Following on from my previous comment, the ML mentioned he blackmailed the witness to testify, etc. Realistically speaking, why would a lawyer even do that? I know there are some real shady lawyers irl but generally speaking, why would you even risk your reputation and your license to win one case? Like getting struck off as a lawyer would be the worst thing that can happen so no lawyer would ever do something to risk their entire career just to win one case. At the end of the day, we are all going to work to get our salary and go home. Also, the MC could 100% report that ML to HR or any relevant regulatory body because he has lietrally harrassed him and even commited battery on multiple occasions in the workplace like wtf. One thing I liked so far is the first "test" they did, not that this would actually happen irl. I mean the comments the ML said were spot on. And what's funny to me is that we had a very similar case in our firm (of course some details were different and the issue was more region focused) but he was so qrite to say that you are always thinking about how to help your CLIENT. Yes it could be objectively right that the counterparty is correct, that's not what our job is. We need to find a loop hole or some sort of way to help the client win
Following on from my previous comment, the ML mentioned he blackmailed the witness to testify, etc. Realistically speaking, why would a lawyer even do that? I know there are some real shady lawyers irl but generally speaking, why would you even risk your reputation and your license to win one case? Like getting struck off as a lawyer would be the worst thing that can happen so no lawyer would ever do something to risk their entire career just to win one case. At the end of the day, we are all going to work to get our salary and go home. Also, the MC could 100% report that ML to HR or any relevant regulatory body because he has lietrally harrassed him and even commited battery on multiple occasions in the workplace like wtf. One thing I liked so far is the first "test" they did, not that this would actually happen irl. I mean the comments the ML said were spot on. And what's funny to me is that we had a very similar case in our firm (of course some details were different and the issue was more region focused) but he was so qrite to say that you are always thinking about how to help your CLIENT. Yes it could be objectively right that the counterparty is correct, that's not what our job is. We need to find a loop hole or some sort of way to help the client win