Vexatious Litigants and How To Deal with Them

What happens when someone uses the court system not to solve problems — but to harass, control, or financially drain their ex? In this episode of The Glamorous Grind, family law attorney Ilona breaks down the reality of vexatious litigants in divorce and family court cases.

A vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly files frivolous motions, emergency requests, or repetitive legal actions designed to delay proceedings, increase legal fees, or emotionally exhaust the other party. In family law, this can look like nonstop custody motions, repeated ex parte filings, endless requests for reconsideration, or using litigation as a form of harassment and control.

In this deep dive episode, we discuss:
• What legally qualifies someone as a vexatious litigant
• How California courts handle abusive litigation tactics
• What happens after someone is declared a vexatious litigant

If you are dealing with a high-conflict divorce, repeated court filings, custody litigation, or an ex who weaponizes the legal system, this episode provides practical insight into how courts view these behaviors and what legal remedies may be available.

Want more glam during your grind? 

New episodes every other Tuesday. Make sure you are subscribed on YouTube and follow wherever you get your podcasts. 

🎙️ Hosts: Ilona Antonyan & Mila Arutunian
📲 Follow us on IG: @glamorousgrindpodcast

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

A vexatious litigant is someone who repeatedly uses the legal system in a way that is frivolous, harassing, or is meant to cause delay or unnecessary expense.

SPEAKER_01 0:10

His ex was filing motions every other week just to drain his bank account that has not been labeled a vexatious litigant yet. So what would you recommend for him to do?

SPEAKER_00 0:22

Some people don't want justice. They want access to you. Multiple times a week. She filed so many motions to reconsider whatever she disagreed with.

SPEAKER_01 0:32

This episode is for anyone whose ex is using the court system as a weapon, not to solve problems, but to drain money and keep control. This is the Glamorous Grind, and we had a viewer ask us if we could do a deep dive episode on this topic in particular. Well, ask and you shall receive because today we are talking about vexatious litigants. Thank you.

SPEAKER_00 1:05

This is such a great request. As a family law attorney, this is something I encounter once in a while. Vexatious litigants. What are they? How to deal with one? And what happens if you're labeled as one of them? We're going to answer all of these questions and more in answering what to do when repeated filings become legal abuse. Okay.

SPEAKER_01 1:25

Our viewer commented saying, Can you do a deep dive episode specifically on vexatious litigants? I'm dealing with an ex who files emergency motions every other week just to drain my bank account. And I need to know how to stop the cycle. So what is a vexatious litigant? I bet that comes up a lot more in family lot than it does in regular civil litigation.

SPEAKER_00 1:47

It does. It is pretty embarrassing to be designated as a vexatious litigant. And what it takes is that in the last seven years, you have filed at least five frivolous motions on a same subject or for asking for the same relief that you lost. Could be a discovery request, it could be the same subject you're trying to relitigate after there has been a ruling on it. And generally small claims is excluded, but it applies to all other courts, civil, probate, family, you name it, it applies. And once you're marked as a vexatious litigant, it goes into judicial counsel's system that they have been keeping since 1991, where they keep names of everybody in California that has been designated as a vexatious litigant. So then before they can file any motion and ask for any relief or even bring a new lawsuit, they have to ask permission. And there's an embarrassing form once you've been marked that you have to file. It's called once you've called request to file new litigation by vexatious litigant. So you pretty much have to identify for many years to come as being a vexatious litigant. So if you want to file limited civil action or family law or any civil lawsuit, probate, even small claims or anything else, you have to sign this form and say, I've been determined to be a vexatious litigant. And I must obtain prior court approval to file any new litigation in which I'm not represented by an attorney. So what does it mean? If you have a lawyer, if you've been designated a vexatious litigant, hiring an attorney can get you out of it. And you can file for remedies that you want and file lawsuits, but you cannot do it yourself because you've been considered to be someone who harasses people and increases their cost of litigation.

SPEAKER_01 3:43

And most lawyers are not going to probably take a case, at least we don't on the civil side, if we see that someone has a history of having these lawsuits. I mean, I have clients that oftentimes will try to come back and, you know, they have an employment claim and I resolve it for them. And then all of a sudden they have another one at the next job. And I'm like, ooh, well, now, you know. Um, so I think a lot of lawyers are very hesitant to take on people who are constantly plaintiffs in lawsuits because I mean, realistically, the credibility of your client is going to affect the value of the case. Uh, but in family law, what if you're already in the family law system and you're constantly filing motions? Do you have to submit a document like that with the motions? Well, it depends.

