Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

[HeyJude]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Exactly. Certainly clients have to defer to their lawyers in some areas. But it's the client that makes the decision to bring a suit in the first place, and I've read enough lawsuits and judgments to feel that the 2005 lawsuit reads like a fuming client telling lawyers to throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks. My guess (and it's a *total* guess) is that a good counsel would have told Mike that this stuff was frivolous and advised against it. Ultimately, if a client wants to do it, a lawyer will do as their client wishes, and will load the suit with as much ammo as they can, however weak the arguments are.

In this case, the court characterized the thing as "over-pled", bordering on frivolous (and I believe in another case some elements are outright called "frivolous"), they were admonished for the laughable "if I own property somewhere, I can change my place of residence for the sole purpose of filing this lawsuit" tactic, and so on.

Do we know for sure that Mike kept the same legal counsel through to the appeals process? I can't believe anyone would keep a lawyer who pulled those shenanigans with somehow magically coming up with a US EBay buyer who was "confused"  upon purchasing the CD in question. The court seemed pretty troubled by that episode in particular. 

[HeyJude]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

It's typically a client who makes the decision to bring a lawsuit in the first place. Since the whole thing was nearly laughed out of court, with admonishments and harsh rebukes from the courts, I'd say the initial decision to bring suit is one of the main instigators of everything.

And again, a variation of the "clients just go along with what their lawyers say" defense was *specifically* rejected in the appeals process on this very case. Mike contended he shouldn't be punished for his lawyers' legal tactics, and the court shot that argument down completely, and rightly pointed out that pretty much everyone who loses a case could make that argument.

If indeed Mike was still retaining the same counsel and/or same law office in his appeals case, and if he never filed any malpractice lawsuits or anything of that nature, that would have further undercut any argument that he was poorly advised. 

[filledeplage]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Exactly. Certainly clients have to defer to their lawyers in some areas. But it's the client that makes the decision to bring a suit in the first place, and I've read enough lawsuits and judgments to feel that the 2005 lawsuit reads like a fuming client telling lawyers to throw everything against the wall and hope something sticks. My guess (and it's a *total* guess) is that a good counsel would have told Mike that this stuff was frivolous and advised against it. Ultimately, if a client wants to do it, a lawyer will do as their client wishes, and will load the suit with as much ammo as they can, however weak the arguments are.

In this case, the court characterized the thing as "over-pled", bordering on frivolous (and I believe in another case some elements are outright called "frivolous"), they were admonished for the laughable "if I own property somewhere, I can change my place of residence for the sole purpose of filing this lawsuit" tactic, and so on.

Do we know for sure that Mike kept the same legal counsel through to the appeals process? I can't believe anyone would keep a lawyer who pulled those shenanigans with somehow magically coming up with a US EBay buyer who was "confused"  upon purchasing the CD in question. The court seemed pretty troubled by that episode in particular. 

Hey Jude - would it not have been avoided altogether if a meeting was called when any of the members was going to release material that had a BB background?  I am thinking that this is a breakdown in communication and could have been avoided by a sit-down with all parties to discuss it.  So, the members don't read about a new release in the newspapers or online, and are always keeping the other members in the loop. Sort of pro-active rather than re-active, and after the fact.  JMHO  

[filledeplage]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

It's typically a client who makes the decision to bring a lawsuit in the first place. Since the whole thing was nearly laughed out of court, with admonishments and harsh rebukes from the courts, I'd say the initial decision to bring suit is one of the main instigators of everything.

And again, a variation of the "clients just go along with what their lawyers say" defense was *specifically* rejected in the appeals process on this very case. Mike contended he shouldn't be punished for his lawyers' legal tactics, and the court shot that argument down completely, and rightly pointed out that pretty much everyone who loses a case could make that argument.

If indeed Mike was still retaining the same counsel and/or same law office in his appeals case, and if he never filed any malpractice lawsuits or anything of that nature, that would have further undercut any argument that he was poorly advised. 

Hey Jude - that is a tough one.  The job of the client is to "teach the lawyer" the facts of the potential case.  I have had to do that on more than one occasion. The client brings preliminary evidence to get evaluated.  And, the fact that Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner, made his position one, that the court had to listen to. 

