FL - FSU Law Professor Dan Markel Murdered by Hitmen *4 Guilty* #25

[Going Rogue]

“Some materially adverse situations are typically clear” is not the same as “sometimes it’s not clear if their interests are materially adverse”. I think you know that otherwise you would have posted the exact words rather than construct your own fake quote.

I have no interest in combing through posts line-by-line and fact-checking every word, so I'm going to bow out of this discussion for now.

No issues.... I was lazy and didn’t go back to referenced the exact quote. I was going off memory and it wasn’t an attempt to deceive.

I acknowledge my ‘quote’ wasn’t exact word-for-word and I was paraphrasing BUT the two statements essentially mean the same thing.

 

[IQuestion]

(Joan of Snark hijacked my computer keys. Apologies in advance for my less than astute observations.) The attorney to dentist ratio is pretty high about 7 to 1 in Florida... HA should not have a problem. Personal referrals, secular affiliations or pick up the phone book? It must be tough for DA, HA &CA not to be able to just throw dollars at people to get their way or do their bidding. Geesh, there is something (pitiful or humorous?) about millionaires who whine. IMO. I keep shaking my head when I replay wtte, "This is so awful, my husband is almost 80 years old, how is he going to get home?" Which btw didn't seem to elicit the sympathy or result she had hoped from LE. Then finally she says, "Harvey, call an Uber." That gal can coordinate everything, even in handcuffs behind her back! Good idea, since it appears LE was not going to wheel his luggage through the airport and spare him the treacherous & unfamiiar journey of a whopping 7 miles back to his condo.
Feigned helplessness, just like WA. hmmm...
Cost of an 8 mile UBER ride? $8.00
Cost of a oneway ticket to Vietnam? $850
Cost of watching DA get arrested? Priceless

How many dentists are there in Florida?

• There are 14,000 practicing dentists in Florida. (Google result)
• So that leaves 72,160 Bar members in Florida who are members in good standing and eligible to practice. Still a pretty impressive number, but not 100,000. At least for a few more years.
• How many lawyers practice in Florida?

ps://issuu.com/bestlawyers/docs/tampa-florida-best-lawyers-2023

 

[clearskies1]

I'm no attorney, but I'm trying to follow your argument.

We know that Charlie never signed the written waiver form. So the last clause of Rule 1.9(a): "unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing." was clearly not met.

I don't see how that's not a violation of Rathbaum's ethical duty. Judge Everett certainly seems to agree. He wrote this in his order: "The withdrawal of attorney Daniel Rashbaum became necessary when he engaged in a conflicted representation falling short of the ethical obligations for members of the Florida Bar." (emphasis added)

For what it's worth here's the ABA's formal opinion of "Conflicts Involving Materially Adverse Interests", issued on February 10, 2021.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/professional_responsibility/ethics-opinions/aba-formal-opinion-497.pdf

ABA Rule 1.9 (which requires written consent) does not apply in Florida. Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9 does not say that a writing required:

Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter must not afterwards:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent;
(b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or
(c) reveal information relating to the representation except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[ch_13]

ABA Rule 1.9 (which requires written consent) does not apply in Florida. Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9 does not say that a writing required:

Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter must not afterwards:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent;
(b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or
(c) reveal information relating to the representation except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

The Florida bar guidelines do state that the consent needs to be in writing. I won't copy out the whole rule as it's long but here's the relevant section of Rule 4-1.18(d)(1):

(d) Permissible Representation. When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in subdivision (c), representation is permissible if:
(1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing; or
(bolding added by me)

link: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/07/2025_01-JULY-Chapter-4-7-8-2024.pdf

 

[Going Rogue]

ABA Rule 1.9 (which requires written consent) does not apply in Florida. Florida Bar Rule 4-1.9 does not say that a writing required:

Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter must not afterwards:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent;
(b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or
(c) reveal information relating to the representation except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 4-1.9 - CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT, R. Regul. Fl. Bar 4-1.9, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Thanks for the clarification on the FL Bar 4-1.9

Based on the FL Bar rule, all Rashbaum needed was ‘informed consent’ from Charlie & Donna and a written waiver (although good to have) was not required and I maintain that clients being ‘materially adverse’ is not always a given. It seems to me that many that follow this case are under the impression that former clients are ALWAYS materially adverse. I disagree, BUT even if they are, all you need in FL is informed consent from both parties which Rashbaum had.

