Call The Right Attorney™
No Fee Guarantee

Picking The Right Lawyer Can Make Or Break Your Case: How Bad Lawyering Led To Legal Disaster

by | Oct 17, 2024 | Disability Discrimination, Employment Discrimination, Employment Law, Wrongful Termination |

Choosing the right lawyer can be the difference between winning and losing your case. It’s not just about finding someone who promises to fight for you; it’s about hiring an attorney with the skills, experience, and understanding necessary to handle your specific type of legal issue. Unfortunately, Syed Mohsin learned this the hard way in Mohsin v. California Dep’t of Water Res., No. 22-16597, 2024 WL 4144080 (9th Cir. Sept. 11, 2024). Mohsin’s lawyer made a series of devastating errors that all but guaranteed the dismissal of his case.

What Was The Case About?

Syed Mohsin was an Assistant Engineering Specialist at the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). He suffers from epilepsy, a seizure disorder that affects his cognitive abilities, including his processing speed and executive function. He claimed that after his brain surgery in 2002, his employer, DWR, and his supervisor, David Gutierrez, failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations and engaged in disability discrimination, which ultimately led to his termination in 2012. Mohsin sued under Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging employment discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate his disability, and wrongful termination.

While the underlying had good potential, Mohsin’s legal representation was completely lost, leading to a disastrous outcome.

Best Disability Discrimination Lawyer Blogs on Point:

What Went Wrong?

Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of how Mohsin’s attorney’s numerous errors contributed to the case’s downfall:

  1. Failure to Understand the Burden of Proof
    Mohsin’s lawyer failed to grasp that it was their responsibility to prove the DWR’s reasons for terminating Mohsin were pretextual. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that Mohsin’s lawyer didn’t seem to understand this basic requirement of the case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit noted, “Mohsin misunderstands the nature of the adversarial process.” By failing to challenge the employer’s reasons for termination adequately, the attorney allowed the case to collapse without even an attempt at rebuttal.
  2. Allowing Requests for Admissions to Be Deemed Admitted
    The attorney missed critical deadlines, failing to respond to Requests for Admissions. This meant that key statements, such as Mohsin’s inability to perform essential job functions, were automatically admitted as binding facts into the record, severely weakening his case, if not completely destroying it. These admissions were pivotal, as they formed the basis of the employer’s argument that Mohsin was not qualified for his job, regardless of accommodations.
  3. Expecting the Court to Do the Lawyer’s Job
    Rather than building a coherent argument and citing specific evidence, Mohsin’s lawyer dumped hundreds of pages of documents on the district court, with no clear explanation or citations. The District Court was openly frustrated, noting that “Plaintiff asks the Court to ‘carefully scrutinize’ hundreds of pages of documents to find a triable issue of material fact for him.” Courts expect lawyers to guide them to relevant evidence, not sift through piles of paperwork in the hopes of finding something useful. The District Court, understandably, was more than a bit dismayed and commented that it is not their job to do so: “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.”
  4. Failing to Address Key Elements of Each Claim
    For every claim, the employee must establish specific elements. In this case, the lawyer failed to address crucial elements of the ADA and FEHA claims, such as whether Mohsin was a “qualified individual with a disability,” meaning that he could perform the essential functions of his job with or without accommodation.
  5. Not Responding to the Employer’s Legitimate Business Reasons
    When the employer offers legitimate reasons for the termination, such as poor performance or inability to meet job requirements, it is up to the employee to challenge those reasons and show that they are a pretext for discrimination. Mohsin’s lawyer did not do this, essentially conceding that the employer had valid reasons for terminating him.
  6. Focusing on the Wrong Evidence
    Throughout the case, the lawyer failed to focus on key pieces of evidence that could have helped Mohsin’s claims. For instance, evidence that demonstrated the limitations imposed by Mohsin’s epilepsy and the accommodations he needed was overlooked, while the lawyer expected the district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to sort through irrelevant documents.

When The Court Calls Out Your Lawyer, It’s Bad

It’s extremely rare for a court to openly criticize an attorney’s performance in a ruling. Courts typically refrain from commenting on the quality of legal representation, focusing instead on the merits of the case. However, in this instance, both the district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals made a point to emphasize just how poorly Mohsin’s case was handled. The Ninth Circuit noted that Mohsin’s lawyer didn’t seem to understand the adversarial process, and both courts expressed frustration with the expectation that they would sift through disorganized piles of evidence to make the plaintiff’s case.

For the court to make these kinds of remarks shows just how badly Mohsin’s lawyer had mishandled the case—and it serves as a warning to other employees that choosing the wrong lawyer can destroy an otherwise winnable case.

Best Employee’s Rights Attorneys Blogs on Point:

Why Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm Is Better

At Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm, we know how critical it is to have experienced, capable attorneys handling your employment discrimination, retaliation or wrongful termination case. We’re the third-largest law firm in the country that is solely dedicated to protecting employees’ rights. With the resources and manpower to assign a full team of lawyers and staff to every case, we leave no stone unturned. Our attorneys understand the complexities of employment law, and we have the trial experience necessary to take your case all the way to a jury if needed.

When you work with Spitz, you’re not just hiring one lawyer—you’re getting an entire team of skilled professionals dedicated to fighting for your rights. We have extensive experience in handling ADA claims, discrimination lawsuits, and retaliation cases, and we know what it takes to win.

Don’t make the mistake of leaving your case in the hands of an inexperienced or inattentive attorney. Contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm for a free consultation, and let us help you get the justice you deserve.

Disclaimer:

The disability discrimination and failure to accommodate information provided in this employee’s rights blog is intended for general informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Employment law claims, particularly those involving the ADA, FEHA, and other civil rights violations, can be complex and require careful handling. If you believe you’ve been wrongfully terminated or discriminated against based on your disability, race, gender, or other protected status, contact Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm for a free consultation today. Every case is different, and the outcome of your case will depend on the specific facts and circumstances involved.