On the goodness of pre-lawsuit "attorney inquiry" (as proposed to the Russian Duma) and "intra-lawsuit" inquiry after judges are assigned and opponents in litigation appear - any takers in the U.S.?

I wrote on this blog about difference in handling of attorney's honest work protecting rights of their clients in this country and in Russia and handling of judges who defame and punish attorneys for doing their jobs and exposing judicial misconduct.

Here is another point - and I know that American lawyers, and many of their clients who know what it is all about, will be salivating over this one.

There is a legislative bill submitted to the Russian Parliament ("Duma") to introduce what is called "an attorney's inquiry".

An attorney's inquiry is proposed as a formal tool used by an attorney to secure from government and non-governmental organizations, custodians of certain information necessary for the attorney to provide effective legal help to the attorney's client, to actually provide such information".

I apologize, the interlinked source is in Russian, I did not find it translated anywhere, so, I request you to trust my native knowledge of the Russian language to render it for you.

Wow.

Let's collectively think about this one.

Let's think about the amount of federal civil rights lawsuit dismissed BEFORE DISCOVERY and before even the answer, because, according to the governmental defendants and federal judges supporting such defendants, the civil complaint was not "properly pled" and does not include the necessary amount of "factual pleadings".

Well, the statutory law says we have a claim pleading system, not a factual pleading system, in federal courts, see Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 8 and FRCP 9.

Think of all the sanctions for "frivolous conduct" arbitrarily imposed by state and federal courts, some with anti-filing injunctions blocking access to court because the plaintiffs did not have enough information BEFORE they brought a lawsuit, BEFORE the discovery in that lawsuit started - while such information was in exclusive possession of somebody else.

Had this information was discoverable BEFORE the filing of the lawsuit, (as well as after the filing - when the judge is assigned and the opposing counsel appears, so that their conflicts of interest may be verified through separate discovery), such sanctions, dismissals and anti-filing injunctions would not have been possible.

So, where now people, both pro se litigants and attorneys, are punished for not knowing something they cannot know because the information is held from them by exclusive custodians of that information, if such an "attorney inquiry" (or a pre-lawsuit and intra-lawsuit inquiry by any prospective pro se litigant, a "Pro Se Attorney inquiry", that would be even better) were to become reality, think about information about conflict of interest of judges, connected law firms, would have to be disclosed!

Such an easy solution.

An attorney inquiry.

Such a revolution in cleaning up court corruption would be possible with that solution.

Any takers in state legislatures and in the U.S. Senate?