Earlier this week the fine folks at one of the most, if not the most, innovative online legal publisher, Fastcase announced its inaugural class of the Fastcase 50: “the fifty 49 most interesting, provocative, and courageous leaders in the world…
Posts Tagged ‘fine’
What is the Sentence for a First Offense DUI in California?
05
Jul
The Penalties and sentence for a first offense DUI charge are routine in most California courts. Most people get the same sentence, but there can be aggravating factors. And in some counties, Ignition Interlock Devices will be required for even first offenders. Continue reading
NJ Attorney Advertising Committee Rules that a TotalAttorneys WebSite is Misleading
30
Jun
The Committee on Attorney Advertising of the New Jersey Court System issued an Advisory Opinion this week that stated that a Total Bankruptcy web site, published by TotalAttorneys®, a law firm marketing and services organization based in Chicago, is misleading and in violation of the Rule of Professional Conduct 7.1 (a) .Download Full Opinion .
The Committee also ruled that the web site was not an impermissible referral service and that Attorneys are not flatly prohibited from paying for advertising on a "pay-per-lead" or "pay per click" basis. That’s good news for TotalAttorneys and other performance-based marketing schemes on the Internet.
The Committee sets out clearly that "Attorney advertising cannot be misleading or omit operative facts." and found that the website did not provide sufficient information to the user and is misleading.
In this case, the user was directed to only one attorney based on the purchase of exclusive rights to a geographical area. To avoid misleading consumers, the Committee stated, the methodology for the selection of the attorney’s name must be made clear, including the fact that the website limited participation to one (paying) attorney per geographical area. Further, the Committee specified that all requirements to participate in the website must be clearly specified; a full list of participating attorneys must be readily accessible, and the website must inform the user that the attorneys have paid a fee to participate.
It is easy for attorneys to violate their professional obligations and expose themselves to bar sanctions, by ignoring the fine print in their agreements with Internet-based marketing websites.
For example, no less a credible organization as Lexis-Nexis®, recently launched a direct to consumer web site, called EZLAW.COM. The website purports to offer wills, powers of attorney and advance directives forms bundled with legal advice for a fixed and reasonable fee. A goal I would heartily endorse.
However, the site seems to suffer from the same issues as the TotalAttorney’s web site when viewed through the lense of the New Jersey Advisory Opinion.
At EZLAW, the site operator provides a mechanism for consumers to assemble legal documents on-line and then make available a network of attorneys to provide legal advice as part of the offered package. In describing its Attorney Network, EZLAW states that:
They are all prescreened by EZLaw to ensure that you get professional, experienced and confidential legal counsel. To be included in our network, attorneys must meet our rigorous 12-point checklist of criteria.
This suggests that EZLAW is vouching for the quality of the qualifications of the participating attorneys, not only whether an attorney has practiced a number of years or maintains a certain level of malpractice, and this could be construed as misleading.
Moreover, the NJ Opinion states clearly that as a form of attorney advertising, " a full list of participating attorneys must be readily accessible," but on the EZLAW web site no list of participating attorneys is to be found.
Moreover the limited representation agreement executed by the client with the law firm is provided by EZLAW on behalf of the law firm, so the client never knows the identity of the law firm prior to entering into an engagement with the attorney. Normally you would expect that the client would enter into a limited retainer agreement directly with the law firm. I never heard of a retainer agreement that wasn’t entered into directly between the client and the law firm. Not in this case.
Click here for a copy of the Representation Agreement between EZLAW and the client. You decide whether this agreement is ethically compliant? I am interested in hearing other opinions about this agreement. If you have one. please comment.
So what’s the bottom line? Lawyer’s need to read the fine print. Lawyers need to have a full understanding of how their ethical obligations apply to these new Internet-based marketing schemes lest they be caught in a web of disciplinary proceedings that wasn’t part of the bargain.
Hein Turns the Table on the Anniversary Gift-Giving Tradition!
24
Jun
Normally landmark anniversaries means you give presents to the person(s) who achieved that milestone. Well, that not how the fine folks at William S. Hein & Co., Inc., see it. To mark the Company’s 50th anniversary, Hein is offering the…
Narco-Induced Antitrustism Paranoia: Fine Print AALL-Style for Participating in My Communities Forums
20
Jun
AALL’s Fine Print: TOS for My Communities Forums Introduction Thank you for being part of our community. To ensure the best possible experience for all members, we have established some basic guidelines for participation. By joining and using this community,…
FINE FINALLY FREED!
UPDATE Friday, January 14, 2011
Fine and his daughter Victoria need to get their act together. If his 18 month coercive confinement in solitary is to have any meaning and a good result, we, his supporters, need to be kept informed. The latest information that I had was that he would be in court number 86 down at the Stanley Mosk courthouse at 9:30am, in front of Judge Ann Jones, you can come and Visit us and so we will feel more supported with your presence since at this time is when we need your support the most . I went. Nada. Nothing. Coming home, I find after much computer searching that she had recused herself as one of the accused judges, and the case was reassigned to department 85 in front of Judge Robert O’Brien with no date for a hearing, back on December 16th. How are his admirers to know if they are not on someone’s personal email list?
It’s not good enough for a fan site. It needs a blog kept up-to-date by Richard Fine himself. Enough said!
********************
September 18, 2010
This is BIG news. He won! It can be done! As a PRO PER too!