In the motion Judge Everett filed on Monday, he made it very clear that this is on Rashbaum by the following statement:

“The withdrawal of attorney Daniel Rashbaum became necessary when he engaged in a conflicted representation falling short of his ethical obligations of the Florida bar”

I have heard a couple attorneys weigh in on Judge Everett’s motion and they seem surprised that he took that position and called out Rashbaum and one of them even pointed out that Judge Everett did not provide any detail in the motion to back the allegation. In my personal opinion, Rashbaum will not face any disciplinary action, and I’m basing that off of my interpretation of Rule 4-1.9.

 

[Trebor5591]

There was a movie recently about that. Apparently most “hit men” people hire are actually undercover cops. Apparently from what I understand, real “hit men” don’t exist.

Wikipedia has a list of at lease 25 Americans who were convicted of being killers-for-hire.

List of contract killers and hitmen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[clearskies1]

The Florida bar guidelines do state that the consent needs to be in writing. I won't copy out the whole rule as it's long but here's the relevant section of Rule 4-1.18(d)(1):

(d) Permissible Representation. When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in subdivision (c), representation is permissible if:
(1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing; or
(bolding added by me)

link: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2024/07/2025_01-JULY-Chapter-4-7-8-2024.pdf

Rule 4-1.18 addresses duties to Prospective Clients. Both ABA Rule 1.9 and Florida Rule 4-1.9 address duties to Former Clients. I'd have to think it through to see when 4-1.18 applies as opposed Rule 4-1.9. That's above my pay grade. Hopefully, it helps to know that the ABA Rules (including ABA Rule 1.9. which everyone was citing above) are not the law in Florida. (My understanding is that the ABA rules are generally models for the states, which is why the numbers are so similar). JMO.

 

[Going Rogue]

Rule 4-1.18 addresses duties to Prospective Clients. Both ABA Rule 1.9 and Florida Rule 4-1.9 address duties to Former Clients. I'd have to think it through to see when 4-1.18 applies as opposed Rule 4-1.9. That's above my pay grade. Hopefully, it helps to know that the ABA Rules (including ABA Rule 1.9. which everyone was citing above) are not the law in Florida. (My understanding is that the ABA rules are generally models for the states, which is why the numbers are so similar). JMO.

Based on the doc you referenced, Rule 4-1.9 in comments it states the principles in Rule 4-1.7 to determine whether the interests of the clients are adverse. Copy & Paste excerpt from 4-1.9 - “The principles in rule 4-1.7 determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse.”

Rule 4-1.7 - Section (a) Representing Adverse Interests. Except as provided in subdivision (b), a lawyer must not represent a client if:

1. the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client; or
2. there is a substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

Rule 4-1.7 - Section (b) covers ‘Informed Consent’ and permits representation with ‘Informed Consent’ and provides the answer to the question at hand re whether consent needs to be ‘confirmed in writing’.

Copy and paste from Rule 4-1.7 section b: (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing

Looks like Rashbaum did not need a signed waiver. He would have had to officially state on the record he had both Charlie & Donna's consent. I assume he did but I am not certain.

 

[Cedars]

Wikipedia has a list of at lease 25 Americans who were convicted of being killers-for-hire.

List of contract killers and hitmen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These might be interesting to study if one had time. At a quick glance, the vast majority in the US list were mobsters working within their gang. A couple others seemed to have killed a bunch of people anyways, so when a friend asked a favor they said yes.

I think the point was, there aren't all those freelance hitman that otherwise law-abiding people can hire, same as a looking up in the yellow-pages for a private detective

There's a case in Canada that is awaiting trial and seems to involve two sets of 'hitmen' just to kill one poor woman- the first attempt failed, so the ex seemingly hired another group from a different corner of the criminal world. I'll be very curious how he managed to connect with them all. ETA he hasn't been arrested for drug smuggling or any other crimes.

