Whether you are a BMW fan or just keeping up with their models over the years, you would know that the 2001 7 Series threw the world into spasm. In a good way. Its stylish design, slabby sides, and grotesquely-stepped rear stopped everyone in their tracks. This, however, is not the case with the new 2020 BWM 7 Series. Not in terms of the new face, at least.

Every BMW lover would agree that the company is making an audacious move with the new face at the series.

Why The New Massive Grill?

There has been a lot of discussion about the massive and polarizing grill on the new BMW series. However, this is not a design failure, and there is a reason for its size.

According to Alexey Kheza (a BMW designer), the bigger grill allowed the designer to come up with a clean, lower bumper that lacks the mesh of the pre-facelift model. The body-colored panel directs air into the air curtains, which improves the aerodynamics of the new sedan vehicles. Also, Kheza pointed out that the grill is proportionally bigger compared to the old series. In other words, a bigger sedan, a bigger grill.

Could a Photographer Improve the Design?

Gabriel Wickbold, a São Paulo-based photographer, was commissioned to work on a new display at a pop-store. Without any doubt, Wickbold’s subsequent reimagination is exciting and did quite the work. However, as a result, the grill stands out even more.

So, Is It Really Worth It?

Of course, it is! The new 7 Series offers superb vehicles. In this 2020 lineup, the luxury models represent the best seats in the house. The BMW 7 Series is stately, sumptuous, and serene. Its long-wheelbase body style yields more rear-seat legroom than rivals, and the cabin is brimming with top-notch materials and high-tech features.

Law is a tricky business. It’s complicated, it’s technical, and it involves a ton of paperwork. Plus, working in the legal industry can be pretty high stakes. You could be responsible for keeping a dangerous criminal off the streets, or resolving a heated dispute between two parties. Of course, working in the legal arena is never easy, but in these stories, someone completely messed up and handed their opponent the case.

Let’s begin with a legal story that’s all about the details. As a lawyer, it’s important to know the industry you’re dealing with inside out. And that includes all the technical terms that will be used in court. This means that if you’re going to call in an expert, you better know what that expert is talking about.

Foolishly, the defense lawyer in this case kept saying carbon dioxide rather than carbon monoxide. That isn’t even that difficult!

Sometimes, people mess up their chances in court just by being rude. Their legal arguments could be perfect, their paperwork pristine — but if they disrespect the court, then the judge will take notice. This could mean showing up late, wearing something inappropriate, or taking a phone call.

In many cases, a lawyer would be thrown out of court for just having their phone out, never mind actually taking a call. And during closing arguments?! What was this person thinking?

We’ve already mentioned it a few times in terms of lawyers, but it’s really imperative that clients also keep their mouths shut in court. You see, when you’re paying somebody who’s educated law to defend you, it’s best that you don’t just blurt out your personal feelings and potentially undo all their good work.

However, in this case, we’re glad that this hit and run driver exposed themselves in court. They couldn’t help calling their opposition a liar. Oops.

Can you believe we haven’t even mentioned juries yet? As we know, lots of court cases come down to the jury’s decision. This means that lawyers need to make sure that they approach the jury with the right attitude and tone, or they risk throwing it all away.

In this legal story, a lawyer ripped into a likable and credible witness. This instantly swayed the jury who reacted badly to such a rude line of questioning. Case closed.

Nonagenarian Gerry Spence is a pretty amazing lawyer. He’s part of the American Trial Lawyers Hall of Fame, which is no surprise considering he has never ever lost a criminal case. On top of that, Spence hasn’t lost a civil case since 1969. Now, that’s a seriously impressive record.

And we can see why from this legal story posted to Reddit. Spence asked his witness to demonstrate his injury, and then to demonstrate how it was before. And that was that.

This is a nice little story in which the opposing counsel handed their opponent the case on purpose. First of all, we have a student who shows up in court without a solicitor, because their university said that would be fine. Warning bells already, right? Thankfully the judge wasn’t on board with this, and postponed the hearing.

Afterward, the solicitor from the other party informed this student that the paperwork had a pretty big error. Thanks to this opposing lawyer, the entire case was thrown out.

When you’re in court, you have to be extremely careful about what you say. Let’s be honest; court stenographers are there to make note of everything everyone says. Plus, you’re surrounded by people who are incentivized to know absolutely everything — their paperwork, their technical terms, their witnesses, everything.

The district attorney in this story foolishly said that their opponent would win had they included a particular motion. Well, it turns out they had.

Here’s another legal story with a happy ending — this time based on a major bank trying to rip off a sick, elderly lady. Actually, let’s say a quasi-happy ending because unfortunately, the lady passed away before the case was settled.

