Saturday, December 3, 2022
The charges relate to alleged statements and omissions to the State Medical Board in an application to become a physician's assistant.
The February 2019 article
A Broadview Heights attorney once known as an expert witness for defendants in child pornography cases, and who digitally manipulated G-rated images and created child porn for his work, must pay a six-figure judgment to two women whose images he doctored despite filing for bankruptcy, a federal appeals court ruled.
Jack Boland filed for bankruptcy in 2016, and among the debts he included were a $300,000 judgment over images he downloaded from a stock photo website and digitally modified, or “morphed.” The images were of two girls from Cuyahoga County, ages five and six at the time, and Boland altered them to make it seem as if the photos were taken while they were in sexually explicit situations.
Boland presented the doctored images of the two girls and others in courtrooms in Ohio and Oklahoma in trials for which defendants faced child pornography charges.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Jessica Price Smith ruled in 2017 that Boland could discharge the judgment along with his other debts. However, a three-judge bankruptcy panel for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed in a ruling issued Wednesday, meaning Boland will be back on the hook for the judgment.
Boland previously went by the first name Dean. He has written pieces over the years for The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com.
He is a former assistant Cuyahoga County prosecutor who was on a legal team that defended the state from a lawsuit filed by the estate of Dr. Sam Sheppard in 2000. The suit sought a declaration that Sheppard was wrongfully imprisoned for the murder of his wife Marilyn in Bay Village in 1954, though a jury ruled against the estate.
Boland declined comment when reached Wednesday.
By the mid-2000s, he gained a reputation as an expert consultant in computerized digital imaging for defendants in child porn cases. As an expert, he sought to show that innocent images could be altered to appear that children were having sex or posing explicitly, as part of a defense that some people charged did not knowingly view or possess child porn.
His work won him praise at the time from defense lawyers but condemnation from police and prosecutors. Bill Mason, then the county prosecutor, told The Plain Dealer in 2004 that Boland “has gone to the Dark Side.
Boland displayed images he created when he testified as an expert witness at a trial in Oklahoma in 2004. A federal judge admonished him to purge the images from his computer, but Boland did not do so. He subsequently used them in two other cases, according to court records.
The FBI opened an investigation and searched his home in 2005. Boland entered a pre-trial diversion agreement with federal prosecutors in Cleveland in April 2007, in which he admitted to violating a federal prohibition about knowingly possessing child pornography.
He published a statement in the Cleveland Bar Journal in which he apologized to the children whose images he used, along with their families. He said he thought his actions were appropriate under the circumstances but recognized that possessing the images violates federal law.
Two of the children whose images Boland altered sued him in September 2007. U.S. District Judge Dan Polster ordered Boland to pay $150,000 in damages to each victim, who went by Jane Doe and Jane Roe in the lawsuit. Boland filed for bankruptcy in 2016 and the victims argued he should not be able to discharge the judgment along with his other debts.
Smith, the bankruptcy judge, held a trial and ruled in 2017 that Boland could discharge the judgment because it was not for a “willful and malicious injury.” She wrote there was no evidence that Boland intended harm or knew it would harm the children.
The 6th Circuit bankruptcy panel, in an opinion written by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Judge Guy Humphrey, wrote that Price Smith conducted the wrong analysis to come to her conclusion.
She should have focused on whether Boland meant “invade the (children’s) legally protected interests” or knew to a certain degree that his actions would do so, the panel wrote. These interests include their reputations, emotional well-being and privacy rights,. [sic]
When focused on that, “the evidence at trial established that Boland knew or was substantially certain” that the children’s’ privacy and other interests would be harmed, the opinion says. Boland’s actions also qualified as “malicious” under federal bankruptcy law, the court ruled.
Jonathan Rosenbaum, an Elyria attorney who represented the victims, declined comment.
Friday, December 2, 2022
On August 1, 2018, a Pennsylvania State Police officer observed respondent driving erratically and committing traffic violations on local roads in Thornbury Township, Pennsylvania. Based on her erratic driving, the officer initiated a traffic stop and advised respondent to remain in her vehicle. However, respondent repeatedly exited her vehicle, against the officer’s instructions, and stood in the roadway while sweating profusely with bloodshot, glassy eyes. The officer moved respondent to safety and inquired whether she had been drinking, to which she replied, “I cook with vodka.” The officer then requested that respondent perform field sobriety tests. However, she could not comprehend the instructions and, thus, failed to perform the tests. Moreover, the officer observed that respondent failed to maintain her balance and exuded an odor of alcohol from her breath. Consequently, the officer arrested respondent and charged her with driving while intoxicated (DWI). At the time of her arrest, respondent’s blood alcohol content was 0.362.
She pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor DWI.
Another criminal matter involved terroristic threats
Between October 16 and 17, 2019, respondent called the home of her former psychologist four times, without leaving any messages. Beginning on October 19, 2019, however, respondent started leaving threatening voicemails and text messages on the psychologist’s home landline, personal cellular telephone, and business telephone. Specifically, respondent’s voicemails and text messages contained numerous death threats against the psychologist’s life and vulgar, anti-Semitic language directed at the psychologist’s Jewish faith. In one message, respondent threatened that she would “bury” the psychologist with her “bare hands.” In another message, respondent stated that she would “end” the psychologist with a firearm and, to illustrate the threat, sent the psychologist a picture of an unloaded handgun resting on a religious text. Additionally, respondent left long voicemails in which she rambled in a foreign language, accused the psychologist of owing her trillions of dollars, and threatened to shut down the psychologist’s business.
The threats continued into November and involved "no less than"17 messages.
respondent appeared in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and pleaded guilty to first-degree misdemeanor terroristic threats and first-degree misdemeanor stalking. During the proceeding, although respondent admitted to the facts underlying her convictions and expressed remorse, she attributed her actions to her ongoing mental health problems.
New Jersey precedent on attorney DWI
Consistent with precedent that the disciplinary system does not address standalone DWI violations, the OAE’s motion did not seek the imposition of discipline based solely on respondent’s DWI conviction. However, we consider respondent’s DWI conviction as an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate quantum of discipline.
So no violation even if the lawyer-driver can't stand alone?
although the OAE did not charge respondent with any RPC violations based on her anti-Semitic remarks, consistent with our obligation to examine the “full picture” of the offense, we consider such remarks, as aggravating conduct, in imposing discipline.
Attorneys found guilty of harassment or stalking have received discipline ranging from a reprimand to a term of suspension, depending on the duration of the offending behavior, whether the attorney had a history of stalking or harassment, and whether the attorney was suffering from mental illness.
...On balance, we determine that a three-month suspension is the appropriate quantum of discipline necessary to protect the public and preserve confidence in the bar.
Additionally, based on respondent’s invocation of her mental health as an explanation for her misconduct, we require respondent to provide to the OAE, prior to reinstatement, proof of fitness to practice law as attested to by a medical doctor approved by the OAE. Moreover, because of her history with alcohol abuse and the egregious level of her blood alcohol content at the time of her DWI, we also require respondent to enroll in an OAE-approved alcohol treatment program and to submit proof of attendance to the OAE, on a quarterly basis, for at least two years.
Two members favored a six-month suspension. (Mike Frisch)
The Kansas Supreme Court rejected contentions that a suspended attorney had engaged in unauthorized practice and ordered his reinstatement upon payment of required fees
Today we hold that a suspended attorney has not engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when the attorney merely indicates future representation is possible upon reinstatement and does not otherwise engage in any counseling, advising, or rendering services requiring legal knowledge while suspended. See 251 Kan. at 554 (finding a suspended attorney was not engaged in the practice of law while working as a law clerk because "he did not draft any of the documents, did not appear in court, and never offered advice or suggestions to" clients); State, ex rel., v. Hill, 223 Kan. 425, 425-27, 573 P.2d 1078 (1978) (a non-lawyer who had a franchise agreement to buy and resell kits that contained forms for obtaining a divorce in Kansas, completed sample forms, and written and audio instructions was not engaged in the practice of law because he did not personally provide legal advice, never represented himself to be an attorney, and advised at least some customers that he was not an attorney).
Holmes did not apply any law to the facts of his former client's case. He did not render services requiring his professional judgment, nor did he apply any part of his legal education to the specific legal problem of his client. The client knew that Holmes was suspended and not currently licensed to practice law. In fact, the client's wife approached Holmes because the client previously had positive experiences with Holmes' representation. Holmes merely indicated that upon his reinstatement—which he hoped would be imminent—he would readily return to representing his former client.
Holmes did not make any promises regarding future representation nor did he induce that client to rely on him for legal services during his suspension. We are unaware of any injury that the client suffered from Holmes' statements. We decline to extend the definition of the "unauthorized practice of law" to fit Holmes' conduct relevant to the January 8, 2021, informal admonition.