SPEAKER_00 4:29

I think if a lawyer takes over representing a person who has been previously designated as a vexatious litigant, you have to make sure you have good client control. And before you agree to represent them, be very clear. I'm not going to file any bullshit motions. It's going to cost you a lot of money because I charge for time to speak with you, to respond to your emails. And if you're going to want to file frivolous motions, every time we're going to have a discussion about it, and I'm going to tell you no, here's why not. If you're not going to follow my advice, I'm not going to represent you. And our contract lets me get out of your case. I can file a motion to be relieved. And because you've been previously designated a vexatious litigant, it's not going to look good if I have to go to court and get off your case because you're we have a breakdown of communication, on top of there being an order your vexatious litigant.

SPEAKER_01 5:18

How do you, in family court, uh, if you are facing harassment from the opposing side, how do you petition the court to label them as a vexatious litigant?

SPEAKER_00 5:29

So under uh CCP, I think, 397, the court can, on its own motion, designate someone as a vexatious litigant if they're self-represented. Or the other party can file a motion and ask for the other side to be designated as a vexatious litigant. Because they could have a lawyer just goes along with everything and is making money on it and doesn't care and is harassing the other side. You have to bring a motion.

SPEAKER_01 5:55

Well, I would anticipate if someone didn't really have very many financial restraints and could pay their attorneys whatever, they could make all kinds of motions on God knows what and get away with it, probably from what I've seen in the family court system. Yes. There's not a lot of checks and balances to avoid, you know, harassing motions because some of it could be true and 80% of it could be concocted. But is there really anything to get those things out, or do you always have to fight back?

SPEAKER_00 6:25

It would be great if you can fight back, but a lot of people lose their motivation to keep fighting because they're tired of being in court and they're tired of being harassed. So often it turns into harassment through litigation, right? And how are you going to stand up for yourself? If you have a lawyer, you have to pay an attorney because attorneys don't work for free. It's not a contingency case of family law. And the other side constantly going to court and filing motions, they can't be designated a vexatious litigant until they've lost a number of times on those issues and keep coming back on the same issues. So you have to be able to litigate and pay your lawyer to get through that process, or you represent yourself if you have a limited budget. And then eventually, if you can show at least, you know, five rulings on similar issues that the person has lost, then you can get a counsel on whether or not it's worth filing a motion to designate them as a vexatious litigant.

SPEAKER_01 7:18

And then if they are designated a vexatious litigant and they attempt to file additional motions that are similar or even different, um, what does the court do?

SPEAKER_00 7:27

First, the court has to review this application where the vexatious litigant has to ask for approval to either file a new lawsuit or file any petition in probate family court, any application and any motion except for discovery under family or probate code. They have to attach this form what exactly they want to file. So it has to be ready to go and have not be certain if the court will allow them to do that. And then they have to make a case why this filing has merit and why they believe they'll suffer harm if they're not going to get the remedy that they're seeking. And they have to explain that this new filing is not being filed to harass or delay this case in any way and give reasons. The court reviews it and then gives them permission or denies their request to file it. It's like the little boy who cried wolf. I love the process.

SPEAKER_01 8:23

I think it's worse than that. I think I think the standard should be lower, like for someone to become a vexatious litigant, in my opinion. But it is it is good that at least there's a process to kind of mitigate some of the harassment that goes on.

SPEAKER_00 8:37

I had a client that I represented many years ago. After I got off the case, she started going ex party repeatedly. I actually had to get off her case and file a motion to be relieved multiple times a week. She filed so many motions to reconsider whatever she disagreed with. But the court got so annoyed with her that they the court designated her as a fixatious litigant when she was in purpose. She was in prepared for a number of years. And in that case, I think it was worth it because had the court not stopped her, like she didn't understand. She was very intelligent. She did not understand when the court says no and why. Yeah. Like she would just not take no for any answer. And it was harassing the hell of the other out of the other side who kept spending money on lawyers' fees and hearing the same story and appearing at ex-parties who were not an emergency. It it seemed like the court was denying a lot of her ex-parties in chambers, but she kept then filing motions and getting her hearing dates, and it was a non-stop.