From the L.A.Times, Scott Glover, September 18, 2010:
LAWYER ABRUPTLY FREED FROM JAIL
Richard Fine, 70, had spent a year and a half behind bars on contempt charges. Richard Fine has contended he was being targeted because of his challenges to county-funded benefits that judges receive on top of their state pay.
A 70-year-old lawyer who was sentenced to jail “indefinitely” on contempt-of-court charges was abruptly released Friday evening after spending a year and a half behind bars. He was released from Los Angeles County Jail in downtown Los Angeles shortly after 9 p.m. but did not wish to speak to a Times reporter, said his daughter, Victoria.
Fine, an antitrust and taxpayer advocate attorney, was thrown in jail last year by Superior Court Judge David P. Yaffe for failing to answer questions about his finances and for practicing law without a license. [His brave fellow lawyers at the ABA had taken his license away from him – an embarrassment to their lying profession, no doubt!]
The contempt charges stemmed from a case Fine filed on behalf of Marina del Rey homeowners who sued local developers. He had been ordered to pay sanctions and attorneys’ fees in the case. Fine contends he was being targeted by Yaffe because of his challenges to county-funded benefits that judges receive on top of their state pay.
Rather than comply with Yaffe’s orders and be released from jail, Fine vowed to take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In May, however, the [“justice for all”] court declined to take up his petition, meaning he could have remained in jail indefinitely as Yaffe had ordered.
The judge could not be reached for comment late Friday.
While in solitary confinement, Fine filed habeas corpus petitions for his release with the California Supreme Court, District Court and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, alleging that Yaffe was biased against him and should have recused himself from the contempt-of-court case.
His imprisonment was “the latest encounter in the 10-year campaign by Fine to restore due process in the California judicial system,” the attorney, who has been representing himself, wrote in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. “Fine is the only attorney, of the approximately 208,000 California attorneys, with the courage to challenge the California judiciary,” he wrote.
In a telephone interview with The Times in May, Fine said the U.S. Supreme Court had made the wrong decision by allowing him to remain in jail. He said he would be filing another petition.
“I’m in fighting condition,” he said. “They haven’t broken me down, and they won’t break me down.”
Interesting to note that on September 16, Judge Yaffe made a minute order that Fine should be imprisoned for a further 6 months after which there would be a hearing, and then ON THE VERY NEXT DAY, reversed himself with an order that he should be set free. True, it was the Day of Atonement, (being the first day of Yom Kippur), but I don’t think this moved his change of heart.
I’d rather speculate another reason that this took place. We may never know, but could it have been by Executive Order from the president?
Imagine, he’s sitting across from Ahmadinejad, trying to explain, and complain. Ahmadinejad isn’t listening. Instead, he’s asking how it is that a U.S. citizen is sitting alone in a government prison for a year and a half, on the orders of an American judge, without due process, and brings up images of glass houses.
Obama’s not doing much better with Chavez, who looks at him with a barely concealed smile on his face.
As for Castro, he just slaps his knee, points, and laughs and laughs.
So it becomes a national security issue; there’s a phone call from the White House, and right is finally done. And Yaffe will probably go into hiding after announcing his resignation from the bench.
For a full explanation, and background, to this very shocking very American story, the Full Disclosure Network link provides it here.
And as a lesson to all of us pro pers who would file briefs in court, and could do with a model of clarity and succintness, read Richard’s all-inclusive complaint addressed to some of today’s power brokers.
THREE CHEERS FOR FINE! WELL DONE! YOU DID THIS FOR THE DOWNTRODDEN, AND NOW IT’S ONWARDS AND UPWARDS. YOUR SACRIFICE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN!
READ THE ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTS HERE, courtesy of the FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK:
These documents, written by Richard Fine, are models of construction, especially given that they were written while confined to a jail cell. THEY WERE IGNORED! Which leads one to the question, WHY BOTHER? What’s the alternative in this greatest country on God’s Green Earth? What follows is one man’s experience in the justice system of these United States:
1. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT (L.A.). In Judge David Yaffe’s Courtroom. Case No. BS 109420. Notice of Hearing to Order Release. Filed on May 21, 2010. After filing Judge Yaffe refused to set a hearing.
2. U. S DISTRICT COURT (Federal Court) in Judge Magistrate Carla Woehrle’s courtroom. Case No cv-09-1914 JFW (CW). Request for Release. Hearing filed June 9, 2010. The Court failed to act.
3. U.S. SUPREME COURT Petition for Re-Hearing Case No. 09-1 250. Filed June 11, 2010 ( Petition for Writ of Certiorari.) filed June 11, 2010. Court failed to act.
4. Back in CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, Judge David Yaffe testifies as a witness while sitting on the bench…… and rules in his own favor. In this December 22, 2008 court transcript Judge Yaffe says he is troubled by the court rule that says “in the absence of objection” he must testify, even though he is sitting in judgment on the case. He then admits receiving payments from L. A. County and not disclosing them. When the attorney representing the “interested party” raised an objection to the line of questioning posed by Richard I Fine, (who was representing himself), Judge Yaffe then ruled in his own favor while testifying as a witness.
5. In 2008 the California Supreme Court held in Sturgeon vs County of Los Angeles that the county payments to State Judges were illegal. What to do? So In 2009 the CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE gave RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action to all California Judges and government officials under Senate Bill SBX2 11 (Section 5) for the illegal payments that had been made to judges since 1987.
Posted in COMMENTARY, Links to Cases & Litigants