Each time you hire a lawyer you have to educate them about the background and all the facts.  If you hire someone else, you have to do the whole thing over again - it is like changing doctors, not an easy thing to do.   

And it is called "ineffective assistance of counsel" - I don't know what became of that issue.  Remember that a judge is either elected on popularity (depending on the jurisdiction) or appointed by a governor, likely, if that lawyer has made contributions to the campaign of that governor.  They are just "lawyers with a robe" on.   

[Ang Jones]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

[filledeplage]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 

[guitarfool2002]

So many of those assumptions seem to ignore the fact that the original district court filing was decided on and the plaintiff lost the case, but appeals were filed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the appeals process continued for several years after that district court made its ruling. It was already pointed out it was not only dismissed by the original district court who heard it, but further dismissed "with prejudice", with admonishments, and with compensation awarded to defendants who were found by those judgements had no reason to be named as defendants in the suit to begin with and were due compensation.

Instead of ending it at that district court defeat, and considering how much that defeat cost those who filed the case not to mention how some of the key evidence was found by the court to have been a fabrication, it begs the question why would the same case continue to be appealed? At some point if it were an issue with the way the case was handled by the attorneys, and if the plaintiff in any way had issues with the way the attorneys handled the case or had done things without enough consultation or even without permission, why continue filing appeals on the same case for the next several years?

One would assume the plaintiff would either believe in the case strongly enough to agree to an appeal of this kind if not encourage it, or would have said "no more" after the first filings were defeated and done so as strongly as they were, and it ends there. Either way, not assumption but pure fact, the case was appealed and continued until the final 9th Circuit ruling in 2010.

[guitarfool2002]

And after reading and re-reading so much of this, it is still impossible to think of a justification for including some of those statements related to the history of the band in such a filing, especially where some are untrue on the most basic levels of accuracy, while others target people who had nothing to do with the specific case or the lawsuit whatsoever.

[filledeplage]

So many of those assumptions seem to ignore the fact that the original district court filing was decided on and the plaintiff lost the case, but appeals were filed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the appeals process continued for several years after that district court made its ruling. It was already pointed out it was not only dismissed by the original district court who heard it, but further dismissed "with prejudice", with admonishments, and with compensation awarded to defendants who were found by those judgements had no reason to be named as defendants in the suit to begin with and were due compensation.

Instead of ending it at that district court defeat, and considering how much that defeat cost those who filed the case not to mention how some of the key evidence was found by the court to have been a fabrication, it begs the question why would the same case continue to be appealed? At some point if it were an issue with the way the case was handled by the attorneys, and if the plaintiff in any way had issues with the way the attorneys handled the case or had done things without enough consultation or even without permission, why continue filing appeals on the same case for the next several years?

One would assume the plaintiff would either believe in the case strongly enough to agree to an appeal of this kind if not encourage it, or would have said "no more" after the first filings were defeated and done so as strongly as they were, and it ends there. Either way, not assumption but pure fact, the case was appealed and continued until the final 9th Circuit ruling in 2010.

GF - this is the process whether you agree with it or not.  Given other forms of "justice" around the world, I'd rather this one.  Just sayin'.   

[HeyJude]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 

I wouldn't assume that, if Mike felt this lawyers made a huge blunder in their tactics, he would have, piggybacking on what guitarfool mentioned, dropped the case and/or fired his lawyer (even if it meant prolonging the case to go through the machinations of switching legal counsel; and it certainly is far from unheard of for a plaintiff to retain new legal counsel for an appeal).

The courts called some of the claims "frivolous." The idea I take away from this is that many of the claims were inherently flawed, they should never have been brought. Yet, Mike continued to appeal.

It appears he only used the "advice of counsel" argument to attempt to avoid paying attorneys fees and whatnot, as opposed to a grounds for appealing a specific original claim. I'd have to dig further into the case law cited by both the plaintiff and the appeals court, but it appears that "advice of counsel" argument pertained to not being penalized for a lawyer's tactics. This is different from feeling the claims or the tactics were wrong. It's essentially an argument of "I stand by my lawyers' tactics, and I acknowledge the court disagrees with those tactics to the point of awarding fees to the defendants, but I shouldn't have to be penalized for those tactics." And again, as the court pointed out, if this argument was regularly allowed, then everybody would use it. The court even shot down the one single example of case law Love's legal team used as not being a comparable situation.

