Thread: -The Docket-

How Not to Defend Against A Disciplinary Complaint Filed With Your State Bar I know that the information contained in the link I provided is old. But, theres something important with regards to it that I wish to point out. Many people operate under the assumption that just because a lawyer has gone through the extra post-graduate level education that such a fact, in and of itself, means that the lawyer is per se a good professional. Unfortunately, that simply isnt the case, as the first attorney in this little article focuses Hes the one Im going to focus on, because his actions are fairly common, yet also extremely stupid. When it comes to the practice of law, it is very easy for clients to become disenfranchised with the entire process. Lawyers typically tell their clients not to take things personally, that its just business, or some other pre-prepared line of horse-shit thats supposed to make the client feel better about himherself. Well, Im going to be more honest here than most lawyers are with their clients. The truth is, clients necessarily take their legal actions seriously. They are personal, its an adversarial setting. Have you ever wondered why the highest law enforcement agent, and the highest ranking governmental litigator are both a general of sorts Attorney General, and Solicitor General respectively? In fact, the Solicitor General is frequently referred to as general by the judges. To answer this question, one needs to look back to the beginnings of American jurisprudence. Which has its roots primarily in England. However, in England itself theres another influence on the law. England was subject to all sorts of invasions. My mothers half of the family, being Danish, were a part of the initial Viking raids the raped and pillaged the Anglo-Saxons, who raped and pillaged the Picks and Celts, who raped and pillaged the land...so on and so forth. Anyway, the Danes established a sort of system in England, where the traditional population were to be judged by twelve Englishmen, or peers. The judge carried a hammer, which was the sign of the god Thor, thereby giving him the authority to sit in judgment or the entire proceeding. The litigators were of course warriors from the Danes, whom carried the task of recalling the tale of both sides in a case. In a sense, when the Normans took over, this role was taken over by knights of the Shire. The process continued to develop, to a point that the term General was associated with these higher ranks in the system, because it was considered militaristic in nature. Therefore, a courtroom is, in a very real sense a mental battlefield. Thus, to tell a client that its just business, is like telling a combat pilot Dont worry about that missile, its just an explosive device. Downplaying the importance of the fight makes no sense. Now, when the decks are against you, negotiation comes to the table. This is why criminal defense attorneys usually look for a deal. Its because most juries will eat the accused up alive. First off, hisher actions took them away from their usual mundane, and comfortable position. They despise this. Secondly, the prosecution possesses near limitless funds with which to pursue the case. Is this fair? No, but whoever said anything about life being fair? So, right off the bat, lawyers start off the representation process, on a bit of a lie. Then, when lawyers fail to keep communication with clients as far as Im concerned, this is a cardinal sin of lawyers. I go out of my way to stay in contact with clients, to the point where the clients either love me or hate me for it, but they can never claim I havent spoken with them, clients start to wonder what went wrong. Indeed, the most recent issue of the Texas Bar Journal stated that the number one cause of legal malpractice and legal ethics complaints result from poor communication by the lawyer to hisher client. Why on earth would this be the number one cause? It is not difficult to pick up a phone, attempt to contact the client on a daily basis. And, if you cant get a hold of the client that way, then send a letter to the most recent address on record, and establish a trail. Good God, covering your ass isnt all that difficult, it just takes a slim amount of effort. But, thats what leads to the fellow mentioned in the first part of this article. He filed an appeal against a disbarment ruling by a lower court...and didnt even file a brief explaining his arguments. What sort of a fuck-wit doesnt send a brief laying out the arguments for an appeal. This is not something the lawyer should be surprised about. Jesus-tap-dancing-Christ-on-a-pogo-stick! God I love that phrase! We learned about appellate briefs in the first year of law school. Our writing classes are devoted to the appellate brief for the first two semesters! I didnt learn how to write these long, snarky, sarcastic, comm-riddled, sentences which roll off the keyboard like a printing press smashing lettering into the pages of old books from writing childrens literature. I learned to write like this because they fucking ingrained the notion of fully explanatory writing for the purpose of an APPELLATE BRIEF! So, this asshat, who is seeking to save his livelihood cannot even put forth the effort to lay down his argument for the court? No wonder the Appellate Court through his case out. You cant just wander up to the court and not have an argument prepared and expect to win. If this idiot couldnt even take the effort to muster a defense for himself, Id sure hate to see how he represented his clients. I suppose the reason that I get so worked up over this issue, is because we lawyers swear an oath. That oath requires us to do the usual thingsuphold the Constitutions and laws of the land, to be fair, etc. But with respect to clients, we are not merely supposed to represent them, were supposed to ZEALOUSLY represent them. This guy gives the entire profession a bad name, as if we needed any help giving ourselves a bad name. Honestly, a fuckwit is a fuckwit but, a fuckwit with the power of financial life and death or, in some cases, actual life or death, is a dangerous thing. Lawyers must be held to a high standard of accountability. We handle such important matters for people, that it needs to matter as much to us, as it does to the client. I take this notion to heart when representing someone. Its why the ADAs all know and at times, loathe me. Even if my client is a no-good son-of-a-bitch, his freedom matters to him, and it damn well matters to me too! Yet, I have worked with attorneys who will let their client rot in jail for a month, failing to check on a felony case, because they dont give a damn. Ive reported attorneys like that, and not just me, other attorneys have as well. In the past attorneys never did anything like that reporting that is, but the nature of the beast has changed. Law is far more complex than it used to be, and there are more offenses now than ever, which will end someone up in the slammer. Thus, lawyers must be more diligent than ever, and we simply cannot tolerate idiocy among our ranks. Nevertheless, far too many idiots remain. The man who is the subject of my wrath here deserves to have lost his license. I cannot believe that he would have the gall to file an appeal without an argument. Thats insulting to the judge, to the prosecutor, who just got a whole new set of ammo to use against him in the future, and above all, to the tax-payers who have to pay for this mess. I use cases like this as a reminder of why I have taken due-diligence to heart!