Cynthia Short-Local Attorney no longer representing Irwin and Bradley

[annalia]

I thought it was due to her being local as he can't practice in that State.

But even if that were the case, JT has said that he is getting paid but wouldn't divulge how he is getting paid. CS said she was working pro bono.

Would JT hire a co-counsel but tell them they must do it pro bono while he sits back getting paid?

 

[21merc7]

Sure, he can do that but has he? I don't know.

IDK, but why would he if there are no charges yet and no Court appearances to be had? All that would fall into place if there is a need.

Put it this way, the Court does not need paperwork if there is no case. Anyone can stand up and be your attorney all day long, but in Court everything must have a paper trail to follow in case of appeals, reviews, what have you.

Until there is a Court date that requires an appearance, no paperwork is needed for anything, and the Court would most likely put any "too early" paperwork in the trash. Date and time stamps in the Court needed for the paper trail. At this time, there is no case in the Court, so it is no existent to the Court.

 

[darnudes]

IDK, but why would he if there are no charges yet and no Court appearances to be had? All that would fall into place if there is a need.

Put it this way, the Court does not need paperwork if there is no case. Anyone can stand up and be your attorney all day long, but in Court everything must have a paper trail to follow in case of appeals, reviews, what have you.

Until there is a Court date that requires an appearance, no paperwork is needed for anything, and the Court would most likely put any "too early" paperwork in the trash. Date and time stamps in the Court needed for the paper trail. At this time, there is no case in the Court, so it is no existent to the Court.

It's amazing how these cases get all messed up when lawyers get involved, especially high profile media hungry ones. Shame there isn't a "hornsby-like" local.

Yep, you're right, no charges laid so no reason for him to file anything.

 

[Mojen]

No, he doesn't need local counsel. It could help to talk with a local attorney to get an idea of the Judges, the local rules, the prosecutors, just the entire system in an unfamiliar territory - but he can file appropriate paper work to be attorney of record for this case and this case only in any state he wishes. Any attorney can, as long as they have a Certificate of Good Standing in the state they normally practice in, which I would think JT does.

They have to have local counsel (a member of the Missouri Bar) in the State of Missouri. Local Counsel files the pro hac vice paperwork to have the out of state attorney able to "practice" law in Missouri. Local counsel has to enter on the case as an attorney of record.

 

[frankie069]

Question that I need to find an answer to.. I will google it as well. But, being JT cannot practice law in the state of MO, if DB and JI were brought in for questioning today while he was not there or even if he were there, would the police have to listen to him being he is not allowed to practice law there. Would he be able to stop the questioning or would they have to call in another lawyer to do that. Also, if LE got a subpoena saying they are questioning the kids today, JT couldnt do anything about it as well. Well, he couldnt with a subpoena anyway but why isnt LE doing this. I think CPS needs to be called and have them get involved.

LE can arrest the parents and let them go as well, its not like court where its a double jeopardy thing. Not sure why these things arent being done because in that case the parents would have to be separated from each other and now that they dont have LOCAL representation, they would have a better chance of seeing how they act without them being in the same room. Just for that alone it might be a wealth of information. It would also be worth it to see JT scrambling to find someone local.

 

[21merc7]

They have to have local counsel (a member of the Missouri Bar) in the State of Missouri. Local Counsel files the pro hac vice paperwork to have the out of state attorney able to "practice" law in Missouri. Local counsel has to enter on the case as an attorney of record.

I found this, that is not specified, perhaps the rule change in '04? Each state is different, but I have not found that Missouri counsel has to back out of state yet. JT may need signature of an attorney from his state to get a copy of the Certificate of Good Standing, but I have not found complete rules yet, still looking.


http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/Cle...penDocument#9.03. Visiting Attorney Appearing

 

[frankie069]

No, he doesn't need local counsel. It could help to talk with a local attorney to get an idea of the Judges, the local rules, the prosecutors, just the entire system in an unfamiliar territory - but he can file appropriate paper work to be attorney of record for this case and this case only in any state he wishes. Any attorney can, as long as they have a Certificate of Good Standing in the state they normally practice in, which I would think JT does.