Thursday, December 1, 2022
The Indiana Supreme Court has reprimanded a prosecutor who exercised his influence for the benefit of his son
At all relevant times, Respondent was the Wells County elected prosecutor. In the early morning on July 2, 2022, a Wells County deputy sheriff called Respondent after pulling over Respondent’s son on suspicions of operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Respondent spoke to his son, who was being belligerent and had refused a breath test, and encouraged him to cooperate with the officer. Respondent then asked to speak to the deputy sheriff again. At Respondent’s request, the deputy sheriff agreed to allow Respondent to come to the scene and pick up his son, who was ultimately not arrested.
Respondent readily admitted that he acted improperly, self-reported to the Commission, and has publicly and privately apologized and taken responsibility for his actions.
The web page of the Florida Bar reports on a recent revocation with leave to seek reinstatement after five years
While employed by the Office of the State Attorney, Vitola allegedly stole government-owned reference books and sold them on eBay for profit. Vitola was criminally charged by Information with dealing in stolen property, a second degree felony, grand theft, a third degree felony, and engaging in a scheme to defraud, a third degree felony. (Case No: SC22-1109).
Wednesday, November 30, 2022
The Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands concluded that an attorney who had been suspended for two years by the federal district court had been denied due process.
Accordingly, the court declined to impose reciprocal discipline.
The complaint had originated with the mother of a client and had been assigned to a Magistrate from the Western District of Pennsylvania
The magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on December 3, 2021. Before doing so, the magistrate judge did not hold an evidentiary hearing and did not interview Attorney Moorhead, his client, or the client’s mother who wrote the letter which initiated the investigation. In the report, the magistrate judge stated that she had “directed the Clerk of the District Court of the Virgin Islands to provide a list of matters in which the District Court of the Virgin Islands has imposed discipline upon Attorney Moorhead within the past five years” and that “[i]n addition, [she] independently conducted a search and located several additional matters, in District Court and other courts, in which discipline was imposed.” The magistrate judge provided a list of eight such matters, in which Attorney Moorhead had been fined by various courts or been removed from court-appointed representation and provided a factual summary of each. The report also disclosed that the magistrate judge had interviewed, on an ex parte basis, six individuals in conjunction with the investigation, but did not name them and only summarized their collective testimony, indicating that “Attorney Moorhead has long had problems with meeting court deadlines, making timely court appearances, successfully e-filing documents, communicating adequately with clients, and the like,” that he “may be suffering from an impairment of some kind, possibly due to substance abuse,” and that his “law practice has become increasingly disorganized and haphazard, questioning whether he still maintains a law office at all.” The magistrate judge concluded the report by recommending that Attorney Moorhead be suspended from the District Court Bar for two years and “that significant conditions should be imposed upon his readmission,” including “[a] comprehensive physical and mental health examination” and appointment of “[a] professional mentor” who would “supervise [his] practice of law.”
The process amounted to a denial of due process
Here, the record reflects that the magistrate judge did not provide Attorney Moorhead with an opportunity to be heard, as is expressly required by Local Rule 83.2(b). While the District Court excused this failure by noting that Attorney Moorhead possessed a right to submit a written objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, the plain text of Local Rule 83.2(b) provides Attorney Moorhead with a right to be heard before the magistrate judge and a right, at his option, to file a written objection to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. As such, the procedure employed by the District Court in this case did not provide Attorney Moorhead with the required opportunity to be heard, and thus reciprocal discipline is not warranted pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 207.18(d)(1).
The matter was referred to Disciplinary Counsel for an original investigation
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel must promptly conduct its own independent investigation of the ethical misconduct alleged in the January 25, 2022 order and the similar complaint filed with it and, if appropriate, prosecute Attorney Moorhead in a proceeding before the Board
Based on the facts and circumstances of this case, I respectfully dissent from the draconian penalty imposed on the respondent, Gregory H. Schillace – a penalty which is, in practical effect, the death penalty for this solo practitioner’s career.
A better approach
Where, as here, the evidence establishes that the respondent’s misconduct was the result of a mental condition for which he is receiving ongoing treatment; that he has learned from his mistakes; and that he has already proved, throughout the course of “a sustained period of successful rehabilitation[,]”18 that future misconduct is unlikely, I would impose a two-year suspension and require the respondent to serve three months of it, with the remainder stayed for a twenty-one month term of supervised probation by a West Virginia licensed attorney in good standing tasked with providing quarterly reports to the ODC. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent’s ethical violations, although serious, do not warrant putting a wrecking ball to his career and livelihood.
