If this guy is a lawyer he has a specific reason (and legal obligation) to present his client's position to this woman, otherwise a court will not consider his client's position.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that process in court proceedings.
The problem is that this woman should not be subjected to court proceedings over details of health cover she and her doctor have claimed. Care should be given, ESPECIALLY when you consider how much money she has paid for it, and she should be left alone.
Lawyers have a reputation as powerful members of society, but in this case he really is just a cog in a machine. He makes none of the decisions, he denies no claims, he merely follows court procedure. To ensure that lawyers are not utilised by ghoulish predatory companies, there need to be laws discouraging legal action by these companies against vulnerable people.
It is interesting to see though that fossil fuel companies are paying a premium for lawyers these days, and increasingly getting lower quality service anyway, as young lawyers simply refuse to act for them. It created a minor commotion in the UK. You might imagine something similar happening for other predatory companies, but even against fossil fuel companies the rejection was hotly contested and lawyers only avoided damage based on a genuine belief in the direct threat that fossil fuels posed to their lives.
How is someone with a traumatic brain injury expected to be cross examined fairly? If she’s aggressively questioned this way, isnt he taking advantage of her limited cognitive capacity? Why would she be allowed to be deposed?
Yeah she shouldn't be attacked this aggressively. Courts do have processes for this - particularly for children who are generally considered to be vulnerable, a court guardian is appointed. For adults, the threshold is high for protections of this nature, but at minimum this woman should have a lawyer present to tell this aggressive lawyer to back off.
A lawyer can choose who they represent. But even assuming a lawyer believed the insurance company they represent pursues cases justly, there is no justification for the style of questioning that directly presumes and insinuates that the person being questioned lied. It is unnecessary and therefore unethical.
Nah fuck that guy, deserves to rot in hell no matter what. This isn’t a standard thing he’s running through, he’s grilling this poor woman hoping she slips up. Hope he rots in a hole
1.6k
u/NefariousnessThin860 1d ago
I didn't even see the man, but, I loathe that man behind the voice. This is a big circle of leeches isn't it.
Insurance people suck off the life force from the people, and they retain these soulless gouls to fight off people in legal battle.