"I Know."

Boy first Leslie Nielson and now Irvin Kershner, the director of The Empire Strikes Back.

BTW, Kerschner was the real deal:

During production, Kershner focused on providing more depth to the characters that Lucas created, and even went on to have a sharp disagreement with him over dialogue of Han Solo (Harrison Ford) in the pivotal carbon-freezing scene.

In the original script, Solo was to reply to Princess Leia’s (Carrie Fisher) “I love you,” with “I love you, too.” However, not seeing this as something that a smuggler like Solo would say, Kershner insisted that it be changed to “I know.” 

George Lucas needs to find another Irvin Kershner.

RIP

Judge Cooke Voids Carnival Arbitration Clause.

This is a pretty interesting opinion from Judge Cooke, voiding an arbitration clause in a Carnival Cruise line employee contract.

She finds the arbitration provision to be null and void because it violates the statutory remedies provided to seamen by the Jones Act:

The Jones Act confers seamen the statutory right to sue their employers for the negligence of fellow crew members. 46 U.S.C. § 30104; Thomas, 573 F.3d 1115 n. 1. In the event of personal injury or death of a seaman, the personal representative of the seaman may elect to bring a civil action at law, with a right to trial by jury, against the employer. 46 U.S.C. § 30104. There is no dispute that the law governing the Agreement and the arbitration clause is Panamanian law. Panamanian law, however, does not provide a seaman a reasonable equivalent to the statutory rights conferred by the Jones Act. Accordingly, the arbitration clause violates public policy, operates as “prospective waiver” of a Plaintiff’s right “to pursue statutory remedies” under the laws of the United States, and is “null and void” under the Convention.  Absent a valid arbitration clause under the Convention, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 9 U.S.C. § 205.

Hmm, this has pretty broad implications, no?

Any guesses on how the 11th will handle this?

Disbarred Miami Attorney (Yawn) Gets in More Trouble.

Disbarred Miami attorney Katherine Ferro -- not, repeat NOT the lovely and talented Fowler White litigator Katherine L. Ferro -- is in more hot water, this time in (of all places) New Jersey:

A Woodcliff Lake man and a former lawyer from Miami were charged yesterday with running an investment scheme that bilked victims out of $1 million, federal authorities said.

Joseph Suarez, 45, who headed his own investment firm, and Katherine Ferro, 35, a disbarred lawyer, allegedly defrauded at least 10 victims during the last four years by enticing them with bogus ventures and then pocketing their investments, according to a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Newark.

Hey, doesn't Katherine know that South Florida is the home of investment swindles, what the hail is she allegedly doing outsourcing all the way to New Jersey?

Must be awkward if the two Katherines meet at bar events, though I guess that's not very likely anymore......

Plea Bargains in Criminal Cases – Do You Really Want to Plea?

Less than 8% percent of criminal cases go to a jury trial. Many argue that the percentage of individuals who actually make it to a jury is less than five percent. But does it really matter what the number is when we are talking about such low percentages?  Why are defendants not exercising their Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial? The United States judicial system still operates under the ideal that the accused are innocent until proven guilty; so why are defendants accused of crimes relinquishing their given right? While it’s possible that the police are doing a wonderful job of investigating crimes and that everyone arrested is actually guilty of the crime charged, I don’t buy it and neither do you.

So why is this phenomenon repeatedly occurring? I think there are several likely reasons causing criminal defendants to forfeit their rights to a jury trial, but today I’m going to discuss two.

