LoudmouthMormon Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 This poll is intended for folks with little or no legal training. I'm interested in how many nonlegal folks are buying smac's claim, and how many are buying Bikeemikey's response.
ksfisher Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I vote that it means that the lawyer is short on billable hours that month and his second wife has maxed out all the credit cards. (But what do I know) 4
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I won't bother to vote, but I'll make the same point I did on the other thread: that it depends on the context in which the phrase is used. 2
LoudmouthMormon Posted July 28, 2014 Author Posted July 28, 2014 I won't bother to vote, but I'll make the same point I did on the other thread: that it depends on the context in which the phrase is used."It depends" is a fine answer. I was hoping the middle choice (...they may or may not be threatening legal action.) would cover your opinion. Please vote!
Duncan Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I say it is a warning and based on any further action then more action may be taken 1
rhythm Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I'd say "potentially actionable" = "I can potentially sue", so it can definitely be viewed as a threat, although it doesn't state outright "I will sue".
CV75 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 They are describing how well the Rip van Winkle action figure works. 1
Duncan Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Something I notice about lawyers is when someone says the are a lawyer it seems to give license for others to say the most offensive things ever about them, even strangers! "oh, you're a lawyer? well...." and then they trash them. Like, the lawyer person could be work for a children's charity for crying out loud!!!! or be Christine Sullivan from TV's Night Court and nobody can hate that woman!
Rain Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I'm an "other". I had at first thought of putting "may or may not", but the way it is worded I can't. If you had asked what I would think if I saw the term I would say it depends on context etc., but given that you specify a "lawyer"saying it I don't have the legal knowledge (besides what I have read here) to answer it.
Sleeper Cell Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) Whenever I am told that something I did is “potentially actionable,” my first thought is: “do I need to consult my attorney?” This makes it is a threat, even if I conclude a few minutes later that there is no need to consult my attorney. Was it intended as a threat? I cannot read minds, so I must infer intent from a person’s actual words, the nature of our relationship, and other factors (e.g., is it April 1st). In an adversarial relationship, a reasonable person would not take “potentially actionable” to be friendly advice. If my adversary is an attorney -- a professional in the use of words to convey precise legal meanings -- surely he/she knew or should have known (at a aminimum) that this phrase could reasonably be interpreted as a threat, and if they intended otherwise, they would have used a different phrase. Or at least added some reassurance (e.g., “Although this is potentially actionable, rest assured that I have no intent of taking legal action.”) Edited July 28, 2014 by Sleeper Cell 2
rpn Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Competent attorneys use precise words. If they threaten to sue someone, they use words to make it clear they are doing so. "If you don't do X, my client has asked me to take all action to compel you to do do so, which will include litigation, and seeking damages." It would depend on the words around those words in a specific communication. But telling someone that something could be actionable is not a threat to do so.
Sleeper Cell Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Competent attorneys use precise words. If they threaten to sue someone, they use words to make it clear they are doing so. "If you don't do X, my client has asked me to take all action to compel you to do do so, which will include litigation, and seeking damages." It would depend on the words around those words in a specific communication. But telling someone that something could be actionable is not a threat to do so. And if they don’t want someone to think that they are threatening to sue, they don’t use precise words? Rather, they choose to use a phrase that even the attorney’s defenders concede can reasonably be interpreted as a threat? It would depend on the words around those words in a specific communication. But telling someone that something could be actionable is not a threat to do so.Sort of like “plausible deniability?” (Which, BTW, is another phrase I have occasionally heard competent attorneys use). 2
Bikeemikey Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 And if they don’t want someone to think that they are threatening to sue, they don’t use precise words? Rather, they choose to use a phrase that even the attorney’s defenders concede can reasonably be interpreted as a threat? Sort of like “plausible deniability?” (Which, BTW, is another phrase I have occasionally heard competent attorneys use).You threaten to sue in legal documents.Not in religious documents.KK's letter was a document stipulating her religious intent to dispute the excommunication.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) I vote that it means that the lawyer is short on billable hours that month and his second wife has maxed out all the credit cards. (But what do I know) P.S.: Oops! I voted in your poll before I read your criterion, LoudMouthMormon! Sorry! (Of course, in my case, unfortunately, law is simply an expensive hobby; it's not a vocation. So perhaps I still qualify after all ...) Edited July 28, 2014 by Kenngo1969
Kenngo1969 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You threaten to sue in legal documents.Not in religious documents.KK's letter was a document stipulating her religious intent to dispute the excommunication.Perhaps you could define those terms for the rest of us, the great unwashed?