Basically, a heroic lawyer sifted through over 200 boxes of documents in order to find an incriminating email that essentially admitted to financial crimes. Satisfyingly, the lawyer in question now controls the $10 million settlement he won, and the bankers in question are in jail.

There’s a story in the Bible about two women who both claimed that a baby was theirs. They went to King Solomon, and he suggested cutting it in half and giving each woman part of the child. One woman was happy with this, the other outraged. And so the mystery was solved, and the baby returned to its rightful parent.

Here we have something similar — except with a judge, and two restraining orders. The ex-girlfriend in question revealed herself by agreeing that they drop the whole thing.

The courtroom is a pretty serious place. It’s usually in an intimidating building, it comes with lots of procedures, and people must respect it and the laws that it represents. And, as we know, you can’t just say something in court and then expect it to be struck from the record. That just isn’t how it works.

In this Reddit post, a lawyer’s brother tells of a case where someone accidentally revealed the truth after years of lying. Needless to say, it didn’t turn out well — not for the person in question, at least.

It’s a tale as old as time — people claim that they’re injured and are due compensation, and then post incriminating pictures of themselves online. It seems so avoidable! It seems so thoughtless! And yet, we have story after story of this exact situation happening.

In this Reddit legal story, a person claimed severe neck or back pain due to a car crash and then proceeded to post pictures of them skiing. Come on, guys! It’s important to note, in this case, that lawyers can see your socials even if they’re on private.

And here we have another personal injury claim gone wrong (do any ever go right?). This time, someone claimed that they had a back injury, but lawyers suspected that they were lying. The lawyers hired a private investigator, and soon found out that their suspicions were correct.

The investigator returned with a video of the person in question, but that wasn’t the end of the story. Incredibly, the video showed the person playing softball with the opposing counsel. Wild!

Some types of law are tenser than others because they have higher stakes, or at least human stakes. Family law is one of those areas, as it sees disputes between parents, spouses, and other family members. In this case, a mother wanted to bar her children’s father from seeing them, but hampered herself by opening her big mouth.

This mother foolishly declared “I can’t force my children to do something they don’t want to do,” allowing the other lawyer to claim that she can’t control her kids.

To be honest with you, this story is pretty dark, so be prepared. This legal tale hinges on the fact that lawyers in this particular state can’t look at surveillance until after a deposition is taken. This means that people can’t adjust their story after watching footage of themselves.

Astoundingly, the people in this case had let an elderly woman slip and fall, and then put out wet floor signs after the fact. Not only that, but they mopped up around the lady before calling an ambulance. Outrageous!

Some people’s downfall is being organized while for others, it’s being too emotional. And then there are those, including the person in this legal story, that are just arrogant. You see, this person wanted to claim two years’ worth of back pay due to an injury. Seems reasonable enough, right?

Well, rather than accepting $60,000, this person just had to brag that they made much more, but left it off their tax forms. We can’t say we’re sympathetic.

This is a great story, but not so much for the poor attorney involved. Or, come to think of it, for the poor employee involved. Basically, an employee had to go to court in regards to a workplace injury. They weren’t able to answer basic questions, but everyone involved just thought that they were nervous.

Incredibly, it turned out that the employee had stolen her sister’s identity in order to get the job. More incredibly, the employee’s attorney didn’t seem to notice.

As we know, documents are a big deal in the world of law. It isn’t all exciting court cases and triumphant closing speeches in front of the jury. Despite what movies and TV tell us, many legal cases are won and lost based on paperwork. It may be boxes of documents, it could be lists of old emails — but somewhere amongst all that information — are the answers.

In this legal story, the defense attorney didn’t properly read the documents they passed onto the opposing team. Whoops.

This is a satisfying story, and it involves one pretty impressive engineer doctor. Many court cases involve expert witnesses. Legal teams bring them in so they can give the ins and outs of a particular situation, and fill in some of the blanks that a layman wouldn’t understand.

In this case, a doctor was explaining how an accident could cause back pain. However, his testimony was so precise that the opposition accused him of speaking like an engineer. As it turns out, he was.

We’re turning to Brazil for this story, which involves a legal situation with their military police. In this case, a lawyer was suing the Brazilian military police for brutality, but all the witnesses had been intimidated and weren’t willing to speak.

Here’s where things get interesting. Apparently, in Brazil, your paperwork is much more important than what goes down in court. The police must have missed that memo, because they only submitted one paragraph, and it completely incriminated them. Oh, well.

In some cases, people choose to represent themselves in court. This means that they don’t have a lawyer, and instead attempt to use the law to defend themselves. Sometimes this works out, and other times it doesn’t.

In this case, an employee was fired and spent a huge amount of time preparing to defend themselves. At the very beginning of the hearing, their employer stands up and gives incorrect information. As quickly as the case began, it ended, with some awkward silences to boot.