The fact that he appealed on claims in a case the court had used some harsh language against, coupled with the fact that Mike apparently (and someone correct us all if we're wrong) retained the same legal counsel throughout, tells me Mike wanted to push forward on this case continually. That doesn't smell to me like poor legal counsel. My guess is that his counsel did exactly what Mike asked them to, and did the best they could with what the court itself characterized as an "overpled" case.

[Niko]

The lawsuit have become one of the things Mike love is most famous for. Brian Wilson is most famous for writing pet sounds. Funny how an attempt to reclaim credit for songs he did write went so badly, partly because it was not just one lawsuit and he was taking the band's name and image entirely for himself at the time. His whole scheme over the years has been pretty obvious.

[Niko]

So many of those assumptions seem to ignore the fact that the original district court filing was decided on and the plaintiff lost the case, but appeals were filed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the appeals process continued for several years after that district court made its ruling. It was already pointed out it was not only dismissed by the original district court who heard it, but further dismissed "with prejudice", with admonishments, and with compensation awarded to defendants who were found by those judgements had no reason to be named as defendants in the suit to begin with and were due compensation.

Instead of ending it at that district court defeat, and considering how much that defeat cost those who filed the case not to mention how some of the key evidence was found by the court to have been a fabrication, it begs the question why would the same case continue to be appealed? At some point if it were an issue with the way the case was handled by the attorneys, and if the plaintiff in any way had issues with the way the attorneys handled the case or had done things without enough consultation or even without permission, why continue filing appeals on the same case for the next several years?

One would assume the plaintiff would either believe in the case strongly enough to agree to an appeal of this kind if not encourage it, or would have said "no more" after the first filings were defeated and done so as strongly as they were, and it ends there. Either way, not assumption but pure fact, the case was appealed and continued until the final 9th Circuit ruling in 2010.

GF - this is the process whether you agree with it or not.  Given other forms of "justice" around the world, I'd rather this one.  Just sayin'.   

What does that mean. What 'justice' systems don't you like? Or are you just typing for the sake of it

[HeyJude]

So many of those assumptions seem to ignore the fact that the original district court filing was decided on and the plaintiff lost the case, but appeals were filed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the appeals process continued for several years after that district court made its ruling. It was already pointed out it was not only dismissed by the original district court who heard it, but further dismissed "with prejudice", with admonishments, and with compensation awarded to defendants who were found by those judgements had no reason to be named as defendants in the suit to begin with and were due compensation.

Instead of ending it at that district court defeat, and considering how much that defeat cost those who filed the case not to mention how some of the key evidence was found by the court to have been a fabrication, it begs the question why would the same case continue to be appealed? At some point if it were an issue with the way the case was handled by the attorneys, and if the plaintiff in any way had issues with the way the attorneys handled the case or had done things without enough consultation or even without permission, why continue filing appeals on the same case for the next several years?

One would assume the plaintiff would either believe in the case strongly enough to agree to an appeal of this kind if not encourage it, or would have said "no more" after the first filings were defeated and done so as strongly as they were, and it ends there. Either way, not assumption but pure fact, the case was appealed and continued until the final 9th Circuit ruling in 2010.

GF - this is the process whether you agree with it or not.  Given other forms of "justice" around the world, I'd rather this one.  Just sayin'.   

Nobody is criticizing the way the legal system works. They're saying Mike Love comes off as an unsympathetic character in that 2005 case, some would argue a vindictive, angry plaintiff. You can agree or disagree with that characterization, but "that's how the legal system works" doesn't answer the subjective question of whether Mike Love's actions are objectionable in some fashion or another.

Further, even within the confines of legal theory, to defend a suit the court so harshly criticized will tend to undercut one's credibility in discussing such legal matters. The "legal system" doesn't need any defending here. If I think Mike Love filed a ridiculous lawsuit, I'm not attacking "the legal system." If anything, one could argue "borderline frivolous" cases show disrespect to the legal system.

[filledeplage]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 

I wouldn't assume that, if Mike felt this lawyers made a huge blunder in their tactics, he would have, piggybacking on what guitarfool mentioned, dropped the case and/or fired his lawyer (even if it meant prolonging the case to go through the machinations of switching legal counsel; and it certainly is far from unheard of for a plaintiff to retain new legal counsel for an appeal).

