r/Ask_Lawyers

This is an ABA Ethics standard (Standard 3-3.9), so not a primary authority. Since it's non-binding, what does this standard look like in practice?

Do associate DA's ever refuse to prosecute despite their supervisor's instructions? If they're fired for insubordination, do they have any legal grounds for recompense or rehiring? What does this actually look like in the real world?

Location : TEXAS

I need to know if it's possible to have the private adoption I was a part of at the age of 6 be annulled now that I am an adult. Also, I am not yet seeking a lawyer's representation in my area, for the simple fact that my adoptive parents are very litigious and have previously employed/consulted with many firms local to me.

Here's the facts. At the age of 4, my biological mother gave up her parental rights to me and I was placed under the guardianship of family "friends". Then, at the age of 6, I was adopted by those same guardians.

Here's my issue. My adoptive father had his biological daughter (child from a previous marriage) removed from his care by the state of Kansas due to neglect and drug charges/use- and my adoptive mother had the custody of her own biological daughter (also a child from a previous marriage) removed and transferred to the child's father due to, you guessed it, child neglect and drug charges/use in Georgia.

The problem is, they never disclosed the fact that they both independently from one another had children removed from their care in states outside of the one I was adopted in, to either my biological mother or the rest of my biological family, during the transfer of my guardianship and ensuing adoption.

I want to know, does the lack of that disclosure classify my private adoption as fraudulent? I would like to approach this matter from that angle, instead of bringing in proof of the neglect/physical abuse/sexual abuse I experienced while in their care.

I’m seeking an attorney to sue my job but i can’t seem to get past the receptionist or person on the phone. Are there certain keywords to use to actually get passed them to talk to an attorney about what’s going on?

Hello everyone. I am looking to see if there is a court document to file, similar to the jv-180 form in California. This is a case in Kentucky & i can’t find anything similar.

So im pursuing BBA LLB, and im in 3rd sem now so i have to choose between Constitutional law, criminal law and business law. Im not really intrested in BL, but please give me suggestion on what to choose and why and something which is also gonna be good for me in future, in earnings as well. Suggest me please

TL;DR
Had access to Ex GF/BM’s Facebook Messenger DM’s after I found login info in her notes.
She gave me access to her phone and pin prior to breakup and vice verse, so I used the opportunity to get messenger info to know if she says anything to family/friends regarding our child
(Prior to the breakup, she was about 5 months pregnant and had been using 10 years of past drama to justify breakup and keep our newborn child away as she “didn’t want to bring our child into our drama and was better off” (despite us agreeing to stick together for the baby’s sake.)

_________________________________________

In December of 2024, When an ex (5 months pregnant) lived with me in El Paso, TX, then we went to visit her family in Chicago, IL, she had then decided she wanted to stay with her sister in that city rather than fly back to TX with me.

Prior to us flying to IL, we had been slowly adjusting for a future with our new baby.
(every doctors appointment possible, plans for our baby’s future, etc)
We were excited at first until ex gf/baby mama began to become hesitant at the prospect of us being together as a family unit.
(despite us agreeing to stay together as a family unit) then later admitted she didn’t want us to really be under the same roof when the baby is born because she didn’t want our baby to “watch us fight and argue”

(We were always in an on/off relationship for 10 years and had really noticed once we found out she was pregnant and I felt guilty, so I did everything I could to make things up with her for the past; dinner, gifts, a couple nights in a nice hotel, etc)

(TL;DR IT NEVER MATTERED)

When she slowly became more passive aggressive, dismissive, and uninterested in me (physically, emotionally, and romantically), I tried to bring it up to her, but she always dismissed her cold behavior and refused to talk
(At first, I reasoned it down to her pregnancy hormones, but her complete change of personality caught me off guard and I felt like it became an uphill battle, from there)

I tried to break up with her after an argument, one day; Not only because I was tired of how she was treating me, but also because she’s told me (in person and over text) that she was “more of the baby’s parent than I was, and that the baby didn’t need me and neither did she.”

