I watch entirely too much TV and have to admit that I get sucked into courtroom and legal dramas. I read a blog post saying that CBS’s The Good Wife was stretching ethics a bit much. My first reaction was to agree, and I do understand that in the name of entertainment and getting the story told in the space of an hour, ethics may seem dangerously stretched in order to make a point. Then I watched a couple more episodes (I really like this show) and was struck with another thought. We should be cognizant that some of these ethical breaches that seem so overly dramatic may just be realistic portrayals of what goes on behind closed doors – between attorneys, judges, clients, corporate big-wigs, anyone who may have a stake in the outcome of a case. It’s that whole concept of “the end justifies the means” that forms the basis for bad ethical behavior in the first place. You know, “I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on TV” – except for Fred Thompson and Oscar Goodman and all those politicians that are lawyers. I’m just saying.
When Bad Lawyers Happen To Good People
Archive for ‘Ethics & Professional Misconduct’
Judges Are Like Umpires
Judges are like umpires, Chief Justice John Roberts famously declared during his confirmation hearing five years ago. “They make sure everybody plays by the rules.” But what would happen if some umpires showed up at swank resorts as featured attendees at one team’s pregame meetings? Even the hint of such favoritism would trigger a fan revolt and demands from Capitol Hill that the umpires involved be disqualified. Americans are about to find out just how much baseball and our judicial system really are alike.
Don’t get me started! Take a look at the whole story at the full blog post by Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause. And this story is about the judges at the top of the heap. What are the possibilities in your local criminal court, family and probate court, your state’s appellate court? You know what they say about one bad apple…
Ethics Complaint – The End
Well, I am not at all surprised that despite the allegations set forth in the ethics complaint I filed against an attorney who let a client he snared from a women’s shelter work for him for four years without pay has been DISMISSED by the powers that be. This is the body of the letter:
The Office of Bar Counsel has considered your grievance regarding Attorney X. After reviewing the information received and communicating with Jane, Attorney X’s former client, it has been determined that any professional misconduct in this matter could not be proved by “clear and convincing evidence,” which is the standard of proof required in disciplinary cases…Accordingly, the grievance has been dismissed and, as such, this matter is closed. The decision by our office, however, does not affect any private remedies that might be available to you…Thank you for bringing this matter to the attention of this office.
And that, my friends, is that. I have encouraged my friend to continue following up with the Labor Board regarding her back wages as this is a “private remedy” that is available to her and which could put some money in her pocket (unless Attorney X declares bankruptcy). Even if she wanted to retain an attorney to sue Attorney X for malpractice, Attorney X does not carry malpractice insurance! It is highly unlikely that she could even find a lawyer willing to take on Attorney X in a lawsuit, but even if there was a lawyer who practiced in this area, taking a case where there is no insurance policy to go after is a loser.
So, unless the Labor Board catches up with him, and he has to pay Jane some back wages (at the rate of minimum wage because there was no agreement as to what her hourly rate of pay should have been), Attorney X has got a pretty good setup. He gets clients referred to him by the women’s shelter. If they can’t pay for his services and they have any skills at all, he has slave labor at his disposal. He can’t get sued for malpractice because he doesn’t carry insurance and he can’t get disbarred because it’s “too hard to prove.”
Frankly, my impression of the position taken by the disciplinary board is this — if they think they can get away with not pursuing the matter, and if the victim is low profile enough, and the attorney hasn’t done something “outrageous” like stealing client monies from the trust fund, they just put it in the “lack of clear and convincing evidence” shoebox, knowing that the person will have nowhere to turn for a “private” or “civil” remedy, and it’s just over.
It’s just wrong.
