Political Discussions
Should a lawyer working in the adult film industry represent victims of sexual harassment in his day job?
Posted by Phoenix1962 • 12/11/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: adult film, industry, lawyer, represent, sexual harassment, victims, working
Should a lawyer working in the adult film industry represent victims of sexual harassment in his day job? given the fact that his adult film job involves legalized prostitution, do you think he could remain objective and sympathetic to your cause?
User Comments
-
I should hope he can't remain "objective", and sadly the vast majority of attorneys I've worked with are not "sympathetic".-
Spoken like an enlighten person.
-
-
Legalized prostitution is not sexual harassment. I don't see why a lawyer couldn't do both without conflict.-
The lawyers porn job is the very definition of Quid pro quo (From the Latin meaning "something for something"). Do you really think that he could empathize with someone who refuses to have sex for job advancement?
-
Yes. Porn and legal prostitution are voluntary. Sexual harassment is not.
-
-
I know. However, in this real life example he was not able to to his job objectively.
-
why?
-
-
Not to stereotype him but I think the prostitute in him got the better of him. It got to the point that he started telling me that he was going to do what the opposition wanted him to do. He loyalties were clearly with opposing counsel. Keep in mind now that the sexual harasser at the company I was suing was also involved in the porn industry.
-
Industry involvement may create a conflict of interest and then the lawyer shouldn't be involved. I buy the logic that a porn industry lawyer can't do a sexual harassment case. Also there are just bad lawyers.
-
-
Bad lawyers? Yes, that too. In New York, it is easier to find a needle in a haystack than to find an honest lawyer.
-
There are, unfortunately, dishonest lawyers. But it's also a hazardous profession for reputation because so often lay people simply don't understand the legal requirements and limitations, and so draw the wrong conclusions. Most people do not take kindly to being disabused of their mythology, and so tend to blame the lawyer when they find out that the system we work within simply doesn't provide for the remedies they'd like to see occur, or that their evidence is inadequate or inadmissible. -
In my case I had a lot of evidence to support my claim. My attorneys chose to jump into bed with the other side.
Read the story and tell me what you think:
sexualharassment-alltruth.blogspot.com/2008/12/sexual-harassment-chronicles... -
I strongly suspect that you don't want an honest answer to that question.
-
-
I'm sure some lawyers can do it just fine, while others cannot.
Of course, porn employment isn't the same thing as sexual harassment.
I mean, could a lawyer with a long list of lovers and one night stands represent a sexual harassment case?
Could a lawyer who cheats on his wife represent sexual harassment or divorce cases?
Can a lawyer who taste tests beer or wine as a side job represent the victim of a drunk driving accident? -
That's like asking if someone who has sex should represent rape victims. Apples and oranges. -
TotalAttorneys said, "I strongly suspect that you don't want an honest answer to that question."
If your answer is based on reading my account go ahead. If my story were not true he would have sued me to take the blog down by now. He knows it is there because I sent him a copy of everything I published about him and my case. If it were not true the bank would have sued for me to take it down but then we would be back to square one. If I am missing something please let me know.-
Yes, based entirely on your account. Although, before addressing this I should point out that what you've written in this brief post here reflects a serious misunderstanding of legal strategy in and of itself--suing you to get you to take down an obscure blog would turn something seen by few people into possibly national news. I'm sure that both the bank and your former attorney are well aware that they have much more to lose than to gain by taking action against you. I'm not saying that what you've written isn't true--I have no idea whether it is. I'm simply pointing out that the fact that no one has sued you is certainly NOT evidence that it's true, or even that the other party would be unlikely to prevail in a lawsuit against you.
That said, the first thing that struck me about your account was that, according to your own description, it is virtually impossible for there to be any evidence of the events you described. Taking everything that you said as absolute truth, one would be forced to conclude that you had been the victim of a very effective scheme, in that no comment or action ever took place in the presence of any person not involved in the conspiracy. Thus, even if every word you say is true, it would be virtually impossible to prove in a court of law. I suspect that there must have been something more that is not related in your account here, because otherwise I would not expect any experienced attorney to have taken on your case.
