Don’t is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

P.S. “Maryland would have disbarred these clowns.” [@BruceGodfrey]

N.Y.: “P.I. Lawyers Are Suspended for Encouraging Client to Lie” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

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.

Manhattan attorney admits “addiction to lying” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Lawyers roundup is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“Lawyers Intentionally Inflicting Emotional Distress” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Update: Foreclosing his options is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Lawyer suspended for advising clients to break into foreclosed homes is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

What it takes to get disbarred in Vermont is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Prosecutor’s hitting on crime victim is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

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.”

Illegal fee-splitting, “outrageous” courtroom behavior is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system