SPEAKER_01 9:40

Family law sounds so overwhelming. It's like it's so different from other forms of civil litigation because A, it's so personal. You know, I can imagine you spend your life with someone, you build a life with someone, and then you separate from them, especially if you have children. It's so personal. And then the second part that's different is it's constantly ongoing and changing. If you have a car accident and you have injuries, you know, your injuries could get a little bit better or worse. But generally speaking, the injuries are what they are. It's not personal. The person probably didn't do it on purpose. Um, so it's much more solid. And in family life, it just seems like there's so many ups and downs and there's so many emotions involved. I can't even imagine. I think that there would be a lot of room for people to be vexatious litigants, you know, and continue to file motions to try and hurt the other person, especially if they see that the other person is moving on with their lives or found someone else and they maybe haven't.

SPEAKER_00 10:40

Right. And so what holds people back is the budget for attorneys.

SPEAKER_01 10:45

Is there anything punitive done to a lawyer if they take someone who's a vexatious litigant and blindly follow their orders just because they're getting paid by that hour?

SPEAKER_00 10:54

Of course, in family law, you can ask for sanctions, family code 271 sanctions, and that goes against the litigant. But under Civil Code of Procedures and any civil lawsuit, you can send notice to the lawyer, a safe harbor letter under CCP 128.5 that says you have 21 days to drop this motion. And if you and here's why, but the pain in the butt is that you have to draft the motion. So your client has to spend money on writing the letter to opposing counsel, preparing the entire motion, declaration, points, and authorities, and then sending it to them and giving them 21 days to drop it. If they don't drop it, then you file it and the court decides if it was frivolous, and the court has authority to sanction the attorney and the party for bringing this frivolous motion. But if they drop it, then you've incurred those fees without collecting them, right?

SPEAKER_01 11:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 11:50

But the family court, you can then also file Family Code 271 sanctions motion, which is for increasing the cost of litigation, for making frivolous requests, not settling on fair terms, potentially when issues and facts are clear. You certainly can put all that together in your declaration and say these are the fees I incurred as a result of doing that. So under Family Code 271, award attorney's fees and costs that are based on the frivolous acts that increase cost of litigation rather than need-based fees, which in family court, if one party has more money than the other, you can ask for attorney's fees and costs based on the one party's ability to pay for both parties' fees, not based on their conduct, just financial resources.

SPEAKER_01 12:37

So the caller that called in said that his ex was filing motions every other week just to drain his bank account, but has not been labeled a vexatious litigant yet. So what would you recommend for him to do?

SPEAKER_00 12:51

Well, it's about perspective. I would have to see what are the reasons why she's going ex party every other week. Are they different reasons? Is it because of custody and visitation issues? Is it to advance emotion on financial issues to be heard sooner? If she's going ex party every other week for the same reason and it keeps getting denied, then he can ask the court at another hearing, status conference to label her or a vexatious litigant because her requested remedy was denied at least five times on the same issue. But if it's potentially a restraining order matter and there are accusations of some abuse towards the children, and there's proof, or that she's appearing ex-party on financial issues to advance it, and it's always a different reason, supported by evidence, or the court has given her a hearing date when that could be her, then it potentially would not be vexatious lit again. To him, it may seem like she's doing that to drain his account, and because it is gonna drain your account when you have a lawyer, but ultimately it's why is she going exparty? What about the term paper abuse?

SPEAKER_01 14:04

What does that mean?

SPEAKER_00 14:06

Just because you file a bunch of bullshit the court things that are just to complain, non-ending declarations, pleadings that will not get your relief you want, but just to complain and trash someone's reputation and get all the dirt out there because you feel unsatisfied about the results and kind of throwing up too much information to see what sticks.

SPEAKER_01 14:30

How do judges react to vexatious litigants?

SPEAKER_00 14:34

You can tell by their face when you walk into the courtroom and you end up representing someone who appears to be that way, that some judges have a good poker face and it's appreciated because whether or not they're gonna rule in your client's favor, they're respectful to both parties. And some are not. I had a case where I took over someone that the court hated for no good reason, really. I mean, in my opinion, I really enjoyed working with this client. She followed my advice. Yeah, she would have been in court every day, probably, if she didn't have a lawyer, but she was good at following my advice. I enjoyed working with her, but the this the judicial officer did not like her the first one before it changed. And the transcript from that hearing, and she was self-represented, it was the most disrespectful treatment of uh litigant that I have ever read. And I was offended as a lawyer, someone would treat that a judge would treat a person like that, like not have a poker face, not have respect for the way they speak with them. Um, but it depends on a judicial officer.

