When representing the leader of a violent sect, don’t smuggle out of jail purportedly personal papers that in fact contain your client’s alleged hit list of witnesses, then lie to investigators about it [Lorna Brown, recommended for a two-year suspension, KTVU, Contra Costa Times; a disciplinary judge recommended against disbarment because Brown, who had represented Yusuf Bey IV of the notorious Your Black Muslim Bakery, “eventually admitted what she did and expressed remorse,” did not appear to realize the papers’ contents, and lacked a prior disciplinary record] In a character letter, “veteran Oakland criminal defense attorney James Giller, a former president of the Alameda County Bar Association, told the judge” that Brown has an excellent reputation: “She may have made a mistake but we all do that. We all screw up.” [Berkeley Patch] More: Ted Frank.
Posts Tagged ‘discipline’
N.Y.: “P.I. Lawyers Are Suspended for Encouraging Client to Lie”
“Two Fordham University law school classmates who set up a law practice together a few years after graduating are now both facing nine-month suspensions for pursuing a fraudulent personal injury case.” Daniel Levy and Shane Rios represented a woman who claimed to have slipped in front of a Yonkers church; when they investigated the sidewalks, they found no problem with the church’s, but did find a trip hazard in front of a house across the street. They advised her that she would have a winning case only against the homeowner, not the church, and she changed her story accordingly. They proceeded to conceal the original stance of the case both from the court and from a third lawyer they brought in to help. To the New York courts, this misconduct merited a suspension only of nine months. [ABA Journal, New York Law Journal]
P.S. “Maryland would have disbarred these clowns.” [@BruceGodfrey]
Manhattan attorney admits “addiction to lying”
A judicial panel has given Nathaniel Weisel a nine-month suspension for his sins. Perhaps because it is too clear that not all addictions go away in nine months, Weisel (besides the suspension) was ordered to take the ethics portion of the bar exam and ‘appropriately address his pathological behavior’ prior to his reinstatement.” [Andrew Keshner, New York Law Journal; Jessica Dye, Reuters] The pathological behavior, as described by NYLJ, included the following:
In September 2009, a client of Weisel asked him to start a civil action, which he did not do. To assure the client the matter was being addressed, Weisel created a fraudulent settlement agreement, fictional index number, caption and settlement amount. He randomly chose an opposing counsel and forged his signature on the document. The fabrication was not filed in court. Before the client discovered the settlement had been fabricated, Weisel filed a valid Small Claims action. After the purportedly opposing counsel learned his signature had been forged, Weisel wrote him an apology and said he acted to give himself more time to properly file the action.
Lawyers roundup
- Feds investigating prominent Texas attorney and many-time Overlawyered mentionee Mikal Watts [MySanAntonio via PoL]
- Florida high court: lawyers not privileged to defame parties during informal witness questioning [Delmonico v. Traynor]
- Client’s story: not only did attorney try to kill me, he also gave me bad advice [Lowering the Bar]
- Some lawyers for city of Cleveland seek union representation, following municipal attorneys in S.F., D.C. and Houston [Cleveland Plain Dealer]
- Watch what you say about lawyers, part CLXXVI [NYLJ, “shakedown”]
- Former ATLA president Barry Nace fights disciplinary proceeding in W.V. [Chamber-backed WV Record]
- Minnesota lawyer who billed client for time he spent having sex with her won’t be allowed to practice for more than a year [TheLawNet, earlier on this candidate for “ultimate Overlawyered story”]
- Should she take the job offer from an apparently unethical attorney? If she has to ask… [Elie Mystal, Above the Law]
“Lawyers Intentionally Inflicting Emotional Distress”
Imagine how it would change the practice of litigation if lawyers could be held answerable for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on opponents, witnesses or third parties. Of course that’s not going to happen, since our legal profession is quite good at immunizing itself from exposure to liability for the same sorts of injuries that it sues over when inflicted by others. In this SSRN paper (via Robinette, TortsProf), Alex Long of the University of Tennessee proposes a presumption that lawyers’ behavior is “extreme and outrageous,” a precondition of IIED liability, if they could get disbarred for it.
Update: Foreclosing his options
Lawyer suspended for advising clients to break into foreclosed homes
Pending further disciplinary action, the State Bar of California suspended the right to practice of Michael Pines, whose exploits had garnered considerable press attention [Amanda Bronstad, NLJ; earlier here and here]
What it takes to get disbarred in Vermont
Misleading investigators about the circumstances of your hit-run won’t do it, apparently. The lawyer in question has served as a traffic court judge. [Legal Profession Blog, ABA Journal, Randazza]
Prosecutor’s hitting on crime victim
“Inappropriate but did not amount to misconduct?” Really? [Crime and Federalism, Journal Sentinel; Calumet County, Wisconsin]
Illegal fee-splitting, “outrageous” courtroom behavior
They’ve contributed to a recommended three-year suspension for San Francisco attorney Philip Kay. “Kay rose to fame with the Baker & McKenzie suit, earning him a reputation as the go-to plaintiff lawyer for sexual harassment suits.” [Mike McKee/The Recorder, California Civil Justice]
More: Via a commenter, this is said to be the official statement released by the office of Philip Edward Kay:
“This decision admits it used default, as punishment, in violation of Business & Professions Code §6068(i), because I asserted constitutional and statutory rights of attorney client privilege and work product before answering questions, and demanded the right to have these issues heard and determined by an article VI court of general jurisdiction to determine whether the questions sought privileged information, pursuant to State Bar Rules. The State Bar Court did this knowingly to allow the Office of Chief Trial Counsel the ability to lie about what the Superior Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court found in their orders and opinions regarding these important civil rights cases.
In these matters, only after the trial judges were reversed on appeal and disqualified, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§170, et seq., did they claim misconduct. So, either these judges lied in their orders denying misconduct, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §657(1) – “irregularities in the proceedings,” OR they lied in their testimony in the State Bar trial. This will create an uncertain and chilling effect by allowing unfit and disgruntled judges to lie about the record and impugn lawfully obtained civil rights verdicts, which have been upheld by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. The State Bar Court has allowed these disqualified judges to attack and undermine the very verdicts, which, they could not touch in the trial court under statutory and case law in California.”