Law question

[raysnkaysmom]

In laymans terms...can you explain to me AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF.

Can an individual file this who was a part of a company, but not listed in a lawsuit?

Or.maybe I'm lost and am asking a totally off the wall question.


Any expertise?

 

[pogo791]

In laymans terms...can you explain to me AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF.
Can an individual file this who was a part of a company, but not listed in a lawsuit?
Or.maybe I'm lost and am asking a totally off the wall question.
Any expertise?

No question is off the wall. Besides, lawyers love fielding questions, especially if they can charge the client for the hours spent pondering their answer (often on the golf course, of course, since fresh air invigorates thought.)

You'd need to provide more information, however. What information, exactly, does the individual intend to present and why does he or she assume that no one else can or will present it? (Also, I assume that this is a civil case in which the company is involved.) Why can't he or she provide this information to one of the two sides, so that they can present it as part of their case?

After all, the assumption in any and every court case is that the two sides themselves will submit to the court all the relevant legal arguments as well as the evidence. This makes for a much more orderly process.

Obviously, the lawyers will focus on the arguments that favor their client. However, it is possible that the case has broader implications. For example, the two parties may be arguing over who has the right to develop certain land. Neither one is perhaps particularly interested in the environmental impact that such development would have. In such a case, an environmental organization might want to bring this to the attention of the court.

Another example is if the case raises particularly arcane issues of law, in which case a professor or two might wish to be helpful to the judge.

Amicus curiae briefs are fairly rare, and usually are used at the appellate level. They can be submitted by an individual or by a group. However, there is no absolute right to submit such a brief. After all, the court does not want to get bogged down by all kinds of extraneous issues, especially if these will only confuse, complicate and delay the process. Depending on the court and the case, such briefs might require the permission of the court (and the court will want to be fairly confident that the brief will actually be of some use), or the consent of the parties involved.

Incidentally, I assume you are not speaking about interveners. An intervener is a non-party who may be affected by the judgment, and wants to be heard. For example, two parties may be arguing over property, but someone not involved in the court case may have a right to that property. He or she can then join the litigation, even if the two (original) parties object.

Can I get back to my golf game now?

 

[olena]

No question is off the wall. Besides, lawyers love fielding questions, especially if they can charge the client for the hours spent pondering their answer (often on the golf course, of course, since fresh air invigorates thought.)

You'd need to provide more information, however. What information, exactly, does the individual intend to present and why does he or she assume that no one else can or will present it? (Also, I assume that this is a civil case in which the company is involved.) Why can't he or she provide this information to one of the two sides, so that they can present it as part of their case?

After all, the assumption in any and every court case is that the two sides themselves will submit to the court all the relevant legal arguments as well as the evidence. This makes for a much more orderly process.

Obviously, the lawyers will focus on the arguments that favor their client. However, it is possible that the case has broader implications. For example, the two parties may be arguing over who has the right to develop certain land. Neither one is perhaps particularly interested in the environmental impact that such development would have. In such a case, an environmental organization might want to bring this to the attention of the court.

Another example is if the case raises particularly arcane issues of law, in which case a professor or two might wish to be helpful to the judge.

Animus curiae briefs are fairly rare, and usually are used at the appellate level. They can be submitted by an individual or by a group. However, there is no absolute right to submit such a brief. After all, the court does not want to get bogged down by all kinds of extraneous issues, especially if these will only confuse, complicate and delay the process. Depending on the court and the case, such briefs might require the permission of the court (and the court will want to be fairly confident that the brief will actually be of some use), or the consent of the parties involved.

Incidentally, I assume you are not speaking about interveners. An intervener is a non-party who may be affected by the judgment, and wants to be heard. For example, two parties may be arguing over property, but someone not involved in the court case may have a right to that property. He or she can then join the litigation, even if the two (original) parties object.

Can I get back to my golf game now?

 

[S. C.]

My thoughts exactly!

 

[pogo791]

OK, OK. Would it be easier if I just said that:

- an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief is used when an individual or a group who is not a party to a case thinks that his or her own views would be helpful to the court, and these views would not otherwise be brought up by either of the parties in the case

- the court may let him or her file the brief if the court thinks that it may clarify the case,

- such a brief is usually used in order to raise matters of broad public interest (such as environmental concerns, civil rights) and to clarify points of law

Any clearer?

 

[momoftwins]

 

[pogo791]

Glad to be of assistance.