In retaliation, she told me she was just going to move out of state with family and refuse to let me see our baby; there, I had no choice but to apologize, knowing she now had leverage over me in the form of our unborn child and my potential future with him.

When her sister in Chicago, IL, learned of the news of my BM being pregnant, she offered her and I a space at her place to visit for Christmas and to see her sister again, being happy she’s going to be a mommy.

When BM decided she could start anew in IL with her sisters help and get government assistance and my child support money in the future, she broke up with me and admitted she didn’t intend to come back to TX.

Nowadays, I’m trying to fight for partial custody/visitations since she ghosted me on every platform, blocked my number, and sent me a letter through her attorney basically saying she won’t give me ANY parenting time with our son.

I knew BM was going to gossip between family/friends about all this and probably straight up admit she never wanted us together as a family, but needed proof; I went into her phone and looked in her notes app and found her Facebook messenger login info and took a photo with my phone and logged in from my phone.

At first, her messages consisted of her explaining the situation and venting about me, but then I find texts between her and her family, encouraging her to just get child support from me but not let me see our child, saying I don’t deserve to see him and I’m still financially obligated to help, as the father.

She had also said, herself, she didn’t want to be around me at all and didn’t think I deserve to see my son, either.

She also has made mentions of suspicious actions that I thought would’ve justified my actions

> She mentioned taking our infant son out in a stroller and walking to the local library a few days of the week while it was 50 degrees out in snowy December 2025 IL, as she hated being at home for too long (she didnt have a job, she had SSI and government assistance, so she didn’t feel the need to get a job)

> She made mention of wanting to live with mother in CO who still lives with stepfather who SA’d her multiple times as a teenager yet still calls him daddy and respects him more than her actual father, a much better man.
(The state even separated her from her mother because of it and she always grieved about being separated from her mother, but failed to hold her mother accountable for dating a PDF and refusing to break up with him, even to this day!)

> She’s made mention of her apartment being extremely messy between her sister, even got scolded over it by her sister, saying the baby could get taken away from her for it

I took screenshots of the conversations mentioning all this, but didn’t think I could use it in any way, but I still had proof that BM was making some pretty questionable decisions and it made me concerned for my baby.

Eventually, I lost the ability to log in, so I think she may have figured out I was logging in, probably even saw I was logging in from TX.

In case she takes screenshots of this and gives this to her attorney, is she able to make a case this?
Is she able to use this in court, against me during a hearing for custody/visitations of my child?

Thank you again for all your responses.

Just curious here:

In criminal cases, the prosecution is supposed to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But people can doubt even a really solid case depending on how high their standards of evidence are or how conspiracy theory-inclined they're feeling 😅 Are there any guidelines that could help jury members decide whether or not any perceived gaps in the prosecution's case are legitimately significant?

Does a prosecutor invoking Catholic doctrine in a murder trial raise a legitimate Establishment Clause concern?

I’m Canadian and have been following the Lindsay Clancy murder trial in Massachusetts, and I’m interested in the constitutional perspective on something that happened during the prosecution’s questioning.

While questioning Lindsay Clancy’s former mother-in-law, the prosecutor established that she was an active Catholic and then asked whether she was aware that murder is considered a “mortal sin” in the Catholic Church.

The judge intervened, the defense objected, and the jury was ultimately instructed to disregard the question.

That response from the court is important, but I’m interested in the broader constitutional issue.

The prosecutor wasn’t a private citizen discussing her religious beliefs. She was acting on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in a criminal prosecution.

So where exactly is the constitutional line?

If the prosecution is attempting to establish that a defendant understood that killing was morally wrong, can the government introduce the teachings of a particular religion as evidence of that understanding?

And if Catholic doctrine can legitimately be invoked for that purpose, would the same principle allow a prosecutor to question witnesses about whether an act is forbidden under Islamic law, Jewish law, or another religious code?

I’m not arguing that Massachusetts is somehow “enforcing Catholic law.” It clearly isn’t. I’m asking something narrower:

Is there a constitutional problem when the state itself invokes a specific religion’s doctrine as part of its effort to establish criminal culpability—even if the judge ultimately strikes the question?