In this Reddit legal story, a traffic light went out and caused momentary chaos. The police were at the scene and gave out multiple traffic tickets, leading to several people contesting them in court. When in court, one of the police officers revealed that every single officer in their department was at the scene giving out tickets.

The judge correctly pointed out that one of them should have directed the traffic, rather than punishing people for being stuck in it.

We feel a tiny bit sorry for Brian, but then again, he’s a trained lawyer with a lawyer’s salary who isn’t very good at his job. So, maybe we don’t feel that sorry for him. Apparently, Brian is so notoriously bad at his job that he has lost four times in six years where he could have won. Losing is one thing, but losing when you could have won is another.

In this case, Brian entered evidence that was irrelevant and made his own client look incoherent.

We know that judges can get irritated if people don’t respect their court. If a lawyer checks their phone, they’re out. If a client keeps speaking without permission, they’re out. And, if people don’t understand what they’re doing, they’re out.

That’s what happened here, when an ex-girlfriend admitted to telling her ex-partner that her restraining order was dropped. Of course, this means that he couldn’t have violated it, and that the entire case was a waste of everyone’s time.

In this legal case, we have a man that sued the city because he was evicted from his public housing development. So far, so reasonable. However, the city argued that he was evicted because he was raising chickens in his apartment. Of course, his lawyer said that was absurd.

Everything was going well until someone mentioned that the chickens had been sent to a farm. Suddenly, the man in question leapt up in outrage, thus ruining his entire case.

The prosecution on this attempted murder case must have done a pretty terrible job. In fact, whatever they did was so awful that their opposition didn’t even have to speak.

Apparently, the person charged in this case maintained that they had shot someone because of self-defense. The opposition attorneys presented their case and instead of countering this argument, somehow verified that it definitely was self-defense. All in all, the jurors got to pack up and go home.

This legal story where the opponent completely messed up was all based on the notion of verbal agreements. Now, some countries, states, or jurisdictions will accept a verbal contract as legally binding, whereas others will not. The paralegal involved in this case clearly didn’t do their due diligence, and totally blew the case.

Not only did this person incorrectly claim that verbal contracts weren’t binding, but they also picked a fight with the judge! And all over vending machines.

As we’ve seen already, some people involved in legal disputes decide to represent themselves. In US law, this is known as “pro se,” and it’s becoming increasingly popular. Of course, in order to do this, you really need to know what you’re doing.

As this attorney points out on Reddit, most people wouldn’t do their own plumbing or perform surgery on themselves, so why would they think they could defend themselves in court? Lawyers go to school for this, guys!

Court cases can easily be lost when people don’t undertake the appropriate preparation. This doesn’t just mean reading up on expert subjects or looking at comparable cases. In this example, being prepared just means having an inventory.

This store owner would have been able to claim the value of what was stolen from him, if he could tell anyone what it was. We understand it’s annoying to list and photograph everything you own, but when you operate a business, maybe it would be a good idea.

This legal situation is clearly pretty dodgy from the get-go. Two people are involved in a car crash, and suddenly another driver appears and offers to act as a witness, even though they didn’t witness anything. Worse still, this other driver knows one of the people involved in the crash. That doesn’t seem quite right.

The witness proves themselves to be untrustworthy when they take the stand in court. They make two completely contradictory statements, and are instantly called out on it.

This is a long story, but trust us, it’s worth it. To begin with, someone’s neighbor complains that the fountain in their front yard is too loud. In response to this, the fountain owners put up walls around the filter, redid the pipes, and even called in a noise technician. Basically, they’re good, considerate neighbors. However, they still get slapped with a lawsuit.

When it comes to the hearing itself, the world’s worst neighbors revealed that they had been trespassing in order to take pictures of the fountain.

Here we have another pretty dark legal story that’s sure to have a revealing backstory. Sadly, a person cut off their fingers when chopping bamboo with a machete. Even more sadly, when they went to court in order to get compensation for the injury, it turned out they’d done it on purpose.

We have to assume that this person was in desperate need of cash. After all, why else would someone willingly mutilate themselves? We hope they’re ok!

We’ve already mentioned this, but it’s worth repeating — if you are claiming that you’re injured in order to receive compensation, do not post incriminating images on your social media. Even if your account is set to private, lawyers can subpoena your profile and get access to it through the platforms themselves.

The person in this legal anecdote was claiming severe whiplash, whilst posting images of herself lifting weights. She claimed she couldn’t travel, but then proceeded to post pics of her in Vegas. Girl, really?

Here we have a legal situation where the opposing counsel lost their case because they weren’t listening properly. Or perhaps because they couldn’t let something go. As we’ve seen already, it’s a good idea to think before you speak in court. It can be very beneficial to just keep your mouth shut and trust that things will fall into place.

