548
So 5 stars then
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2025
548 points (99.1% liked)
Funny
12569 readers
513 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Legally, I don't think the lawyer can brag about such a win on a public forum.
It's very very likely she can't say more than that the comment is from the 'ex-spouse of a client' without risking libel or something.
It's up to the reader to infer the context.
The same way as: "there are only two types of people in the world, those that can extrapolate from incomplete data."
Why would a lawyer not be allowed to do that? Genuinely curious because I would expect information on who won court cases to be public anyway?
It depends on how they "won". If it was a full hearing with a jury and everything, that's public record. If it's arbitration, that's probably not public record.
Bragging about a "win" in arbitration, and making something that's not a public record, into a public record, is usually a problem.
With the current wording, while you can infer from context, the outcome of the case, it isn't explicitly stated by the lawyer. The largest disclosure here is from the party that feels they were "wronged", and the lawyer is simply stating that "this person wasn't my client" (more or less). You fill in the rest.
The fact that the commenter was not their client is not disclosing any private information, nor any information about the matter that's being discussed. It's a simple statement of irrefutable fact. (Or fact that can be proven at least)
If the lawyer crosses a line by discussing case specifics, like what the matter regarded (divorce, custody, property, whatever), or the outcome of that case, when it is not a matter of public record, can land them in serious hot water.
I would assume, again, from context, that the matter is not presently a part of public record.
That makes sense, thanks.
I can also infer the wrong conclusion from the same data… which is why I misread Agnew’s response at first.
Maybe the lawyer lost the case. The response is even more brilliant in this case !!
🤣
That type of ambiguity is fine.
It's the “who actually wrote this: the client, a relative, or an opponent?”