They have to have local counsel (a member of the Missouri Bar) in the State of Missouri. Local Counsel files the pro hac vice paperwork to have the out of state attorney able to "practice" law in Missouri. Local counsel has to enter on the case as an attorney of record.

Mojen is right, you have to be licensed to practice in a state to practice in that state.. That is why most atty's are licensed in more than one. I have my atty in NY, he is also licensed to practice in NJ, CT and PA which are surrounding me so he can practice there. JT cannot do anything in MO, he basically has no rights as an atty there. He needs local counsel to be able to handle this case. Unless he gets licensed there which takes time.

 

[Mojen]

I found this, that is not specified, perhaps the rule change in '04? Each state is different, but I have not found that Missouri counsel has to back out of state yet.


http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/Cle...penDocument#9.03. Visiting Attorney Appearing

It's a Supreme Court Rule. 9.02? maybe. I haven't done one in a few years, kinda rusty on the rule!

 

[AnaTeresa]

BUT they dont ask them if they are guilty, they just come up with a strategy to get them off. They dont want to know if you are guilty or not.

Not exactly. For example, in our office, when we have a potential new client facing criminal charges, we ask "What happened?" and then tell us. Sometimes it's the truth and sometimes it's not. Then, if we have information, we lay it out. We tell the client "The state says you did X, can you explain that?" While it's true we don't straight up ask "Are you guilty?", we will say something like "But did you open that child video you downloaded and watch it?" Because we have to know the truth, or as close an approximation we're going to get from the client, to be able to form an action plan for the case. We don't come up with strategies to "get them off" - we assess whether there are any mitigating factors. Most defendants do not "get off". Most are guilty and most are found guilty or plead guilty - it's negotiating the charges and punishment that the defense attorney comes in to play.

Here, Short very likely knows if DB and/or JI did something to Lisa, even if they're not telling her the whole truth. However, anything and everything she has done on the case is protected by attorney-client privilege, so we'll never know exactly what she knows. We can only guess.

 

[Mojen]

I found this, that is not specified, perhaps the rule change in '04? Each state is different, but I have not found that Missouri counsel has to back out of state yet. JT may need signature of an attorney from his state to get a copy of the Certificate of Good Standing, but I have not found complete rules yet, still looking.


http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/Cle...penDocument#9.03. Visiting Attorney Appearing

You've got it! I answered before I read your link. It's C on your link. Glad I remembered the Rule. Not as forgetful as I thought!

 

[cityslick]

Question that I need to find an answer to.. I will google it as well. But, being JT cannot practice law in the state of MO, if DB and JI were brought in for questioning today while he was not there or even if he were there, would the police have to listen to him being he is not allowed to practice law there. Would he be able to stop the questioning or would they have to call in another lawyer to do that. Also, if LE got a subpoena saying they are questioning the kids today, JT couldnt do anything about it as well. Well, he couldnt with a subpoena anyway but why isnt LE doing this. I think CPS needs to be called and have them get involved.

LE can arrest the parents and let them go as well, its not like court where its a double jeopardy thing. Not sure why these things arent being done because in that case the parents would have to be separated from each other and now that they dont have LOCAL representation, they would have a better chance of seeing how they act without them being in the same room. Just for that alone it might be a wealth of information. It would also be worth it to see JT scrambling to find someone local.

Maybe the simple answer is that just because they are not fully cooperating with LE doesn't mean that LE either a) suspects them or b) have enough evidence for charges.

They don't arrest people in this country based on theories, they do it based on evidence.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Question that I need to find an answer to.. I will google it as well. But, being JT cannot practice law in the state of MO, if DB and JI were brought in for questioning today while he was not there or even if he were there, would the police have to listen to him being he is not allowed to practice law there. Would he be able to stop the questioning or would they have to call in another lawyer to do that. Also, if LE got a subpoena saying they are questioning the kids today, JT couldnt do anything about it as well. Well, he couldnt with a subpoena anyway but why isnt LE doing this. I think CPS needs to be called and have them get involved.

