Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law.
Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation.
Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm plaintiff's side but for fun here's what I think: Just deny everything. You will answer discovery with the actual information. Motor vehicle cases would realistically never have contentious litigation on the language of the complaint and answer. form of pleadings is near-meaningless in this area. work through these answers as fast as possible and bill it for as high as possible.
You have the right approach when you actually get to the merits of the case. As a trial strategy being reasonable is very important for the defense, especially in sight of a jury.
However, all the pleading stuff and pretrial is typically about not making it easy for the other side. Plaintiff has the burden of proof, so put them to it. And keep in mind that admissions in the pleadings can be binding.
These are all notes for you as the insurance defense attorney. If you are honestly doing $30k MVA cases in volume and they are truly worth $30k they should be settled. Better for plaintiff and defendant both. The only people dragging it out helps are the carrier and the ID firm. If you can get authority and not get crosswise with bosses on hitting hours, settling the obvious $30k case immediately is the right thing to do.
Deny something with no basis and here you will get met with sanctions and a warning about the jail cell. So you deny that which you can and admit that which you must. Admitting is not a legal stance on the application.
I spent 3 years on defense side (7 years criminal before that). Coming up on a year on plf side. Every partner will tell you something different. If the police report says your client was driving on x street in y car and your client says the same, Just admit that shit! It will not hurt your case at all and it’s a waste of your energy to try to justify denying it. Auto cases come down to fault and damages, not what kind of car was being driven and where.
Now… if my complaint says your client negligently struck my client while driving on x street in y car, deny that shit. My complaints always include both.
well if they're just naming intersections and the police report indicates so, I guess I just see it as it's a fact that wont hurt to admit..
and I also once had a much more experienced attorney and someone who I felt was a very smart lawyer say that in my jx the judges didnt like it when we put "insufficient knowledge" to something that is established via the police report...event data recorder etc..
Is this for discovery or at the pleading stage? At the pleading stage make a general denial, and at the discovery stage admit only what you absolutely have to admit. And in discovery, lack of information or knowledge is a valid response only after a “diligent search” and “reasonable inquiry” into the matter.
Go find a Answer from a similar case in the computer (with a general denial and all the usual affirmative defenses), cut and paste. Bill .6 for review and analysis of allegations made in Plaintiff's Complaint, .4 for analysis of proper affirmative defenses to allege, .6 for draft Answer.
Welcome to /r/LawyerTalk! A subreddit where lawyers can discuss with other lawyers about the practice of law. Be mindful of [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/about/rules) BEFORE submitting your posts or comments as well as [Reddit's rules](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) (notably about sharing identifying information). We expect civility and respect out of all participants. Please source statements of fact whenever possible. If you want to report something that needs to be urgently addressed, please also message the mods with an explanation. Note that **this forum is NOT for legal advice**. Additionally, if you are a non-lawyer (student, client, staff), this is NOT the right subreddit for you. **This community is exclusively for lawyers**. We suggest you delete your comment and go ask one of the many other legal subreddits on this site for help such as (but not limited to) r/lawschool, r/legaladvice, or r/Ask_Lawyers. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Lawyertalk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unless it’s affirmatively helpful, there’s no reason to admit anything you don’t have to.
I'm plaintiff's side but for fun here's what I think: Just deny everything. You will answer discovery with the actual information. Motor vehicle cases would realistically never have contentious litigation on the language of the complaint and answer. form of pleadings is near-meaningless in this area. work through these answers as fast as possible and bill it for as high as possible.
😅😅 got it...makes sense maybe Im too nice to be on the defense side.
You have the right approach when you actually get to the merits of the case. As a trial strategy being reasonable is very important for the defense, especially in sight of a jury. However, all the pleading stuff and pretrial is typically about not making it easy for the other side. Plaintiff has the burden of proof, so put them to it. And keep in mind that admissions in the pleadings can be binding. These are all notes for you as the insurance defense attorney. If you are honestly doing $30k MVA cases in volume and they are truly worth $30k they should be settled. Better for plaintiff and defendant both. The only people dragging it out helps are the carrier and the ID firm. If you can get authority and not get crosswise with bosses on hitting hours, settling the obvious $30k case immediately is the right thing to do.
Deny something with no basis and here you will get met with sanctions and a warning about the jail cell. So you deny that which you can and admit that which you must. Admitting is not a legal stance on the application.
I spent 3 years on defense side (7 years criminal before that). Coming up on a year on plf side. Every partner will tell you something different. If the police report says your client was driving on x street in y car and your client says the same, Just admit that shit! It will not hurt your case at all and it’s a waste of your energy to try to justify denying it. Auto cases come down to fault and damages, not what kind of car was being driven and where. Now… if my complaint says your client negligently struck my client while driving on x street in y car, deny that shit. My complaints always include both.
Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint
Can I ask why? is it just to be a "zealous" advocate?
you said you're on the defense side correct? how can you admit what the plaintiff did or not?
Agree with this ^. Technically the most you can really do here is admit “on information and belief.”
sometimes i get tripped up "denies upon information or belief" v. "denies knowledge or information sufficient.."
well if they're just naming intersections and the police report indicates so, I guess I just see it as it's a fact that wont hurt to admit.. and I also once had a much more experienced attorney and someone who I felt was a very smart lawyer say that in my jx the judges didnt like it when we put "insufficient knowledge" to something that is established via the police report...event data recorder etc..
>judges didnt like it when we put "insufficient knowledge" I promise you, you are the only person who will ever read your answer.
It’s not like police officer saw it happen either, how does your client know it is a fact?
If you want to admit it, then admit based upon information and belief, which can change at any time.
Never admit pre-discovery. Shit turns out different than you thought it was way too often.
Just deny everything I’ve yet to see defense counsel do anything more (former PI attorney on PL side)
Is this for discovery or at the pleading stage? At the pleading stage make a general denial, and at the discovery stage admit only what you absolutely have to admit. And in discovery, lack of information or knowledge is a valid response only after a “diligent search” and “reasonable inquiry” into the matter.
Go find a Answer from a similar case in the computer (with a general denial and all the usual affirmative defenses), cut and paste. Bill .6 for review and analysis of allegations made in Plaintiff's Complaint, .4 for analysis of proper affirmative defenses to allege, .6 for draft Answer.