Some plaintiff clients want "revenge" of some sort when they file suit. That is, they see the defense lawyer pursuing some outrageous litigation tactic and the client then asks me what will I do in response? The client wants some comparable tactic. Tit for tat. You see this in Allen Sanford’s litigation mess. He recently field suit against a dozen federal agencies, the FBI, the SEc, etc. See Texas Lawyer report. Mr. Sanford accuses these agencies of unfair and abusive law enforcement tactics. Mr. Sanford, of course, is the former high-living investment counselor who is accused of swindling his clients out of billions of dollars.
His lawyers surely tried to dissuade him from this suit. But, if they are being paid by the hour, their persuasive attempts may have been brief. Federal courts see these lawsuits with some frequency, although not always from someone with Sanford’s resources. Many pro se clients file similar suits. Such suits are usually based on nothing more than speculation. These retaliation suits do nothing more than make it clear that they are scared.
It is better not to give in to our "inner Mongo" as James McElhaney, well known writer of litigation tactics would say. See ABA Bar Journal article. Judges are suspicious of counter-suits. Counter-suits naming a dozen different federal agencies go to the head of the list of apparently frivolous lawsuits.
In one lawsuit eons ago, the defense lawyer asked several questions about personal issues regarding my client. The personal issues had no relationship to whether he suffered discrimination at work. None. The questions were designed solely to frighten my client. Client asked me to retaliate in kind. He thought we could do the same thing to one of the managers. i told him, no, let the defense lawyer do this at trial and see how the jury responds. As Mr. McElhaney explains, the jury will mot see this as fair. They will only see tit for tat and become disgusted with both sides. Resist the call of your inner Mongo when you are in the midst of a lawsuit…..