SPEAKER_01 15:44

I think judges are supposed to be neutral, but at the end of the day, they're still humans, and I think it's probably difficult for them to be completely neutral all the time. At the same time, I feel like if I was a judge, I think the hardest thing for me with vexatious litigants would be that they probably don't think that they're doing anything wrong. And if you really truly feel empathy for them and you understand their struggle and how they're seeing it from their perspective, they don't see it as, oh, I'm trying to like screw the other person over. They feel hurt, and that's probably why they're doing what they're doing.

SPEAKER_00 16:20

Well, it comes down to judicial demeanor. So we've been in front of many different judges. We know with this one judge, you know, they'll lose their cool, they'll interrupt the lawyers and opposing parties, and you need to know when to talk and when not to. Profurs, self-represented litigants, often don't know judicial officers like that, so they get on the bad side of the judicial officer. There are some judges with with whom you can continue discussing their ruling and possibly change their mind after they have ruled. And others they'll cut you off and be like, I'm done, I'm walking off the bench. So you gotta know your judicial officer. And if you're self-represented and you think you maybe soon label it as a vexatious litigant, it's a good idea for you to go sit in the department and listen and learn about your judicial officer so you don't end up on the shit list.

SPEAKER_01 17:07

I have actually a question for you, like uh about family law that I'm just curious about. So I have a friend of mine. He's in the middle of divorce with his ex soon-to-be ex-wife. They still live together. There's a disparity in income. She hasn't worked for many years. Kids are grown. But he works, he's a doctor, he has a good income, and she kind of refuses to work and refuses to move out. And I guess she tried to find a job and she only lasted six weeks because she didn't have time to do Pilates and she was too tired. So she just stopped working and now she volunteers. But she's demanding and he does pay all of her attorney's fees, pay for her rent, give her a monthly like she's not ever gonna be required to work, even though the kids are grown, she doesn't really have any responsibilities. Is there anything his I feel like his lawyer is just being weak and he should like push on her to find a job and move out? But he's like, No, my lawyer says that I have to keep paying her, and you know, she doesn't have to work. Television hasn't worked. She's like 45. Oh, so she's very young. Yeah. I mean, I mean, we're saying that here.

SPEAKER_00 18:10

I'm just I think that's crazy. What he can do if she doesn't agree is file a motion for a vocational evaluation of wife. I would do that as early as possible because if she is only 45, if she's not in her 60s, okay, and kids are grown up, she's and she's healthy enough and has ability to work, simply doesn't want to, then it'll cost them like two to three grand to do a vocational evaluation of wife, but they're gonna look at her skills, her abilities, her education, the time it's gonna take to get retrained, and they'll prepare a report on what her earning capacity is right now and how soon she can get that job. It's also going to include a prediction that in six months she should be able to earn X or find this type of employment in a year and a half or three, she should be able to earn Y or Z and is gonna have a median salary that she can earn right now, the highest and the lowest. Then, if she doesn't take this report seriously, which sounds like she probably is not gonna want to, then after paying a couple of years of support, he comes back and says, She hasn't done this, she hasn't done that, she hasn't done that, let's terminate her support, or depending on the length of the marriage, uh reduce support significantly because she has not taken steps to become self-sufficient when she had expert advice on what needs to be done to get there. So it's called a vocational evaluation. The sooner you do it, the better. Then you present it to the other side, you take their deposition. I had a case like that where I represented a doctor, it was many years ago. He was paying wife support longer than they were married. And needless to say, she was by then in her 50s because he was a lot older than her originally, was not working, had a boyfriend that was living with her for many years, didn't care to marry the boyfriend because she was collecting support from my from my client. We had to hire a private investigator because she was denying living with a boyfriend. The private investigator was marking the tires when the boyfriend's car was there and when it was leaving, with proof through surveillance that he was living there because family code allows for reduction in spouse support when you're cohabitating with someone else. So she was denying she was cohabitating and obviously not getting married on purpose, although she's been with this guy for many years. But additionally, there was a vocational evaluation done like 10 years ago, over 10 years ago, that contained recommendations. So after uh post-judgment, when he hired me, I took her deposition and I went through the report. Did you do this? Did you do this? No. You haven't looked for a job, didn't get one. Did you take this training? No, I didn't. What have you done? You know, nothing really. So we went back to court to reduce her support together with evidence of cohabitation as well as lack of any effort to do anything with this vocational report. And we were able to slash her support significantly to almost nothing.