That’s what happened here, when opposing counsel kept going on about something that had already been ruled on. Just by keeping quiet, this lawyer won.

Now, this is a satisfying legal story where a person’s opponent completely messed up. We’re back in family court, this time dealing with a messy divorce. Basically, a mother did everything she could to prevent the father of her children from having any custody or visitation rights.

Incredibly, just before it seemed like all was lost, the mother handed the judge a note and asked him to read it. Instantly, the judge apologized to the man for years of injustice, and the wife was cuffed.

And yet again we have someone that lost a case because they didn’t pay enough attention to the details. In this legal situation, opposing counsel literally sent a link to their contendors that disproved their own argument. Apparently, France has strict laws when it comes to construction work around their historical buildings. Makes sense.

However, the lawyers in question argued that someone’s house couldn’t be updated because it was visible from a bell tower. Ridiculously, their link proved just the opposite.

Sometimes, a lawyer doesn’t actually need to do that much in a hearing because their opposition can’t help but reveal themselves. That’s what happened here, in a case regarding a restraining order.

Basically, a woman got a restraining order against her husband because he was aggressive and violent. When they were at the hearing, she gave some examples of the types of threats he made towards her. Proving exactly who he was, her husband interrupted to threaten her once more.

In some legal situations, people really reveal who they are and what matters to them. In this bizarre case, someone’s mom’s ex-boyfriend took the family to small claims court to claim back any money he’d spent during the relationship. We’re not just talking luxury gifts here, but also cheeseburgers and Kit Kats. Get a grip, dude!

Thankfully, the judge recognized that this guy was ridiculous. After scolding him for thinking of a birthday cake as a loan, he dismissed the case.

Here we have another great story, which we particularly enjoy because it’s so ludicrous. Once upon a time, someone trips on a tree branch and sues the tree owners for their so-called serious injury. They arrive to court with photographs, hospital bills, and testimony on psychological damage. All in all, it looks like the tree-tripper will win.

Hilariously, when the tree-tripper’s lawyer asks the tree owners, “Is this your tree,” they reveal that it isn’t. They show a picture of their actual tree, and leave.

On occasion, a legal team’s strategy will be to overwhelm their opposition with tons of information. The theory is that if you dump hundreds of boxes of documents, or hundreds of hours of footage onto your opponents, then they won’t have the manpower, patience, or will to sift through everything in order to find evidence.

Of course, that’s exactly what plenty of lawyers take pride in doing. Haven’t these people seen Better Call Saul or Spotlight?

Here’s a top tip if you’re ever going into a courtroom — don’t try to dispute that you’ve done something when you’ve already been convicted of that crime. Hey, we aren’t lawyers, but it doesn’t seem like a great idea to argue that you would never do something when you’ve already been caught doing it.

In this legal story from Reddit, someone denied committing contract fraud. All the opposing lawyer had to do was hold up his prior conviction, and the argument was over.

Oh, we’ve learned it already, but people really must stop talking about fragile legal situations. As we can see from this example, even an off the cuff comment can lead to the downfall of an entire case.

Here, opposing counsel complained that their client had to go out of their way in order to retrieve some key documents. From that information alone, the opposition was able to figure out that the person in question wasn’t familiar with the documents and got them excluded from the case.

In the US, and in many other countries, a public defender is someone who defends people that can’t afford their own attorney. It’s a difficult job, and one full of ups and downs. In this legal scenario, a public defender was trying to argue that her client had his identification stolen, and that the thief committed the crime he was being charged with.

As it turns out, he was telling the truth, as the person that was robbed couldn’t identify the criminal in the courtroom. Hooray!

Surely, if you make it as far as a courtroom, you should have a more robust defense than just saying that you can’t find something. This is especially true if that something is the very subject being discussed in the courtroom.

In this case, we have a trucking company being sued for underpaying their workers. When pressed on the details, all the employers can say is that they haven’t seen the necessary documents for years. Not good enough.

This legal story is clearly unfair from the get-go. A person was driving their mom’s car and then got pulled over for playing loud music (is that a crime?), and then charged with possession of a controlled substance. The substance in question? His mother’s medication, in the car, with her name on it.

Ridiculously, this case makes it to court, where the district attorney declares it a “circumstantial evidence case.” Unfortunately for the D.A., legally this means the jury must acquit.

And finally, we have yet another person who puts their foot in their mouth, at the cost of a court case. In this legal quandary, a client claims that their previous lawyer didn’t do their job properly. Their new lawyers say that the previous counsel didn’t ask the right questions, and failed to communicate properly.

The previous lawyer then responds to say that he didn’t have time to prepare for the case. Wisely, the judge recognizes that this is the very definition of ineffective counsel.