1. Police say what they need to say in order to get the conviction.

Do police officers lie? Yes. Why? I don’t know. But if I had to guess, I would say that it probably has to do with their frustration with the system. Police officers have to deal with individuals at their worst every day and are affected by the negativity. They see these perpetrators go to court, take a deal, and get slapped on the wrist with probation or a fine. Is that justice for the victims? Is that justice for the officers who put their lives on the line for the benefit of society? If you attempt to stand in an officer’s shoes, it is not difficult to see how an officer can feel that the high risks they assume are not fairly balanced against the punishments, or lack thereof, that defendants often receive. Through an officer’s eyes, defendants commit serious crimes and usually wind up pleading only to probation, only to be out on the street again ultimately putting the officer at risk once more. Combine that knowledge with normal daily stresses of the job, and you have an officer who takes justice into his/her own hands, altering testimony, saying what needs to be said in a police report so that the case never goes to trial, the defendant pleads guilty, the State gets the conviction, and the defendant goes to prison.

The career criminal will eventually commit enough criminal acts that he/she will score mandatory prison – finally paying their debt to society. … Right? Maybe. But the problem with this type of “justice” lies with the first time offender. The suspect who is in the wrong place at the wrong time. The guy who has the wrong friend. That guy, maybe you, who gets charged with a crime by an officer who embellishes the truth to get a conviction. Suddenly your life is ruined by the possibility of prison or the criminal record you will receive by a plea bargain to a probationary period. The officer has made the facts look unbeatable, the court system scares you, and so you forfeit your right to a trial by taking a plea. You see no other way out, and now your life is forever changed. That is one reason I believe defendants are throwing away their right to trial, their day in court, their opportunity to be heard, and taking the safe route: because officers have made defending a criminal case seem impossible to defendants.

Why else do defendants forfeit their right to a jury trial?

2. Inexperienced, greedy, lazy Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Walking into the court room every day of the week allows me to watch and critique other criminal lawyers. Who am I to critique others? I’m nobody famous. But I am a guy who took an oath to do my best for my client and I’m the guy writing this blog, so I will call it as I see it. The numbers may not be as low as the numbers of defendants avoiding jury trials, but when looking around the court room it appears that maybe 10% percent of the criminal defense bar actually cares about the system. Sure, all attorneys sit around discussing war stories, convincing themselves and others that they care. But the truth is that they sleep like babies when their clients plea to a crime and/or go to prison… especially when they have been paid their entire legal fee. How is it that 90% percent of criminal defense attorneys drive exotic cars, have $500-$1000 shoes, have multiple houses, but plea bargain nearly 100% percent of their cases without ever taking a deposition? How can they recommend to their clients that they plead guilty or no contest on cases that can be won by doing actual work; by taking depositions, by ordering 911 and dispatch tapes, by going to the scene of the alleged crime, and by talking to their client and witnesses? How?

It’s easy. Defendants have no idea that these lawyers plea bargain every case instead of actually fighting the fight. Criminal defense lawyers take advantage of the fact that the Florida Bar does not allow them to advertise their wins; if no one is actually counting, then attorneys can easily embellish to their clients how great they are prior to getting paid. Once they have their client’s money, the future becomes bleak for the client. Instead of taking depositions, looking for mistakes and constitutional rights violations, and doing actual work to represent the client to the best of their ability, the attorneys offer their professional advice that a plea is inevitable and the best choice, as contrasted against the possibility of prison. There is rarely a mention of the client being innocent until proven guilty. Instead of fighting the case and making the State prove guilt beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt, these attorneys are quick advise their clients to admit guilt (sometimes when they aren’t even guilty) and sustain convictions that will, in many cases, forever change the clients’ lives. All for the sake of getting paid and quickly getting rid of cases. Defendants take the plea because they trust their lawyer’s advice; they believe that the lawyer is looking out for their best interest. Unfortunately it seems that in actuality, many defense attorneys are looking out only for Number One.

It is sad to see that so many attorneys lack the enthusiasm necessary to do their job properly, even when paid. Did anyone get the memo that pleading Guilty or No Contest should be avoided, if possible, because of its actual effects on the client’s life? Not only can a plea eliminate future possibilities for the defendant, such as the ability to gain employment, rent an apartment, gain admission to a university, but a plea also carries with it numerous negative aspects, such as a criminal record, punishment, and possible future harassment or harsher treatment by police. When positive opportunities cease to exist and are replaced by negative consequences in a person’s life, the individual deteriorates and so does our society.

