The Rise of Legal Intimidation Tactics
In recent years, there has been a growing trend in civil litigation where attorneys employ aggressive legal tactics known as “shock and awe” lawsuits. These lawsuits are designed with the primary intent of humiliating defendants, leveraging large settlements, and engaging in lawfare. While the legal system is intended to be a means of seeking justice and resolving disputes, the rise of shock and awe lawsuits highlights the darker side of litigation where the objective is not just to win a case, but to overpower and intimidate the opposing party.
Attorneys, like Barbara Bonar who use shock and awe lawsuits are well aware of the psychological impact these tactics can have on defendants. By creating scenarios where defendants feel overwhelmed, embarrassed or outmatched by the claims, Plaintiffs can pressure them into accepting large settlements. This tactic not only leverages the financial strain on defendants but also seeks to humiliate them by showcasing their vulnerability in the face of relentless legal attacks.
Using the Legal System Illegitimately
Lawfare, a term that combines “law” and “warfare,” is a key component of shock and awe lawsuits. It involves using legal systems and principles as weapons to achieve strategic objectives. In this context, lawfare is employed to drain the resources and morale of defendants, making it difficult for them to continue their legal fight. By weaponizing the legal process, attorneys can achieve favorable outcomes for their clients without necessarily proving the merits of their case.
It seems like there have been a few notable instances where news agencies have reported on these salacious “shock and awe” lawsuits. The relentless pursuit of clicks can have real-world consequences for the individuals involved. Defendants in sexual harassment lawsuits may find their personal lives dissected and scrutinized in the media, adding to the trauma they have already endured.
Real World Impacts
Take, for example, the recent case involving local attorney Shane Romines. News outlets such as The Times-Tribunes, News Journal, ABA Journal and the Courier-Journal eagerly reported on the lawsuit filed by Barbara Bonar on behalf of Cassandra Hibbard and Dana Vanover, with Bonar pushing the issue to the press and providing them her Complaint. Their coverage painted a vivid and salacious picture of the alleged harassment and retaliation intended to embarrass and publicly shame Mr. Romines for the purpose of extracting a large amount of money. The strategy had been successful for Bonar in other cases where the defendant did not have the legal and financial gravitas of Romines to fight off her meritless claims.
While such coverage from the press can raise awareness about important issues, it also runs the risk of sensationalizing and misrepresenting the facts of the case and ultimately damaging the credibility of valid claims of harassment, making it less likely actual victims will come forward.
Shock and awe lawsuits represent a troubling trend in civil litigation where the goal is to intimidate and humiliate plaintiffs into large settlements through relentless legal actions, regardless of the actual merit of the claims. These tactics, while effective, raise ethical concerns and highlight the need for legal reforms to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.