2006-07-27 21:38:02 · 6 answers · asked by FinalDay 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Once again, people are speaking out of their @sses. Yes, the landlord has to be present for trial. An attorney's job is to present the evidence and make legal arguments on behalf of his client. However, he is not a percipient witness and cannot be a witness on behalf of his client. That means that he has to present evidence through someone who is a witness or can otherwise authenticate documents such as a lease. The person to do that is the landlord.
Technically, it is the landlord who is the party to the case, not the lawyer. Therefore, it is the landlord's obligation to present evidence to prove his case. His attorney is a representative, not a litigant. The landlord, or someone acting as his agent, or someone who has direct knowledge sufficient to prove the landlord's case, must be present at trial to prove the landlord's case.
2006-07-28 05:00:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
The attorney represents the landlord in the court as allowed by the Rules of Court. Thus, the presence of the landlord is not necessary.
2006-07-27 21:43:45 · answer #2 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not if they are represented by their attorney.
2006-07-27 21:40:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if a counterclaim is filed which mandates her presence.
2006-07-27 21:40:40 · answer #4 · answered by temptnu37076 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
not at all unless ordered by the judge.
2006-07-27 21:40:32 · answer #5 · answered by jonb4more 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
nope
2006-07-27 21:39:51 · answer #6 · answered by Lisa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