Invoice for the Defense for Work Performed

[cyberborg]

I was once told that 'free' is relative. The client wants it for FREE and the service provider wants a FEE. We are arguing about a little 'R'.

While these new attorney's are offering their 'services' for free my understanding is that is their time ... not their 'expenses' and 'costs' incurred in using 'services'.

So while the term 'pro bono' is used to suggest the attorney is donating time ... there is still an increasing real cost to the State of Florida. Correct?

 

[nums24]

I was once told that 'free' is relative. The client wants it for FREE and the service provider wants a FEE. We are arguing about a little 'R'.

While these new attorney's are offering their 'services' for free my understanding is that is their time ... not their 'expenses' and 'costs' incurred in using 'services'.

So while the term 'pro bono' is used to suggest the attorney is donating time ... there is still an increasing real cost to the State of Florida. Correct?

I think indirectly there is a cost to the State, because the new attorneys may be generating additional work for the prosecution by way of filing motions, etc., but the JAC would have to approve these new attorneys and I don't see that happening.

 

[cyberborg]

I think indirectly there is a cost to the State, because the new attorneys may be generating additional work for the prosecution by way of filing motions, etc., but the JAC would have to approve these new attorneys and I don't see that happening.

I agree. But also there are expenses and costs in performing their work. I would think that the Baez Law Firm are going to pass all those onto the State and not have the pro bono attorney or himself absorb them?

 

[countzero]

I think indirectly there is a cost to the State, because the new attorneys may be generating additional work for the prosecution by way of filing motions, etc., but the JAC would have to approve these new attorneys and I don't see that happening.

Exactly what I said, different words but same meaning, back on the conference thread, now closed.

It simply amazes me after HHJP was very specific that he wanted advance notice prior to JB passing "info" to the media. Now I don't know if this falls under that request by HHJP, but I am sure any change in the defense representation would require not only HHJP giving his authorization as well as JAC requiring signed contracts with anyone new working for or with the defense team.

What a way for HHJP to start his week.

 

[nums24]

Exactly what I said, different words but same meaning, back on the conference thread, now closed.

It simply amazes me after HHJP was very specific that he wanted advance notice prior to JB passing "info" to the media. Now I don't know if this falls under that request by HHJP, but I am sure any change in the defense representation would require not only HHJP giving his authorization as well as JAC requiring signed contracts with anyone new working for or with the defense team.

What a way for HHJP to start his week.

I completely agree with you CountZero! Especially BBM!

 

[cyberborg]

Maybe the strategy is, since there is a DP charge from the SA that has 'ruined' everything for JB given the additional time needed and not enough money .... JB is both trying to make the State pay and then some ... as well as having these folks do all of the grunt work while he rides along? JB is going to play and the SA (JAC) is going to pay.

 

[Numbers]

I agree. But also there are expenses and costs in performing their work. I would think that the Baez Law Firm are going to pass all those onto the State and not have the pro bono attorney or himself absorb them?

From JAC Post-Hearing Memorandum (March 18, 2010), p. 18

"2. Attorney shall not bill for overhead services including expenses associated with computerized research services such as Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis. Attorney shall not bill for purchase of office equipment, office supplies, clothing, personal items, haircuts, manicures, or other such personal services for the client."

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/36596270/03192010-JAC-Post-Hearing-Memorandum

Baez is SOL on his costs.

 

[AZlawyer]

Exactly what I said, different words but same meaning, back on the conference thread, now closed.

It simply amazes me after HHJP was very specific that he wanted advance notice prior to JB passing "info" to the media. Now I don't know if this falls under that request by HHJP, but I am sure any change in the defense representation would require not only HHJP giving his authorization as well as JAC requiring signed contracts with anyone new working for or with the defense team.

What a way for HHJP to start his week.

I don't believe that HHJP ever said anything like that. I believe he said he wanted copies of things as soon as they were filed, however, which might have been a slam at JB's practice of sending things to the media before he sent them to the judge.

 

[countzero]

Exactly what I said, different words but same meaning, back on the conference thread, now closed.

It simply amazes me after HHJP was very specific that he wanted advance notice prior to JB passing "info" to the media. Now I don't know if this falls under that request by HHJP, but I am sure any change in the defense representation would require not only HHJP giving his authorization as well as JAC requiring signed contracts with anyone new working for or with the defense team.

What a way for HHJP to start his week.

I don't believe that HHJP ever said anything like that. I believe he said he wanted copies of things as soon as they were filed, however, which might have been a slam at JB's practice of sending things to the media before he sent them to the judge.

That is what amazed me, that JB was splitting hairs. JB introducing these new attorneys before HHJP was told by way of legal notice being put into the case files and HHJP reviewing it. Now, granted we don't know for sure that HHJP wasn't informed prior to JBs media announcement. But this wasn't something out of character for JB to do either.

Agree about the slam of JBs practice.

 

[sleutherontheside]

AFAIK.....if the new counsel is pro bono....no prior "approval" is needed. As far as the JAC taking issues with increased costs for the State...The JAC can NOT limit motions on behalf of an indigent client.

HHJP stated that he would rule on motions within 15 days. Not EVERY motion filed by the defense will require a ton of work for the State. Some motions (as His Honor explained) may be filed only to preserve the appeals process.

