I filed a lawsuit in May 2013, which is now almost 1 year and 6 months. Almost all depositions and mediation have been completed. The other side has not shown a genuine interest in settling the matter, and in my opinion, have been trying to stall the legal process by giving a false impression that they want to settle. I have asked my attorney to set the matter down for trial, but he is now telling me that depositions must be completed first, so my question is whether under Florida law, a civil matter can be set down for trial even when all depositions have not been completed. He has just one witness left to depose.
It makes no sense whatsoever to set a matter for trial with depositions yet to be completed or with any other discovery still outstanding. In fact, judges will frown on this practice if you were to do it pro se. Furthermore, what are you going to do with the information you obtain in a deposition conducted AFTER the trial is over? I suggest you listen to your attorney. Good luck.
I am primarily a credit card defense lawyer, but I also handle a variety of other consumer issues and general civil litigation. I hope you found my answer helpful. If you did, please click "helpful" and/or "best answer," because doing so helps my Avvo rating. Please also understand that answering this question doesn't make me your lawyer, and my answer is not even an "initial consultation" with me. In answering your question(s), I am merely giving you VERY GENERAL ADVICE based upon your VERY GENERAL QUESTION. If I indicated that you need to see a lawyer personally, then PLEASE DO SO. Good luck to you!
All law involves two parts: substance and procedure. SUBSTANTIVELY, you and your Attorney have believed in the past that a specific Deposition is needed. Nothing in your post indicates that is no longer so.
PROCEDURALLY, when all the Discovery is completed, sometimes it is possible to prevail/'win' on a pre-trial Motion, so that No Trial Is Necessary. Given the expense of going to trial, and given that trials have unknown outcomes, there is much to be said for pre-trial Motion practice: all the facts are before the Court and the Judge's job is to rule on the law (statutes and case law).
So I do not understand why you would want skip a pre-determined necessity in favor of an unknown 'jump-ahead'. A good Attorney always appreciates knowing the bottom of the mud puddle before jumping into it.
I understand (and accept) that the emotional issues, usually arising from the delay arising from the legal process having to go by the rules in order to look at the Big Picture, can feel tedious and frustrating. But neither the delay nor the process is wrong.
Plaintiffs want to get to trial right away.
Defendants want to make sure that everything is done right, and so appear to stall and delay, as you describe. But you would not want to get a Judgment and then have it reversed. So the pre-trial work is appropriate, the better to be upheld on appeal. (As some people never stop litigating.)
I wish the actual trial process were more like what is shown on TV, but it is not so and sometimes it is very hard to sit and watch what is being portrayed without shouting an Objection or two.
Here in Calif, we have greatly shortened the process of getting to trial, down from the 5 years (old CCP rule) to may be e or 4 years to get to trial.
I hope this comment helps you consider further whether or not you should trust your Lawyer. You chose wherever it is for good reason(s). I would expect that those reasons still matter.
An Attorney consultation ~ with candor and confidentiality ~ would result in legal advice that fits the specific situation [facts and documents (if any)].
Yes its permitted but whether its a good tactical decision is up to your lawyer. As a general rule, you need to trust your lawyers advice and not use AVVO or some other source to second guess him or her. I can assure you armchair quarterbacking or jailhouse lawyering your existing lawyer is the fastest way to create avoidable controversy on any litigation case. There is NOTHING worse than having to use one hand to fight the other side and the other to fight your own client who barrages the lawyer with repeated " this guy on the internet says you are wrong" or "some dude in a forum had a lawyer that got him 5x more than you tell my case is worth and he wasn't even hurt...." It is crucial that you and your lawyer are on the same page, and I would encourage you to schedule a conference with him immediately to make sure that you are, whatever that page is.
Years licensed, work experience, educationLegal community recognition
Peer endorsements, associations, awardsLegal thought leadership
Publications, speaking engagementsDiscipline