Tuesday, November 29, 2022
A George Washington University adjunct law professor who sued the school for personal injuries had her claims dismissed by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The court (Judge Trevor McFadden) held her many asserted causes of action (including RICO) foreclosed by worker's compensation
Hdeel Abdelhady, a law professor, fell on a staircase at the George Washington University Law School campus. She promptly filed for workers’ compensation benefits with her employer, George Washington University (GW), which PMA Management Corporation (PMA) helped administer on GW’s behalf. Abdelhady now sues GW and PMA for claims arising out of her fall and their handling of her workers’ compensation claim. Her claims run the gamut from common law negligence to violations of federal racketeering and civil rights laws.
Defendants move to dismiss all counts. They argue that the District of Columbia’s Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for Abdelhady’s injury. In the alternative, they move for summary judgment and offer evidence in support. Because the Workers’ Compensation Act provides Abdelhady’s exclusive remedy, the Court will grant Defendants summary judgment on her negligence claim. The Court will dismiss the remaining counts for failure to state a claim.
The injuries occurred as she was leaving from an "adjunct appreciation" luncheon
As she left, she fell after stepping “on an uneven, sticky, and additionally hazardous stair surface.” Id. ¶ 12. She hit the wall at the bottom of the stairwell, injuring her head, face, wrist, hand, and fingers. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 14, 29–30. Abdelhady was taken to The George Washington University Hospital, where medical personnel diagnosed her with a traumatic brain injury. Id. ¶ 27. The Hospital later billed her directly for “thousands of dollars” of treatment. Id. ¶ 91. Her doctor also referred her to specialists in neurology, ophthalmology, and plastic surgery. Id. ¶ 38
Abdelhady asks this Court to ignore her election (and receipt) of workers’ compensation benefits and find that the WCA does not apply after all. She argues that it is inapplicable here because she was not acting within the scope of her employment at the time of the injury. Opp’n to GW MSJ at 18, ECF No. 26-1; Opp’n to GW MTD at 14–16, ECF No. 25- 211. The Court disagrees. Her successful pursuit of workers’ compensation benefits forecloses this argument.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has released the January 2023 oral argument schedule with this first on the docket
Tuesday, January 10, 2023 10:00 AM
No. 22-SP-0745 DONALD J. TRUMP, ET AL. V. E. JEAN CARROLL
Mark R. Freeman, Esquire
Jason C. Greaves, Esquire
The Hill covered the story
Carroll, a longtime columnist for Elle magazine, accused Trump of raping her in a New York City department store in the 1990s. She sued the former president for defamation three years ago after he dismissed her allegations against him and accused her of lying.
The D.C. Court of Appeals scheduled oral arguments for Jan. 10, according to a new filing obtained by Axios, to answer the specific legal question of whether Trump made the allegedly libelous statements against Carroll within the scope of his role as president of the United States.
In the complex series of legal moves that followed Carroll’s initial suit, Trump’s legal team attempted to dismiss and delay the case, and eventually to countersue Carroll for bringing the lawsuit against him in the first place.
The Justice Department then moved to step in and argue that Trump could not be sued in his personal capacity, since he made the statements during his tenure in the White House, and that the Justice Department should be substituted as defendant in the case.
The former president sat for his deposition in the case earlier this month after his legal team repeatedly attempted to delay the proceedings.
All active judges on D.C.’s highest court will hear the January arguments before the trial reportedly scheduled for February, according to the filing.
“We are pleased that the DC Court of Appeals set an expedited schedule to determine the issue certified by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. As we’ve said several times by now, we are eager to get to trial on all of E Jean’s claims as soon as possible,” Carroll’s attorney Robbie Kaplan said in a statement.
An agreed 61-day suspension and 18 months probation has been accepted by the Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge
The Agreement sets forth detailed facts and circumstances regarding the underling misconduct. Generally speaking, the ethical violations resulted from Mr. Graham’s involvement with the Timeshare Cancellation Law Group (TCLG) – which he founded – and Timeshare Attorneys of America (TAA), which TCLG acquired. Mr. Graham failed to conduct due diligence as to TAA personnel and court-imposed restrictions on TAA’s activities. He also failed to adequately supervise individuals performing work on behalf of timeshare clients or to ensure that certain lawyers were authorized to offer legal services in jurisdictions where they were engaged in the practice of law. Additionally, Mr. Graham failed to adequately communicate with timeshare clients or to receive authorization from them to share information with third parties assisting TCLG/TAA.
The parties agree that Mr. Graham violated duties owed to clients, the profession, and the legal system, causing actual harm. They further stipulate that he acted knowingly as to the violations of ERs 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.6 and negligently with respect to the violations of ERs 5.1, 5.3, 5.5(a), 8.4(a), and 8.4(d).