The courts called some of the claims "frivolous." The idea I take away from this is that many of the claims were inherently flawed, they should never have been brought. Yet, Mike continued to appeal.

It appears he only used the "advice of counsel" argument to attempt to avoid paying attorneys fees and whatnot, as opposed to a grounds for appealing a specific original claim. I'd have to dig further into the case law cited by both the plaintiff and the appeals court, but it appears that "advice of counsel" argument pertained to not being penalized for a lawyer's tactics. This is different from feeling the claims or the tactics were wrong. It's essentially an argument of "I stand by my lawyers' tactics, and I acknowledge the court disagrees with those tactics to the point of awarding fees to the defendants, but I shouldn't have to be penalized for those tactics." And again, as the court pointed out, if this argument was regularly allowed, then everybody would use it. The court even shot down the one single example of case law Love's legal team used as not being a comparable situation.

The fact that he appealed on claims in a case the court had used some harsh language against, coupled with the fact that Mike apparently (and someone correct us all if we're wrong) retained the same legal counsel throughout, tells me Mike wanted to push forward on this case continually. That doesn't smell to me like poor legal counsel. My guess is that his counsel did exactly what Mike asked them to, and did the best they could with what the court itself characterized as an "overpled" case.

Hey Jude - you can only appeal on the stuff you raised originally.  You cannot bring in new issues.  

Clients don't always agree with an outcome.  And there are cases where one side pays the other side's costs if they lose.

Sometimes the "correct" party loses. We have thousands potentially of innocent people in jail who had bad lawyers or prosecutors who wanted that win.  It is often a crap shoot.  

Or cases where each party bears the cost of legal and other fees.  It depends.  Mike had an absolute right (as do all Americans) to go-the-distance with the case.  

[filledeplage]

So many of those assumptions seem to ignore the fact that the original district court filing was decided on and the plaintiff lost the case, but appeals were filed and went to the 9th Circuit Court, and the appeals process continued for several years after that district court made its ruling. It was already pointed out it was not only dismissed by the original district court who heard it, but further dismissed "with prejudice", with admonishments, and with compensation awarded to defendants who were found by those judgements had no reason to be named as defendants in the suit to begin with and were due compensation.

Instead of ending it at that district court defeat, and considering how much that defeat cost those who filed the case not to mention how some of the key evidence was found by the court to have been a fabrication, it begs the question why would the same case continue to be appealed? At some point if it were an issue with the way the case was handled by the attorneys, and if the plaintiff in any way had issues with the way the attorneys handled the case or had done things without enough consultation or even without permission, why continue filing appeals on the same case for the next several years?

One would assume the plaintiff would either believe in the case strongly enough to agree to an appeal of this kind if not encourage it, or would have said "no more" after the first filings were defeated and done so as strongly as they were, and it ends there. Either way, not assumption but pure fact, the case was appealed and continued until the final 9th Circuit ruling in 2010.

GF - this is the process whether you agree with it or not.  Given other forms of "justice" around the world, I'd rather this one.  Just sayin'.  

Nobody is criticizing the way the legal system works. They're saying Mike Love comes off as an unsympathetic character in that 2005 case, some would argue a vindictive, angry plaintiff. You can agree or disagree with that characterization, but "that's how the legal system works" doesn't answer the subjective question of whether Mike Love's actions are objectionable in some fashion or another.

Further, even within the confines of legal theory, to defend a suit the court so harshly criticized will tend to undercut one's credibility in discussing such legal matters. The "legal system" doesn't need any defending here. If I think Mike Love filed a ridiculous lawsuit, I'm not attacking "the legal system." If anything, one could argue "borderline frivolous" cases show disrespect to the legal system.

Even suits that are considered (at the conclusion) frivolous have a basis to be heard. And, appealed.  It is the legal system being criticized that gave the opportunity to appeal.  Losing cases are how things, potentially, get to the Supreme Court as landmark cases.  I don't want to lose that option.  Do you?  

If you take that right away from Mike because you don't like him personally, you take it from everyone else, including me.  Just sayin'.

[HeyJude]

Even suits that are considered (at the conclusion) frivolous have a basis to be heard. And, appealed.  It is the legal system being criticized that gave the opportunity to appeal.  Losing cases are how things get to the Supreme Court as landmark cases.  I don't want to lose that option.  Do you? 