From outside the United States, this was striking to watch because the First Amendment’s prohibition on government establishment of religion is one of the features of the American constitutional system that seems particularly clear.

I’d be interested in hearing from constitutional lawyers or others familiar with Establishment Clause jurisprudence. Is this primarily an evidentiary problem, a constitutional problem, prosecutorial misconduct, or simply an improper question that the trial judge adequately cured by striking it?

Greetings to all.

I would appreciate any advice on this.

I have an ongoing mortgage with a bank, 10 years, up to date payments. The property value is at least 5 times the balance. My credit is about 700. I sent them the rent roll as well as the income and expense statement for this property. But now they want a copy of my tax returns. I never sent them that in all my ten years with them.

I refuse to send them this, since I do have confidential information on it. I know how these things get bumped around and left on desks etc.

This particular fellow threatens to call the mortgage unless.

does he have a right to do that?

Up until the last few months or so, my plan was to go to law school and practice law. I took the LSATs a few years ago and scored a 172 and graduated cum laude from a top 20 university in the US with a degree in philosophy, and feel pretty confident I have the intellectual capacity and interest to make a good lawyer.

However, I've had some ethical concerns about practicing law that have always made me a bit hesitant to go into the field. These concerns were magnified when I got hired as a legal assistant at a personal injury law firm this spring. I ended up quitting about a week ago because I just felt too much discomfort with what we were doing. I'm hesitant to share more details of the specific issues because the law firm I worked with had a pretty niche specialization, but suffice it to say, I was pretty concerned with the kind of work we were being asked to do.

The main hurdle I'm having trouble overcoming is that I have a lot of difficulty making arguments that I don't wholeheartedly believe in (and I have an insanely high standard for what constitutes wholeheartedly believing something). I had this same issue when writing papers in my undergrad. Internally, I get this deep sense of guilt as if I've just told a lie. I guess another way to put it is that I come up with an argument, but then identify counterarguments/caveats that could be made to the argument, and feel guilty if I don't mention those as well. I also have similar feelings of guilt arise when I think about say, asking for an arbitrary amount of money in civil case that may or may not turn out to be fair as well as prosecuting possibly innocent clients or defending who are likely guilty.

From a strictly rational point of view, I understand that these types of uncertainty are a natural part of a legal system because you don't have an infinite amount of time and money to devote to a particular case. However, as mentioned in the title, I have dealt with moderate to severe OCD since high school and I'm worried that with how easy it is for me to start feeling guilty over these things, I would have a law career filled with intense anxiety.

If anyone has experience dealing with similar issues as a lawyer, even on a less extreme level, I would appreciate any advice you can offer. Is this something that might improve with time? Or would it be better to choose a career with less uncertainty?

How much political strategy would go into something like this as opposed to eager prosecution? Is there a generally assumed view the jury holds against or for pro se defendants who are fighting the case from inside?

Hello! This might seem like an odd question, but I was watching a show recently where the district attorney took a witness into the courtroom so that she could feel more comfortable during the trial. The witness asked where the defendant would be sitting and the DA said she wasn't allowed to tell her that, which isn't something I've heard before. I tried looking this up on my own and couldn't find anything that actually addressed my question. I'm just wondering why they wouldn't be able to disclose that information. The show takes place in the late 90s and early 2000s if that adds anything.

Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my silly question!

I’m trying to figure out if I made the right decision settling my lawsuit, because honestly, I feel like I had no choice.

I was in a Lyft accident and hired Morgan & Morgan. At first, my lawyer was completely gung-ho about my case and made it sound like we were going to fight for a substantial amount of money. After the accident, my back got significantly worse and I eventually had spinal reconstruction surgery. I literally just had a laminectomy on July 29.