The Delaware Court of Chancery has ruled against basketball legend Julius Erving's effort to avoid arbitration of an agreement concerning the sale of his trademark and intellectual property rights
Julius W. Erving II, known by the moniker “Dr. J,” is a basketball legend. In 2016, Mr. Erving agreed to sell a majority interest in his trademark and other intellectual property to Authentic Brands Group, LLC (“ABG”), a brand development and marketing company. ABG and its controlling member and CEO, James Salter, promised to grow Mr. Erving’s brand exponentially by obtaining new licensing agreements, promotional appearances, and other marketing opportunities.
Plaintiffs brought this suit on September 22, 2021, bringing claims for breach of contract and specific performance against ABG Intermediate.
Because the parties evidenced a clear and unmistakable intent to have the arbitrator decide issues of substantive arbitrability, the action is STAYED pending the arbitrator’s decision. “If the arbitrator determines the claim is arbitrable, then this action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction . . . . If the arbitrator determines the matter is not arbitrable, then the parties may return to this Court for further proceedings.”
The Illinois Review Board has proposed a 90-day suspension of an attorney
The complaint alleged that Respondent, who was ordered to complete 20 hours of community service as part of her sentence for a traffic violation, submitted a report to Woodford County Court Services, falsely representing that she had completed her community service by volunteering at St. Mark’s Church, in Peoria, Illinois, when, in fact, she had not done any volunteer work for St. Mark’s Church, thereby acting dishonestly and in a manner that reflected adversely on her honesty. Prior to the complaint being filed, Respondent was indicted for forgery, a felony, for submitting that false report (720 ILCS 5/17-3(a)(2)); she pled guilty to the indictment and was placed on Second Chance Probation for two years.
The Administrator had sought a suspension of five months.
Respondent had been ticketed for driving at 95 mph in a 55 mph zone.
At the disciplinary hearing, when Respondent was asked why she submitted a false report, Respondent testified that she “cut corners.” (C. 151, 165.) She also testified that she justified it in her mind because she had performed enough volunteer work at the Peoria Symphony Guild to satisfy the court imposed requirement of 20 hours of community service. (C. 154-158, 165.)
A special concurrence by Member Scott Szala
under Illinois law, Respondent can credibly argue that she was not required to report her felony guilty plea of forgery to her existing or future clients. However, since the long-standing purpose of ARDC discipline is, in part, to “protect the public,” In re Timpone, 157 Ill. 2d 178, 197 (1993), some existing or future clients could be troubled to learn that their attorney pled guilty to a felony under the Second Chance Probation statute but was not required to disclose that guilty plea to them. Accordingly, from a public policy standpoint, I bring this issue cto the attention of the Court for its consideration.
Monday, November 28, 2022
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has accepted the license revocation of a former judge
According to information obtained from the court's file of the proceedings in this matter, the CCAP and WSCCA websites, and the materials attached to the OLR's misconduct summary, in March 2021, the State filed a criminal complaint against Attorney Blomme alleging that he possessed child pornography during a time period in which he served as a judge in the Children's Division of Milwaukee County Circuit Court ("Children's Court"). On the same day the State filed the criminal complaint, this court issued an order temporarily prohibiting Attorney Blomme from exercising the powers of a circuit court judge and temporarily withholding his judicial salary, effective the date of the order and until further order of the court.
He pled guilty to two counts of distributing child pornography.
we accept Attorney Blomme's petition for the consensual revocation of his Wisconsin law license. We note that, according to the federal sentencing transcript attached to the OLR's misconduct summary, the sentencing judge described some of the child pornography involved in Attorney Blomme's case as "the worst of the worst." The judge also noted that Attorney Blomme's wrongdoing "wasn't just the possession" but also "the selection and distribution of particularly virulent child pornography." The judge also voiced concern that Attorney Blomme "committed [his] crimes in part at the courthouse" where he was responsible for cases involving children who had been abused. The judge described Attorney Blomme's behavior as "a huge stain on the reputation of the judiciary."
Justice Roggensack concurred but decried the lack of judicial action
Blomme was arrested on March 16, 2021, and did not formally resign his seat on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court until much later, on September 1, 2021. In all that time, the Judicial Commission took no public action.
Over 600 days have passed since Blomme was arrested at his residence and taken into custody on March 16, 2021. Blomme was formally charged in Dane County Circuit Court with seven felony counts of possession of child pornography on March 17, 2021 (Dane County Case No. 2021CF647). Blomme made his initial appearance in Dane County Circuit Court on March 17, when he was released on signature bond.
...The Judicial Commission protects the public. I am concerned by their inaction.
Urban Milwaukee reported that he was sentenced to a nine-year prison term.(Mike Frisch)
The most frustrating aspect of the District of Columbia bar disciplinary system is the interminable delays that have become endemic over the past twenty years.