If you take that right away from Mike because you don't like him personally, you take it from everyone else, including me.  Just sayin'.

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying any of this. At all. Nobody has once said Mike doesn't have the legal right to bring lawsuits. You're attempting to link negative opinions of Mike with some sort of anti-civil rights movement. It's insulting frankly.

If you don't want to ever paint one single thing about Mike in a negative light, that's cool. But don't assume those who do are trying to subvert the justice system or something.

[filledeplage]

Even suits that are considered (at the conclusion) frivolous have a basis to be heard. And, appealed.  It is the legal system being criticized that gave the opportunity to appeal.  Losing cases are how things get to the Supreme Court as landmark cases.  I don't want to lose that option.  Do you? 

If you take that right away from Mike because you don't like him personally, you take it from everyone else, including me.  Just sayin'.

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying any of this. At all. Nobody has once said Mike doesn't have the legal right to bring lawsuits. You're attempting to link negative opinions of Mike with some sort of anti-civil rights movement. It's insulting frankly.

If you don't want to ever paint one single thing about Mike in a negative light, that's cool. But don't assume those who do are trying to subvert the justice system or something.

Hey Jude - at each juncture, there are criticisms of this suit.  Mike had a beneficial ownership interest and had "standing" to bring the suit, whether a message board agrees 10+ years down the road.  Yes, it is related to the right to be heard.  I did not use the term civil rights.  It was more a "business interest" not a civil rights (in terms of discrimination) issue.  And yes,  people don't like the pleadings.  We cannot change that. 

Maybe the Smiley board should have had a "sidebar" with the judge or Mike's lawyer? (I'm kidding.)   

It is water under the bridge and people are still yammering away.     

[Angua]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 

I wouldn't assume that, if Mike felt this lawyers made a huge blunder in their tactics, he would have, piggybacking on what guitarfool mentioned, dropped the case and/or fired his lawyer (even if it meant prolonging the case to go through the machinations of switching legal counsel; and it certainly is far from unheard of for a plaintiff to retain new legal counsel for an appeal).

The courts called some of the claims "frivolous." The idea I take away from this is that many of the claims were inherently flawed, they should never have been brought. Yet, Mike continued to appeal.

It appears he only used the "advice of counsel" argument to attempt to avoid paying attorneys fees and whatnot, as opposed to a grounds for appealing a specific original claim. I'd have to dig further into the case law cited by both the plaintiff and the appeals court, but it appears that "advice of counsel" argument pertained to not being penalized for a lawyer's tactics. This is different from feeling the claims or the tactics were wrong. It's essentially an argument of "I stand by my lawyers' tactics, and I acknowledge the court disagrees with those tactics to the point of awarding fees to the defendants, but I shouldn't have to be penalized for those tactics." And again, as the court pointed out, if this argument was regularly allowed, then everybody would use it. The court even shot down the one single example of case law Love's legal team used as not being a comparable situation.

The fact that he appealed on claims in a case the court had used some harsh language against, coupled with the fact that Mike apparently (and someone correct us all if we're wrong) retained the same legal counsel throughout, tells me Mike wanted to push forward on this case continually. That doesn't smell to me like poor legal counsel. My guess is that his counsel did exactly what Mike asked them to, and did the best they could with what the court itself characterized as an "overpled" case.

Hey Jude - you can only appeal on the stuff you raised originally.  You cannot bring in new issues.  

Clients don't always agree with an outcome.  And there are cases where one side pays the other side's costs if they lose.

Sometimes the "correct" party loses. We have thousands potentially of innocent people in jail who had bad lawyers or prosecutors who wanted that win.  It is often a crap shoot.  

Or cases where each party bears the cost of legal and other fees.  It depends.  Mike had an absolute right (as do all Americans) to go-the-distance with the case.  

  So Brian may have lost the previous case in error?    So what you are saying is Mike has more money than sense?

[filledeplage]

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft. 

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios. 

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court. 

I wouldn't assume that, if Mike felt this lawyers made a huge blunder in their tactics, he would have, piggybacking on what guitarfool mentioned, dropped the case and/or fired his lawyer (even if it meant prolonging the case to go through the machinations of switching legal counsel; and it certainly is far from unheard of for a plaintiff to retain new legal counsel for an appeal).

