The Verdict is In - post your thoughts here

[otto]

Kurtz was definitely emboldened by the bloggers...He stated in his "set up" interview...in front of his law books (Must have been his dad's), with make up and lighting...that he read 20,000 of 25,000 blogs and 75% were positive. Maybe he should have been looking for the right computer witness rather than reading blogs...My reaction to all of this is so negative, I can't even begin to comment.

Who was the defense's jury/trial consultant? Which jurors did Kurtz and company recognize as favorable to the defense DURING the trial? There are a gazillion things I could say about the new meaning of "handling media relations" during a trial for a defense team? UGH...:maddening: :banghead:

I heard him say that he read 20/22,000 comments. Twenty seems to be only those that were brought to his attention.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/noteworthy/video/9563382/#/vid9563382

 

[cody100]

According to FindLaw a small firm in Raleigh averages the following for years 1-7/billable hours:
$49.46

$51.61

$53.76

$56.77

$61.08

$66.67

$70.97

If Kurtz was making $85 per hour for a 5-day week, at $85/hr. he was making approximately $132,000 year. Actually this is quite good during a recession, IMO, of course.

And, he probably could have been making more if he was handling additional cases on the side.

You might find the following article to be very interesting and enlightening. I am not sure $85 is correct. Looked more like $75.

http://www.attorneymarketingnetwork.com/why-attorneys-cant-profit-from-indigent-clients/

 

[otto]

And that was yet another of his mistakes. He should not have listened to those GOLO people. They gave him a warped impression. MOO

Websleuths was brought up throughout the trial. I don't think it was the WRAL comment board that got anyone's attention.

 

[Tink56]

That's what I heard as well. "20 out of 22,000" or something like that.

I'll go back and "re-listen," but I hope you guys are right....I was Multi-tasking so the chance of error is greater than usual... :shocked2: :gthanks:

 

[otto]

I wonder why Brad's family didn't attend his wedding? Did they always dislike Nancy?

It was a quicky wedding because Brad had a job in NC. Brad and Nancy were not planning on getting married at the time that he moved there, but they got married so that she could come with.

 

[Tink56]

You might find the following article to be very interesting and enlightening. I am not sure $85 is correct. Looked more like $75.

http://www.attorneymarketingnetwork.com/why-attorneys-cant-profit-from-indigent-clients/

Regardless, at $75.00/hour, Kurtz was making a decent income for an attorney in a two-person practice during a down turn in the economy.

 

[Amster]

Why would you say that comment? Do you have something to substantiate your statements ?

About as much substantiation as Kurtz has that dear, smart Bradley was framed. Whatever....the inmate is on his way to prison. Another wife killer bites the dust! :woohoo:

On to the Casey Anthony trial....I suspect her defense team will have as much luck <modsnip>. :seeya:

 

[cody100]

I would like to see transparency in process. This trial was shrouded in secret methods only known to the FBI, methods that would compromise national security if released. That's absolutely absurd. If there is evidence, by law it must be released to defense through disclosure laws prior to trial ... I hope National Security does not trump Human Rights when it comes to a murder trial ... Brad and Nancy were not terrorists that fall under that cloat of secrecy.

That, disclosure, did not happen in this case. When defense finally understood the scope of the testimony, they realized they needed to add a new witness ... who was disqualified by the judge. The expert was qualified by law ... but it made no difference. The judge would have disqualified every witness because the prosecution argued that their case would be compromised if defense council were allowed rebuttal witnesses.

I would also like to see the case tried by a judge that understands the evidence.

I think in essence this is what Kurtz was saying today in his interview. I am greatly bothered by this cloak of secrecy and lack of understanding of the computer evidence by JG. He admitted this, but it is too late for this trial. It may not have made a difference to the jury, but it definitely makes me as well as others feel uncomfortable by the means certain testimony was excluded.

 

[cody100]

About as much substantiation as Kurtz has that dear, smart Bradley was framed. Whatever....the inmate is on his way to prison. Another wife killer bites the dust! :woohoo:

On to the Casey Anthony trial....I suspect her defense team will have as much luck <modsnip>. :seeya:

So, you really do not have any evidence to back that up. I was hoping you did.

 

[ncsu95]

Regardless, at $75.00/hour, Kurtz was making a decent income for an attorney in a two-person practice during a down turn in the economy.

Not when he is running a business and has employees to pay as well.

 

[otto]

I think that many people have a preconceived opinion as to how everyone should react under certain situations. If they don't conform to that, something must be wrong with them. Yes, I do think his family is very private as he is. My heart goes out to them as well as NC's family.

I don't buy the "everyone grieves differently" theory where Scott Peterson is with his adopted sister's babysitter, but I do believe that some people are stoic in public. Obviously his family is as private as he is. He was convicted of first degree murder and everyone stood up and did what they had to do ... but they were probably completely suffering inside.

