Lawyer who abandoned client suspended
Headline Legal News | 2008/03/11 15:56
The Supreme Court of Georgia issued the following decisions disciplining members of the State Bar:

In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: March 10, 2008 S08Y0168. IN THE MATTER OF ALICE CALDWELL STEWART. PER CURIAM. This disciplinary matter is before the Court pursuant to a Notice of Discipline filed by the State Bar alleging that Respondent Alice Caldwell Stewart violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d) and 9.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment, while the maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.4, 1.16 (d) or 9.3 is a public reprimand. The State Bar asserts that due to the facts of this case and Stewart's prior disciplinary record, an indefinite suspension is the appropriate sanction for her violations. We agree. According to the Notice of Discipline, Stewart accepted payment to represent a client in the appeal of a criminal conviction; she entered an appearance in that case and undertook some actions on the client's behalf, but ceased working on the case before the appeal was heard; Stewart abandoned the client and failed to keep him informed of the status of his case; she never requested that she be allowed to withdraw; she never returned case materials or any unearned fee to the client; and she failed to timely answer the properly-served Notice of Investigation regarding these allegations. Further, Stewart failed to file a Notice of Rejection despite being properly served by publication with the Notice of Discipline pursuant to Bar Rule 4-203.1 (b) (3) (ii). Therefore, she is in default, has waived her rights to an evidentiary hearing and is subject to such discipline as may be determined by this Court. See Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). Based on our review of the record, which contains no explanation from Stewart, we find that Stewart violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.16 (d) and 9.3 of the Rules of Professional Conduct found in Bar Rule 4-102 (d). We note in aggravation that Stewart has been twice suspended, see In the Matter of Stewart, 280 Ga. 821 (631 SE2d 106) (2006) (“Stewart I”) (two year suspension for abandonment of a client), and In the Matter of Stewart, 282 Ga. 337 (647 SE2d 53) (2007) (concurrent, indefinite suspension with conditions on reinstatement, for neglect of numerous clients) (“Stewart II”); that she accepted a letter of admonition in December 1983 regarding an incident wherein she improperly obtained access to, and reviewed, a police officer's confidential notes regarding her client and that she received a Review Panel Reprimand on October 27, 2000 for willfully, and without just cause, abandoning a client. We further take note, however, that the incidents in issue here occurred during the same period of time as the incidents which gave rise to Stewart's prior indefinite suspension and that during this time period Stewart may have been laboring under a medical impairment which the State Bar has considered in the past. Based on this fact, we accept the recommendation of the Investigative Panel and hereby impose, as discipline for Stewart's current actions, an indefinite suspension, to run concurrently with the previously-imposed suspensions. Further, we impose the same conditions on Stewart's reinstatment as were set out in Stewart II, specifically: Stewart will promptly undergo evaluation and treatment at a medical facility approved by the State Bar and its Lawyer Assistance Program; return all client files, or provide an explanation of her inability to return the materials; and return all unearned attorney fees. Prior to reinstatement, she will demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Review Panel that her medical providers have certified that she is not impaired within the meaning of Rule 4-104 and that she has met all the above requirements. Indefinite suspension with conditions. All the Justices concur, except Hunstein, P.J. and Carley, J., who dissent. S08Y0168. IN THE MATTER OF ALICE CALDWELL STEWART. HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice, dissenting. The Investigative Panel of the State Bar found that Stewart violated Rule 1.3 (lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client and shall not wilfully abandon or disregard a legal matter entrusted to her), among several other rules set forth in the Rules of Professional Conduct. Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The maximum sanction for a single violation of Rule 1.3 is disbarment. Stewart did not timely respond to the Notice of Discipline and she is thus in default and is subject to such discipline as this Court may determine. Bar Rule 4-208.1 (b). This Court has already suspended Stewart twice, once for two years for abandonment of a client, In the Matter of Stewart, 280 Ga. 821 (631 SE2d 106) (2006), and again in the following year with a concurrent indefinite suspension for the neglect of numerous clients. In the Matter of Stewart, 282 Ga. 337 (647 SE2d 53) (2007). As the majority notes, Stewart has provided no explanation for her behavior in this case and the record is completely devoid of any mitigating factors. Given Stewart's extensive disciplinary history, I see no reason to impose yet another suspension and would instead disbar Stewart for her violation of Rule 1.3. See also Bar Rule 4-103 (finding of third disciplinary infraction shall, in and of itself, constitute grounds for disbarment). Accordingly, I respectfully dissent to the majority's imposition of an indefinite suspension in this disciplinary case. I am authorized to state that Justice Carley joins this dissent.