Whether the client actually committed the crime is irrelevant in this discussion. A defense attorney is supposed to fight for the defendant’s rights, as all of their billboards and advertisements so ironically say.

If you’re a criminal defense attorney and you disagree, re-examine yourself and think about the last case you plead without taking a deposition. Talk is cheap. Take a deposition and work on the case. Don’t plead every case. Force the State to prove your client guilty. When police make mistakes, when prosecutors make mistakes, those mistakes should be revealed and the defendant should walk away. Once enough people walk, the police and State will have to work harder to do their jobs right; they will be held to a higher standard and will be educated on the law. Don’t devalue our society by being lazy and taking the easy plea – take some pride by looking in the mirror at who you really are, not by what you hope is portrayed to people as you disguise yourself as successful with your fancy suits and expensive shoes. Try earning them before wearing them; it makes you feel a lot taller.

If you’re a police officer and you disagree, think about the last report you wrote, or the last time you testified. Was everything negative, or did you actually talk about the weaknesses of the arrest, or what the defendant did well during their roadside sobriety exercises?

If you’re a member of the general public, then I say: you’re welcome. Because it is better that you are informed.

Copyright (c) 2010, Law Office of Roger P. Foley


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

Luke Campbell Has a New Lawyer!

Happy Monday, plebes.

Canes, turkey etc. etc., welcome back to the real world.

In said real world, noted elusive butterfly and quality attorney Richard Brodsky has landed to defend the honor and dignity (and money) of Luther Campbell, filing a notice of appearance in the case brought by Aueishua Butler pending before Judge Cooke.

This is good news for Luke, who now has a steady hand and experienced federal litigator on his side.

My guess is Richard will not just answer the complaint, but bring a counterclaim, serve a huge bunch of financial discovery, schedule the plaintiff's depo and generally be all aggressive in moving this thing forward to a reasonable resolution.

But what the hail do I know?

BTW Richard, about that photo -- you look great, but either straighten that tie or roll up those sleeves!

Child Porn Defense Attorneys | Restitution Issues

Tampa Criminal Defense expert notes a contact with a senior attorney with a large federal criminal defense team who has reported “serious attempts to get restitution for the child victims of the photos.”  Recently, a restitution order in excess of $3,600,000 was ordered against a defendant in a Southern District of Florida . An appeal has been filed and 11th Circuit has set the case for December 2010. The restitution is sought by an  attorney representing the children portrayed in the contraband seized by the feds, the "Amy" series and the "Vicky" series.

In Tampa last year, 2009, the Government and Probation agreed that, in a possession of child pornography case, restitution for Vicky was not appropriate "because the harm to the victim was not proximately caused by the defendant."  That case is U.S. v. XXX, Case No. 8:09-cr-00189-T-27MAP. (Name omitted).

If you have issues or questions about this sweeping federal law, call me toll free at 1-877-793-9290.

Source: Senior Criminal Defense Attorney in the Middle District of Florida

Child Porn Defense Attorneys

Happy Thanksgiving!!

This is a sincere shout-out to all this Thanksgiving morning.

Thanks for reading, commenting, tips, support, cranky emails, snarky remarks and all the other blessings we are fortunate to receive on this special day.

Shuster & Saben, LLC publicly thanks Wachovia

It is not every day we stop that we stop to thank a bank. Many banks don’t like us. We shut their foreclosure cases down, and in the last six weeks our firm obtained dismissals in five separate foreclosure actions. When banks or loan servicers call or write our clients, after we tell them not to, we sue them. This week we sued Beneficial-HSBC Group and Strategic Recovery for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). We generally feel that one way to provide our clients with a superior defense is to have a good offense. Of course, we have represented plaintiff consumers against big insurance long before we started litigating against big banking.

