Now it is time for Caner to pay the lawyer of the other party for his time spent defending his client from a lawsuit that the judge ruled should never been filed in the first place. But for fees to be paid, Joshua Autry has to file a motion within the existing lawsuit filed by Caner. The existing lawsuit that Caner started. Not a new one. Got it, Tim? The judge is now considering this motion, and will rule after Caner has a chance to respond, and Autry responds to their response.
Makes sense, doesn't it? Not in Tim's world, apparently.
Tim Rogers says the following at his blog:
"...Jonathan Autry has clearly filed a lawsuit against Dr. Caner. His, is the same lawsuit, that of a civil suit.""Clearly filed a lawsuit". Uh, no, Jon Autry has never, ever filed a lawsuit against Caner. My guess is Tim Rogers uncovered an Old Testament verse on which he is basing his expert analysis.
Gene Clyatt tried to respond to Rogers' nonsense by posting this to Rogers' blog comment section, but Rogers didn't let it through:
"The documents that I have seen asking for the court to award Autry’s legal expenses contain, in their header, the exact same docket number (6:14-cv-000046:14-cv-00004 (Caner v. Autry)) as Caner’s suit of Autry, which means that these motions are not a separate lawsuit, but motions filed in the same legal proceedings that were instigated by Caner. These documents are available online from the court —https://ia600607.us.archive.org/17/items/gov.uscourts.vawd.92537/gov.uscourts.vawd.92537.docket.html"Then Rogers argues that for Autry's brother to expect his fees to be paid is "worse than the suit". At least in this statement, Rogers is admitting Caner's suit is bad, but that Autry's attempt to collect legal fees is worse! This doesn't even make logical sense. But Tim is a Man of God, and thus the logic of this world is not the logic of Tim Rogers.
"For people like JD Hall calling it absurd for Christians to sue Christians see nothing wrong with Autry filing a legal request of the court to recompense for funds he was not charged. His Brother [Jon's brother, Joshua] was on a “pro Bono” basis. Pro Bono means no charges so now to seek recompense is even worse than the suit. If it was no charge then one cannot now say there was charges. Certainly if there were filing fees that is one thing but to charge for hours to defend, that is something else because it was pro Bono."Tim is wrong. "Pro bono" doesn't mean that there will be "no charges". He didn't bother to do some basic research here. It is perfectly acceptable action on the part of a lawyer who has taken on a pro-bono case to seek out reasonable attorney's fees when they prevail in a legal action. In fact, whether a case is pro-bono depends not on whether any fees are secured through motions by the prevailing party, but on the expectation of fees when the lawyer accepts the case.
"According to the ABA, whether work qualifies as pro bono turns on the lawyer’s intent at the time of undertaking the project. Because Rule 6.1 requires that service be provided without fee or expectation of fee, the intent of the lawyer to render free legal services is essential for the work performed to fall within the meaning of pro bono. Therefore, the ABA has taken the position that an award of statutory lawyers’ fees in a case originally accepted as pro bono does not disqualify such services from qualifying as pro bono." (Fraisinette and Cunningham of the PLI)So if Joshua Autry does secure legal fees for his work on this case, his time spent will still be credited to him as "pro bono" because his intent was to take the case without an expectation of fees. The ABA does expect lawyers to extend 50 hours of pro-bono legal work each year, and I think Joshua's work on his brother's behalf will earn him payment for his services when the judge rules, and credit for pro bono service rendered. So thanks, Ergun, you helped Joshua hit a grand slam: payment for his time spent on your case paid by you, and credit for pro bono services in 2013 and 2014. Excellent! Seminarians like Tim may disagree with this, but no one cares what seminarians think when it comes to matters of law.
As they like to say in Puerto Rico about those who are simple minded: "Bendito". Poor Tim. His pea-brain can't fathom that Joshua Autry is due reimbursement for the time he spent defending his brother against a frivolous lawsuit (even though it was pro-bono - which anyone might expect a brother to do for his brother!), and the man who must pay it is the man who decided to bring the suit in the first place. This is how the legal system works, Tim. When potential plaintiffs see examples of judges granting legal fees to the defense, this deters future frivolous lawsuits from clogging up the courts. I know that is complicated, Tim. Read that a couple of times and it might sink in. Or talk to one of the lawyers in your church, they'll help you figure it out.
Caner should consider himself lucky that the judge can't throw punitive damages on top of the legal fees, for filing such a ridiculous lawsuit in the first place.