Ask a Lawyer and Get Answers to Your Legal Questions
Hello, and thank you for contacting Just Answer. I am an expert here and I look forward to assisting you today.
Essentially the judge would have to try and convince someone to hire or pay a specific attorney.
Is there a specific set of facts you are curious about?
Perhaps barratry is not the right term. I know of a case where a a person settled a debt with an alleged creditor privately and submitted all of his interactions, notarized correspondences, etc to the jugde under private notary seal.
when he went to court the judge refused to acknowledge the private submission and treated it as a controversy that needed to be ruled on.
my understanding is that a private notary submission is considered settled and only needs to be acknowledged by the judge in a public court. True? What would the judge be trying to do here?
I'm not sure what you mean by a "private notary submission". Can you explain?
What would you call that action?
Are you saying that the judge refused to recognize a settlement?
Using a notary as a third party witness to the interactions (negotiation) between the two parties, leading to a setoff of the alleged debt and a public acknowlegement in favor of the private secured party creditor
A notary simply swears that the signatures are of who they claim to be.
Is the essence of what you're asking whether the judge violated some rule by refusing to recognize a settlement?
There is no rule that states a judge has to approve a settlement although they usually do.
The judge could refuse to approve it if it failed to dispose of all claims, if he felt it wasn't entered into willingly, etc.
That is why a judge has to approve a settlement. If it was just a rubberstamp it wouldn't be an approval.
yes...does this constitute a violation of the double jeapardy provision or a violation or responsibility the two parties have to freely contract with each other?
No, double jeopardy doesn't apply in any way to this situation since it only involves criminal cases. It also isn't a matter of interfering with a contractual relationship since one of the parties has placed this matter under the court's jurisdiction by filing the lawsuit.
Did you have additional questions?
The website is showing you are offline so I will exit so I can assist other customers. Please feel free to ask any follow up questions that you have in this thread. However, please do not issue a rating until our interaction is complete and all of your questions have been answered.
If the two parties were shown to be in agreement based on their sworn affidavits or by acquiescence to the facts would not the judges role be just to give a public acknowledgement of a private contract? If there is no controversy is there a need for anything else from a judge?
I wouldn't think there would be a need for anything else and I'm not sure why a judge wouldn't approve it.
However, it isn't mandatory on a judge to to that.
The parties could choose to dismiss their case(s) and move forward with the agreement.
If the judge won't acknowledge the settlement agreement.
Thanks JD 1992, you have been helpful.
Glad to be of assistance and I wish you the best.
Please don't forget to leave a positive rating so I get credit for my work.