Whiteness: “And I have a video to prove it” Lawyer: “excuse me what video?”

I don't know if people understand what happened during that "Mike Holland" story. Dude at the very least committed an ethical violation(if not an actual crime) in open court. He tried to use his personal relationship with the judge to get a favorably outcome. Very bad boy.

My aunt is a divorce lawyer. In person, she is really cool and has a really good marriage of 17 years. On the clock, she is a completely different person. She is a hungry pitbull that is out for the kill. She is very expensive, but worth it. She will dig up everything about her clients ex and even the client themselves. She demands passwords for all clients social media accounts and searches through everything. She says that oftentimes, the ex's attorney will strongly advise their client to settle out of court when facing her 🤣🤣🤣

Literally "imma bout to ruin this man's whole career" moment

Being neighbours means its likely you'll have fingerprints on the neighbours doorknob? Must be a friendly town because i havent even TOUCHED my neighbours property

humans: doorknob reddit text-to-speech bot: *dork knob*

Who else is getting extreme Ace attourney vibes

What’s funny is that you can tell at least half of these are totally fake. Nobody is “guilty” in a lawsuit. That’s like Law School 101

MIssed the chances of adding Ace Attorney OST in here.

I got a police officer schooled by a judge. I was given a red light ticket. I passed on Yellow, in CA you can be in the intersection on yellow. Well suddenly I'm surprised I see lights in my rear view. I for some reason decided to record on my phone, just audio (I'd just moved to this area and was getting pulled over a lot, I have a beater civic, and this rich area everyone rdives Benzes and such. I stood out). So at court I tell the judge I was in yellow when it turned red. My word vs cops. I present the audio to the judge. You clearly hear the cop tell me. "No my light turned green while you were in the intersection." Which is the same as saying the yellow turning red while while in the intersection.

I'm surprised that the second story didn't end with "Everyone in the courtroom stood up and started applauding my victory." Most blatantly fake story I've ever seen in any of these reddit compilations.

That mike Holland one was so fake it's like the guy wasn't even trying to be believable

As a huge Ace Attorney fan this was actually very exciting to read, i'm sure some of these are fake (it is the internet after all) but was still fun either way, playing the games made me interested in weird lawyer stories and kind of interested in how this stuff works, i'm not gonna go into law I've already found what I want to do in life (I'm an artist) but it's still very interesting to me and fun hearing about this stuff

I can only imagine these cases in Ace Attorney fashion. In my head I can only see these lawyers as Phoenix Wright.

That last one, ouch. I might have hired them as a paralegal just to give him a chance to reflect and try harder. Everyone fails and failure is probably more important in the learning process than the trivia one must also learn.

5:54 that was the mos real life Von Karma vs Phoenix thing I heard in my life.

For anyone wondering what the counter argument would’ve been to the “commonality” of the fingerprint between neighboring doors, here it is: first, the accused had no occasion to ever visit the burglarized residence, and there is no record of him visiting; second, the space and orientation of the doors between the two residences make it highly unlikely that the residents will mistake their neighbor’s door for their own; and most importantly, the fingerprint was fresh and undistorted, suggesting it had occurred recently (i.e., proximate to when the burglary occurred). That’s all he needed to say- it would’ve most likely been sufficient to satisfy a jury or judge.

Like half of these stories are either utter bullshit or at least stories that didn’t take place in the US, Canada, or the UK.

This is literally “I ended this man’s entire career”

The first case is definetely ACE Attorney IRL

The very first case makes me think about how, if Phoenix had been ALLOWED to shut down anytime Edgeworth showed up with the "outdated evidence" / unknown evidence tricks, he could've won his cases in double time lol

Gotta feel bad for the dude who forgot the file. A simple mistake caused his downfall

The man telling the second story has extreme old storytelling radio vibes.

"Ready to admit his possible quilt" had me dying 😂

6:44 IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that at least in the US, an accused person's past convictions cannot be used as evidence of the current crime they are being tried for.

these people sound like they've played ace attorney's first case and are ready to write about their successes in court

The 2nd post yeah never do the "c'mon you know that opposition lawyer isn't anywhere near as good as me so can we just wrap it up"

This is literally just a creative writing exercise

3:34 This sounds like the final case in a Phoenix Wright game

Being lawyer is basically getting paid to agure, it'll make a great job for younger and older siblings

So many of these were written by people who obviously aren't lawyers, have ever set foot in a courtroom, or have even the vaguest knowledge of how the legal system works.