Bikeemikey Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Perhaps you could define those terms for the rest of us, the great unwashed?A legal document is one that has legal intent. If you are unwashed I suggest a shower :-)
Kenngo1969 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Kinda funny people see a threat to sue in that. As others have pointed out, it depends on who's doing the talking. I don't really know a lot about Ms. Kelly's legal career, but it does seem to me, based on what she's said publicly and how she's said it, that she's far more familiar with transactional work than with litigation.
Kenngo1969 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) A legal document is one that has legal intent.If you are unwashed I suggest a shower :-)Which, to you, means what, precisely? P.S.: Re: Your suggestion ... Although no soap was involved, I just had one: I went walking in a rainstorm. Does that count? Edited July 28, 2014 by Kenngo1969
smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You threaten to sue in legal documents.Not in religious documents.KK's letter was a document stipulating her religious intent to dispute the excommunication. You have elsewhere conceded that KK did, in fact, threaten to sue the LDS Church. Are you backtracking on that concession? People have threatened to sue the LDS Church or other religions over ecclesiastical disputes. It happens all the time. That is why the U.S. legal system has developed a doctrine designed to address this situation. It's called the "ecclesiastical abstention" doctrine. Thanks, -Smac
Bikeemikey Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Which, to you, means what, precisely?P.S.: Re: Your suggestion ... Although no soap was involved, I just had one: I went walking in a rainstorm. Does that count? We have had crazy thunder and lightning here all day in VT.Im really not super interested in reviewing it all again, my thoughts are on the other thread started to Smac.A quick summary and Ill leave it at that:Kate Kelly sent a letter to the church to dispute the finding of the religious disciplinary court.The point of the letter was to present evidence and provide a rationale for disputing the courts verdict.She used a number of different examples to illustrate why she believed the church courts actions reached an incorrect conclusion.One such example was what she outlined as possibly illegal (actionable) actions around ecclesiastical confidentiality.If the context of her letter had been a legal document sent with legal intent then Smac's case that the use of "possibly actionable" represented a legal challenge and threat to sue would have more merit. However, it seems exceptionally clear to me that this is not the case.That said, I covered this and said my piece on the other thread and will now leave off.P.S. I always carry soap in my pockets when I walk in the rain.
Bikeemikey Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 (edited) You have elsewhere conceded that KK did, in fact, threaten to sue the LDS Church. Are you backtracking on that concession?People have threatened to sue the LDS Church or other religions over ecclesiastical disputes. It happens all the time. That is why the U.S. legal system has developed a doctrine designed to address this situation. It's called the "ecclesiastical abstention" doctrine.Thanks,-SmacYou have yet to demonstrate the the majority of lawyers have fully endorsed your opinion on this. Edited July 28, 2014 by Bikeemikey
smac97 Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 You have yet to demonstrate the the majority of lawyers have fully endorsed your opinion on this. You conceded the point, thus obviating the need for such a demonstration. Thanks, -Smac
mfbukowski Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I have right now a situation in a real estate matter in which I am trying to persuade an attorney to write a letter with just such ambiguous language in order to scare the offender into compliance with what he has already agreed to do. He said he would sign a document, but now he won't, and won't disclose his reason for not signing. His NOT signing the document is messing up a deal I am working on. At this point, it seems that the link between his behavior and how "messed up" the deal is because of it, is ambiguous, especially since he has no reason NOT to take one minute to sign and send the paperwork I think "potentially actionable" might be just the phrase to make him think about what he is doing and strongly suggest he get off his.... chair.... and sign and let my client move on. For what it's worth- probably not much. If I got such a letter, I would take it as a threat and act accordingly.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 I think "potentially actionable" might be just the phrase to make him think about what he is doing and strongly suggest he get off his.... chair.... and sign and let my client move on.I got to think on this term a bit. "Potentially actionable" is a verb. Well Actionable is and that is what I want to focus on. In the context of KK what actions could she do? What is she threatening here? To sue, seems pretty reasonable to me.
Recommended Posts