Sounds like she's got herself a good one . . . .
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10019/1029280-454.stm
Dan Raynak is a fast-talking Arizona lawyer who makes witnesses stammer and fills courtrooms with his overpowering presence and volume. Joel Sansone, an intense Pittsburgh attorney, is his cross-country mirror image. One a high-profile criminal lawyer, the other an outspoken civil-rights attorney, they have been best friends for 40 years.
With aggressive courtroom styles that sway juries and unnerve witnesses, Mr. Raynak and Mr. Sansone argue points of law, shoot rapid-fire questions and bark objections.
Mr. Raynak is known for being a tough litigator who is, at times, abrasive with opposing counsel and witnesses. "I've seen people go from very smug and confident on the witness stand, but once they realize I'm going to go into painstaking detail to discredit them, that changes," Mr. Raynak said in a telephone interview from his home in Arizona. "Dishonesty ticks me off. My goal is to get to the truth. If you know what people said previously [in depositions and grand-jury testimony] you can catch them when they say something different."
Mr. Raynak's clientele, meanwhile, has included defendants in some of Arizona's most violent sex-crime and capital-murder cases.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2010/03/19/20100319roberts0320.html
{ She could start with the astounding case of Marie Long, an old lady worth $1.3 million when she came under the protection of Maricopa County's probate court in 2005. Today, she's destitute and depends on taxpayers for support.
In a take-no-prisoners 21-page ruling issued Monday, Ellis described the fees that put Marie Long into the poorhouse as "reasonable, necessary and for the benefit of the ward." She blamed Marie's court-appointed attorney Jon Kitchel, along with Dan Raynak and Pat Gitre, attorneys for Marie's sisters, for driving up costs, saying their "venomous" and "hateful" attacks on the trustee, the guardian and their attorneys forced the other side to defend themselves.
I, too, am grateful for the court's decision as it proves my point all along, which is simply this: The court that is supposed to be protecting people like Marie Long is doing no such thing. Instead, the court is allowing a cozy group of lawyers and fiduciaries who are appointed to help vulnerable people help themselves to a nice pile of cash - until the money is gone, at which time the "ward" is dumped onto the taxpayers. }