The courts called some of the claims "frivolous." The idea I take away from this is that many of the claims were inherently flawed, they should never have been brought. Yet, Mike continued to appeal.

It appears he only used the "advice of counsel" argument to attempt to avoid paying attorneys fees and whatnot, as opposed to a grounds for appealing a specific original claim. I'd have to dig further into the case law cited by both the plaintiff and the appeals court, but it appears that "advice of counsel" argument pertained to not being penalized for a lawyer's tactics. This is different from feeling the claims or the tactics were wrong. It's essentially an argument of "I stand by my lawyers' tactics, and I acknowledge the court disagrees with those tactics to the point of awarding fees to the defendants, but I shouldn't have to be penalized for those tactics." And again, as the court pointed out, if this argument was regularly allowed, then everybody would use it. The court even shot down the one single example of case law Love's legal team used as not being a comparable situation.

The fact that he appealed on claims in a case the court had used some harsh language against, coupled with the fact that Mike apparently (and someone correct us all if we're wrong) retained the same legal counsel throughout, tells me Mike wanted to push forward on this case continually. That doesn't smell to me like poor legal counsel. My guess is that his counsel did exactly what Mike asked them to, and did the best they could with what the court itself characterized as an "overpled" case.

Hey Jude - you can only appeal on the stuff you raised originally.  You cannot bring in new issues.  

Clients don't always agree with an outcome.  And there are cases where one side pays the other side's costs if they lose.

Sometimes the "correct" party loses. We have thousands potentially of innocent people in jail who had bad lawyers or prosecutors who wanted that win.  It is often a crap shoot.  

Or cases where each party bears the cost of legal and other fees.  It depends.  Mike had an absolute right (as do all Americans) to go-the-distance with the case.  

  So Brian may have lost the previous case in error?    So what you are saying is Mike has more money than sense?

No, Mike has the right to "exhaust all his avenues" for appeal.

That is the way the system works. 

[CenturyDeprived]

Even suits that are considered (at the conclusion) frivolous have a basis to be heard. And, appealed.  It is the legal system being criticized that gave the opportunity to appeal.  Losing cases are how things get to the Supreme Court as landmark cases.  I don't want to lose that option.  Do you?  

If you take that right away from Mike because you don't like him personally, you take it from everyone else, including me.  Just sayin'.

What are you talking about?

It's pretty simple... Derp + ! The Derp-wink!

Auuum-bop-derp-wink!

[Emily]

Do we know for sure that Mike kept the same legal counsel through to the appeals process?  

Yes. Philip H. Stillman, Stillman and Associates, Cardiff, California, for plaintiff-appellant Mike Love is listed as M. Love’s lead attorney both in the original case mentions here: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/#q=stillman
And in the appeal, here: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

Hey Jude - would it not have been avoided altogether if a meeting was called when any of the members was going to release material that had a BB background?  

Apparently not – if you believe M. Love’s background (I guess you think the lawyers made it up), they had discussed it. That seems to be when B. Wilson issued his “threats”.

Hey Jude - that is a tough one.  The job of the client is to "teach the lawyer" the facts of the potential case… Each time you hire a lawyer you have to educate them about the background and all the facts.  

Exactly. It’s absurd to think that the lawyers just made the facts up out of wholecloth.

And, the fact that Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner, made his position one, that the court had to listen to.  
Remember that a judge is either elected on popularity (depending on the jurisdiction) or appointed by a governor, likely, if that lawyer has made contributions to the campaign of that governor.  They are just "lawyers with a robe" on.    

Yes, and as the appellate court stated, “The mere fact that a plaintiff has statutory standing does not make his legal and factual arguments objectively reasonable.” In this case, the trial judge and at least two of three appellate judges agreed on the decision.

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft.  

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios.  

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court.  

No one is making the argument that he didn't switch lawyers mid-trial. The point being made is that he kept the same lawyers for the appeal, which is a new matter. Often people switch lawyers for appeals because it’s a particular specialty. He kept the same lawyer. If he felt that the lawyer had given him ineffective, or indeed effectively negative, assistance, it’s hard to imagine to anyone who is thinking reasonably about the matter, that he would’ve retained him again.