JMO

 

[clearskies1]

Based on the doc you referenced, Rule 4-1.9 in comments it states the principles in Rule 4-1.7 to determine whether the interests of the clients are adverse. Copy & Paste excerpt from 4-1.9 - “The principles in rule 4-1.7 determine whether the interests of the present and former client are adverse.”

Rule 4-1.7 - Section (a) Representing Adverse Interests. Except as provided in subdivision (b), a lawyer must not represent a client if:

1. the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client; or
2. there is a substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

Rule 4-1.7 - Section (b) covers ‘Informed Consent’ and permits representation with ‘Informed Consent’ and provides the answer to the question at hand re whether consent needs to be ‘confirmed in writing’.

Copy and paste from Rule 4-1.7 section b: (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing

Looks like Rashbaum did not need a signed waiver. He would have had to officially state on the record he had both Charlie & Donna's consent. I assume he did but I am not certain.

Rule 4-1.7 covers conflicts of interest for Current Clients -- meaning you are currently representing multiple clients and their interests may be adverse. I really have not looked into what materially adverse means. But, regarding the part of Rule 4.17 that says "each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing -- that means the client (not the attorney) must give informed consent on the record at a hearing (if the client hasn't done it in writing). I'm not sure that rule is applicable anyway because while DA is a current client, CA is no longer a current client (it seems). I don't want to get into the weeds on this because I haven't read the Fla law provisions carefully (or looked at the comments). I just scanned Rule 4 briefly and noted that it's not the same as the ABA. I'm not an expert on any of this. JMO.

 

[amicuscurie]

Wikipedia has a list of at lease 25 Americans who were convicted of being killers-for-hire.

List of contract killers and hitmen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not saying it doesn’t happen. I can’t really ever say something has NEVER happened. I generally speak in generalities, there’s really no way to know about every single thing that has ever happened.

Many, many people who think they are hiring a professional hit man are, in fact, hiring a police informant. Many, many people who are approached regarding whether they might know a hired killer end up going to the police. Of course, I can’t say this happens every single time. But it happens enough for it to be a well known and reported phenomenon which has led to a lot of arrests and saved a lot of spouses.

Killers-for-hire could also encompass people who worked for criminal syndicates or mercenary groups, rather than someone who makes a living contracting with individuals to murder family members. I would imagine many such people might be on a list of people arrested for this.

Not saying hired killers for individuals who want someone dead don’t exist. Never can say something definitely does not exist. Everything that can happen has most likely happened at least once, and someone being a killer for hire is something that can happen.

I’m saying that what seems to be the case is that people are more likely to be hiring an undercover cop than a killer, all things being equal.

 

[Going Rogue]

Rule 4-1.7 covers conflicts of interest for Current Clients -- meaning you are currently representing multiple clients and their interests may be adverse. I really have not looked into what materially adverse means. But, regarding the part of Rule 4.17 that says "each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing or clearly stated on the record at a hearing -- that means the client (not the attorney) must give informed consent on the record at a hearing (if the client hasn't done it in writing). I'm not sure that rule is applicable anyway because while DA is a current client, CA is no longer a current client (it seems). I don't want to get into the weeds on this because I haven't read the Fla law provisions carefully (or looked at the comments). I just scanned Rule 4 briefly and noted that it's not the same as the ABA. I'm not an expert on any of this. JMO.

After digesting your comment, and rereading Rule 4-1.7, I fully agree with you that ‘informed consent’ falls on the ‘client’ to officially give consent in an official hearing ‘IF’ its not in writing. I wrongly interpreted it as Rashbaum simply stating for the record that he had consent. That said, not good for Rashbaum and a major screwup.

I’m not an expert either but I believe 4-1.7 addresses both the scenario of multiple ‘current’ clients OR one (or more) client where a ‘former’ client was previously represented. However the point is moot now since Charlie’s consent (since there is no written waiver) was never officially recorded for the record as far as I am aware.

Bullet point two below from the doc covers the condition we have with Charlie & Donna

RULE 4-1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CURRENT CLIENTS

(a) Representing Adverse Interests. Except as provided in subdivision (b), a lawyer must not represent a client if:

(1) the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a substantial risk that the representation of 1 or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.