SPEAKER_01 21:14

What's your thoughts on whether we are, as a people, becoming more litigious?

SPEAKER_00 21:20

I don't think anybody wants to be in litigation unless you're crazy and you enjoy it and you crave it and you want all that attention and you have some emotional need that's unsatisfied, and your only way to get attention from someone is to see them through court and keep that connection going for whatever reason. I think just generally in the United States, litigation is a thing. People sue each other on small claims because that's possible, and it doesn't take so much to fill out a form and go there and litigate. And in civil court, it's a little harder. You won't do a good job unless you have a lawyer to get it all the way through trial. Trial. If the laws allow it, however, and you're and what you do, employment law, yes. I think the legislature has created a litigious environment by making laws that make it easy for people to file employment law claims, to find a lawyer that will take a bullshit case. And like copyright laws, trademark laws. Like in the past, as a business owner, I received those letters. Oh, there's a picture on your website of our building. And this is a picture that I own copyrights to that, like everybody uses, but you send me this demand to pay you $7,500 just because there's a code section. And you're probably a really crappy lawyer that has never been to court and done anything, but you just have this pre-print pre-printed letter in the code section you sent. Now a Chad GPT, I think it makes it really easy for people to file pleadings. And we could become more litigious going forward because people could file a complaint really easy using uh Chad GPT. They can figure out how to litigate themselves. They won't do a good job in court being represented. And if they don't check their facts, you know, Chad GPT and others can create facts and make false allegations that will later hurt them in a case if they don't know what they're doing.

SPEAKER_01 23:13

So I just posted like an Instagram thing on this, I think yesterday, but I have dealt with a lot of clients recently that have potentially good cases, but I would not touch those cases because they, you know, use AI to try and assess the value of their case. And immediately I know I will not be able to manage their expectations. And I had a woman call me yesterday and she was like, Well, I think my case is worth X. She was terminated as part of a layoff. And she probably has a case because the termination was shortly after. I think she filed for disability in September for mental health issues. And then, you know, it's April, so it's not been that long. And she's the only person in that department who was laid off. No one else was laid off, but they're saying we don't need you anymore as a software company and she's a software engineer. Probably a good case, right? But the problem is she, you know, believes she wants a number at the very outset of the case. And I tried to explain to her, I cannot provide an assessment because I don't know what's on the other side. I don't know. Maybe they had emails saying that they were looking at layoffs before you even told them about your disability. Maybe they had legitimate business reasons for your position to be terminated. In that case, you'll have a zero case, right? Like maybe there are other things that play into it. Maybe your performance was bad. Until I get your personnel file, get into discovery. I can't possibly give you an assessment of what the value of the case is. And she was like, no, every other attorney has given me a number. Like, well, then you can go hire them.

SPEAKER_00 24:47

And the reason is AI is gonna pull information and verdicts that have been published on the internet that make it in the news or that someone does a press release on. It's gonna be based on huge numbers and values. But the reality is, if you go to a source such as Lead Docket, which is a source for attorneys to look at all verdicts in any state and any county, because it matters what verdict you get in what county in California versus another state. And small verdicts don't get published. Like nobody's gonna go make a press release, oh yeah, I settled the case for $20,000. Woo-hoo. No, nobody's gonna do that. So AI is not gonna pull that data and give her those results. But if you go into Lee Docket and search all dockets in the state of California on a specific issue with similar facts, you may find that the case was defended in front of a jury and someone lost. And then another case that has a different set of facts, got an award, but it could have been like 50, 100 or whatever, thousand, but they had to spend another hundred thousand dollars on experts. And that's because all of that matters. And pro purs, people who are self-represented, they're not, they don't know to ask AI to explain to them how much someone invested in experts, what it took, how that case is different from the facts of their case, and what are the small verdicts and defense cases that AI has considered to come up with these values. So it's totally out of proportion whether it comes to personal injury or employment law.