I tried on this board to maintain neutrality and not be on a team because while I’m not a fan of Mike Love particularly:
- I haven’t felt like being mad at him was necessary for my enjoyment of the Beach Boys (I still don’t)
- I felt like there was no need to struggle with people who enjoy his work (I still don’t) and I’ve learned that I really like and respect some people that I perceive to be his particular fans
- I can really understand the feeling that the public has chosen a “baddie” and relentlessly and unfairly picks on that person for anything that can possibly be construed as a misstep and I think Mike Love sometimes falls in this category (I still do)
but in the context of the 2005 case, the extent to which (a very few) people are going to put lipstick on a pig is truly absurd.

[AndrewHickey]

Hey Jude - at each juncture, there are criticisms of this suit.  Mike had a beneficial ownership interest and had "standing" to bring the suit, whether a message board agrees 10+ years down the road.  Yes, it is related to the right to be heard.  I did not use the term civil rights.  It was more a "business interest" not a civil rights (in terms of discrimination) issue.  And yes,  people don't like the pleadings.  We cannot change that. 

No-one -- not one single person -- has argued that Mike didn't have the legal right to sue. He did. What people have been arguing is that he was not *morally* right to do so, and that furthermore it was obvious to any observer that he was going to lose the case before it started, because most of the claims in the lawsuit were incorrect.

Just because you *can* do something doesn't mean you *should* do it.

[filledeplage]

Do we know for sure that Mike kept the same legal counsel through to the appeals process?  

Yes. Philip H. Stillman, Stillman and Associates, Cardiff, California, for plaintiff-appellant Mike Love is listed as M. Love’s lead attorney both in the original case mentions here: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/California_Central_District_Court/2--05-cv-07798/Mike_Love_v._Mail_on_Sunday_et_al/#q=stillman
And in the appeal, here: http://333.lawlink.com/documents/6826/public

Hey Jude - would it not have been avoided altogether if a meeting was called when any of the members was going to release material that had a BB background?  

Apparently not – if you believe M. Love’s background (I guess you think the lawyer’s made it up), they had discussed it. That seems to be when B. Wilson issued his “threats”.

Hey Jude - that is a tough one.  The job of the client is to "teach the lawyer" the facts of the potential case… Each time you hire a lawyer you have to educate them about the background and all the facts.  

Exactly. It’s absurd to think that the lawyers just made the facts up out of wholecloth.

And, the fact that Mike had "standing" as a beneficial owner, made his position one, that the court had to listen to.  
Remember that a judge is either elected on popularity (depending on the jurisdiction) or appointed by a governor, likely, if that lawyer has made contributions to the campaign of that governor.  They are just "lawyers with a robe" on.    

Yes, and as the appellate court stated, “The mere fact that a plaintiff has statutory standing does not make his legal and factual arguments objectively reasonable.” In this case, the trial judge and at least two of three appellate judges agreed on the decision.

I've had a fair bit to do with lawyers...payin' them for their 'expertise' especially.  I was always aware of what I was paying for and particularly of anything that would have put me at risk of paying the other side more than it deserved or vice versa.  To suggest that Mike knew nothing about the 'case' is stupendously weak.  [and oh so wrong.]

Add Some - I think we all have had similar experiences.  I have had some revise in "handwriting," pleadings, right in the courthouse, that I don't agree with. They don't like being challenged.  Most clients don't challenge lawyers, and just go along with what their lawyers draft.  

But if the lawyer does something that costs you over a million dollars, you wouldn't use that lawyer again, as Emily pointed out. Unless you're a fool.

That is true, but once you are in the middle of a trial, you would likely have to petition the court to (or the lawyer would have to petition to withdraw) if things were not going well, so I am just pointing out other alternative scenarios.  

Of course you would not re-hire, for a different matter, but mid-trial you might be stuck staying with that/those lawyer/s, at the direction of the court.  

No one is making the argument that he didn't switch lawyers mid-trial. The point being made is that he kept the same lawyers for the appeal, which is a new matter. Often people switch lawyers for appeals because it’s a particular specialty. He kept the same lawyer. If he felt that the lawyer had given him ineffective, or indeed effectively negative, assistance, it’s hard to imagine to anyone who is thinking reasonably about the matter, that he would’ve retained him again.