Then the other side subpoenaed my PCP records.
Apparently, my records from 2022 and 2023 mention chronic back pain twice, along with a few other references to back pain being treated with medication. The thing is, I genuinely do NOT remember having chronic back pain. I have never had what I would consider serious back pain before this accident.
The treatment in those records was also muscle relaxers. I was never being prescribed painkillers for my back. My lawyer couldn’t even pronounce the medication when we discussed it. I was actually given muscle relaxers for my RLS, which makes me wonder if some of this is being interpreted differently than what was actually going on.

But one of the biggest things I can’t understand is why my own lawyer didn’t already have my PCP’s records.

Why did the other side have to subpoena them before this information came to light? Why hadn’t my lawyer obtained those records, reviewed them, and known about these entries before my deposition?

I was asked in my deposition if I had back pain before the accident, and I said no because that was honestly what I believed. I wasn’t trying to hide anything or lie. I genuinely did not remember those records and had never considered myself someone who had chronic back pain. If my lawyer had reviewed those records beforehand and told me, “These records say you reported back pain in 2022 and 2023,” I could have addressed that honestly and explained what I did and didn’t remember.

Instead, I found out about them after my deposition when the other side got them.

My lawyer originally seemed extremely confident about my case. Then suddenly, after these records came out, everything changed and I was being told about the risks of my case.

My fiancé got on the phone with my lawyer because my panic disorder was making it extremely difficult for me to ask the questions I needed to ask. He asked things like how much I was actually getting and where the settlement money was going. My lawyer got angry and raised his voice at him.

At one point I was having a panic attack and told my lawyer I needed to get off the phone and would call him back in about 30 minutes.

When I called back, I swear it felt like he had come back ready for a fight. I barely got a chance to process everything. I ended up cutting him off and saying that I would settle.

Then his entire tone changed.

Somehow, after that, the settlement number went up and I was going to receive some money instead of walking away with nothing.

I understand that prior medical records can hurt a personal injury case. I’m not asking Reddit to tell me that they don’t matter. I understand why the other side would use them.

What I’m struggling with is whether my lawyer actually fought for me, or whether I was pressured into settling because he didn’t want to deal with the problems those records created.

I feel like there should have been a way to distinguish between whatever muscular issues I may have had before the accident and what happened afterward. Whatever was documented before was never a serious skeletal problem. I never had spinal surgery or anything remotely comparable to what happened after the Lyft accident.

So I’m left wondering:

Did I make the right decision settling, or did my lawyer back me into a corner and pressure me into accepting a settlement because he didn’t want to fight the issues with my prior medical records? And why didn’t my lawyer already have and review those records before my deposition in the first place?

I know nobody here can tell me exactly what my case was worth. I’m more interested in hearing from people who understand personal injury cases, attorneys, paralegals, or people who have been through something similar.

And please be honest with me. If settling was probably the right decision based on what I’ve described, I would rather hear that than have people just tell me what I want to hear.

I (27) have been with my soon to be ex husband (34) since I was 18. Fresh out of high school. I had my first child at 20. And my second child at 21. We bought a house together one month before we married. When I was 22, we got married. When I was 24, he kicked me out. I have been homeless since. Ive begged to come back. Last year I ended up in a mental health facility due to mental stress of being homeless and just not having ny kids anymore. He doesnt let me see them. Im not even allowed back in my home. I just now got a job making minimum wage. He makes $50/hr. He finally got a lawyer, some incredibly bougie lawyer from out of state, and I dont even have a car. I cant afford one. I cant even afford shelter of my own. I couch hop and have been.

Am I going to get screwed over? Am I going to have to pay child support since I havent had my children in three years? Am I going to owe him? Not looking for advice. I know thats against the rules. Just wondering what possibilities await me. Just wanting to know if my life is about to be over.

I have thoughts that support and oppose both the current system and the lawyer-only option but I'd ramble into incoherent babble if I listed them all here.

The title is the post so how/why do you feel one way or the other about layman juries vs lawyer-only juries?

Helping out my dad, older, foreign, retired doctor, seems like his attorneys are trying to take advantage of him. Someone is trying to sue him for a large amount, they refuse to answer discovery, there is no case, seems like his attorneys are in on it i.e. kickback (not to sound like I wear a tin hat here).