State Bar scolds Robeson DA for media comments
Legal Interview | 2008/03/11 12:53

Robeson County District Attorney Johnson Britt has been reprimanded by the N.C. State Bar for talking too freely with the media about Robeson County deputies accused of corruption in the Tarnished Badge scandal.

The State Bar licenses lawyers in North Carolina and punishes them when it finds they have breached their code of ethics. Britt’s reprimand was issued Nov. 19 by the Bar’s Grievance Committee and announced this month by the Bar in a list of lawyers who have been punished recently.

In the reprimand, Grievance Committee Chairman James Fox told Britt that after the deputies in Tarnished Badge were indicted in 2006, “you made numerous statements and comments containing details about the matters which were not in the public realm at that point, or expressing your opinion regarding guilt of the accused men, to representatives of a least one media outlet and/or to the public.”

These statements violated two rules, Fox said. One rule bars a lawyer who took part in an investigation or lawsuit from making public statements that could prejudice a trial. The other rule says a prosecutor may not make statements publicly that “have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused.” The reprimand includes a $50 fine.



Justice often slow for elder crimes
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/09 16:42
So far, Mary Morris has spent three years and $73,000 to get back just part of the $475,000 that was withdrawn from her mother's accounts by the relative who was overseeing the elderly woman's affairs.

Morris' mother agreed, three years before she died at age 96 in 2004, to give legal power of attorney to a grandnephew. It's a step that many advocates for older people say should be considered when people begin to show signs they are having difficulty managing finances, selling property, making acquisitions and buying insurance.

But a caution always accompanies that advice: Be careful whom you trust, and be careful about giving total authority to one person.

"You need to make sure that you either thoroughly trust your agent or you have some kind of controls on the agent's abilities to move assets," said Bob Mason, an Asheboro lawyer and vice chairman of the elder law section of the N.C. Bar Association.

Legal experts project a massive increase in lawsuits and prosecutions involving older Americans in decades to come as baby boomers reach retirement age and beyond. Already, substantiated instances of elder abuse are rising nationally at the rate of 15 percent a year, according to the American Bar Association. ABA members recently adopted a resolution urging that prosecutors be given more resources to fight elder crime.

Last year, North Carolina adult protective services sent county district attorneys written notices of 1,451 cases involving abuse, neglect or exploitation of adults. The numbers represent a 15 percent increase in cases since 2004.

Advocates say civil and criminal legal protections for older people are at the stage where domestic violence and child abuse safeguards were two decades ago -- in need of reform.

"As we have an aging population, there are reasons to say prosecutors should be paying more attention and using more resources to deal with what's going to be an increasing problem," said Stephen Salzburg, a Georgetown University law professor and co-author of the ABA resolution.



D.C. Gun Case Draws Crowd of High Court 'Friends'
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/09 03:35

With the Supreme Court examining for the first time in 70 years the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment, a group of gay and transgender gun owners called the Pink Pistols could not miss out on a chance to tell the justices about its special needs. With the opaque and oddly punctuated 27 words of 18th-century prose at last under the microscope, linguistic professors wanted the court to know that "the Second Amendment's absolute construction functions as a sentence modifier."

With the intentions of the Framers in question and modern social policy at stake, justices considering whether the District of Columbia's ban on handguns violates the Constitution have received an avalanche of advice from professors, doctors, social scientists, district attorneys, historians, religious groups, members of Congress and, of course, Vice President Cheney. They may be nothing more than an ego boost for a client or provide the argument that wins the case, but such amicus curiae briefs have become an essential part of high-stakes Supreme Court cases.



Upcoming NY Events in the Legal Community
Legal Business | 2008/03/09 03:27
Fri. March 7, CLE: Brooklyn Law School Symposium, 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m.
Brooklyn Law School hosts a symposium on the “Partial-Birth Abortion” ban, featuring eight speakers and professors. Continental breakfast included, luncheon to follow. Approved for (4) CLE credits, including (3) toward Professional Practice and (1) toward Ethics. Held at 250 Joralemon St. RSVP required by Monday, March 3. For information or to attend, contact Brooklyn Law School: (718) 780-7966.

