Jackson Jambalaya

if a man can't be honest with his wife, let alone himself, there is no way he can be honest with his constituents. He needs to disappear and surrender to The One who can restore him.

What an asshole, this guy actually deserves everything he's getting. Johnson (and his attorney) knew exactly what they were doing with that motion to quash - trying to get her fired in retaliation for saying she'd comply with a subpoena. They're going to teach this case at MC and Ole Miss law ethics classes for years to come.

The filing attorney is good, smart and ethical. If Pruett gave Johnson advice that he has a limited amount of time to act and that he needed to contact different counsel, this may be covered by the A-C privilege (it's not a slam dunk, but its certainly arguable). It's not unethical to claim it as such as a lawyer, and it doesn't do anything to suggest she acted outside the scope of her practice one bit. She's pissed, she should be, but not for this. She's lashing back out.

You can't be serious! It is clearly in retaliation for her breaking up with him and not "playing ball" the way he wants her to play. As to the ethical, good, and smart Scott Schwartz, why didn't he contact the ex-girlfriend to verify the facts of the case? We as attorneys are required to use due diligence before filing pleadings. Any attorney who has practiced longer than 10 minutes has had a client lie to them and knows to verify everything.

We found Scott Schwartz's burner account @10:03

Verify everything a client says? Sheesh, please cite me to the specific MRCP. You can in good faith glean from the facts you know about a case from what the client tells you and context informs you, and then plead them. She's just pissed that he's using something. She is entitled to be pissed about a world of things, it seems, in this scenario. This filing, not so much.

10:18
Serious question
. Clients lie. Witnesses lie. Client says it happened. Witness says it didn’t happen. You dont know who’s lying. Do you not file the motion? I think your argument is ludicrous.

Ha! Just a 25 year lawyer who's been involved in these disputes, and I know what kind of lawyer Scott is.

Those who work on emotion are easily worked up on this site. The serious minded should be able to discern this 2 page diatribe for what it is. This will certainly cut against the argument that legal advice was given, but its not determinative.

We don't all love our clients or justify what their personal behavior, but we can serve them zealously all the same. I guarantee you Scott isn't going to parade this guy in court as if he's an angel. Buy he'll defend him honestly and well. If you can't understand that, you don't get the profession.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

You use due diligence to verify which story is correct. In this case, all that was required was for the lawyer to speak with the ex-girlfriend before filing the motion. Had he done so, he would have learned the truth. If she had been his former attorney, he could have gotten an affidavit from her saying as much. My position isn't "ludicrous," it is what is required by the Rules of Professional Conduct and the case law.

@ 10:27 a.m., I am not going to do your legal research for you. I will, however, give you a head start by telling you that it is not the Rules of Civil Procedure that require an attorney to use due diligence. It is the Rules of Professional Conduct that require it. Try reading them along with the case law addressing the filing of blatantly false motions. Sounds like you might be surprised at what they say.

99.9% of politicians (Dem, Repub, black, white, male, female, LGBT ETC.) are scum.

MRPC, which rule? There isn't one. Nothing is blatantly false. She's arguing what she gave him wasn't tantamount to advice of counsel. He disagreed. That's certainly arguable, and therefore well within the right to make your case to the court. That's what lawyers are supposed to do and how caselaw evolves.

i enjoy these moments on the blog when the lawyers blah blah blah to each other.

@12:23pm - Everyone on here is a lawyer, whether they actually have a license or not.

Lawyers...what a wretched hive and scum and villainy.

Don't the ethics rules state that every time an attorney affixes his signature to a pleading, it is his representation that he has investigated the facts and matters he asserts in his pleading and has a reasonable, good faith basis for filing the pleading? Wasn't it some pesky little ethics requirement like that which resulted in so many of Trump's attorneys being disbarred and/or sanctioned for pushing and trying to litigate the "stolen election" garbage?

Some readers are mad because I won't approve their comments about the affiant's history, marriage history, or in other words, a general trashing of her. So sorry you are mad. Not. I've cracked down on doxxing this year and dredging up someone's history for no reason. Don't like it? Deal with it.

Senator Johnson had a resolution passed (SR94) during the 2024 Legislative Session to recognize his squeeze, Ms. Pruitt, for her career and public service / accomplishments. I imagine he was paid back many times over with some of her *ahem* personal services for this.

lol you’re a bitch Kingfish

It’s not doxxing if it’s public record moron

Kingfish doesn't include plenty of my comments but it's HIS blog. You are the bitch @1:06.

I retired after about 40 years of legal practice. I handled only a couple of divorce cases during that time because I hated the emotions that clients and opposing parties go through, clients often ignore legal advice, clients lie to their attorneys, and no one is ever "made whole" in a divorce case. The last divorce I handled, the wife whom I represented kept calling me about ongoing fighting between her husband and her over how they were dividing the contents of their refrigerator. The third time she called me about who should get the half jar of mayonnaise, I fired her as my client over the phone and filed a motion to withdraw the very next day. Motion was promptly granted.

Chris Johnson comes across like a total scumbag, and a selfish, self-serving POS, who doesn't care who he hurts to save himself from getting dinged with a money judgment for his own actions.

As for the merits of the motion, the court will rule on it, then we will know if it's frivolous.

I'll add that some lawyers love the drama. Avoid them if you ever have to hire an attorney.

It appears that Chris has a "Johnson" problem.

July 17, 2025 at 10:27 AM, if my understanding is correct, Pruett's ability to practice law is endangered by practicing civil law. If so, Johnson has threatened her livelihood as a single mother by saying she was his attorney in a civil case. You sound like the typical misogynist that can't see the truth because of your bias.

Same here, he doesn't post some of mine, but you did just properly bitch slap 1:06.

It's not hard to see that truth means nothing to the lawyers.

This needs more approval and adoration...nerd.

How sick is the mind that has to drag Donald Trump in to an article about a sleazebag lawyer?

The sad part about the lawyers arguing amongst themselves on this blog is that somebody is getting $$$$ billed $$$$ for their time spent arguing here amongst themselves.

1:34 for the win.

Some do not have adequate judgment in selecting a spouse. I am so lucky to have fallen in love with a woman who is a sweet angel, loving wife and mother. She has made my life a piece of Heaven, and provided a retreat for recovery from painful experiences whenever necessary. I hope some others here are similarly blessed to avoid the perils of wicked spouses and lawyers.