Second most frustrating is that no one in a position to do anything about it seems to care one whit.
So I found this letter from retired Superior Court Judge Peter Wolf somewhat heartening
This issue of the Daily Washington Law Reporter reprints a District of Columbia Court of Appeals attorney disciplinary decision, In re Krame. I was the one who made complaints against Attorney Krame. I was obligated to do so under the Judicial Canons of Ethics, and for more reasons than appear in the DCCA opinion.
I am not writing to argue one way or another the outcome of Mr. Krame’s case; I was not even called to testify. I write only to suggest to the Bar that our disciplinary processes are too slow and that something should be done about it. Mr. Krame’s case is proof of this pudding.
My letter complaint to Bar Counsel (as Disciplinary Counsel was then called) was written July 16, 2007. The Court of Appeals decision is dated November 3, 2022. That is a total elapsed time of more than FIFTEEN YEARS. That is too long -- too long for the accused attorney and too long for the public that our disciplinary rules are designed to protect.
I realize that attorney discipline can affect an attorney’s livelihood; therefore, great due process care must be taken. Many of the disciplinary system participants are volunteers with busy and conflicting schedules. Disciplinary counsel is short-staffed and underfunded. Cases can be extremely complicated. Discovery and motions take time. Briefing takes more time beyond testimony and oral arguments. The tribunals involved conscientiously take time to consider and write their decisions.
The Krame case was exceptional. For example, my complaint was stetted until an awaited decision in In re D.M.B., 979 A.2d 15 (D.C. App. Aug. 20, 2009), a delay of 25 months. Thereafter, Bar Counsel resumed investigation and discovery, much of it contested, for about 45 months. A possible negotiated disposition, which failed, occupied another 18 months. Attorney screeners caused delay. Disciplinary Counsel concluded an expert witness was necessary; once chosen, money had to be allocated for her.
A four-count, 139-paragraph, 41-page Specification of Charges was eventually filed March 31, 2016, almost nine years after my complaint. A hearing committee took ten days of testimony in October-December 2016; after briefing, a decision was rendered on July 23, 2018 (206 pages). Then there was more briefing before the Board on Professional Responsibility, oral argument, and more time for its disposition on July 31, 2019 (57 pages). The attorney was temporarily suspended by the Court of Appeals on October 15, 2019. (He has already been suspended, then, for more than three years; the final DCCA disposition ordered suspension for 18 months.) There was briefing before the Court of Appeals. Oral argument was finally set for June 24, 2021. The 53-page slip opinion, reprinted in the D.W.L.R. today, came down 16 months after that.
But the discipline took 15 years overall! That’s obscene. While 15 years is conspicuously excessive, I am aware of other cases that have also been, in my opinion, too slow.
I’m 87 years old, retired, and for the last four years a resident of Winston-Salem, N.C. I no longer maintain much contact with D.C. So, my plea is for someone locally -- anyone (even a committee)! -- to look at this system and its procedures and funding and make it faster.
More effective attorney discipline was the primary reason the compulsory D.C. Bar was created 50 years ago. Discipline has been more effective. But over those 50 years has it become too slow? -- inefficient, even though effective?
Krame may be extreme, but extreme cases should provoke reassessment. Thanks to anyone who answers this call.
Krame is sadly not an outlier on delay. One case - In re Harris-Lindsey - took 22 years.
I was an Assistant Bar Counsel from 1984 to 2001. This species of delay never happened back then.
So what did happen?
I actually have a pretty good idea. First, there are a plethora of cases where the "investigation" of a complaint that led to charges took five to eight years. That's on Disciplinary Counsel. Second, neither the Board on Professional Responsibility or the Court of Appeals has deemed it appropriate or necessary to even criticize delays. That's on the whole system.
Let's see if anyone (say the Court of Appeals, which bears ultimate responsibility) responds to Judge Wolf's call to answer that question and takes meaningful action.
I am not going to hold my breath waiting. (Mike Frisch)
Sunday, November 27, 2022
A dispute over rented bicycles has led to charges of judicial misconduct before the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission
Respondent attended a judicial conference on Mackinac Island on August 20, 2019.
Respondent rented bicycles from the Mackinac Island Bike Shop on Main Street for herself and a colleague.
Respondent Brue provided her credit card number to the staff of the bicycle rental shop before she was given bicycles for herself and the colleague.
When they returned their bicycles to the shop, respondent and her colleague explained to the bicycle shop staff that the colleague had a problem operating the bicycle.
