Mike Lindell set August 13 as the date in his bonkers theory that Trump will be reinstated as president

- The 2020 election, which Biden won, will be "pulled down" and the "communists" routed, Lindell said.

Which will come first:
The Jehovah's Witnesses' prediction of the end of days
The election results being overturned

Place bets now.

They are both happening today.

Lawyers Opinion wanted!

Thankfully i have only had a couple incidents that required litigation in my business career so my experience is thin.

But in that experience I remember my lawyers basically telling me the perceived strength of our case (Iron Clad, Strong, Coin flip, Weak, Non winnable) to let us weigh the costs of proceeding versus seeking settlement.

My question to lawyer is 'are they obligated (ethics rules) to advise their clients of that'?

Now of course a crap lawyer might be bad at making that type of assessment and an unethical lawyer might lie but is their an ethics requirement that directs the lawyer to 'the best of their assessment, advise the client on the strength of their case'?

It seems to me there should be such that lawyers cannot just milk clients by allowing them to go to court, even though they are confident they will lose, because that will stretch out the billing time and court time is usually charged at a higher rate.

I am asking this here as obviously Mike Lindell will have lawyers now responding to the various suits he is embattled with. I am curious what his lawyers might be forced to advise him of?

And do ethical lawyers feel an obligation to step away from 'unwinnable cases' if they view it that way but their client still insists?


(yes I know Mike might not care even if told directly he has no chance. And yes if he has the Kraken lawyer (or one like her) he may be told this is a slam dunk winnable)

This is the sort of bet I had in mind if fishfood has real money and wants real action from people on this site.

But he's going to come back and say, OK but the odds have to be 100-1 and you have to escrow as well -- as if any sane person would escrow $2 million for a 1% return in 17 months.

You won't find a specific ethical rule about advising clients on the chances of success in a lawsuit, but it is accurate to say that broader principals require lawyers to play it straight with their clients. As a lawyer, I certainly would feel that I was ethically obligated to advise my client about the chances of success and the costs of litigation. But some clients are willing to take longshots. And some lawyers have terrible judgment about the chances of success. Many lawyers involved with the efforts to overturn the election are delusional.

As I mentioned several times, if Trump's legal challenges had merit, you would have seen GOP legal luminaries like Paul Clement involved. But those guys stayed a million miles away from this clown show.

So you really want to know if an attorney has an ethical obligation to predict future results of what 8-12 laypeople will decide are the facts of a case 12 months after litigation is commenced? Is that before or after learning the "facts" from their impartial client?

In the cases I have been involved in (admittedly few) the lawyers have always tried to peg the odds as they see it with statements like 'this is a very strong case and you are on very solid legal ground' so my question is only if that is written into their code of ethics to do so, which has been answered.

A code of ethics is not an obligation nor does it mean they have to get it right, it is just advising them to the best of their judgment and experience to lay out the facts.

I would ask the same of Doctors and GUESS they have an ethics obligation and maybe even a legal obligation to advise the patient of the risks of inaction (refusing surgery or medication) versus the risk of the surgery or medication itself.

If you ask me as a betting man I suspect the Dr's ethical obligations require him to advise on all that, but I am not so sure I would state that as fact.

All hail President Trump!!!

Wait, Biden is still president?

Damn, and I was excited.

Yes, you are correct.

Your experience is typical. Lawyers tend to resist giving specific percentages because there is an element of false precision in giving too narrow a prediction of what a judge or jury will do. But lawyers should be prepared to tell you whether you are on solid legal ground.

For example, you might be in a situation where your client might well lose if the judge or jury thinks about a question in a lazy way but your client should win if the judge or jury thinks about the issue with the appropriate amount of rigor. In that case, I would tell my client as much and explain that we were going to do everything in our power to get the judge or jury to understand that the lazy path was not the right path. And if I thought the judge had a proclivity for laziness or rigor, I would highlight that fact for the client.

Before putting down my hard earned cash, who will decide that Maricopa Co election results were fair/unfair?

Cyber Ninjas seem like an impartial, professional company - go with their findings.

So the Maricopa county "officials" who certified the Maricopa county election results aren't impartial and professional? (Asking for a friend)

Dude is sweating like Sklansky in a school zone.

Apparently Lindell didn't have the "data", and guy who sold it to him just skipped the symposium. So looking even stronger he was scammed and might even know it by now.

He should have clued in once he was asked to pay in advance with iTunes gift cards.

I lolled. A+

No man doesn’t matter Lindell and the data was never the point. All came to see Dr. Shiva and other discredited scamsters talk.

Serious question.

Are we done, at least for now, with announced events/dates for any big reveals/reversals?

Doubtful. There are thousands of people dedicating their life to being torchbearers, and millions who trust them.

That ecosystem isn't dying out any time soon. Abandoning something like that is likely a painful process.

I feel like I haven’t heard as much about Q lately. Is that still a thing with deadlines and prophecy dates? Maybe media types lost interest.

I think maybe my post above is one reason that we haven't heard from fishfood in several days.

When even the resident two-time Trump voter thinks you're a nut job, it's time to pack up the big tent and move the circus to a new town.

Anything with Lindell always seems to be a fun read and belongs here.

Apparently the Antifa attacker was a Lindell fan that posed with him outside his hotel and, poked him in the ribs when he took the selfie.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bus...e-2021-8%3famp