我曾经说过,美国律师一百多万,比程序员还多,饭桶多去了。 这句话应该是我所有普法文字中最关键的一条。 不懂法律的人,对律师往往有着敬畏心理,觉得美国法律复杂,律师很神,遇到事情往往对律师言听计从---即使对方可能基本概念都搞不清。 其实,美国法律条款的理解就是一个英语阅读理解的问题,所谓 reading comprehension, 关键在于正确地、逻辑地理解相关条款。而阅读理解需要逻辑思维能力,能够正确的分析句子表达的各种条件、关系。 去年10月OJX报道桑兰主动撤诉,我就 立刻指出 【 官司已经打到这个程度,原告要全身而退,只能跟被告达成协议撤诉, 参见 FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) ,而不能无条件自主撤诉而保留再诉的权利 。】这个分析不是靠经验,而是单纯地解读相关的条款。 条款在哪?搜索“FRCP“。 而且相关条款是一个简单的英语句子,懂点英语稍微有点脑子就可以看明白。律师竟然未能正确理解,是可悲的。 法院 最近的裁决 与我三个月前的判断完全一致,还仔细解释了条款,可见法院的时间相当部分是被律师的初级错误浪费了。(当然,遇到复杂问题,法官也可能搞不清) 现在有遇到了一个问题,法庭因为桑兰没有出席录取证词按 FRCP 37(d) 要赔偿被告律师费。这次,我预先指出一下,这个律师费必须是“未能出席”造成的费用。参见 http://www.zhenzhubay.com/home.php?mod=spaceuid=2do=blogid=28147 。这个“未能出席”造成的费用,一般在几百到几千美金的量级*。 在桑兰中写过认罪书的海明又跳出来了,祝贺被告之余,建议被告尽快递交 RULE 11 动议。按海明的理解,如果案子结束 RULE 11 就不能递交了。这又是一个基本概念错误。即使案件已经结束,法院仍然可以根据 RULE 11 惩罚违反该条规则规定的诉讼方。但跟 RULE 37 不同,RULE 11相当于一个案中案,只能由 A3 法官裁定,相关裁决可以单独上诉。 * Attorney Mo will have a hard time coming up with a higher figure that can be proven to be causally connected to the Plaintiff's failure to attend the deposition. Defendants will have to try something else if they want to be vindicated without being vindictive. Rule 11 is certainly an option, but the amount of fees can be imposed on the opponent from even a successful Rule 11 motion is also quite limited. There has already been one round of Rule 11, the law of the case prevents defendants from re-litigating many of the issues in a Rule 11 context. I wonder if Attorney Mo has the stomach for another round of Rule 11. A court ruling contrary to established law or the plain text of a statute is by definition an abuse of discretion. As to the causality between the failure to appear and the resulting expense, it is plainly required by 37(d), enacted by the Congress. Let me quote one court in a very similar situation.