Once their secrets are revealed, some lawyers leave no doubt that they crossed the line and left it far, far behind.
Take Scott Rothstein, who will be spending the next 50 years in a federal prison for running a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme out of his law office in South Florida. An outraged judge pitched the book his way last month, giving Rothstein a decade longer behind bars than the prosecution recommended.
In the matter of disbarred attorney Steven Rondos, it isn't so much the sum he stole, which prosecutors put at $4 million, but the sort of people he stole it from that made his crimes so despicable.
His 23 victims all suffered from some sort of disability - one had cerebral palsy and spastic quadriplegia, for example - which is why Rondos had been appointed their guardian.
Instead, he spent their money on himself and his home. A $31,000 television set here. A $10,000 set of kitchen curtains there. At that rate, you can go through a few million quickly.
Sentenced in May, Rondos is now doing up to 15 years behind bars.
But what about lawyers who hurt their clients while not actually stealing from them, or lawyers who act unethically for the benefit of their client?
In the term just finished, the U.S. Supreme Court took up an astounding number of cases related to attorney conduct or compensation, amounting to almost 20 percent of its caseload, according to Law.com, the National Law Journal's site.
The court considered 16 cases touching on or centered on lawyering. A few had to do with fairly technical aspects of the profession.
[T}here was a Florida case in which the client was more on top of the law than his attorney was. Albert Holland begged and pleaded with his lawyer to please, please, please file a crucial document with the court by deadline or else his case was doomed.
The lawyer missed the deadline, anyway, so Holland missed his chance to claim his murder conviction and death sentence had been wrongly decided.
Oops.
Too bad, the lower courts ruled. Holland would just have to suffer for his lawyer's slip. The state might as well schedule his execution.
The Supreme Court saw it differently.
So what message are we to take away from the Supreme Court's rulings on lawyer conduct?
Just this one:
The Supreme Court is watching.
Full Editorial and Source:
Anne Woolner: Justice Shines a Light on Bad Lawyering
Well, it's certainly overdue.
ReplyDeleteLawyer wrongdoing is increasing exponentially in today's economy.
Agreed, when they do things that are wrong, attorneys think they are above the law.
ReplyDeleteIn NJ Attorney Ethics looks the other way as do many other agencies.
This is welcome news.
ReplyDeleteIn the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to grant too many petitions for cert alleging fraud by state courts, lawyers and judges. I know this from personal experience, and I suspect the vast majority of cases still suffer this fate.
I'd like to see statistics collected and made public which report how many cases alleging such fraud are filed, and how many of these cases are actually granted cert. I'd also like to go a step further and see made public the petitions for cert which allege such fraud ...
I hope the Supreme Court is watching. I know for sure the people are and have been for a long time.
ReplyDeleteThe whole judicial system is a joke and has been for years.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to fix it is to admit it and address it head on.
This is what the citizens expect.
Right, Anon 2, the ethics committees look the other way. There needs to be more private citizens on the ethics committees.
ReplyDelete