Respondent did not want to pay full price for the rentals and asked a staff member for an accommodation. The staff member summoned his supervisor.
Respondent Brue spoke with the supervisor and again asked for an accommodation. The request was denied.
Respondent Brue told at least one of those two employees that she and the colleague were judges.
One of the employees summoned Ira Green, the proprietor of the bike shop.
Mr. Green and respondent spoke for approximately 20 minutes but were not able to resolve their disagreement over how much to pay.
During her discussion with Mr. Green respondent Brue said words to the following effect:
You’re going to call the police on two black judges. . . We’re trying to explain to you the situation with the bikes and so now you want to call the police officers on us.
I am absolutely a judge.
During her discussion with Mr. Green respondent reached over the cash register and forcibly attempted to take the bike rental paper out of Mr. Green’s hand, ripping the paper.
Respondent Brue then said to Mr. Green words to the effect:
You assaulted me. Did you just assault me? You took my receipt and tore it up. I want the police. Now we need the police. I am going to call them. Because you just assaulted an elected official who is here. . . who came here by invitation for a conference. You assaulted me. I asked you for my receipt back. You snatched my receipt back from me. You snatched my receipt and threw it away and grabbed my hand and you hurt me. You touched my hand with force and violence. I am a female. I am a judge. I am here for a conference and you --- . . . --- I am an African America female. That was racist, and it was disrespectful and it was violent.
No, you settle down. You touched me. I am afraid, I’m shaken. I’m in fear of my safety. --- With violence.” Do you know what is now going to happen to you, a Caucasian man that’s found guilty of striking an African American female judge?
The police responded and, allegedly, the judge made false statements
When Officer Hardy returned from watching the video of the incident, he told respondent Brue words to the effect of “it looks like you did the assault.” He demonstrated multiple times what he saw respondent Brue do that was captured on the video.
Respondent Brue eventually admitted to Officer Hardy that Mr. Green had not assaulted her, and that she had reached across the counter and attempted to take the paper from Mr. Green.
Trooper Bergsma negotiated a settlement whereby respondent Brue and her colleague did not pay for their bicycle rentals, Mr. Green provided respondent Brue a receipt showing that she did not owe any money, and respondent Brue and Mr. Green would not seek to prosecute the other.
The judge also is alleged to have made false statements to the Commission concerning the incident.
Editor's note: The Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission web site is first rate. Highly informative with easy access to case information. (Mike Frisch)
A six-month suspension imposed by the South Carolina Supreme Court
After graduating from law school, Respondent was employed with a law firm as a law clerk. Upon being admitted to practice in November 2017, Respondent became an associate with the firm in an hourly position. The firm used computer software to track working hours in real time, and throughout 2018, Respondent used the software to clock in and out during times when he was not in the office or otherwise working in an effort to inflate his hours and increase his pay. At tax time, Respondent's supervising attorney discovered the discrepancy and confronted Respondent on January 24, 2019. The total amount of overpayment was $17,722.74. Respondent initially denied misconduct, but later admitted what he had done. When Respondent's supervisor expressed his ethical duty to report Respondent's misconduct, Respondent requested an opportunity to self-report.
He self-reported and made full restitution
In his affidavit in mitigation, Respondent expresses remorse and explains that his preoccupation with financial security arose from his disadvantaged upbringing. Respondent explains that he erred in allowing his desperation to prove his personal worthiness and to achieve financial security to eclipse his better judgment. Respondent also states he has worked with several counselors to understand why he committed misconduct.
Saturday, November 26, 2022
The Las Vegas Review Journal reports on a recent disbarment by the Nevada Supreme Court
A Las Vegas attorney who previously worked as a deputy attorney general and who was the widow of prominent defense lawyer has been ordered disbarred.
Gianna Orlandi committed multiple violations of the rules that govern lawyers in Nevada, according to a panel of six state Supreme Court justices.
“Orlandi knowingly violated duties owed to her clients, the legal system, and the profession,” stated the order, which was filed on Tuesday.
Orlandi was previously married to prominent Las Vegas defense lawyer James “Bucky” Buchanan, who died in November 2009 when he crashed his Ferrari after suffering a medical episode, according to Review-Journal archives. The couple were known in Las Vegas social circles for what the Review-Journal described as their “legendary charity events,” including their annual Toys for Tots holiday parties.
“He cared a lot about his clients,” Orlandi said about her late husband, describing him as larger than life, shortly after he died. “Not all of them had lots of money, but he gave each client the stellar representation he would have given a million-dollar client. Nobody got shortchanged.”
