Keepbloxburgsafe v AerospaceEnjoyer 2025 Civ 28
keepbloxburgsafe v AerospaceEnjoyer [2025] Civ 28
| Alternative title | bbcuba_ v. busiedcomb |
| Date of judgment | 14th October 2025 |
| Judge | Judge Creative |
| Grounds |
|
| Verdict | D held liable for Legal Malpractice |
| Result |
|
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Creative
Jurisdiction
[1] The Court affirms that it possesses jurisdiction to hear and determine the present matter. Pursuant to Article 16 of the Civil Code, this Court is competent to adjudicate civil claims and all issues arising thereunder.
Considerations
On Summary Judgment
[2] In the case before this Court the plaintiff represented by Attorney Ppatpat presented a motion for summary judgment. The Courtroom Procedures Act provides that for a Summary Judgment to be considered in civil cases, the plaintiff (or alternatively the defendant) must satisfy three criteria.
- (a) made out a case, prima facie, against the defendant;
- (b) shown that the defendant has no possible defense to the case; and,
- (c) shown that there is no arguable issue or question for the defendant.
[3] In the motion and subsequent submissions surrounding this question the plaintiff, in this Court’s opinion, satisfied the criteria put forth by the Courtroom Procedures Act. Properly identifying that there is a case “at first sight” in consideration that the plaintiff presented enough evidence for the burden of proof to be shifted to the other party to present evidence to counter that presented by the plaintiff.
[4] On the matter of whether the defendant has no possible defense, the plaintiff demonstrated that neither necessity nor consent is applicable. Evidencing that they had not consented to the concession of an element of liability made by the defendant in the case underlying this one.
[5] Nor can a case be made for necessity. An attorney’s act of conceding an element of liability without apparent consultation or consideration with their client cannot, in this Court’s imagination, be characterized as necessary to prevent a greater harm. It is a fundamental part in legal representation that an attorney must represent their client to the fullest extent permitted by law; conceding an element of liability bears no resemblance, for example, to reporting a client who is planning to commit a criminal act which could be necessary to prevent a greater harm.
[6] On the last matter, though argumentation was rather short, the material facts are not in dispute, “appointment; the verbatim concession; the client’s immediate objection; the absence of any evidence of client instruction.” Nor was there any arguable issue or question raised by the defense to take down this criteria.
On Legal Malpractice
[7] The plaintiff originally asserted two distinct causes of action arising from the alleged facts in the civil complaint: first, a statutory tort under Article 29 of the Civil Code for Breach of Civil Rights; and second, a proposed common law tort styled as “Legal Malpractice.”
[8] In the Court’s view, the allegations set out in the civil complaint and motion for summary judgment are properly characterized as arising under the proposed common law tort styled as “Legal Malpractice.” The plaintiff’s own formulation of the cause of action,“Upon appointment, a legal representative owes a duty to exercise the care and skill of a reasonably competent advocate, an obligation that coheres with and gives practical effect to the constitutional fair-hearing and counsel guarantees”, indicates that the claim is grounded in professional negligence rather than a breach of civil rights under Article 29 of the Civil Code.
[9] In this manner, the Court defines the proposed tort of “Legal Malpractice” as the breach by a legal representative of the duty to exercise the care, skill, and diligence of a reasonably competent advocate, resulting in harm to the client, whether through negligence, omission, or intentional misconduct in the course of representation.
On Liability
[10] Pursuant to Article 17 of the Civil Code, the applicable burden of proof in civil proceedings is the balance of probabilities defined as, whether the alleged facts are more likely true than false. Under this standard, the Court shall determine whether liability attaches to the defendant for the tort herein defined.
[11] Under the alleged facts that the plaintiff brings to this Court the defendant, busiedcomb (AerospaceEnjoyer) under user ID 854074851752804363, is alleged to have, through negligence in the exercise of their duty of care and diligence, committed acts amounting to legal malpractice.
[12] The plaintiff contends that the defendant breached this duty by conceding elements of liability adverse to the plaintiff’s interest without instruction and without first testing the prosecution’s evidence, thereby falling below the standard expected of a reasonably competent advocate. On the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff argues that this breach caused foreseeable detriment, including stress and anxiety, reputational and social burden, loss of a litigation opportunity, and added time expenditure.