SPEAKER_01 26:18

It's it's so out of proportion. And there are so many case-specific facts that you you as a you know, as a layperson can't even anticipate to put into the AI system. You know, so there are a lot of little tiny factors that you can't consider. So we're gonna play red flag, green flag. Red flag if it's a no, and green flag if it's a yes. So these are scenarios that might tip off attorneys or judges that someone is a vexatious litigant. You ready? Let's go. Okay. One spouse saying, I'll ruin your life and make you spend every last dollar in court.

SPEAKER_00 26:56

Oh, depends. Saying that once, but not doing anything about it will make them a vexatious litigant. But if you said it and then you acted on it, and then they're filing frivolous motions repeatedly on the same subject and trying to relitigate the same issues multiple times within a short period of time, then yes, you would be vexatious litigant.

SPEAKER_01 27:18

Sending massive emails or documents right before deadlines or court dates.

SPEAKER_00 27:23

I think it's fine because if someone isn't pro is self-represented, they may not know what the deadlines are or how to submit it to court. Most likely, if the other side has a lawyer, they're gonna be able to exclude it because it's tardy and wasn't served timely, and the court will just not consider it. But that in and of itself will not make someone vexatious litigant. There are procedural grounds, it's technical grounds to exclude that evidence. Red flag or green flag? Someone who refuses to accept rulings. I think it depends again. Refusing to accept, what does that mean? Are you just can't get over it and you're upset and you have to go see a therapist? Or are you not following the court orders? Because if you're not following the court orders and therefore not accepting the court rulings, the remedy is to file a contempt against you, which is a semi-criminal proceeding where you're gonna be found to be in contempt of not following the court order, and the judge can then order sanctions, monetary and sanitary to jail, depending on how frequently you're not following the court orders. But if you are in disagreement with the court orders and you keep coming back to relitigate the same issues, then the court still has power to hold you in contempt and also on its own motion designate you as a fixatious litigant.

SPEAKER_01 28:44

What about filing emergency motions when there are no true emergencies?

SPEAKER_00 28:49

Well, if it's not a true emergency in family law under Rule 5.151, the court may just deny it in chambers and not even hear the matter because there are no emergency grounds. But if it's on the same subject and after it was denied, you can come back and ask him for the exact same thing repeatedly. Yeah, you're gonna piss off your judicial officer, and the court may on his or her motion or at the request of the other party designate you as a vexatious litigant, depending on the number of times and the issues.

SPEAKER_01 29:18

Let me ask you this if someone files the same motion again, there probably has to be new information that they couldn't have known at the time the prior motion was filed. Is that right?

SPEAKER_00 29:28

That is correct. And also it depends on the timing. Like if you have children, you're gonna be in court for the next 18 years, possibly, relitigating custody visitation. That does not make you a vexatious litigant because circumstances change and the court always has to look at the best interest of the children. What if there's someone new in so in the other ex-spouse's life that is a problem or is bad to the children's putting them in danger? What if someone got on drugs or alcohol is neglecting them? What if someone is moving? You're gonna be back in court for a number of issues that come up in life. Just because you're filing a motion to change custody and visitation doesn't mean that you're a vexatious litigant, even if it happened within a short period of time. But if you're coming back based on the same facts, same information, trying to relitigate the same thing, and you have no new basis, you've lost again and you lost again and again on the same fact.

SPEAKER_01 30:27

If you don't have any new basis, I mean they'll have to hear if it's on calendar, but they would likely deny the motion. In civil court, there's you know, if you file an ex party or if you file any motion, there's usually a tentative ruling. And then if the other side agrees to a tentative, they like walk away. Right. Do they have that in family court?

SPEAKER_00 30:45

No. About 15 years ago, we had a judge uh that did tentative rulings, and I really loved it. It was Judge Taylor, he's in civil now. And that was great because you would go in a department and know what to exactly to argue and what you don't need to argue anymore. But no other family law judge does that in family court.

SPEAKER_01 31:01

I always find it a little scary when the judge like rules on a tentative and you're just like, no, I disagree with you, and here's why. It's always scary to do it. It's fun, it's fun. Like it turns out so you know, you could piss out the judge that way. Well, it's their job. Sometimes the judge really, because you know, behind the scenes, the judge's clerks are the ones who research the issues and kind of make the rulings before the judge agrees to it. So sometimes they do miss things, or maybe you find another case and you can come in and say this way I disagree. But 90% of the time I find that the tentative gets upheld.

