I just heard a story from a friend, it went like this: a newly graduated law student was arrested in California by the FBI on a mortgage fraud charge. He was studying for the Bar exam and had ‘really boned up on criminal law.’ Long story short, he decided to represent himself. Longer story made even shorter, despite being a small part of a large mortgage fraud scam he was sentenced to the longest sentence of any of his twelve co-defendants.

We haven’t tackled this theme in a while but this story and certain legal matters in the media these days bring it to the forefront: what happens when ‘dabblers’ walk into a courtroom?

Hiring a 'Dabbler'

Definition of ‘Dabblers’

‘Dabblers’ are lawyers who take a case that’s outside their area of ‘expertise’. Lawyers are technically licensed to take any type of case once they pass the bar exam, there’s no formal requirement to train in a specialized area of the law before they hang out their shingle, as there most certainly is for doctors – a fact we should be very grateful for. Imagine your response when your orthopedic surgeon finishes checking your MCL repair, smiles up at you, and says, “This looks great, now let’s check out your toothache?”

This can and does, metaphorically, occur often in law practice. Sometimes it works out okay when a lawyer helps a friend through a ‘simple closing’ or reading a ‘simple contract.’ ‘Simple’ being the operative word here.

Why Lawyers ‘Dabble’

For many reasons - none of them valid, in my opinion - some lawyers take on matters they are not qualified to handle. Call it hubris, straight out ignorance, or the need for a retainer to pay the bills. They tend to do what the client demands. This could be because they’ve bought into the [very dated] adage of ‘the customer is always right’ . . . or the client holds a powerful position or is an expert in the field . . . what doesn’t help is their lack of knowledge.

A Defamation Case in Virgina

Last week saw the Perfect Storm of dabbler meets ‘I do what the client wants.’ A law school professor in Virginia filed a $108 million defamation action against two former students. They had filed Title IX complaints against him a few years ago. Those allegations are still pending. But probably not much longer because the action, filed by the firm who defended the Title IX complaint, admitted that those allegations were true in the libel action.

The professor, who had just left academia briefly for a government position, justified the $108 million damages request by stating that the two women had done irreputable harm to his reputation and future ‘marketability.’

This was a lowkey matter way under the legal headline horizon until the defamation case was filed. Now it’s not only headline fodder, it’s very public.

The effects can’t be put any better than Above The Law did last week:

Honestly, it’s difficult to imagine a more reputationally damaging account than the one Wright and his lawyers chose to lay out here. Because reading this complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff… he’s telling the world that he’s a[n idiot].

Okay, they didn’t use ‘idiot’ but you get the point.

This action was filed by a firm that has no experience in defamation law. The attorney is a tech lawyer. Were either competent to dive into defamation law and draft a twenty-six-page complaint? We seem to have our answer.

Did anyone at the law firm warn the professor about the many pitfalls of what he wanted to do? Any chance he would have listened? Would the firm have gone forward if not for the fact the professor, through contacts, has deep pockets to fund the ongoing action?

Who knows?

The thing about this case is that it’s just plain embarrassing . . . for the professor and the firm that drafted the complaint. That’s it, though. No one’s freedom is at stake, no one’s going to be perp walked in front of cameras, no one is going to jail or prison.