Sometimes a question requires a complex answer. After all, it's not as if RaysNKaysMom was asking how much ketchup I use each month (on the average, enough for two hot dogs), whether or not I think Michael Jackson was murdered (nope) and whether or not a certain Big Brother contestant is attractive (definitely yes).

 

[sbell111]

Plus, simple answers do not support fat bills.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

ROFL

It's scary how the majority of that made sense to me. Guess I've learned more about law than I care to..

But...it's a federal case, (plaintiff) and their lawyer just filed to withdraw. He's trying to find a way around it....

But..to the poster who was kind enough to explain it all... as you know, its complicated to try to go into detail here to help any of it make sense...

But thank you

 

[raysnkaysmom]

Plus, simple answers do not support fat bills.

Pogo was nice enough not to charge

 

[sbell111]

Just because no bill has been received doesn't mean there isn't one coming.

 

[snykymom]

One more thing about amicus curiae briefs - they are often requested by the court when the court believes that certain parties/interests may bring important policy considerations before the court. They are rarely accepted unsolicited - no one can submit an amicus brief as of right. If not requested by the court, you would have to make a motion to allow the filing of the brief, and either or both sides could oppose the motion.

But...it's a federal case, (plaintiff) and their lawyer just filed to withdraw. He's trying to find a way around it....

But..to the poster who was kind enough to explain it all... as you know, its complicated to try to go into detail here to help any of it make sense...

But thank you

This confuses me. Are you saying that the plaintiff is the company, the lawyer has withdrawn, and the individual is an employee of the company who wants to file the brief? If so, that's not an amicus brief. That would be a brief on behalf of a party - if that individual has the authority to speak for the company, he or she is often considered to be the company - after all, companies speak only through their agents.

If the plaintiff company is trying to avoid hiring another lawyer, it may run into difficulty. In most jurisdictions, with the exception of small claims courts, companies cannot appear unrepresented by legal counsel. This is in contrast to individual litigants, who may represent themselves. But since companies are a legal, not natural, entities, they are required to be represented by someone admitted to the bar (and in this case, the federal bar).

 

[raysnkaysmom]

One more thing about amicus curiae briefs - they are often requested by the court when the court believes that certain parties/interests may bring important policy considerations before the court. They are rarely accepted unsolicited - no one can submit an amicus brief as of right. If not requested by the court, you would have to make a motion to allow the filing of the brief, and either or both sides could oppose the motion.


This confuses me. Are you saying that the plaintiff is the company, the lawyer has withdrawn, and the individual is an employee of the company who wants to file the brief? If so, that's not an amicus brief. That would be a brief on behalf of a party - if that individual has the authority to speak for the company, he or she is often considered to be the company - after all, companies speak only through their agents.

If the plaintiff company is trying to avoid hiring another lawyer, it may run into difficulty. In most jurisdictions, with the exception of small claims courts, companies cannot appear unrepresented by legal counsel. This is in contrast to individual litigants, who may represent themselves. But since companies are a legal, not natural, entities, they are required to be represented by someone admitted to the bar (and in this case, the federal bar).

It was his company, yes. THey are actively looking for another lawyer, due to the fact that he must be represented by an attorney in federal court because he cannot go pro se'. I think after all this is done, he should go to law school, lol.
So, he has to file a motion to get approval to submit a brief? And, it would be more of a brief on behalf of the party as opposed to an amicus curie?

whew, I'd like to get back to my baby belly kisses, pig roasts and red wall decorating

 

[snykymom]

So, he has to file a motion to get approval to submit a brief? And, it would be more of a brief on behalf of the party as opposed to an amicus curie?

No, he doesn't need to file the motion. He is not submitting an optional brief. He cannot submit a brief at all. He is in this lawsuit as the owner/representative of the company, not in his individual capacity as a person. He can submit briefs, motions, etc. only on behalf of the company through the company's legal counsel. He will need to get another lawyer pronto - generally, the court will allow a continuance if it approves the current lawyer's withdrawal for the company to obtain new counsel and for that new counsel to get up to speed.

 

[raysnkaysmom]

No, he doesn't need to file the motion. He is not submitting an optional brief. He cannot submit a brief at all. He is in this lawsuit as the owner/representative of the company, not in his individual capacity as a person. He can submit briefs, motions, etc. only on behalf of the company through the company's legal counsel. He will need to get another lawyer pronto - generally, the court will allow a continuance if it approves the current lawyer's withdrawal for the company to obtain new counsel and for that new counsel to get up to speed.

thanks... I guess because he's been the one writing the attorneys briefs and motions this whole time for her, he's just used to doing it..now that she wants to withdraw, he is at a loss about how to get it in there....