Lawyers, What’s the Worst Way you’ve Seen a Person Screw over Someone Else in Court
I once worked on a custody case where things got incredibly messy. The wife had cheated on her husband and had a child as a result of that affair. For about 5 years, she let her husband believe the child was his. But during their divorce, she used that secret to her advantage. She tried to stop him from getting custody by convincing the biological father to file for custody himself.
She assumed that if he won, she would still end up with the child. That turned into a massive three-way custody battle with multiple sets of grandparents involved and attorney fees piling up. The case could have been straightforward, but it dragged on for years. Eventually, the wife couldn’t afford her lawyer anymore, and the situation just got more complicated.
Even now, there’s no stable agreement. everyone will follow. They’re back in court nearly every year. In the end, she ended up hurting herself the most. Someone asked, “Wait, wasn’t the husband still the legal father? Wouldn’t that be presumed since the child was already five?” Good question.
The biological father never actually wanted custody. But when his parents learned about the affair during the divorce, they paid for a lawyer and suddenly he did. In that state, there’s a strong legal preference for biological parents. Since custody hadn’t yet been decided, the court couldn’t just dismiss the case.
The wife also had things in her past she feared would cost her custody. So, she brought the biological father into the mix. His parents hired a strong attorney and the judge agreed to hear all sides. Nothing got thrown out easily. To make matters worse, the mother and biological father tried to make the husband look bad for wanting custody of a child that wasn’t biologically his.
They didn’t outright accuse him of anything terrible, but they constantly made subtle, damaging remarks. Here’s another story, one of my favorites. A man went to trial for burglary wearing the exact same sweatshirt he wore the night he committed the crime. Surveillance footage from the incident clearly showed that sweatshirt.
At that point, it was impossible to argue he wasn’t the person in the video. Naturally, he was convicted and spent several years in prison. Someone joked, “Tough luck when you only own one good sweatshirt.” At our firm, we actually keep a pair of Santa pants for clients who show up in shorts. 99% of them dress properly by the next court date after that.
I can’t share too many details because of confidentiality, but one case stands out. My client was accused of a serious sexual offense. He had a solid alibi. He was at work where he was the boss. One of his employees could confirm it. I spoke to the employee and he verified it at first. As trial got closer and I prepared to submit an alibi notice so the prosecution could verify it.
I decided to doublech checkck with the employee. Turns out my client had fired him since our last talk. The former employee told me directly, “Yeah, he was definitely at work, but that’s not what I’ll say in court. Forget that guy. He’s going down.” I chose not to call him as a witness or file the alibi notice.
Fortunately, we still won the trial. But if I hadn’t checked back or if the employee had lied under oath, my innocent client could have faced jail time and a place on the sex offender registry. Someone remarked, “So, he fired his only alibi witness before the trial.” Pretty much. From my talk with the ex employee, it sounded like the firing was deserved.
Still, people accused of crimes, smart or not, can make shockingly bad choices, like those caught with illegal material, who hand their computers to repair shops, not realizing they’re literally giving away evidence of serious crimes. Not a lawyer, but here’s a personal story. When my in-laws divorced, my mother-in-law suggested filing taxes jointly for the previous year since they were still legally married.
It would have meant a nice refund, but my father-in-law refused. He insisted on filing separately, even though it meant he’d owe $4,000 in taxes just to make sure she would owe money, too. And he actually did it. Pure spite. Someone said spite can be so tempting. Yeah, but I still can’t believe he thought that was smart.
All that extra overtime he had to work just to make up for the money he lost. It definitely wasn’t worth it. I worked in the tax field for years. And trust me, expouses can be unbelievably vindictive when it comes to money, refunds, and deductions. This last one wasn’t my case, but I followed it closely. It was part of a friend’s divorce.
Lawyers share the most unbelievable ways people sabotage themselves in court. A man and his now ex-wife jointly owned a commercial property that was worth quite a bit. Both were listed on the paperwork and had full access to all financial information. But when things went south, the property fell behind on payments and a lean was filed.
The husband tried repeatedly to discuss the issue with his wife, but she brushed him off. Not only did she ignore the financial trouble, she also started cheating on him. When the divorce came, it turned bitter. The main argument was over who would get the family home, which was worth far less than the commercial building. The wife insisted on keeping the house.
So, the husband made an offer she could have the commercial property if he kept the house. She didn’t realize how deep the property’s financial problems were. And for some reason, her lawyer didn’t check the details either. They accepted the deal. I’m not sure if the settlement included any safety clauses for her, but her own lack of attention ended up costing her.
She basically traded a paidoff home for a property drowning in debt. Someone remarked that it sounded like her lawyer was negligent. That’s probably true, but since both parties had equal access to the information and nothing was requested in discovery, it’s likely she was stuck with the outcome due to her attorney’s oversight.