Not seeing why the 1st lawyer went so hard on the opposing lawyer for the evidence. The guy straight up said the other lawyer looked like he didn't know the tape existed either. Hard to disclose something you don't know exists. And hell, it was a witness that brought it up even.

The Mike Holland story seems too fitting to be an Ace Attorney story.

Did anyone else notice the goat spinning?

“I’m about to end this man’s entire career.”

"not meeting his needs perfectly"....The way he likes to put it. Excellent choice of words !!

I actually feel bad for the first lawyer. I may not be a lawyer myself, but I know for a fact that there are people so friggin stupid that they will do shit even if you specifically told them not to do it beforehand. Witness probably wanted to look cool and pretend it was like in the movies or something.

Do lawyers really call gavels hammers? It just seems weird to me because you usually hear that from people who don't know what they're called.

Phoenix Wright lied to me

“And I have the video to prove it” Prosecutor: **soul leaves body**

Ah yes, Ace Attorney's future plot twists

The most shocking thing to me is the grammar of all these supposed lawyers.

2:18 I really wish that this lawyer punted this case. Last thing we need on the roads is truck drivers who have a habit of driving drunk.

I was too young to remember my parent's divorce, but was later told that my mum's lawyer was so incompetent that after the divorce was finalized my dad's lawyer got my mum's lawyer disbarred.

Why do all of these stories sound like complete BS written by non-lawyers? Like the guy who is a defense attorney for someone who is accused but not guilty of burglary. If it's a civil trial, innocence and guilt, shadow of a doubt, etc are not the standard that needs to be met. Preponderance of evidence and liability are the standards in that case. If it's a criminal trial, the opposing attorney would represent the state, not the victim, and the victim would be present only to testify if needed.

Judging by what they said, we can actually find lordofallkings by going through Mike Holland’s trials

I love how the text-to-speech kept pronouncing doorknob as “dork nob”

That first story makes me sick. A fucking drunk driver, especially a drunk trucker, should be in prison for 25-life. And a technicality shouldn't get them off if there is video evidence.

That witness probably played to much ace attorney and thought you can do that in real life

2:55 so like a KZfaq argument

I like how the voice pronounced doorknob. More like dorknob.

I was questioning Phoenix in the thumbnail but then I remembered what happened in the fourth episode of the first game. He does fit there.

The second one seemed bull shit

So in the third story we have a trial about an alleged burglary that can't seem to decide if it's a criminal trial or a civil trial. The OP's client was found not guilty, so it must be a criminal trial, but then why does the prosecutor have a client who's now looking for a better lawyer, smearing the prosecutors name and refusing to pay him?

I mean 50% of all lawyers graduate bottom half of their class so it’s not too surprising. You get interesting cases like this.

That first one, can you imagine if BOTH lawyers stood up yelling “I object!”?

Good job dude you got a drunk driver off free. All the victims of dui's will thank you.

3:32 actually sounds like an alternate universe Ace Attorney

Still hate the fact that a drunk driver got away with it and the lawyer was only happy about a win, even though he knew he was guilty.

*OBJECTION!* *HOLD IT!* The reference just seemed appropriate

I'm starting to get some updated autopsy vibes

I see the years of arguing with strangers online has paid off

When I get my own house, I'll put a dork knob on the front door.

1st one is definitely Ace Attorney hahaha

These are some Phoenix Wright levels of attorney intellect and luck

6:43 that sounded like a Phoenix Wright case…but with actual logic

Damn,the defendant on the first case had 100 plot armor

"dork knob" -Text-to-speech

i want a video of just the goat for some reason, the goat is making me want to watch m o r e

There are two types of lawyers, the Mike-Ross type and the Mike-Holland type. Pick wisely ladies and gentlemen

Ianal, but I'm pretty sure you need to submit evidence *before* the trial, can't spring things like that one guy did. To the court, not the opposition

I had to scroll the progress bar so i could see that the background image is actually rotating.

The second one sounds like the opening of an ace attorney game

Testifying in a murder case, the defense atty was cross-examining an officer who had testified to examining a particular vehicle for fingerprints and bloodstains. Lawyer Holds up photo of car: Is this the car you examined? Witness: Yes. Atty: Can you read the VIN in the picture? How about the license plate? Any identifiable individualizing damages or markings in this picture? Witness: No. Atty: Well then, how do you know it's the same car?? Witness: Because that's me standing behind the car in the picture. Atty: WHAT!!!???.....Your Honor, I'd like to submit a motion for mistrial on the basis of ineffective council for the defense....