In contrast, clients of Orlandi’s did get short-changed, according to the panel of judges. Specifically, Orlandi was found to have formed a law firm with a non-attorney who “performed most of the legal work on the firm’s case,” the disbarment order read.
“Orlandi failed to supervise the attorney, who held himself out as an attorney, met with clients, and provided legal advice,” the order stated.
She also kept billing the client for work done by the non-attorney even though the client asked that the non-lawyer stop doing any more work on the case, the order found.
Other violations were also described in the order, including one in which the non-attorney “propositioned” a client by offering to provide legal services “in exchange for companionship.”
According to the order, Orlandi failed to respond to the amended complaint, or the allegations against her, resulting in a default judgment against her.
A lawyer.com website describing Orlandi’s law offices said Orlandi is originally from the East Coast but was sworn into the Nevada Bar in 1993. She also worked for 11 years with the Nevada Attorney General’s Office “as a deputy attorney general prosecuting civil and criminal cases on behalf of the people within the great State of Nevada.”
Orlandi had since been working in the private sector, practicing accident and injury, contract, divorce and family law, criminal and real estate law, according to the website.
Thursday, November 24, 2022
Summaries of decisions entered yesterday by the Illinois Supreme Court include
Mr. Duebbert, a former circuit court judge in St. Clair County who was licensed in 1990, was suspended for one year and until further order of the Court. In 2016 and 2107, he made false statements to the police and to the Judicial Inquiry Board about his contacts with a friend of his who was the subject of a criminal investigation. He has been suspended on an interim basis since July 13, 2020. A suspension until further order of the Court is an indefinite suspension which requires the suspended lawyer to petition for reinstatement after the fixed period of suspension ends. Reinstatement is not automatic and must be allowed by the Supreme Court of Illinois following a hearing before the ARDC Hearing Board.
Ms. Yohanna, who was licensed in 2009, was suspended for six months. While working as an investigator for the Civilian Office of Police Accountability ("COPA") in Chicago, she repeatedly, and without authorization, accessed a private database of police records in violation of the terms of her employment. When an investigation ensued, she falsely reported that another COPA investigator, whom she wrongly suspected of having reported her misconduct, was planning on carrying out a mass shooting at the COPA office. The suspension is effective on December 14, 2022.
Mr. Kolb, who was licensed in 1994, was suspended for 30 days. Ten months after learning of his personal injury client's death, Mr. Kolb prepared and sent a letter to an insurance company demanding settlement for injuries and for "future pain and physical limitations." The insurance company made a counteroffer, and Mr. Kolb purported to enter into a settlement agreement despite never having taken steps to substitute the deceased client's estate as the claimant. He did so even though he knew that the insurance company was unaware that his client had died. The suspension is effective on December 14, 2022.
Wednesday, November 23, 2022
The Oklahoma Supreme Court accepted the resignation of an attorney convicted of honest services wire fraud and possession of oxycodone with intent to distribute
Respondent admits that, while he was serving as an Assistant District Attorney in the Ottawa County District Attorney's Office, he devised a scheme beginning in or about February of 2019 and continuing until on or about April 19, 2022, to defraud the citizens of Oklahoma and his employer of their right to the honest and faithful services that he owed them in his position through the concealment of material information and the receipt of bribes in exchange for official acts. Specifically, Respondent would receive something of value--including sexual favors from multiple women --in exchange for corrupt actions in his official capacity, including but not limited to the reduction of criminal defendants' bond amounts, the dismissal of traffic violations, and other favorable treatment of criminal defendants in their cases. To advance this scheme and artifice to defraud, Respondent employed wire communications in interstate commerce to transmit sounds and writings, including text messages sent on April 13th and 14th and a phone call placed on April 14th. Respondent further admits to possessing Oxycodone on April 19th with intent to distribute, all in relation to allegations that he traveled interstate to deliver the controlled dangerous substance (CDS) to a woman in exchange for sexual favors. Respondent is currently waiting to be sentenced.
News Channel 8 Tulsa reported on his arrest and termination. (Mike Frisch)
The Ohio Disciplinary Counsel has charged an attorney defending a murder case with "deposit[ing] his feces into an empty potato chip can" and throwing the can out of his car window into the parking lot of the case victim advocate's place of employment Haven of Hope.
The attorney allegedly then sped off to attend a hearing in the case.
Editor's question: Is this billable time?
Respondent pled guilty to two misdemeanors of disorderly conduct and littering. He withdrew from the criminal case due to a conflict of interest.
He allegedly had done this with potato chip cans on ten prior occasions.
The attorney -admitted in 1976 - is alleged to have engaged in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice contrary to Ohio Rule 8.4(h). (Mike Frisch)