Maybe she could file a complaint with the state bar, but the damage was already done. I’m a parillegal and one of the most challenging client types we deal with are sovereign citizens. People who believe US laws don’t apply to them for various reasons. They’ll hire us but refuse to let us actually handle their cases.
We’ve had to fire several clients for ignoring basic rules like sending letters directly to the judge, filing their own motions, or claiming they aren’t legally the same person as the one named on their documents. Honestly, you could fill an entire thread just with stories about these people. Here’s another case that really stuck with me.
I’ve seen a parent manipulate their teenager just to gain custody and collect child support. They allowed their 15-year-old to drop out of school, get high every day, and even provided them with alcohol and drugs, all to make the child choose to live with them. The motive, avoid paying around $100 in monthly support. For context, in my area, child support amounts depend on factors like income, assets, and custody.
These parents had part-time under the table jobs and were on government welfare, so their payments were already minimal. Someone pointed out that spending money on drugs and alcohol is far more expensive than paying support, but logic clearly wasn’t part of their plan. Once they realized that gaining custody meant not only skipping payments but also receiving support from the other parent, they went allin. It’s disheartening.
Truly sad to see someone use their child as a financial tool. Not a lawyer myself, but here’s a personal story that still upsets me. My biological grandmother passed away from ovarian cancer about 20 years ago. She left all her money, trusts, and bonds to my grandfather to manage while he was alive with instructions to distribute them after his death.
Years later, he remarried about 15 years before he died to my stepg grandmother. After he passed, my step, my uncle, a heart surgery survivor with a pacemaker and several stances, also lives on a fixed disability income. When court day came, I pushed my father into the courtroom while my uncle walked with a cane.
My step aunt, fully able-bodied and financially secure, was trying to take from two disabled men. The judge took one look at the situation and immediately denied her claim. We were in and out of court in under an hour. Here’s a story of someone who completely sabotaged himself. A colleague of mine, a prosecutor, handled a case involving a 30-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting his girlfriend’s 14-year-old sister.
She became pregnant, and once the baby was born, a paternity test confirmed he was the father. The defendant wanted probation, but the prosecutor refused. So, he pleaded guilty and chose to have a jury decide his sentence. In Texas, that’s allowed. You can have the jury set your punishment. During the trial, the victim testified that their encounters were consensual, though legally she couldn’t give consent.
Then the defendant took the stand and told an entirely different story. He said he snuck into her room, covered her mouth, and forcibly assaulted her. Even his own lawyer seemed shocked. The jury deliberated for only 15 minutes before giving him 17 years, the near maximum penalty. One of the jurors later said they picked 17 years so he’d never forget the age of consent in Texas.
Someone pointed out that his decision to let a Texas jury determine sentencing after getting a 14-year-old pregnant was incredibly foolish. But looking at his options, none were good. Plead not guilty and look ridiculous when the paternity test came out, or plead guilty and let a judge decide.
Either way, his poor judgment sealed his fate. Lawyers share the wildest examples of people ruining their own legal cases. So, he actually admitted to rape even though the victim described the encounter as consensual. Everyone’s reaction was the same. What was he thinking? It was illegal either way, but it’s rare for someone to exaggerate their guilt rather than minimize it.
One time, I witnessed a defendant in custody complain to the judge that his public defender wasn’t working hard enough. He demanded a new attorney. When the judge asked what the issue was, he said something along the lines of, “I don’t want a female lawyer. I need a man who can take charge and fight for me.
” The judge, who was also a woman, calmly told him, “That’s not how this works.” He started shouting and repeating that he didn’t like her because she wouldn’t visit him enough. The judge, clearly irritated, told him, “Fine, I’ll appoint a new attorney. But because of your complaint, your case will be postponed while we find one.” A few days later, the defendant got his notice, his new lawyer was also a woman, and his bond hearing was delayed 6 weeks.
Ironically, that hearing would have secured his release on an unsecured bond the very same day. if he hadn’t thrown a tantrum. Instead, he stayed in jail for another month and a half only to be represented by another female attorney. Someone compared the story to Sneaky Pete, where a man intentionally gets arrested to avoid being killed.
Maybe this defendant just preferred staying in jail. That’s unlikely, but having worked as a public defender for six years, I can say some clients truly don’t mind being locked up. For a few, jail is safer than the streets, especially in harsh mountain towns during winter. The saddest case I handled was a man who spent 18 months in custody before his case was dismissed.
When he got out, he had nothing left, no family, no money, and had lost 60 lb. He was in his early 60s and died of hypothermia a few months later, sleeping in an alley with $5 in his pocket. Here’s one that isn’t court related, but still fits. My dad is a safety officer for a trucking company. One of the company’s drivers got into an accident.
Not his fault, but policy required an immediate drug test. The driver failed the first test and demanded a retest. When he gave his second sample, the urine wasn’t warm, clearly not fresh. In the bathroom, which was cleaned between every test, they found a piece of tape and a vial cap. On a conference call with my dad and management, the driver insisted he was innocent.
