|
Honestly, the formal rebuke on his record that permanently marks him as a fraud is far more damaging than the suspension, whether it's for one, three, or twelve months.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Honestly, the formal rebuke on his record that permanently marks him as a fraud is far more damaging than the suspension, whether it's for one, three, or twelve months. Also Law360 has Google hosed him. So it's easy to find even if you don't go looking for his discipline record.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 23:03
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:I mean he's basically committed career seppuku... A partner writing a reply brief is the most unbelievable part
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 23:20
|
|
|
Some genius in New Brunswick went one better by forging an appellate judgment after loving the dog on his clients' file for nearly six years: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2051/index.do From the SCC: The respondent lawyer was admitted to the New Brunswick Bar in 1984 and carried on a private law practice. In 1999, a complaint was filed against him by two of his clients. In 1993, the clients had sought the respondent’s legal advice with respect to their dismissal by their employer and gave him a small cash retainer to represent them for wrongful dismissal. For five and a half years, the respondent did nothing to advance the claims. To disguise his inattention to his clients’ interests, the respondent spun an elaborate web of deceit. He lied to his clients making it seem as if he was taking action on their behalf and placing the blame for delays on others. In response to persistent requests for information, the respondent gave his clients a forged decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal dealing with their case. Moreover, the respondent falsely told his clients that a contempt motion against the defendants was granted and that they had been awarded $19,000 and $18,000 respectively. He then invented significant delays and appeal periods that prevented his clients from collecting these sums. Finally, he admitted to his clients that the “whole thing was a lie”, at which time the clients filed a complaint with the Law Society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 23:32
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:A partner writing a reply brief is the most unbelievable part well, the partner wrote the reply brief after the incident where he let this associate write a brief, and then edited it, only to discover the associate filed it without ever showing it to him and only pretended to accept his edits so in that circumstance i wouldn't be giving him the first crack at the reply brief either 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Honestly, the formal rebuke on his record that permanently marks him as a fraud is far more damaging than the suspension, whether it's for one, three, or twelve months. Yeah, he can only really practice as a solo anymore. I had a case with like 11 parties and 5 law firms once (6 week jury trial, fuuuuck) where one of the lawyers had GONE TO FEDERAL PRISON for laundering money through his trust account back in the 90's and got his license reinstated and was practicing again, solo of course, (although very poorly) by 2010.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Yeah, he can only really practice as a solo anymore. Contemporaneously, highly qualified law graduates with spotless records at the time were being laid off, no-offered, and otherwise left to starve en masse. Very cool profession.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
The craziest attorney discipline case is probably Charna Johnson, Psychic Lawyer.quote:In the first phase, Respondent is alleged to have represented a client in a probate matter in the year 2000 involving the estate of the client’s deceased wife, while involved in a sexual/intimate relationship with the client, and also while Respondent claimed to be able to convey the thoughts of the deceased wife to the client.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 00:02
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:A partner writing a reply brief is the most unbelievable part lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
Someone who's been an associate for 20 years is kind of in a dead end of the profession, right? I can see a 1st year panicking, but only a seasoned vet would know how to forge all those paper trails.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 06:00
|
|
|
I am adverse to a newly elected partner at a big NYC firm, so I assume it’s evilweasel. How do I confirm?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Suck his dick. The model rules say you can't sleep with your client but are silent RE: OC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Tell us about it. It isn't funny, but basically Victoria's legal system is about to implode because it turns out a handful of criminal defence lawyers were acting as police informants, for those who've missed the story. Quoting myself but turns out it is also possibly happening in South Australia. Lol. Lmao.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 13:51
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I am adverse to a newly elected partner at a big NYC firm, so I assume it’s evilweasel. How do I confirm? if hes not staring at his phone 24/7, refreshing the Trump thread so often that he can't hold a normal human conversation, probably not EW
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 14:04
|
|
|
