Goodman, a Phoenix (now suspended) attorney who had his 15 minutes of fame a few years ago as an alleged champion of local folks being abused by their legal guardians/conservators and by the Maricopa County Probate Court, has lost yet another case--his own. In a memorandum decision filed January 25 by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel shot down Goodman's appeal of serious sanctions imposed against him by federal judge Mary Murguia, who is based in Phoenix.
Last summer, the Arizona Supreme Court suspended Goodman from the practice of law for up to five years following a finding that he habitually exploited vulnerable Probate Court clients.
William O'Neil, the presiding disciplinary judge for the Arizona State Bar, wrote that Goodman's actions would be potentially harmful to the public and the legal profession if he had been allowed to continue practicing law.
"A growing number of probate court observers worry,' [Sara Fenske at the LA Weekly] wrote, "that Grant Goodman is less a white knight than a shark who smells blood in the water -- and that he intends to use Maricopa County's most vulnerable for both good publicity and a fat payday."
Earlier, the Phoenix barrister had been trumpeted as a shining star in a series of Arizona Republic stories about troubles in the county's Probate Court.In truth, Goodman quickly became known (and reviled) for filing endless court papers against judges, court-appointed guardians and lawyers under the guise of protecting Probate Court clients, then try and rake in the legal fees.
Without taking oral argument, the appellate court last week said that Judge Murguia had not abused her discretion by issuing the sanctions against Goodman.
Goodman's remaining contentions, including those related to the district court's alleged bias in imposing sanctions, are unpersuasive. Goodman's motion, in which he appears to ask this court to dismiss the state disciplinary proceedings against him or to void his suspension from practice by the State Bar, is denied."
Full Article and Source:
Grant Goodman, Disgraced Local Attorney, Shot Down By Appellate Court
See Also:
Attorney Grant Goodman Suspended
13 comments:
Well, if this good guy turned out to be a bad guy, where the hell are the real good guys?
I read more. This is a true case of bad against bad, with judges and other attorneys reacting against Goodman's charges of their systematic exploitation. I doubt that Goodman's any worse than the rest - he is just outnumbered.
To NASGA:
They're in hiding because the Barfia eats its own.
Grant Goodman doesn't have a prayer. His fate has been sealed and there's not a thing he can do about it, much like victims going through litigation in an attempt to protect their loved ones.
Whether or not he's a good or bad guy, we don't know. But we do know they have successfully branded him as a bad guy. Anything he touches will fail just because he's touched it.
I believe Goodman is a hero.
I don't know if Goodman is a good guy or not. I saw him say on an interview that he'd never charged any of the victims he was representing anything, but the court filings accuse him of attempting to charge one of them $100k, so it's very confusing.
I do agree, however, that they've taken him out completely.
I think Mr. Goodman has an axe to grind with the judiciary and he's using victims for his own purposes.
Guys, we just don't know enough about what really goes on here. Remember that the media can be very slanted.
Whether Goodman is a good guy or not, I have a feeling only he knows.
However, I do agree with the common consensus here that even if he's a good guy, they've completely clipped his wings.
I think we could judge better if we knew his history. Did he champion any cases before those cases became public? Or did he show up about the same time it all came out in the open? That might tell us something. Like Anon 2 said, the Bar eats up good guys.
If Goodman is suspended, then where is he getting his money to support his defense?
I have a feeling Grant Goodman's not washed up yet. You'll see.
If Mr. Goodman went after the judicary, then he did not do it for his own pleasure. He would have known, they will pin him to the wall.I think, he is to be recommended for fighting for the victims at his own risk. eb
To Anonymous re going after the judiciary. I thoug he was a good guy, and surely he had the will to do right, but then something happened - he started pushing for excessive retainer fees and that's when the vics turned on him.
Post a Comment