From this standpoint, saying thank you to a bank is a little unusual for us. Before our colleagues think we went soft it must be noted that what Wachovia did for our client deserves our thanks, appreciation and praise. Last week our firm accepted, on our clients behalf, Wachovia’s loan modification proposal to reduce the client’s mortgage balance from $229,589.55 to $131,991.03. Wachovia reduced our client’s principal by over by over 40% and saved our client over $97,000.00. Wachovia did NOT have to do this. While Wachovia and their new parent company Wells Fargo did participate in HAMP, this was not a HAMP modification. It was not a modification that Wachovia was obligated to do.

While our client attempted to modify their loan for many months (before seeking our help) and ultimately a foreclosure action was filed against them, Wachovia’s offer was made within 90 days of the filing of suit. Wachovia’s offer will allow a hard working family struggling and saving to get by keep their home. This offer should allow that family to keep their home not for another month or another year, but forever. The press often writes about homeowners who are turned down for loan modification. We have seen firsthand many banks violate HAMP servings guidelines. The loan modification that works and the story of the bank that did much more than the legal minimum to help a hard working, struggling and stress out family is rarely told. Wachovia did right by this family. On this day of Thanksgiving this is one more thing for which I am thankful. To review Shuster & Saben’s acceptance letter and Wells Fargo’s loan modification offer please click the link below.

Shuster & Saben Acceptance of Wachovia Loan Modification with Principal Reduction

If you bank at an “anti-consumer” bank like Bank of America (whose standard policy is to never or almost never waive deficiencies in short sale transactions) let me encourage you to reward Wachovia by moving your account.

Denial of Continuance Rejected by 3d DCA

The Third District Court today reversed the lower Court’s denial of a continuance in Quintero v. Kenyon, rejecting the trial and final judgment of paternity that followed as well.  The Third District Court relied on the facts that Mother’s counsel had withdrawn “on the eve of trial,” and there was no apparent showing of prejudice. 

Circuit Court Reversed in Administrative Support Action

The Fourth District Court today reversed a lower Court’s ruling in Dept. of Revenue v. Wardlaw in turn reversing a final judgment in an administrative support action.  The Fourth District held that jurisdiction to review final administrative support orders lies with the District, and not the Circuit Courts.

Fourth District Court Reverses Fee Award

The Fourth District Court of Appeal issued its opinion today in Phillips v. Ford f/k/a Phillips, in so doing reversing the lower Court’s award of fees and costs to the Former Wife on the basis that, while a finding was made as to the Former Husband’s superior ability to pay, no finding was made as to the Former Wife’s need, or her financial position.  The Fourth District reversed, citing Baime v. Baime, 850 So.2d 606 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) as analogous, in that in both cases the Court was required by statute to consider the financial resources available to both parties.

The Criminal Process: A Briefing

The criminal justice system can be very complex, extremely difficult, and intimidating without a guide to navigate you through it. The following is a brief explanation of the various steps in a criminal case.

Arrest: The criminal process usually begins when the police have begun a criminal investigation and subsequently take you into custody. “Custody” can mean one of two things: either you were physically arrested (handcuffed, taken to jail, fingerprinted, etc.), or you were served with a written Notice to Appear in lieu of physical arrest. Either way, you are considered arrested and this ultimately means that the government will formally charge you with alleged criminal violations.

First Appearance: After the initial police investigation and arrest, the first court date in a criminal case is First Appearance. During First Appearance, a person who has been arrested will stand in court before a Judge or Magistrate for the first time. That judge/magistrate will determine if there was probable cause for the arrest. If the judge finds that there was probable cause, he or she will set a bond. It is often beneficial to have an attorney present at First Appearance because an attorney can negotiate or argue on your behalf for a lower bond amount. Without an attorney present, the judge/magistrate will set the bond at his or her discretion. From there, the case will go to the State Attorney’s Office.