Attorney 1:
(1) Agreed to do compel discovery, paid large retainer, disappeared for more than a year and asked if he was ready for a final trial in May.
(2) Dad reminded more than two dozen required discovery is missing (prove of claim, witnesses, evidence, etc.) and he said "he's working on that now", but disappeared again for months.
(3) Dad went to court and saw two months ago both attorneys signed a document requesting a trial setting in June and his attorney never told him about it. Dad contacted the court who contacted both attorneys.
(3) Lawyer refused to remove the trial setting and tried to trick dad into signing a withdrawn saying dad wouldn't be prejudiced by him leaving, dad never signed.

Attorney 2:
(1) Said (a) would to a continuance for the trial setting hearing (b) discovery will be compelled at first step
(2) Paid another large retainer and she sent a motion of continuance and told him a continuance would happen (great)
(3) Without saying anything, she secretly attended the trial setting hearing, and afterwards tried to convince dad that the judge won't allow a compel discovery till after Aug 31.
(4) Set up meeting with her two days after and asked what happened to the continuance and she said it was denied. Asked again, again she said "it was denied so I had to attend". Asked why dad wasn't informed, and she said "I should have told you but I didn't, that was a communication mistake, I can promise you it won't happen again".
(5) At that point she was informed that dad went to court yesterday and checked the docket and there was no continuance, despite a certificate of service she signed saying it was submitted to court electronically and nor is there anything about the judge denying the continuance.
(6) Without even thinking, she'd try to lie herself out of it "I know, it was just a draft" (a judge can't deny a draft that was never submitted).
(7) Later, dad obtained this scheduling order from the court, it says the EXACT opposite "All discovery, depositions and motions need to be completed by Aug 31". Multiple times attempted to get her to start the compel process now and she was saying she can't till Sept 1 and "promised" to do it then.
(8) Purchased court transcript and both attorney's were lying. Both said all discovery and depositions were completed and the case is ripe for trial. Judge had a hard time buying that "well there isn't anything on the docket for more than a year" and nonetheless gave a few months for my attorney to do additional discovery since she's new.
(8) Fired and demanded a refund via certificate mail and email. She refuses to sign substitution order and will not refund money.

I have all emails, phone recordings (allowed to in my state), court documents, docket history, and receipts. Seems like this scheduling order was nothing but collusion, working to get a deadline and miss the deadline. Worst part is "All exhibits, documents, photographs, videos and witnesses will be shared ten (10) days prior to trial".

Tried as hard as possible to assume maybe something was a misunderstanding or give her the benefit of the doubt here or there, but it leads to the same: she was lying to me, she was lying to court, and using the court to perpetrate fraud.

What has been your worst experiences with unreasonable defense counsel (PI) and insurance carriers?

My attorney and I are both shocked at how unreasonable the insurance carrier and OC have been regarding potential settlement of a product liability case. Causation is clear, and damages are fairly high, but OC seems to be telling insurance that case is defensible. OC originally claimed that the scene wouldn't have been disturbed by fire department, and that user error was to blame, but firefighters will testify to support our claims. That was the only possible defense (really strong liability evidence) and OC has withdrawn medical experts.

OC and carrier still seem dead-set on trial (four months away) and we can't figure out why.

How likely is it to win a case against an attorney if you are a self represented plantiff? Do you recommend or not?

Hi all, we have lived in this apartment for almost 3 years. About 6 months ago, our tub (upstairs) began to leak and has thus caused massive holes in our kitchen ceiling that occasionally leak as well. The holes have progressively gotten worse despite multiple attempts to have our landlords fix them.

On top of that, our sink is now leaking, several apartments are without AC and the maintenance claims they cannot fix them.

With this being said, is our lease agreement void at this point? I’m honestly concerned that our tub will eventually fall through the ceiling, which I brought up with our previous maintenance people, who simply laughed at me. We are moving in October but are wondering if we are able to call our lease bull and void to get out of here before one of us gets hurt.

Thank you.