* * *

Fri. March 7, Free: Presentation on Student Loans, 6-8 p.m.
Speakers: Assistant Attorney General Matthew Eubank and Brooklyn mediator Eqwonna Purvis. Topic: student loans and navigating the application process. Tips for students on how to choose the student loan that is best for them. Held at Boys and Girls High School, 700 Fulton St., Brooklyn.

* * *

Wed. March 12, Free Presentation: Sex Offenders & What Parents Need to Know, 9 a.m.-1 p.m.
Topics: Sex Offender Registration Act (Megan’s Law); Internet predators; forensic evidence collection and DNA databanks; safety concerns. Held at Brooklyn College (Campus Road and Hillel Place), Gershwin Building, Levenson Recital Hall. Free and open to the public. Space is limited, pre-registration requested. For information or to register, contact the Brooklyn District Attorney’s Office: (718) 250-3170.

* * *

Wed. March 12, CLE: Ethical Issues in Part 137 Attorney-Client Fee Dispute Resolution, 6—8 p.m.
Speakers: Attorneys Domenick Napoletano, Frank Strafaci and mediator Alvin Rabinowitz. Approved for (2) CLE credits toward Ethics. Free to Brooklyn Bar Association members. Held at the Brooklyn Bar Association, 123 Remsen St. For information or to register, contact the Brooklyn Bar: (718) 624-0675 x210; fax: (718) 797-1713; or e-mail: malfano@brooklynbar.org.

* * *

Mon. March 17, Spivack Award Presentation & Reception, 6 p.m.
Honoring former Congresswoman Geraldine A. Ferraro, Esq., the only woman to date to represent a major political party as a candidate for vice president (in 1984). Award presentation by U.S. Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney. A Women’s History Month celebration hosted by the New York County Lawyers Association (NYCLA). Held at 14 Vesey St., Manhattan. For information, contact NYCLA: www.nycla.org.


Judge delights Moraga Movers lunch event
Legal Topics | 2008/03/09 03:27
Moragan Judge John Minney educated and entertained a full house at the Moraga Movers lunch at St. Mary's College Soda Center.

Born and raised in the East Bay, he went on from Castlewood High to Yale, then to Cal Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law. Admitted to the California Bar in 1958, he served as attorney for the Franchise Tax Board in Sacramento before private practice in Oakland until January 1975.

That's when Gov. Ronald Reagan appointed him to the Walnut Creek-Danville Municipal Court where he became chairman of the County Municipal Court Judges' Association and an officer of the California Judges' Association. In August 1987, Judge Minney was appointed to the Contra Costa Superior Court by Gov. George Deukmejian, where he'd advanced to presiding judge in 1996, and Supervising Criminal Judge from 1998-2005.

He retired in May 2005 (sort of), as he's been working since then as part of the statewide retired judges' program on assignment to courts in need of assistance due to vacations or illness.

"A hundred years ago we had Justice Courts in California: you didn't have to be a lawyer and the court justice's wages were a percent of the fines," the speaker revealed. "When a city reached 40,000 population, you could convert to Municipal Court."



AutoAdmit defendant sues Yalies
Areas of Focus | 2008/03/07 03:32

When three Yale Law School students were targeted by sexually explicit and derogatory posts in the online legal chatroom AutoAdmit in 2005, two of them took their case to court. Now the people they sued are firing back.

Anthony Ciolli, a former AutoAdmit director, filed a lawsuit against those two students and their lawyers on Tuesday in a Philadelphia state court, seeking at least $50,000 in damages for abuse of process, libel and false light that he alleges cost him a job offer at a Boston law firm.

Ciolli was originally named a defendant in the students’ suit, filed last June in a federal court in New Haven. But he was dropped from the suit in November when the plaintiffs decided to focus on pursuing the 39 authors of the allegedly defamatory posts.

Ciolli declined to comment Wednesday evening.

Meanwhile, in the original suit, one of the unnamed defendants — whose identities are still unknown — moved last week to quash the subpoenas a federal judge issued to their Internet service providers in January in the hopes of unmasking them. That motion is still pending.

Ciolli’s lawsuit contends that he was improperly sued for those comments when he was not liable for them, said his attorney, Mark Jakubik.