SPEAKER_00 31:34

So for our glam tip of the week, the question is, what do you do if someone threatens to sue you? What can you do to protect yourself from employment law perspective?

SPEAKER_01 31:44

I think it's super important to document things while people are still employed. So from an employer's perspective, just like from an employee's perspective, I know most employers at least make attempts to do things by the book, but to make sure that that is documented. If there's a complaint, immediately review it. You know, take it seriously, investigate it, whether internally or if it's a really small company and HR is close to the people involved and you want to be safe, you hire an outside investigator. There are um outside HR consulting companies that can come in and do investigations or help you assess how to handle things. You know, there's ADP total source, the companies that use ADP. If you pay for the premium version, they have an internal HR that you can call them and be like, hey, this is happening. What do I do? So just very important to make sure that it's documented that you're doing everything right. Because, like I said, from an employer perspective, most employers are not like, oh, screw it, I don't care. They try to do things right. Just document it, make sure to take things seriously and train your supervisors. Because the problem with the the reason I have so many great employment cases is not because the company screws up, but because there are people within the company that screw up and the company either doesn't know that it's happening, doesn't train them properly, or it doesn't do anything about it. So taking that proactive approach and making sure it's documented, because as a plaintiff's attorney, if you take on a case, every plaintiff has a wonderful story about how they were wronged, right? But if I take it and, you know, do a personnel file demand and the personnel file comes back and it shows me that the company did in good faith try to protect this employee. I'm probably not going to pursue the case if there's no case. There are employment attorneys that'll do it anyway and don't care. I'm not one of them. But from an employment perspective, that's the best way to just make sure you're up to date on your policies, make sure you take complaints seriously, make sure you hire outside counsel to investigate issues as they come up, um, and make sure your employees feel protected and heard, like that they can go to HR or to a supervisor to make a complaint. Document every step of what you do to ensure that the laws are being followed. What about in the family law context? What do you recommend someone do if someone threatens to sue them?

SPEAKER_00 34:09

Well, threatening sue in family court either means that someone is going to be filing for divorce or paternity action and seeking support or custody visitation rights. I would come in for a consultation with an experienced family law attorney, preferably a certified family law specialist or a partner level, to get strategic advice on what support may look like if you are the one who's gonna be paying it or if you're the one who's gonna be receiving it. Then you're gonna get advice on what documents to gather to be better prepared so that your divorce case can move along to potential settlement and getting disclosures done, just strategic planning ahead. Like once somebody gets served, what are you gonna do in response? Are you gonna file a motion for support and attorney's fees and custody visitation orders? Or maybe you're not gonna file anything because you may be the payor or you may trigger the other side to take action you don't want them to take. So you have to plan it all out and also know what documents to gather to have evidence if you are gonna have to seek any sort of relief in court. What if they can't afford an attorney? It's still worth an investment to come in for a consultation with an experienced litigator because they're gonna get a roadmap of what to do, what to expect. And even if they hire a cheaper attorney, at least they'll have a perspective of what to compare it to and know what may happen. If you can't afford a consultation, then there are a lot of law firms that do free consultations. So I'd probably get as many free consultations as I could with different family law attorneys and then um do it myself. The court website has self-help resources. You can now Google things and chat GPT things, but again, more often than not, that like 50% is right, 50% is not. Procedurally, it can tell you what to do, but it's all about prompting. How you prompt it is what it's gonna give you advice on. So if you don't know how to issue spot as lawyers would, then you're not gonna get the answers that you may want to have.

SPEAKER_01 36:19

You may not be able to stop someone from trying to create chaos, but you can do some things to protect yourself and your bank account.

SPEAKER_00 36:27

Build a record, ask for remedies, potentially sanctions and fees, and stop reacting emotionally. Give the court a clear pattern that it can act on.

SPEAKER_01 36:35

Hit that subscribe button and make sure you follow us. And if you've got a question for Let's Get Ready, leave it in the comments or send it to podcast at antonianmoranda.com. Thanks for listening, and we're gonna see you next time on the glamorous grind.