Ethics Alarms has mentioned before the fact that it is very difficult for a lawyer to violate Rule 3.1 in the Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits frivolous law suits and appeals. The ABA version of the rule, “Meritorious Claims & Contentions,” states,
“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.”
Why is it hard to violate the rule? It is because even the most desperate “Hail Mary” law suits sometimes win. “Good faith” simply requires that the attorney bringing the suit honestly believes it might succeed, which means that it helps if he’s an idiot.
The last time Ethics Alarms suggested a law suit was sanctionably frivolous was in 2020, when Alan Dershowitz sued CNN for what was just typical sloppy, biased CNN reporting. The First Amendment protects news outlets from defamation suits by public figures unless the defamatory news is deliberate and malicious. I flagged another 3.1 violation in 2019, when a lawyer filed 49 appeals for the same client in a condo dispute despite the fact that multiple judges had rejected his arguments and said, in effect, “Don’t come back here again with this crap!”
Today I learned about a frivolous sexual harassment lawsuit by a female lawyer against another lawyer at her former firm. As an epitome of frivolity, it takes the metaphorical cake.
Her complaint alleged that the man ogled and stared at her, took photographs, and generally created a hostile work environment by his unwanted attentions.
The defendant is blind.
Ethics Alarms 
Jack, you owe me a keyboard.
–Dwayne
I want to read the details behind that. Is she completely blind, or merely legally blind?
That was my question , too. My Google search did not turn up the story. Plus, one completely blind could know of harassment through means other than sight.
“My Google search did not turn up the story.”
Mine did…
PWS
The defendant is the man who allegedly sexually harassed her. He is the blind one, not the plaintiff, though you do have a point that the defendant may be only legally blind; consequently, he could have ogled her and taken pictures of her.
The lawyer who told me the tale knows both parties. She said, simply, “The man is blind.” She also said that his accuser filed the complaint after he refused to pay her disputed funds and she had used the harassment issue to try to extort him. I did not ask, Ed McMahon-style, “How blind is he?” I should have.
HE’s blind, not his accuser.
In which case he’s probably not all that good at taking pictures nor ogling them later.
“I see,” said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and saw.
Maybe it’s what he did with the pictures that made him legally blind!
You’re saying we should ask to see his palms?