Fed Judge to Brit -- You're Outta Here!

136. I agree that Britney should not be responsible to pay the 40k. oSAMa Lufti should have to pay the 40k unless he's spent all the money he's stolen from Britney already. The dumb ass attorney that accepted a client, via oSAMa, that has a been deemed to be mentally incapable to handle her own affairs by another court should receive NOTHING for his service. oSAMa and the attorney should have to pay the court costs . oSAMa should be investigated for calling Britney knowing he had a restraining order against him. oSAMa and that attorney are trying to take advantage of an ill person and prevent her parents from saving her life.

Posted at 9:37AM on Feb 27th 2008 by Jan

137. I think everyone knew this case was bogus (Lutfi) and would be thrown out. Eardley and Lutfi should have to pay lawyers fees, however. It is over, Lutfi--you've lost control. Give up and get a job.

Posted at 9:49AM on Feb 27th 2008 by Julie

138. i'm confused - how can some guy pretend to be her lawyer and she has to pay?

Posted at 10:09AM on Feb 27th 2008 by SW

139. both lohans r cool and britney haz the right 2 pick her lawyer there violating her rights

Posted at 2:30PM on Feb 27th 2008 by todd lissner anti adult anti wholesomeness activist-----

140. Since she is under a court appointed conservatorship, she can not sign any binding contract or incur any legal debt. If her Dad does his job, that 40 thousand is just wishful thinking. Whoever that attorney is is well aware of that.

Posted at 2:45PM on Feb 29th 2008 by Fiduciary

141. Shady shady shady

Posted at 10:44AM on Feb 27th 2008 by bustrorl

142. britaculous: I just read #75. Someone wrote that and it was not me. They used my code name. To the person who wrote this note, I don't appreciate it. Use your own damn name and not mine. The real Bella.

Posted at 10:49AM on Feb 27th 2008 by Bella

143. Question for the lawyers on this thread. Let's say the judge had decided because that this was a frivolous case, the plaintiff had to pay defendant's attorney fees. In such judgments, who pays, the lawyer or the lawyer's client? In this case, Eardley is only the lawyer right? And he is claiming the Britney is his client. So if the judge had awarded attorney fees to the defendant, would Britney basically have to pay herself?

Also, I hear that the judge said that Brittney could not be Eardley's client because of the conservatorship. So what are the rules when a plaintiff "disappears"? Is there any precedent to hold the lawyer responsible?

Posted at 11:33AM on Feb 27th 2008 by ?????

144. #62 Bella--this isn't a dating site for desperate people.

Posted at 11:20AM on Feb 27th 2008 by Steve

145. Steve: I do not appreciate your comment. I know what this blog is, I am not looking for dates, and am certainly not desperate. You are passing judgment when you know nothing about someone. Bella.

Posted at 11:37AM on Feb 27th 2008 by Bella

146. The court should have fine the slimeball attorney for his crap........

Posted at 12:41PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Reddesires

147. 139. i'm confused - how can some guy pretend to be her lawyer and she has to pay?

Posted at 10:09AM on Feb 27th 2008 by SW

SW - If you've been reading this thread then you know there are a bunch of "legal experts" who can probably really answer your question in detail, but if I understand correctly, Britney doesn't have to pay Eardley, the lawyer who filed the bogus suit. She has to pay for the lawyers who were FIGHTING the bogus suit.

I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am wrong.

Posted at 12:42PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Official Crazy Woman

148. # 143, you asked, “Let's say the judge had decided because that this was a frivolous case, the plaintiff had to pay defendant's attorney fees. In such judgments, who pays, the lawyer or the lawyer's client? In this case, Eardley is only the lawyer right? And he is claiming the Britney is his client. So if the judge had awarded attorney fees to the defendant, would Britney basically have to pay herself?”

Good question, #143. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 (governing the imposition of sanctions for frivolous lawsuits) and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (subjecting removal filings to the Rule 11 requirements), the court may order payment of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. Under Rule 11, sanctions and fees may be imposed upon the attorney in addition to the client. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c)(1) (“the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.”). This is because (1) Rule 11 imposes a specific obligation that at least one attorney of record sign and verify that “the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b)(2), and (2) public policy favors methods that discourage attorneys from filing frivolous suits, which is in contravention of their ethical duties. Moreover, because Britney could not legally retain Eardley as counsel, there was no attorney-client relationship. Accordingly, it is arguable that Eardley was acting as moving party here (and not as an attorney), rather than Britney. Thus, it would be appropriate for the court to sanction Eardley directly as a party if it determined that sanctions should be imposed (which it did not).

You also asked, “Also, I hear that the judge said that Brittney could not be Eardley's client because of the conservatorship. So what are the rules when a plaintiff "disappears"? Is there any precedent to hold the lawyer responsible?” I’m not sure what you mean by this question. Are you asking whether an attorney can be liable for the sanctions imposed directly on the client where the client’s funds cannot be secured? The answer to that would be “no,” because the attorney is not responsible for paying the client’s sanctions, only his own. If that is not what you are asking, kindly clarify.

Posted at 1:37PM on Feb 27th 2008 by DBK

149. Who cares!! Why don’t you people go out, get a more interesting life, job or significant other so you’re not wasting your time, posting your worthless comments on a worthless matter. No wonder why America is going to hell so fast. Before you get mad at what I say or before you post another “who cares" comment check your I.Q. Don’t be surprised when the results show your actually retarded!!

Posted at 2:19PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Bill Waters

150. Isn't this the second time that this attorney Eardley has pulled this? Claiming to be someones attorney when he is not. he knew that the court ruled that she was not competent to hire any attorney's. Why can't Jaimie file a complaint with the Bar Ass. They would investigate and determine if sanctions or disbarment should happen to this attorney. Jaimie can file a complain against this attorney.
Why can't this be a remedy for this frivolous action by this attorney?

Posted at 2:30PM on Feb 27th 2008 by Betty