Friday, March 10, 2017


(Reworked from assorted older posts with a bunch of new stuff.)

Bud has been retired from his successful law practice for many years now.  One of his first clients was a woman who was accused of shoplifting.  Her defense was that while she was walking past the meat counter in a supermarket, some lamb chops jumped into her purse.  With much difficulty (& the surveillance photos), he finally convinced her to plead guilty.  He also had a client who (allegedly) wrote a series of bad checks.  He got her off, but he wasn’t stupid.  He insisted she pay him in cash!!
A Charlotte, North Carolina man, having purchased a case of rare, very expensive cigars, insured them against .... get this .... fire. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of fabulous cigars, and having yet to make a single premium payment on the policy, the man filed a claim against the insurance company. In his claim, the man stated that he had lost the cigars in "a series of small fires." 

The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason that the man had consumed the cigars in a normal fashion. The man sued ... and won!! In delivering his ruling, the judge stated that since the man held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable, and also guaranteed that it would insure the cigars against fire, without defining what it considered to be "unacceptable fire," it was obligated to compensate the insured for his loss. 

Rather than endure a lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the judge's ruling and paid the man $15,000 for the rare cigars he lost in "the fires." After the man cashed his check, however, the insurance company had him arrested... on 24 counts of arson! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used as evidence against him, the man was convicted of intentionally burning the rare cigars and sentenced to 24 consecutive one year terms.
Sometimes, lawyers don't even have to wait for an answer.  I think the term "probonehead" (Thank you, Timothy Hecht) describes them very well:

Lawyer: "How far apart were the vehicles at the time of the collision?"

Lawyer: "You were there until the time you left, is that true?"

Lawyer: "Were you alone or by yourself?"

Lawyer: "Were you present in court this morning when you were sworn in?"

Accused, defending his own case: "Did you get a good look at my face when I took your purse?"
Some free legal advice for you from lawyer L. Scott Briscoe:

The new anthology that I'm in is now available at
Kobo, Barnes & Noble, Ibooks & Amazon.

To buy it on Amazon, click here.

Barnes and Noble/nook: click here. 

                                                             Ibooks: click here.

I plead not guilty by reason of insanity----fishducky