 

[cody100]

Regardless, at $75.00/hour, Kurtz was making a decent income for an attorney in a two-person practice during a down turn in the economy.

Did you read that article? I can also supply more documentation that these funds have been reduced in many situations due to the downed economy.

 

[jumpstreet]

I see nothing wrong with discussing specific things from the trial. I'm not making it personal.

Neither do I. My thought was only that if we're open to (and allowing critical) discussions of the prosecution (judge, police, police-chief, etc), then I would assume we should be just as open to discussing (and at times speaking critically) of the defense, judge, and custody counsel.

[ e.g. the earlier thread where folks were exploring (for discussion purposes) the 'ethics' and general appropriateness/responsibility of A. Stubbs (and/or other divorce attorneys) endorsing 'aggressive' initial separation agreements, were "discouraged" pretty quickly by the mods... ] {though, for what it's worth, I haven't observed any such discouragement of (often times overt) critical discussions of the defense (and even prosecution) throughout the case...}

Is wanting ADAs to not "mislead" juries (even if they think the end justifies the means), kinda similar to also wanting divorce attorneys to not be quite so 'aggressive', (even if they feel, it's "all part of the game" ) ? ...

Is it the same (or at least similar) question?

 

[cody100]

Not when he is running a business and has employees to pay as well.

I believe they have a staff of around 20 or more. That is far from a small operation.

 

[otto]

I do remember that, but I am having trouble remembering where it happened.

It was in connection with the recent North Carolina SBI revelations (DNA monkey business) - came out at the same time. Not only was DNA evidence influenced by investigators, but innocent mentally challenged men were convicted of murder because of a written confession that they were too mentally challenged to write (it was written by an investigator). The courts apparently rubber stamped that type of conviction in addition to withholding evidence and incompetence in evidence analysis. Funny court system, I suppose ... one with some very serious questions of the judicial nature.

 

[gracielee]

I think Kurtz did just fine personally and BC's defense representation was as good as I have ever seen. The only thing that might have been better would be a defense attorney that JG liked, if there is one.

Then we must have watched different trials, because I recall Kurtz fumbling with his questions, attempting to word them in such a way as to elicit a proper answer from his witnesses.

 

[Tink56]

Did you read that article? I can also supply more documentation that these funds have been reduced in many situations due to the downed economy.

I read the article. Most attorneys were making less during the last two years, regardless of client status. (A number of large firms lost big time when clients entered backruptcy.)

However, do you have ANY proof the funding was reduced in this case? If so, can you show me evidence of that billing rate? Frankly, since the case started 2.5 years ago, IMO, probably wasn't reduced. How many hours of pro bono work are attorney in North Carolina asked to do in how many years? (That's just an "I'm curous" question...)

Memories of my father's first years in solo practice are not that far behind me. My daughter just passed the bar last summer. I do have some understanding of the profit vs. cost ratio of small practices and pressure on "new" lawyers to produce billable hours.

 

[cody100]

Regardless, at $75.00/hour, Kurtz was making a decent income for an attorney in a two-person practice during a down turn in the economy.

It might also interest you that this is a very large firm and been around since late 1990's. They probably have a staff of 20 so no Kurtz could make more on personal injury cases, etc.

 

[gracielee]

Originally Posted by cody100
Yes, and what is your point? You think Kurtz was lying about the planted files on BC's computer?

yes...:liar:....definitely

Tonight, at dinner, my twin grandsons, 5yrs old, were telling me about the story their daddy has been reading to them the last couple nights, Pinnocco. They were so cute & funny, I was discussing 'lying' with them. Brought up an earlier conversation we'd been having, and as to 'whether or not they'd told me the truth'..... where upon they both jumped up from the table and ran to the powder room to look at their noses in the mirror....:floorlaugh: My daughter and I just cracked up at their reaction, needing to check and see if their noses had grown. :great: Before long they will lost this pure childhood innocence, how sad that day will be, and how many real belly laughs I'll miss.

 

[cody100]

I read the article. Most attorneys were making less during the last two years, regardless of client status. (A number of large firms lost big time when clients entered backruptcy.)

However, do you have ANY proof the funding was reduced in this case? If so, can you show me evidence of that billing rate? Frankly, since the case started 2.5 years ago, IMO, probably wasn't reduced. How many hours of pro bono work are attorney in North Carolina asked to do in how many years? (That's just an "I'm curous" question...)

Memories of my father's first years in solo practice are not that far behind me. My daughter just passed the bar last summer. I do have some understanding of the expense vs. cost ratio of small practices and pressure on "new" lawyers to produce billable hours.

I understand the first years in solo practice can be tough (attorneys in family), but this is a very well established firm since later 1990's with staff of around 20. Go check them out. THey cover a lot of areas of law, most would be very profitable and more so than this. I have no idea whether his rate was cut. I had heard he was doing this pro bono, but I have no proof of that. It is a fair question though. But, I really don't think Kurtz is doing this for the money, if he is even getting paid. IMOO