won't prepare these papers for her, because he doesn't want to be sued or badmouthed when the deal goes wrong. "We would also reserve the right to take our own professional advice as to our efforts on your behalf." means simply he is not specialised in some subject, and will prefer to ask someone who is. Like a medical doctor asking for a second opinion before going ahead and cutting your leg off. Now I would have preferred if the solicitor had said concretely what exactly is wrong with the contract. Also, it would be obvious that you would be very comfortable with anything that he would advice her against. If he thinks that it is a good deal for you but not for her, he should advice against it. (Your comment to another question seems to indicate that she should be paid a lot more than you offered, so her solicitor seems to have been perfectly right).
A business has the right to refuse service, except in the case of unlawful discrimination. &quot;Sued us&quot; is not a protected characteristic. Unless part of the settlement was that the business must serve that customer in future, there is no way this could be considered contempt.