Case Filing: After the first appearance, a criminal case is then sent to the Case Filing Division of the State Attorney’s Office. There, an assistant state attorney is assigned to review the basic facts of the case and determine how charges should be filed. In making this decision, the case filer reviews police reports and witness information. Based on this, he or she ultimately decides whether the arrest charges should remain the same, be increased, decreased, or dismissed (also called no information). Often this is a critical time for a criminal defendant. If a person suspected of a crime retains an attorney quickly, that attorney may be able to speak with the case filer and influence his or her filing decision by discussing important factors in the case, such as mistakes made by law enforcement and important facts that may not be given in the police report. If the case filer decides to go forward and file the charge against you, despite your attorney’s best efforts, the next step is Arraignment.

Arraignment: Arraignment is a court date for the formal reading of the charges that the case filer has set forth in the charging document (called the Information). Arraignment is also where you will plead one of three ways: Not Guilty, Guilty, or Nolo Contendere (Latin for No Contest).  Unless you want to waive your rights, get your case over with immediately, and you don’t care about being convicted, you will plead Not Guilty. Remember, you are innocent until proven guilty. Not Guilty pleas are entered when you are innocent, when there is insufficient evidence to prove guilt, when you are uncertain how to plea, or when you want to demand your right to a trial. If you hire an attorney before your arraignment, he or she will generally enter a notice of appearance, written plea of not guilty, and request for jury trial for you so that you do not have to go to court on that date. After a formal plea of Not Guilty is entered, the next court date will be set.

[Note that just because your attorney requests a jury trial does not mean you have to go to trial; it is merely posturing to put you on the path that will allow you to get the most information on your case. No one wants to go to trial, and anyone who is eager to go to trial is generally a fool. Requesting a jury trial is merely a formality that will allow you to get Discovery, make arguments, and fight your case as far as you can before even getting to trial. You may wind up not going to trial at all, but in any event, the formality of requesting is generally necessary.]

Discovery: After an attorney signs onto a case, he or she will demand Discovery from the State Attorney. Discovery is essentially all of the evidence the State has available to use against you in your criminal case. It is your right to examine discovery if you are going the trial route, and it includes written documents, police reports, pictures, witness statements, video recordings, audio recordings, etc. Generally, Discovery documents take 60 to 90 days to obtain. Once an attorney is able to examine the discovery, he or she will be able to see who all of the witnesses against you are, take depositions and find out what the witnesses have to say, investigate your case, and form a defense strategy. This is also the time during which your attorney will file applicable motions. Perhaps your Constitutional rights have been violated by an unlawful search and seizure. An experienced attorney will know to file a motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of your rights. Or, maybe the State does not have sufficient evidence against you and will be unable to prove the elements of the charges. A skilled attorney will know to file a Motion to Dismiss and argue that your case should be thrown out all together. If the motions are successful, odds are your case will be over. If the motions are ultimately unsuccessful, then you will have to decide whether you want to negotiate a plea agreement with the State or take your case to trial.

Plea: If you choose not to go to trial, your attorney will negotiate a plea agreement with the State Attorney that will include the sentence to be imposed. You will ultimately go to court for a Plea Conference and change your plea from Not Guilty to either Guilty or No Contest.  Although the Judge is not required to accept the State Attorney's agreement, most Judges will honor negotiated plea agreements. At this point, you will have to comply with whatever sentence has been negotiated or is imposed, and your case will be over. It is important to note that there are various alternatives in sentencing that may include Pretrial Diversion, Pretrial Intervention, Drug Court, and Probation. Each of these programs has limitations and requirements.  It is extremely important that you seek out an attorney who is familiar with these programs as well as which Judges may or may not look favorably upon these options.

