the best part is they politely gave alex jones’s lawyer the opportunity to fix their mistake and they DIDN’T DO IT. smh shaking my head
TEN DAYS. THEY HAD TEN FUCKING DAYS. AND THEY DIDN'T DO SHIT. AND THEN THEY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE TEXTS AND OBJECT BEFORE THEY WERE ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE AND THEY DIDN'T. the unmitigated GLEE in bankston's voice when he's like "and as of two days ago, it fell free and clear into my possession, and that is how I know you LIED TO ME" is just fucking awe-inspiring. i love this man.
I know that there's chatter on the internet about it being purposeful to somehow avoid getting sanctioned, but that's highkey incorrect and what they did would actually potentially implicate them MORE.
quick breakdown of legal ethics: you have a duty to your client and a duty to the court. you can't tell any of your client's secrets, but you also can't lie to the court or knowingly allow someone else to lie.
the "knowingly" is important here: if a client lies to you and then you repeat the lie, that's okay. the entire point of confidentiality and privilege is so that clients can be honest with you. if a client has all that protection and lies to you anyway, that's not a you problem. the issue is if you know they're lying: you need to do all you can to prevent them from lying, and if they start to give false testimony despite you telling them not to, you need to stop the proceedings IMMEDIATELY to talk some sense into your client, or, failing that, withdraw as counsel. it is that serious.
so, quick recap:
client: I could not have possibly robbed that bank, I was on vacation in the bahamas!
lawyer: okay. your honor, my client couldn't have robbed that bank, they were on vacation in the bahamas.
opposing counsel: hahaha, I have caught you in a lie! here are photos of you at the bank when you said you were on vacation!
^^ this is safe for you ethically.
client: I totally robbed that bank, but I want to tell everyone I was on vacation in the bahamas.
lawyer: okay. your honor, my client couldn't have robbed that bank, they were on vacation in the bahamas.
opposing counsel: hahaha, I have caught you in a lie! here are photos of you at the bank when you said you were on vacation! and they're pictures your attorney had access to, so they knew you were lying about the vacation, too!
^^ this is NOT safe for you ethically because you participated in lying to the court.
(sidebar: withholding information isn't unethical and is, in fact, part of confidentiality. if I know a client of mine is doing drugs when they're supposed to be in rehab, I cannot be compelled to tell that to anyone, at all, even if that means that I'm aware a crime is being committed. disclosing information like that is itself malpractice.)
so, knowing all that, consider what facts we have:
it would not make sense for reynal to deliberately set himself up for a malpractice suit AND sanctions for lack of candor toward the tribunal.
so, my money is on it being an accident. lawyers fuck up all the time, and they fuck up in this specific way all the time, and there are rules in place to deal with potential fuckups (like how here, bankston contacted them about the slip-up and gave them a full ten days to claw that info back before using it as evidence). but fucking up so badly that you don't correct your mistake for days? with a case this public and a client this high-profile? THAT'S AN UNUSUALLY BAD FUCKUP.
Basically, when you file a lawsuit against someone, neither of you have a whole lot of evidence against the other person. So you need to get it, and the way you do that is by getting information from the other side. So a typical discovery period tends to go like this:
Plaintiff: Please give us all records relating to X.
Defendant: Be more specific.
Plaintiff: Okay, we want all emails, memos, letters, and text messages sent between A and B relating to X from 2015 to 2020.
Defendant: Okay, but you need to also give us all of your records relating to X.
Plaintiff: Cool!
Defendant: Here are all 60,000 emails we have about between 2015 and 2020. Have fun sorting through that shit pile!
And so on and so forth.
Keep in mind that this works for evidence that helps you, not just evidence that hurts you. Like, a request for your financial records can help you if your defense is that you're poor and you can prove that by providing your salary information.
Alex Jones repeatedly refused to do this. He lied and said he didn't have any records for the plaintiffs to look at or discussions about Sandy Hook to hand over as evidence. He did this so much and so egregiously that eventually the court got fed up and said, "Okay, you clearly don't care enough to even hand over evidence that could help you, so you lose by default."
So this trial was literally ONLY about the amount of money Jones should pay; he lost the "did he commit defamation?" argument by default. The questions that are like "isn't it true you knew this information was incorrect by 2015 but you didn't do anything about it?" aren't being asked to prove he defamed the families, they're being asked to show how deliberate his conduct was, because if he did something maliciously, he might have to pay more in damages than if it was an honest mistake.
So when Bankston is like, "Haha, I have your cellphone information!" and Jones starts saying, "But you said I didn't provide it but you clearly have it," what Bankston means is, "I have your cellphone information that you said didn't exist when I asked you about it," while Jones is (badly) trying to argue that he did comply with discovery because Bankston got that information from them eventually.