gvibes posted:I am adverse to a newly elected partner at a big NYC firm, so I assume it’s evilweasel. How do I confirm? are you in a large bankruptcy case where you've refused to speak to us for a month? if so then probably Soothing Vapors posted:if hes not staring at his phone 24/7, refreshing the Trump thread so often that he can't hold a normal human conversation, probably not EW they gassed the trump thread sadly
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:are you in a large bankruptcy case where you've refused to speak to us for a month? if so then probably Gonna be an awkward hearing. Kudos to the first one who trawls through OCs post history to present old shitposts to the court. evilweasel posted:they gassed the trump thread sadly Yeah very sad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 14:45
|
|
|
That report was great, thanks for sharing. Just... why not disbar at that point?gvibes posted:I am adverse to a newly elected partner at a big NYC firm, so I assume it’s evilweasel. How do I confirm? Send them a notice of request for stipulation of locus staire decisis. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Feb 8, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:https://twitter.com/Ugarles/status/1093539653230182400?s=19 I like how the guy put together an entire fake email chain to forward to the partner. Never trust real estate specialists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That report was great, thanks for sharing. Just... why not disbar at that point? Almost certainly because he admitted and because the interests of the clients weren't harmed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
disjoe posted:Never trust real estate specialists. Hey gently caress y... oh wait. thats right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
They had always been controlled through the hypnotic suggestion of the Senior Partners, and had modelled their tough plasticity into various useful temporary limbs and organs; but now their self-modelling powers were sometimes exercised independently, and in various imitative forms implanted by past suggestion. They had, it seems, developed a semi-stable brain whose separate and occasionally stubborn volition echoed the will of the Senior Partners without always obeying it. Sculptured images of these "real estate specialists" filled me with horror and loathing. They were normally shapeless entities composed of a viscous jelly which looked like an agglutination of bubbles; and each averaged about fifteen feet in diameter when a sphere. They had, however, a constantly shifting set of ethics and morals; throwing out fraudulent e-mail chains and filing fictitious reply briefs in imitation of their masters, either spontaneously or according to suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
Jesus. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
Shockingly the convicted murderer Tulane admitted to law school couldn't get an attorney job because he couldn't pass character & fitness. Now he struggles to make any kind of connection that doesn't involve criminal justice reform. Tulane got his money though! Everyone deserves another chance to take out loans so law schools can make money. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/business/bruce-reilly-murder-conviction-lawyer.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Shockingly the convicted murderer Tulane admitted to law school couldn't get an attorney job because he couldn't pass character & fitness. Now he struggles to make any kind of connection that doesn't involve criminal justice reform. You know why the NYT has no credibility with me? quote:Then He Graduated From an "Elite" Law School.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Yo thats interesting as poo poo though
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:35
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Shockingly the convicted murderer Tulane admitted to law school couldn't get an attorney job because he couldn't pass character & fitness. Now he struggles to make any kind of connection that doesn't involve criminal justice reform. Bruce also has...opinions on Kamala Harris. blarzgh posted:You know why the NYT has no credibility with me? $54,568 full-time tuition is top 26, so certainly "elite," even if the education isn't necessarily.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:39
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Shockingly the convicted murderer Tulane admitted to law school couldn't get an attorney job because he couldn't pass character & fitness. Now he struggles to make any kind of connection that doesn't involve criminal justice reform. Lol @ describing Tulane as an elite or exclusive institution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:42
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:You know why the NYT has no credibility with me? Because of this line: Two years later, when I was in New Orleans to give a talk, I arranged to meet Mr. Reilly for coffee. I was fascinated by how someone could live in two completely different worlds, one familiar to me, the other unimaginable. But as the appointment got closer, I started to worry. I had a daughter, a wife. Was it really such a good idea to schmooze with a murderer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
God I remember when that one broke out of the rumor mill. People were spooked.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Tulane is certainly elite compared to Loyola if you ask the dipshit jersey transplants that go there. I have conflicted feelings when I hear about shitheads on Broadway getting robbed. Tulane kids are a loving disease Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 02:45
|
|
|
I remember when that Tulane frat got busted for drugs and naturally they decided to destroy half the student papers reporting it. Loyola was good times. Also far more chill than Tulane.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 03:42