LE can arrest the parents and let them go as well, its not like court where its a double jeopardy thing. Not sure why these things arent being done because in that case the parents would have to be separated from each other and now that they dont have LOCAL representation, they would have a better chance of seeing how they act without them being in the same room. Just for that alone it might be a wealth of information. It would also be worth it to see JT scrambling to find someone local.

BBM. For police questioning, I think any licensed attorney, regardless of state, counts as an attorney for purposes of wanting counsel while being questioned. It's the actual "practicing" in front of the court that requires licensing by the state. I could be wrong on this one, though.

 

[frankie069]

This pretty much explains it all. Good info.. It is possible because of a reciprocal law he can practice in MO because NY will allow a lawyer from MO to practice there..

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_bar_in_the_United_States"]Admission to the bar in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Mojen]

BBM. For police questioning, I think any licensed attorney, regardless of state, counts as an attorney for purposes of wanting counsel while being questioned. It's the actual "practicing" in front of the court that requires licensing by the state. I could be wrong on this one, though.

I totally agree with your statement. I think it's only in front of the Court that an attorney has to have been admitted to practice.

 

[21merc7]

Okay, I found it, but JT will find someone.

Here is the link, I'm just skimming as at work, but unless this has been amended he needs a signature, which I think he has from CS already, but would have no problems obtaining if not.

http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Rule-Info.asp?r1=Rules+Relating+to+District+Courts&r2=61

 

[Mojen]

This pretty much explains it all. Good info.. It is possible because of a reciprocal law he can practice in MO because NY will allow a lawyer from MO to practice there..

Admission to the bar in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think that means he just doesn't have to sit for the Missouri Bar Exam before being admitted to practice pro hac vice.

 

[21merc7]

You've got it! I answered before I read your link. It's C on your link. Glad I remembered the Rule. Not as forgetful as I thought!

Whoops, just found what is necessary, after you guys posted and I did not have time to refresh.

I think CS already gave that, and no harm no foul I'm sure from lawyer to lawyer. Even if not, someone will, not to worry. If the Kansas attorney still needs to be active on the case, if/when there is one, an attorney will be found as it will be a big case. And most likely require Court appointed counsel.

 

[frankie069]

Not exactly. For example, in our office, when we have a potential new client facing criminal charges, we ask "What happened?" and then tell us. Sometimes it's the truth and sometimes it's not. Then, if we have information, we lay it out. We tell the client "The state says you did X, can you explain that?" While it's true we don't straight up ask "Are you guilty?", we will say something like "But did you open that child video you downloaded and watch it?" Because we have to know the truth, or as close an approximation we're going to get from the client, to be able to form an action plan for the case. We don't come up with strategies to "get them off" - we assess whether there are any mitigating factors. Most defendants do not "get off". Most are guilty and most are found guilty or plead guilty - it's negotiating the charges and punishment that the defense attorney comes in to play.

Here, Short very likely knows if DB and/or JI did something to Lisa, even if they're not telling her the whole truth. However, anything and everything she has done on the case is protected by attorney-client privilege, so we'll never know exactly what she knows. We can only guess.

Thats my point, a defense atty does not ask their client if they are guilty. They have to skirt around the issue.

Unfortunately, I do believe that CS still has to abide by the atty client privilege even though she is not the atty anymore. I am wondering what the laws about that are. I have seen many a defense atty speak about their clients after they were let go. Do you know what the law is on that. I specifically remember (and I dont remember the name) a lawyer who was CA's lawyer in the beginning talk about her on TV after she was let go. And she wasnt disbarred for it so it must be legal. Maybe Short will come out with some things. That would be nice.

 

[southern_comfort]

This pretty much explains it all. Good info.. It is possible because of a reciprocal law he can practice in MO because NY will allow a lawyer from MO to practice there..

Admission to the bar in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An attorney would still have to go through an admission procedure in a new state. Various states will accept test scores and possibly some other types of admission documentation from other states.

 

[frankie069]

I think that means he just doesn't have to sit for the Missouri Bar Exam before being admitted to practice pro hac vice.

Right they have a reciprocal law in NY and MO is part of it. So it looks like he can practice if the state gives him permission. MO has to give permission and he would not have to sit for the bar..