Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

AZlawyer said:

No, attorneys don't have to withdraw due to poverty. But he might be allowed to withdraw if he says that the case has become an extreme financial hardship for him.

Click to expand...

Katprint said:

I have been know to cite the "involuntary servitude" prohibition contained in the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in support of my motion(s) to withdraw.

In California, the appellate courts have repeatedly held that attorneys cannot be forced to work for free and can invoke the protections of the Thirteenth Amendment. http://www.metnews.com/sos/1003/H025600.PDF In other states, invoking the Thirteenth Amendment may just make the judge angry. http://www.lenconnect.com/news/x436985863/Attorney-s-quip-angers-judge I have no idea what would happen in Florida with Judge Perry.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Click to expand...

nums24 said:

Would this apply in relation to JB's motions filed related to Robin Lunceford? Thank you!

6.1 FALSE STATEMENTS, FRAUD, AND MISREPRESENTATION

Absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and upon application of the factors set out in Standard 3.0, the following sanctions are generally appropriate in cases involving conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice or that involves dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation to a court:

6.11 Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer:
(a) with the intent to deceive the court, knowingly makes a false statement or submits a false document; or
(b) improperly withholds material information, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a party, or causes a significant or potentially significant adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

6.12 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knows that false statements or documents are being submitted to the court or that material information is improperly being withheld, and takes no remedial action.

6.13 Public reprimand is appropriate when a lawyer is negligent either in determining whether statements or documents are false or in taking remedial action when material information is being withheld.

6.14 Admonishment is appropriate when a lawyer is negligent in determining whether submitted statements or documents are false or in failing to disclose material information upon learning of its falsity, and causes little or no actual or potential injury to a party, or causes little or no adverse or potentially adverse effect on the legal proceeding.

Click to expand...

logicalgirl said:

This from a recent post of Nums24 on todays news:

"An amendment went into effect this month in Florida that bans judges from appointing attorneys where an indigent client has already retained and paid a lawyer. Experts said the idea is to prevent a private attorney from pulling out once a client’s money runs out."

So now we know JB can't quit even if he wanted to. As long as ICA agrees to HHJP's question that she is happy with the representation of her legal team, can JB carry in his anything goes mishmash defense without worrying about getting removed from the case. I recall you saying nothing he has done even closely rises to the level of disbarment. So he can just carry on even though the whole legal community seems to be shaking their heads in disbelief every time he busts a move?

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

He's a doofus, but unfortunately there are quite a few doofuses out there practicing law. JB is not anywhere close to getting kicked off the case, disbarred, etc.

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

IMO JB will say "I misremembered," and he will lose nothing more than his credibility with HHJP (assuming he had any).

Click to expand...

nums24 said:

If he is "misremembering" then why is he filing supplemental motions and responses to the State? Why is he so adamant about getting his voice redacted from the calls? :waitasec:

Thank you!

Click to expand...

nums24 said:

How about this rule, would it apply to the Robin Lunceford calls?:

RULE 4-4.1 TRUTHFULNESS IN STATEMENTS TO OTHERS

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by rule 4-1.6.
Comment

Misrepresentation

A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see rule 4-8.4.

http://www.floridabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.nsf/FV/93092C63E3C334B785257171006AAC0F

Thank you!

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

Same answer as before--it could apply, but instead IMO JB will make a lame excuse about misremembering and nothing exciting will happen re: his law license.

Click to expand...

nums24 said:

Is it proper for an attorney representing a defense witness to visit the defendant in prison? I am referring to Atty. Moss who represents Mr. Kronk's former roommate (B. Wright), Moss went to visit ICA on 7/2/2010 for about an hour. The defense deposed Wright on 7/12/10. On 7/19/10 the State filed a cancellation of deposition as the witness was on a boat and not available.

Something just does not seem right. Thank you!

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

An attorney for a witness could not contact KC except through her attorney (JB), and JB would never have allowed this other attorney to meet with KC alone. Now, if JB or CM or someone else from the defense "team" was there as well, I would say they were meeting with this other attorney to discuss plans for how his client could help KC's defense.

Click to expand...

Kentjbkent said:

Read an interesting book, coincidentally authored by Diane Fanning this weekend and it got me wondering.....:waitasec:

So, TWO hypothetical questions....

1. Is it possible this case could end with a similar No Contest plea for similar reasons as stated above?

2. Do you think Baez reads Diane Fanning books?!!! :dance:

Click to expand...

1. While Judge Perry has the discretion to accept a No Contest plea, he has no discretion to reject a Guilty plea. But even if he accepted he No Contest plea, he could not sentence her because she is facing the death penalty (unless state agreed to waive DP in exchange for open No Contest plea - technically this is a form of a plea agreement. If no agreement though, case would proceed to penalty phase where a jury would still be empaneled to decide life or death.
2. No.

rhornsby said:

1. While Judge Perry has the discretion to accept a No Contest plea, he has no discretion to reject a Guilty plea. But even if he accepted he No Contest plea, he could not sentence her because she is facing the death penalty (unless state agreed to waive DP in exchange for open No Contest plea - technically this is a form of a plea agreement. If no agreement though, case would proceed to penalty phase where a jury would still be empaneled to decide life or death.
2. No.

Click to expand...

rhornsby said:

1. While Judge Perry has the discretion to accept a No Contest plea, he has no discretion to reject a Guilty plea. But even if he accepted he No Contest plea, he could not sentence her because she is facing the death penalty (unless state agreed to waive DP in exchange for open No Contest plea - technically this is a form of a plea agreement. If no agreement though, case would proceed to penalty phase where a jury would still be empaneled to decide life or death.
2. No.

Click to expand...