One thing I love about these lawyer reddit story videos is they all use Phoenix Wright for the thumbnail and then when you listen to the story it really feels like an Ace Attorney case

Why did the other lawyer in the first story get punished when he clearly didn't know about the evidence either.

That first one is like, if he didn't even know about the video, how was he to disclose it? That sounds like a witness wanting to play hero or something. Not a fault of the prosecution.

Why does the second one sound like a plot to an underdog movie

3:32 is the fakest shit in the world. it reads like bad fanfiction. ridiculously over-the-top cartoon villain, no mention of any of the specific arguments made or even what the case was about (typical tactic for a writer who doesn't know enough about law to make up convincing details), the unprofessional protagonist being rewarded for being the protagonist, a waiting list to represent somebody? name-dropping the lawyer (no lawyer ever does that in these threads because they're lawyers and not trying to get sued), the villain lawyer losing his career forever based on one (extremely fake-sounding) comment to one local judge, the claim that he'll have to serve coffee now (this is nonsensical and a bad writer's attempt at irony and coming full circle, he would definitely find another law or law-adjacent job), basically every detail screams "i have no idea what i'm talking about and couldn't even write a bad episode of law and order"

Mike Holland should be renamed to Godot Von Karma lol

First story is so obviously fake if anyone knows anything about court. There’s no way the video would be shown, and even if it was shown for some absurd reason, the case would likely be mistrialed without prejudice, meaning that they can just redo the trial with both parties able to prepare for the evidence. But the much much more likely outcome is the judge or prosecutor just don’t let the video be played cause it’s obviously not part of the submitted evidence. Even if the trial part of the story is true, the other lawyer wouldn’t have gotten fired or yelled at for a witness randomly bringing up their own evidence without the other lawyers knowledge.

For the first case, why was the opposing attorney at fault when he/she didn’t know about the video?

Man, this Mike Lient guy is always in trouble, isn't he?

the one that starts at 6:50 - you can't bring up previous convictions as evidence that someone committed a crime. It's taken into account at sentencing.

2:59 This technique is called "Swallowing elephants and choking on gnats". (picking holes rather than offering facts/evidence)

That Mike Holland story was the most bullshit, fake, out of the ass shit I've heard. It was painful.

'dork knob' - TTS being hilarious, as always...

I lo0ve it when there are typos and the robots is like "A BURGER IS IN THIS ROOM, HE STOLE MY HAT!"

I don't drink. I smoke pot. When you drive and are drunk and cause an accident, you should never be allowed to win the case in court, eventhough they have multiple witnesses, just because even more evidence a video was shown, that wasn't disclosed prior to the trial, resulting in complete inviolability and keeping a dangerous drunk driver on the streets, just because the other side was stupid, not the own side smart. it's about public safety. yes illegal evidence is a really controversial topic. but this time it's not like it is showing sth different than what the witnesses have stated. if the video wasn't shown they would still have come to the same conclusion that the witnesses stated: he was drunk and caused an accident. I don't have a driver's license and I don't drink! if I had a driver's license and was drunk while driving and caused an accident, I would be horribly ashamed of myself if I won the court case because after 5 eye witnesses one negates the testimonies by showing a video that proves it even more but because it was illegal evidence I can continue to drink and drive. wtfh man?!

You can tell that they’re actually lawyers because the stories are written like an excerpt from a book

Wait wait wait. Why does the question say "his" job?

Everyone is saying the mike holland story is fake when this is obviously true i have had a body for 12 years and ive been a lawyer for 40 plus a Noir investigator for 26.

9:23 Did they not catch any shoeprint/footprint? Not a lawyer/detective, but pretty sure a neighbour has little reason to touch a doorknob, as the owner would typically let the neighbour in after the latter knocks/rings, and they'd touch the inside doorknob on the way out, with exceptions being emergency, although it'd indicate leaving the front door unlocked. Nonetheless, they had enough effort to note a finger print but no other fingerprints/footprints/dead-cells/etc, huh... Putting that aside, the only thing that could make one of these tales of woe better would be "I may be the worst lawyer in the company, but I could still put famous lawyers to shame" ([Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney] style)

8:09 "dork nobb" lol I love robot voices

The 1st story teller can shove it! Obviously a lie.

First Story: Should not even need a trial. The guy was guilty and caught on video.

They deadass made "I'm bout to end this man's whole career" a real thing 💀

Being an attorney kinda sounds fun sometimes and hell some other times

They just got Von Karma'd

Reddit stories are always good tea.