|
|
|
 , but with
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 04:32
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Quoting myself but turns out it is also possibly happening in South Australia. Lol. Lmao. This is extremely stupid, the Legal Fraternity there is way too loving small to think you could get away with this. edit: People were telling me about closed court matters that only 5 people were in the room for like, 3 days after they happened when I was in court at the time. Word gets around super fast in that city. algebra testes fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Feb 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 05:26
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Quoting myself but turns out it is also possibly happening in South Australia. Lol. Lmao. It would never even occur to me to break that trust. I have an innocent client in prison for the worst crime to be in prison for. I know he's innocent because another client confessed to the crime and to pinning the blame on the first guy. There's nothing I can do about in. And these chucklefucks are violating that same trust for money or a pat on the head by law enforcement!?! Is there a difference between the US and Australia in the default conception of the attorney-client relationship among the general public and among attorneys? Is it just another regulation, a technical, nit-picky encumbrance? Among the attorneys I know (granted, mostly crim law) it's a foundational, inviolable given.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 06:06
|
|
|
Briefly on the topic of thr NYT and credibility, I should mention their coverage of food safety, nutrition and food policy in general is horrific and drives a ton of pseudoscience, all the way up to bad federal food policies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 07:51
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Is there a difference between the US and Australia in the default conception of the attorney-client relationship among the general public and among attorneys? Is it just another regulation, a technical, nit-picky encumbrance? Among the attorneys I know (granted, mostly crim law) it's a foundational, inviolable given. Well it now sounds like the original lawyer who kicked the whole thing off was found with a trafficable quantity of drugs in her sharehouse while she was still a law student. She was never prosecuted for this, and I saw a quote from someone who presumably knows her who said he thought at the time it was weird that charges weren't bought. It's not impossible the other cases started in a similar way, I suppose. Self-interest is a powerful beast. I think the crimes involved also play a factor. It sounds like the original lawyer was working a lot in organised crime. My understanding is that before the '90s, organised crime (in Victoria) was kept more or less behind closed doors. Then in the '90s, there were a few very high profile shootings and violent incidents, in which non-affiliated people got injured. The public (and probably police) sentiment was essentially "do whatever the hell you like to each other, just leave us out of it". The police were under a lot of pressure to contain things, and I think there was a prevailing general mentality of "gently caress the mobs, all's fair if they're shooting people on the streets, let's end this poo poo". I definitely think that lawyers would care more about client privilege than the average non-legal person, especially if you asked them about it in the context of Carl Williams or Tony Mokbel or whoever. Also, it might just be confirmation bias, but I know a few police officers, and I can't think of a single one who would say "no, don't tell me this privileged information, your client's privacy and the underlying principle is far more important than my interests". I mean it's also possible the lawyer found out about genuinely bad poo poo happening and decided "gently caress it, greater good, to hell with this client, they need to be put away". I was born in '94 though, so AT or anyone else feel free to comment if I'm talking out of my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 07:52
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It would never even occur to me to break that trust. I have an innocent client in prison for the worst crime to be in prison for. I know he's innocent because another client confessed to the crime and to pinning the blame on the first guy. There's nothing I can do about in. And these chucklefucks are violating that same trust for money or a pat on the head by law enforcement!?! That's innocence at stake exception if it's as you described
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 08:40
|
|
|
http://canlii.ca/t/51tj
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
This allows a judge to violate the ACR. (and carries use immunity) Does it also allow the attorney to initiate the violation of their ACR with their own client? (I don't think we have either of those exceptions in the states, at least not in mine)
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
I had a chief federal judge have his/her clerk call me and ask for privileged information. I told the clerk that I wasn’t going to share information about alleged crimes with the federal judiciary. Fast forward to a 30 minute show-cause hearing in which the judge accused me of all sorts of things and finally ordered me to provide the information. Under the Texas rules of professional ethics, if ordered by a court, information must be provided. Attorney/Client privilege is dying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2019 18:00
|
|