“This case is not about defending or exonerating anyone for the absolutely reprehensible comments that were made about the female law students on AutoAdmit,” Jakubik said. “It’s about what are the appropriate boundaries for seeking redress for those comments, and we think those boundaries were crossed to Anthony’s great detriment.”

Marc Randazza, who represented Ciolli when he was still a defendant in the Connecticut suit, said while everyone can agree the targeted students were wronged, suing Ciolli was not the proper legal remedy.

“It exceeded the boundary of what the law is there for,” he said.

Federal law immunizes Web site administrators from liability for content posted by others, Daniel Solove LAW ’97 — a law professor at The George Washington University and author of “The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor and Privacy on the Internet” — wrote in an e-mail to the News.

David Rosen LAW ’69, an attorney for the Yale students and now a defendant in Ciolli’s suit, could not be reached for comment Wednesday because he is out of the country. Mark Lemley, the other attorney-turned-defendant, also could not be reached for comment. The two law students did not reply to e-mails.

Both wrongful initiation and libel claims are typically very hard to win, said Robert Post LAW ’77, a professor at Yale Law School. A very stringent test applies to proving that any harm the plaintiff sustained was a direct consequence of being sued, he said.

But people who allege they have been libeled or wrongfully prosecuted often sue as a way of vindicating their reputation by demonstrating they believe in their innocence, whether they win or not in the end, he said

Ciolli, who graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in May 2007, worked at Edwards, Angell, Palmer & Dodge in the summer of 2006 and had been offered a full-time job there after graduation, according to the complaint he filed.

But in late March 2007, the firm’s hiring partner called him about several accusations leveled against Ciolli related to the AutoAdmit case, such as that Ciolli was responsible for starting a Web site that ranked the physical appearance of female law students at the nation’s top 14 law schools. The complaint denies Ciolli had any involvement with that site. The following month, the firm rescinded his job offer, the suit says.

The complaint alleges that the law students and their lawyers wrongfully initiated civil proceeding against Ciolli, that the students and a Web site they solicited to help restore their reputations libeled and slandered him and that the publicity they directed toward him placed him in a false light, with the result that he lost his job offer.

The two law students, who were anonymous as the plaintiffs in the Connecticut suit, were named in the Pennsylvania case.

“There was no real big secret about who they were,” Randazza said.

Unlike the original suit, Ciolli’s complaint contains nothing that would be considered scandalous or would justify withholding the students’ names, Jakubik said.

“When folks engage in the kind of conduct that is outlined in the complaint, I’m not sure they should be given the cloak of anonymity,” he said.



[PREV] [1] ..[221][222][223][224][225][226][227][228][229].. [230] [NEXT]
All
Headline Legal News
Legal Topics
Legal Business
Attorney News
Court News
Court Watch
Areas of Focus
Legal Interview
Opinions
High court won't hear appeal over..
Justices turn away GM appeal over..
Fresno killings suspect shouts ou..
White officer headed to court ahe..
Court formally throws out more th..
Conservatives fault Arkansas cour..
Not guilty pleas entered for accu..
Pakistan court to decide on accus..
Austrian court: ex-Croatian gener..
Ohio high court will review full ..
High court sides with Goodyear in..
Court document: Hawaii mother’s ..
Newest justice joins high court a..
2 inmates seek execution stays fr..
Court: Banned Dartmouth fraternit..
Official: Man accused in store at..
Senate GOP 'goes nuclear,' cleari..
Newest justice joins high court a..
New Ohio lethal injection process..
US court ruling could bring more ..




Chicago Business Law Attorney
Corporate Litigation Attorneys
www.rothlawgroup.com
Surry County Criminal Defense Lawyers
Yadkin County Family Law Attorneys
www.dirussolaw.com
Law Firm Web Design Templates
Lawyer Website Templates
www.webpromo.com
   Legal Resource
Headline Legal News for You to Reach America's Best Legal Professionals. The latest legal news and information - Law Firm, Lawyer and Legal Professional news in the Media.
 
 
 
Copyright © ClickTheLaw.com. All Rights Reserved. The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Click The Law. as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. By using the www.clickthelaw.com you agree to be bound by these Terms & Conditions.

Law Firm Website Design by Lawyer Website Design Blog - Lawyer Web Site Design That Works