[13] As presented to this Court, during the proceedings forming the cause of action in this matter, the defendant stated, “I agree with the Prosecution; however, I feel as though this is the only ToS violation,” thereby conceding an element of liability. The plaintiff immediately objected, responding, “like bro you’re my defense lawyer what.” It is around this exchange that the plaintiff’s claim under the proposed tort of Legal Malpractice arises.
[14] As such, under the evidence presented before this Court, and as a consequence of the granting of summary judgment pursuant to the three criteria set forth by Article 18 §1 of the Courtroom Procedures Act, the Court accepts as established that the defendant made the concession attributed to them, that such concession was made without instruction or consent of the plaintiff, and that it constituted a breach of the duty of care and diligence owed by a reasonably competent advocate to their client.
On Escrow
[15] Given that the plaintiff is permanently banned from r/SimDemocracy and its associated servers, the question arises as to whether such status extinguishes their rights and obligations. On this matter, this Court has previously ruled, in a prior motion to dismiss brought by the Defendant, that although bbcuba_ (keepbloxburgsafe) is banned, their rights and obligations arising while a member of r/SimDemocracy do not cease to exist by virtue of that ban.
[16] However, due to the plaintiff’s permanent ban from r/SimDemocracy and its associated servers, any damages awarded under this judgment cannot be directly transferred to them. In light of the plaintiff’s lack of present capacity to exercise rights within SimDemocracy, the awarded sum shall be held in escrow under the custody of the Treasury of SimDemocracy, pending a future determination by a higher authority of a lawful beneficiary or mode of disposition.
On Damages
[17] Pursuant to Article 19 §9 of the Civil Code, this Court retains discretion to determine remedies and damages according to its best professional judgment, within the bounds set by legislation and in proportion to the tort committed. The plaintiff seeks total damages of 25,000 tau, together with declaratory relief, a professional injunction, and restrictions on the defendant’s use of their handles and likeness for commercial purposes.
[18] The defense has argued that the requested relief is grossly disproportionate, amounting to over sixty percent of the national budget and exceeding three years of the defendant’s income, thereby violating Article 22 §5 of the Constitution, which prohibits punishments that are cruel, unusual, or grossly unproportional to the conduct in question. The defense further contends that granting such an award would effectively impose financial servitude upon the defendant and that no evidence supports damages of such magnitude for the alleged harms.
[19] The Court finds the argument persuasive. While the tort of legal malpractice, as recognized herein, may give rise to compensable injury, including stress, reputational and social burden, loss of litigation opportunity, and added time cost, those harms do not justify an award of the scale sought.
[20] Accordingly, the Court holds that the plaintiff’s claim for 25,000 tau in damages is inconsistent with the principles of fairness and proportionality mandated by Article 19 §9 of the Civil Code and Article 22 §5 of the Constitution. The Court will therefore determine a reduced amount proportionate to the harm established in this case.
Decision
[21] Upon consideration of the pleadings, evidence, and arguments presented, the Court finds that while the Defendant’s conduct, as established on the balance of probabilities, constitutes negligence amounting to Legal Malpractice as defined herein, the Court therefore finds the Defendant liable for the tort of Legal Malpractice.
[22] The Court finds that an award of 25,000 Tau would amount to a grossly excessive and unconstitutional remedy. Pursuant to Article 19 §9 of the Civil Code, and exercising the Court’s discretion to impose remedies fair and proportional to the tort committed, damages are hereby fixed at 5,000 Tau, representing compensation for the stress, reputational and social burden, and loss of opportunity sustained by the Plaintiff.
[23] As the Plaintiff is permanently banned from r/SimDemocracy and associated servers, any sum awarded under this judgment shall be held in escrow under the custody of the Treasury of SimDemocracy, pending lawful determination by a higher authority of a beneficiary or mode of disposition.
[24] The Defendant is further required to pay compensation for attorney’s fees in the amount of 1,500 Tau to the Plaintiff, representing a reasonable contribution to the costs incurred in the preparation and filing of this action. This sum will be granted to the Attorney of the plaintiff at the most opportune time.
[25] Declaratory relief is hereby granted, affirming that the Defendant’s conduct constituted Legal Malpractice as defined and recognized and defined by this Court.
[26] All other remedies sought by the Plaintiff, limited to the transfer or licensing of the Defendant’s handles, commercial restrictions, and broader injunction, are denied as either disproportionate to the tort established, or inconsistent with constitutional guarantees under Article 22 §5 of the Constitution. The Court finds that such remedies would exceed the bounds of fairness and proportionality mandated by Article 19 §9 of the Civil Code.