Second, your constant and repetitive use of emotionally-driven but legally meaningless terminology indicates that you'd likely make a poor witness, and that it would be very difficult to get you to remain focused on legally relevant testimony.
Third, your assessments of some of the actions of your attorneys appear to reflect a serious misunderstanding of the legal process, and your certainty that you know more about the legal process than your attorneys would make you very difficult to work effectively with--particularly with regard to a claim apparently so unsupported by objective evidence.
For instance, while I do not understand (based on the facts you've provided) why your attorney did not include a claim under the NY statute, no attorney with any sense or experience would load up a complaint with "factual details". It's inappropriate and, more importantly, very bad strategy that would give the opposition an unnecessary advantage.
I am honestly surprised that you were able to find an attorney to take on this case,if the facts are related completely and accurately. If this is an accurate account I'm very sorry that you went through that and that it's still affecting you, but unless there is a lot of information not related here, it would be a tough case and one not attractive to most lawyers working on a contingency basis because the likelihood of victory would be so small.
-
-
Don't hold back total attorney. I saw you looking.
-
If you had read the complete account you would have known that I had a tape recording of the sexual harassment and if you had read it in its entirety you would have seen that I had 4 attorneys who eagerly took the case on. One of the attorneys was a Harvard law graduate, one from Toro law, one from Columbia law, and the other from NYU Law. I had what is called in a civil matter, a preponderance of evidence to support my claims. Thank you anyway for your input. Are you even a lawyer? I notice that the ones they say they are spend too much time in the forum.
-
Predictable. When I suggested that you didn't want an honest answer, I knew that you'd be questioning my credentials as soon as I said something you didn't like--the fact that that's your response after I took the time in the evening to read your lengthy account and offer the honest opinion you says a lot. Another thing that would make you very difficult to work with as a client. I did see that you had multiple attorneys--I merely said that I was surprised by that. I remain surprised. You cannot, of course, know that you had a "preponderance of evidence" because that refers to all of the evidence presented in a case, not only your evidence--and you do not know what evidence would have been presented by the opposition.
-
-
There defense was so weak that they said in the answer to my complaint that if I were to win that they wanted the unemployment payments I received to be deducted from the settlement proceeds. I am just not impressed with lawyers who think they have some kind of magical understanding of the law.
-
Again, this reflects a complete lack of understanding of legal process. It is customary to raise claims, defenses and set-off requests in the alternative, and failure to do so would waive the issue. An attorney who failed to include that request in his answer might well be guilty of malpractice; it's inclusion has nothing to do with the strength or weakness of the defense.
-
-
So you are saying that he should have included New York City's statutes in the complaint from the start because failure to do so would waive the issue? In a federal action the rules of procedure are governed by the F.R.C.P., and when an attorney chooses to ignore those procedures he opens himself up to scrutiny from his clients. The F.R.C.P. are there to ensure procedural due process of the law.
-
As I said above, if in fact you had a claim under that statute, I do not know why it was not included. It would seem appropriate to have done so. However, I'm not privy to the information he was working with and I'm not licensed in NY or familiar with the statute to which you refer, so I'm really not in a position to make that judgment.
-
-
Under New York City's human rights laws you can sue for unlimited punitive damages.
-
You mentioned that in your post, but I don't know whether or not you had a valid claim under the statute (which I've never read) nor whether any of the claims involved might have been exclusive. Based on what I read on your blog, it would seem to me that the claim should have been included, but that's a guess that comes without knowledge of the claim that was filed or the requirements of the NY law.
-
-
The sexual harassment and retaliation happened at my office in New York City. You must work in NYC and the unlawful act has to have happened at the place of employment in NYC in order for the statute to apply. The statute was and still is stronger that those statues covered under Title VII of the civil rights act.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
