And even when the defendant is Gurstel Chargo, the collections firm being sued by disabled war vet, Michael Collier. Even when accuracy is obscured in a /files/66432-58232/(201210_18)Doc7CollierAmendedComplaint_pdf.pdf”>Amended Complaint was filed in the case, and omitted the allegations from the original complaint that the lawyer appearing for Gurstel Chargo in court, Edward O’Brien, made inappropriate statements to Collier in the parking lot. Apparently, there was a misunderstanding about what was said, and the naming and shaming was similarly inappropriate as O’Brien did nothing wrong.
For the sake of accuracy, the portion of the original post, including a photograph, suggesting otherwise has been deleted. Just as bad lawyering deserves shame, it would be wrong to leave it online when it turns out not to be true. And, although Parker didn’t ask for it, I apologize to Edward O’Brien for the shaming, even though it was based on the allegations in the complaint at the time, as he didn’t deserve it.
Moreover, my post quoted from Mark Bennett’s post, which has since been changed to characterize the garnished monies as “ungarnishable,” and since my quote is via Mark, I defer to his choice of language and make the same change.
Parker’s letter raises one additional point worthy of some additional commentary:
Mr. O’Brien acted professionally in all of his dealings with Mr. Collier and in the handling of this case. He did nothing more in this case than appear in court and agree, upon review of information that he had been provided for the first time that day, to characterize the garnished funds as exempt. Your blatantly false post has now immeasurably tarnished his professional reputation and caused him to receive explicit threats to his personal safety and security.
Similarly, your perpetuation of blatant falsehoods against Gurstel Chargo regarding the garnishment (which you incorrectly characterize as illegal) and the alleged phone call has resulted in threats being received against law firm staff.
This is where Parker goes a few steps over the line. Notwithstanding the dubious claim of explicit threats, if Gurstel Chargo doesn’t want people to be angry with the firm and its staff, then maybe it ought to worry more about its conduct than about what anyone in the blawgosphere has to say about it. As Bennett put it:
I doubt that I have that sort of influence; I hope that I don’t. I suspect that it would be more accurate to say that treating a disabled veteran badly has resulted in threats against law firm staff. Which is itself unfortunate, but not attributable to my little blog.
Me too. Most importantly, after wiping away all the absurd chest-thumping in Parker’s letter, there is one overarching question that remains unanwered. Why hasn’t Gurstel Chargo returned the “ungarnishable” funds yet, as O’Brien promised would be done “right away”?
Nowhere in his letter did Parker mention anything about that.
H/T Ken White and Marc Randazza
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why can’t we be courteous, concise, and clear when we send demand letters? So many attorneys resort to histrionic prose littered with allusions to all manner of undefined eldritch and dire consequences as well as a litany of various and sundry federal and state statutes that may or may not be applicable to the issue in dispute.
We can just as easily protect our client’s rights and conform to the strictures of the law using common courtesy and direct language. I swear, sometimes practicing law reminds me of a hanging out in a frat bar: you can almost smell the desperation, testosterone and small egos looking for a fight. (All spelling errors and opinions are my own).
I personally chalk it up to the fact that civil litigators never get anywhere near a courthouse, so they try to prove themselves in demand letters and depositions. You can almost hear them crying, “no, I’m a real lawyer, I’m a real lawyer.”
So yeah it seems like after removing the stuff that was apparently not true, there’s still a fair amount for Gurstel Chargo to answer for.
Accuracy is important though, I agree. And I’d still agree even if we didn’t have defamation laws. It’s like: making an effort to be accurate is part of how you can tell when some person or entity has a real and legitimate issue with some other person or entity.
If there’s no accuracy, then it’s just two different groups yelling at each other ad nauseam.
So now that the record has been altered to a version that’s presumably more accurate, I wonder when Gurstel Chargo will get to the actual issue of the ungarnishable funds?
And also I wonder when Gurstel Chargo will address the issue of the unidentified legal assistant that allegedly said “f— you” and other mean things. That’s still in the amended complaint.
—
Furry cows moo and decompress.
The downside to dick-waving is that you still get stuck with all the other bad stuff. And now that we’ve cleared up all the potentially inaccurate details, the ones that remains are effectively conceded. It didn’t look very good for Gurstel Chargo in the first place. Not looking very good for them now.