 

[countzero]

My memory from the hearing where HHJP went name by name with JB and what their purpose was and how much work had been completed and how much needed to be done. This included all individuals working on or for the defense .... including JB.

JB had refused to name a couple of individuals and HHJP gave him a pass on naming them. But I remember HHJP being very specific with JB; he wasn't giving him a blank check or everything he asked for.

Then there was the invoice for a depo reporter who hadn't signed a JAC contract, but did afterwards. So we do know JAC is keeping a very close watch on ICA's defense expenditures.

What I got from the hearing was HHJP gives an hour/dollar amount the defense team can use and JAC compares the submitted invoices to what HHJP has approved. I guess what I am confused with is does JB have to file notice with HHJP to bring anyone else on the team to receive payment from JAC. I thought so, maybe I was wrong.

 

[beach]

From JAC Post-Hearing Memorandum (March 18, 2010), p. 18

"2. Attorney shall not bill for overhead services including expenses associated with computerized research services such as Westlaw and Lexis/Nexis. Attorney shall not bill for purchase of office equipment, office supplies, clothing, personal items, haircuts, manicures, or other such personal services for the client."

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/36596270/03192010-JAC-Post-Hearing-Memorandum

Baez is SOL on his costs.

BBM

I can assure you that Westlaw & Lexis are NOT cheap. And currently, they are very necessary. I just can't see JB or CM hanging out at the law library pulling books and pocket parts the old fashioned way.

Heck, what am I talking about?! The last time they cited case law at a hearing they used a case they had been overturned! That means they didn't even run a cite check or Shepard it (legal terms for checking to see if the law is still good before you profusely embarrass yourself by using it). :rotfl:
I cannot adequately express how lazy and irresponsible a silly mistake like that is.

 

[Numbers]

BBM

I can assure you that Westlaw & Lexis are NOT cheap. And currently, they are very necessary. I just can't see JB or CM hanging out at the law library pulling books and pocket parts the old fashioned way.

Heck, what am I talking about?! The last time they cited case law at a hearing they used a case they had been overturned! That means they didn't even run a cite check or Shepard it (legal terms for checking to see if the law is still good before you profusely embarrass yourself by using it). :rotfl:
I cannot adequately express how lazy and irresponsible a silly mistake like that is.

Maybe Baez gets a discount for being a former Lexis/Nexis salesman/teacher. Nevertheless, JAC ain't payin' for them apples.

 

[nums24]

Jeremiah Lyons JAC Payment Update:


Object: PERSONAL SRVCS-INDP CONTR ~ INVESTIGATIVE FEES
Vendor: JEREMIAH LYONS INVESTIGATIONS

07/27/2010 D1000033834 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 1,125.00
08/09/2010 D1000066497 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 760.00
09/14/2010 D1000132362 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 1,380.00
09/28/2010 D1000166184 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 2,080.00
09/29/2010 D1000169274 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 1,200.00

Total 6,545.00

http://www.transparencyflorida.gov/...Type=O&Vend=JEREMIAH+LYONS+INVESTIGATIONS&M=Y

 

[nanny1]

I really am curious what JB spent the original $300,000.00 on. It appears that he is just starting to do a little work and I use the term work loosely !!!:croc:

 

[Numbers]

Jeremiah Lyons JAC Payment Update:


Object: PERSONAL SRVCS-INDP CONTR ~ INVESTIGATIVE FEES
Vendor: JEREMIAH LYONS INVESTIGATIONS

07/27/2010 D1000033834 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 1,125.00
08/09/2010 D1000066497 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 760.00
09/14/2010 D1000132362 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 1,380.00
09/28/2010 D1000166184 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 2,080.00
09/29/2010 D1000169274 JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION 1,200.00

Total 6,545.00

http://www.transparencyflorida.gov/...Type=O&Vend=JEREMIAH+LYONS+INVESTIGATIONS&M=Y

160.5 hours

4 weeks of work in 5 months.

 

[Dear Prudence]

160.5 hours

4 weeks of work in 5 months.

Can you help me out? I don't see the amount of hours anywhere.

 

[Numbers]

Can you help me out? I don't see the amount of hours anywhere.

For the bill submitted in July (work performed in June), he was paid $45 per hour. Divide $1125 by $45 to find the number of hours = 25 hours.

For all other bills, he was paid $40 per hour. Subtract the July amount from the total ($6545 - $1125 = $5420), and divide $5420 by $40 to find the total number of hours = 135.5.

25 + 135.5 = Total 160.5 hours.

It's all in the numbers.

:seeya:

 

[Dear Prudence]

For the bill submitted in July (work performed in June), he was paid $45 per hour. Divide $1125 by $45 to find the number of hours = 25 hours.

For all other bills, he was paid $40 per hour. Subtract the July amount from the total ($6545 - $1125 = $5420), and divide $5420 by $40 to find the total number of hours = 135.5.

25 + 135.5 = Total 160.5 hours.

It's all in the numbers.

:seeya:

Thank you! I didn't doubt your math, I just couldn't remember where the data came from to do the calculations. I found the source document at the very beginning of this thread. :doh: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24312479/detail.html

 

[nums24]

160.5 hours

4 weeks of work in 5 months.

No, he worked more than that, the new Fiscal Year began 7/1/10. Here are the previous payments at the prior JAC rates.