They couldn’t definitively prove he cheated. So my dad casually asked, “Doesn’t taping the vial to your leg hurt? How do you get it off?” Without thinking, the guy replied, “Oh, it was just painters tape. Comes off easy.” The call went silent for 5 seconds. He immediately tried to backtrack, but it was too late. The company fired him with no issue.
That reminds me of another workplace story. At my last job, we handled drug testing, and the lengths people went to were unbelievable. One employee was suspected of using drugs, but always passed random tests. He’d often say he couldn’t go in the morning, leave for lunch, and return later to test clean.
On the third test, his urine sample showed traces of blood, raising suspicions. So the next time they ran both a urine and saliva test. The urine came back clean again. But the saliva test showed heavy cocaine use. When asked how he pulled it off, the method was surprisingly clever. He’d go home on break, empty his bladder, and then use a catheter to refill himself with synthetic urine he bought.
That way, when he returned for testing, the sample was body temperature and appeared fresh. The call went silent for 5 seconds. He immediately tried to backtrack, but it was too late. The company fired him with no issue. That reminds me of another workplace story. At my last job, we handled drug testing, and the lengths people went to were unbelievable.
One employee was suspected of using drugs, but always passed random tests. He’d often say he couldn’t go in the morning, leave for lunch, and return later to test clean. On the third test, his urine sample showed traces of blood. raising suspicions. So the next time they ran both a urine and saliva test.
The urine came back clean again, but the saliva test showed heavy cocaine use. When asked how he pulled it off, the method was surprisingly clever. He’d go home on break, empty his bladder, and then use a catheter to refill himself with synthetic urine he bought. That way, when he returned for testing, the sample was body temperature and appeared fresh.
For those unfamiliar, yes, you can actually buy fake urine, though labs can sometimes tell the difference. Here’s another case of someone sabotaging themselves. A man and his lawyer repeatedly missed court dates, often with weak excuses. Sometimes only one of them would show, sometimes neither.
He’d claim he had to leave the country unexpectedly, while his lawyer told the judge they had discussed the date in advance. At one point, he said he was abroad for medical treatments and couldn’t return or visiting dying relatives. He even provided hospital paperwork from another country, which once translated showed he’d already been discharged.
Later, he tried to fire his attorney and requested more time to hire a new one. The next lawyer would then appear and say he hadn’t been paid or couldn’t meet his client, asking for yet another delay. We kept telling the judge he was stalling, but the judge gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Eventually, the judge ordered him to appear no matter what, saying, “I don’t care if you’re meeting with the Pope. You will be here.” He didn’t show. The judge granted a full default judgment in our favor. Neither he nor his attorney showed up for the damages hearing either. Later, he filed a motion claiming the judgment was unfair since he didn’t get to dispute anything, which was denied.
He appealed on the same grounds, but that went nowhere. He’s currently on the run and facing another indictment. The lawyer handling his appeal seems to have realized what kind of client he’s dealing with, so that’s likely the end of it. Not my story, but one from a former boss. They handled a drunk driving case years ago representing a man whose wife and two children were killed by a college student.
The driver claimed deep remorse in court. Said he was haunted, sorry, and would never drink again. The judge seemed to sympathize with him. Then my boss presented evidence from his Facebook profile, photos and posts showing him drinking heavily, partying, and even joking about drunk driving from the time of the crash up until the night before the hearing.
The courtroom went silent. The judge’s sympathy disappeared instantly, and the driver’s apology lost all credibility. Someone asked how much time he got. apparently around 10 years. Though my boss said it wasn’t nearly enough for killing three people. It was ruled manslaughter, not murder since it lacked intent and he was young with no prior record.
Still, it felt like a light sentence given the loss. Finally, a brutal custody case. The ex-wife, a lawyer, represented herself, while her ex-husband had an inexperienced attorney. She kept dragging him back to court to demand more money, and it drained him financially. She accused him of child abuse, and soon he could barely afford rent or a car.
Both factors that hurt his custody chances. Eventually, the ex-wife’s father, also a lawyer, requested a meeting with the judge. He revealed disturbing facts. One of the children had bipolar disorder, and the ex-wife would stop his medication before the father’s custody weekends. The abuse claims stemmed from the father trying to restrain the unmedicated child during manic episodes.
Even worse, she intentionally filed the abuse allegations right before the holidays to ensure he couldn’t see his kids on Halloween, Thanksgiving, or Christmas. She even bragged that it would cause maximum emotional pain. She’d forged financial records to exaggerate his income during alimony negotiations and was secretly having an affair with his lawyer.
In the end, her lawyer was reported to the bar and the judge ordered a full review of the case. Things were finally turning around. The father was likely to gain custody and have his alimony reduced. But just two months later, he died of a blood clot. After years of being mistreated, he finally saw hope, only for it to end tragically.
A friend explained they were close with him. They’d made plans that day. When he didn’t show up or answer calls, they went to check on him and found his body in his