I tried on this board to maintain neutrality and not be on a team because while I’m not a fan of Mike Love particularly:
- I haven’t felt like being mad at him was necessary for my enjoyment of the Beach Boys (I still don’t)
- I felt like there was no need to struggle with people who enjoy his work (I still don’t) and I’ve learned that I really like and respect some people that I perceive to be his particular fans
- I can really understand the feeling that the public has chosen a “baddie” and relentlessly and unfairly picks on that person for anything that can possibly be construed as a misstep and I think Mike Love sometimes falls in this category (I still do)
but in the context of the 2005 case, the extent to which (a very few) people are going to put lipstick on a pig is truly absurd.

Emily -  I have worked to maintain neutrality as well, despite all the mean rumors and innuendo about Brian's absence on the road, and were your late father around, he would likely affirm that statement.  Because I did not know the story I did not judge.  

When Mike started touring after Carl died, I gave him the benefit of the doubt to see if he could make this band work and saw him build it from scratch into a rockin' very authentic band.  And yes, you know or should know that this board is very much anti-Touring Band.  

This thread is all about judgment.  In the context of 2005, the Live Smile version was released but not the actual sessions, six years later in 2011.  So, breaking down a case where the judge starts out by saying "Love wishes they could all be California torts" after having read thousands of cases, sets a snarky tone, which permeated the decision.  Judges are appointed or elected.  They come with biases.  They are not perfect. Some judges beat their children and sit as family court judges.  They are not infallible.  Just sayin.'  

[guitarfool2002]

Even suits that are considered (at the conclusion) frivolous have a basis to be heard. And, appealed.  It is the legal system being criticized that gave the opportunity to appeal.  Losing cases are how things get to the Supreme Court as landmark cases.  I don't want to lose that option.  Do you? 

If you take that right away from Mike because you don't like him personally, you take it from everyone else, including me.  Just sayin'.

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying any of this. At all. Nobody has once said Mike doesn't have the legal right to bring lawsuits. You're attempting to link negative opinions of Mike with some sort of anti-civil rights movement. It's insulting frankly.

If you don't want to ever paint one single thing about Mike in a negative light, that's cool. But don't assume those who do are trying to subvert the justice system or something.

Hey Jude - at each juncture, there are criticisms of this suit.  Mike had a beneficial ownership interest and had "standing" to bring the suit, whether a message board agrees 10+ years down the road.  Yes, it is related to the right to be heard.  I did not use the term civil rights.  It was more a "business interest" not a civil rights (in terms of discrimination) issue.  And yes,  people don't like the pleadings.  We cannot change that. 

Maybe the Smiley board should have had a "sidebar" with the judge or Mike's lawyer? (I'm kidding.)   

It is water under the bridge and people are still yammering away.     

What standing would that have been? The plaintiff's evidence in the form of an affidavit from a witness who supposedly purchased the magazine with CD giveaway as proof of the "confusion" such a thing caused for buyers in the US marketplace was described as a fabrication by the courts, and that the witness who gave the affidavit claiming confusion had not only fabricated the confusion over the packaging and marketing but was also a personal associate of the plaintiff attorneys. This led to sanctions against plaintiff's counsel and the issue of fabrication was uncontested. No CD's were included in the 425 copies (according to the appeal decision document) of the magazine that were sent for sale to the US: The discs were limited to distribution in the UK and Ireland. When proof was requested specific to that CD in the US market, it was found to be a fabrication.

The point of the lawsuit was written in the appeals court decision as follows: "Love was concerned that a second British invasion and Wilson's return to touring and recording would dampen ticket sales for the live performances of his touring group."

And, ostensibly, citing this magazine promotion and giveaway which was exclusive to the UK market was one of the ways the suit would show those ticket sales and income was or would be damaged by this giveaway and the packaging/labeling of the CD...using laws and guidelines specific to California, and the Lanham act as related to activities that happened in the UK.

It was close to if not a full clean-sweep of a defeat for the plaintiff, complete with compensation being ordered for the defendants named in the original suit.

If some of the prime evidence used to file the claim in district was labeled by that court as a fabrication, and if various elements of the case from the place of residence being claimed to the various acts and common law points being referenced to the defendants being named in the suit itself were each dismissed as strongly as they were...how many grounds to appeal would make sense after the entire case was basically destroyed and dismantled brick by brick by the district court?

And this case is centered on the concerns over "dampening ticket sales"...