Trial: If you choose to go to trial, your attorney will fight your case either before a Judge or before a Jury of your peers. [Note that you have the right to a Speedy Trial. This means that if you demand Speedy Trial and do not waive your right to it, the State will have to bring you to trial within a certain time period (90 days for a Misdemeanor, or 175 days for a Felony). However, most cases are benefited by waiving the right to a speedy trial to allow an attorney more time to defend the case.] If you are acquitted during Trial by a Judgment of Acquittal or you are found Not Guilty by the Judge or Jury, your case is over and you are free to go. You cannot be retried under Double Jeopardy protections. If, however, you are found guilty, there will be a Sentencing Hearing.  This will give you, your attorney, and any other interested persons the opportunity to speak on your behalf; this is the time to present witnesses who will testify as to your character.  For the purposes of sentencing, the Judge may order a Pre-Sentence Investigation into your background and circumstances. At the end of the hearing, after the Judge has considered everything put before the court, the Judge will impose a sentence. Hopefully, though, you will be acquitted during trial and will not ever have to worry about a sentencing hearing.

Appeal: A person convicted of a crime has the right to appeal his or her conviction. During the appeal process the Judge may allow your release on bail pending the outcome; however, the Judge will only do this if he or she believes that the appeal has merit and that you will reappear in court.  An appeal must be filed within 30 days of sentencing, but should be filed as soon as possible.

Although this explanation doesn’t cover everything you will encounter in the criminal justice system, hopefully it gave you a basic understanding of what you can expect. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to call an attorney to guide you through the process.

Copyright (c) 2010, Law Office of Roger P. Foley


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

3d DCA Special Thanksgiving Turkey Day Watch!

It's turkey day inside the bunker, a special day of rest and relaxation, when the coffee is only politely stirred and the ritual carving of the roast beast precedes the stabbing thereof with their steely knives and we all give thanks that we just couldn't kill the beast, or something like that:

Milan Investment v. City of Miami:

This suit regarding the constitutionality of the Downtown Development Authority and related property tax, once as dead as the roast beast referenced above, is now only on life support:

We affirm the final summary judgment as it pertains to the state and municipal actions establishing the DDA and its territorial boundaries. We reverse that portion of the judgment determining that the four-year statute of limitations bars Milan Investment’s constitutional challenge to the 2008 ordinance fixing a half-mill per dollar ad valorem tax exclusively within the boundaries of the DDA district. In doing so, we confirm the applicability of the non-claim statute, § 194.171, to that challenge. Our reversal permitting the challenge to the 2008 halfmill DDA levy also permits Milan Investment’s refund claim to proceed regarding that levy. We express no opinion regarding Milan Investment’s class certification allegations.

Quintero v. Kenyon:

Here the plaintiff became unemployed, couldn't pay her attorney, so her attorney withdrew and moved for a continuance.

Judge Glazer refused to grant the continuance and the 3d reversed, saying there was no real prejudice to the defendant in granting a continuance under these circumstances.

This is the 3d DCA's equivalent of pardoning a turkey and a fitting way for all of us to ease into the holidays.

Luke Campbell Loses Motion to Dismiss!

Luke Campbell Order

Well it appears Judge Cooke has ruled and given Luke Campbell an early Thanksgiving gift -- a big fat goose egg:

Plaintiffs argue that Campbell is liable for the negligence of the Luke Corporations under Florida’s business judgment rule, Florida Statute § 607.0831. “Under the business judgment rule, directors are presumed to have acted properly and in good faith, and are called to account for their actions only when they are shown to have engaged in fraud, bad faith, or an abuse of discretion.” Cottle v. Storer Commc’ns, Inc., 849 F.2d 570, 574 (11th Cir. 1988).

Count II of the Amended Complaint alleges that Campbell willfully and recklessly failed to use reasonable care in performing his duties as the sole corporate director for the Luke Corporations. Count II further alleges that Campbell acted in bad faith and that the proximate result of Campbell’s actions have lead Plaintiffs to be damaged in an amount in excess of $400,000.00 plus interest and costs. The allegations of personal negligence set forth in the Amended Complaint are sufficient to satisfy the business judgment rule. Therefore, I find that Count II survives the Motion to Dismiss.

First the Canes and now this!

This Profound Courtroom Drama Changed My Life!

Many lawyers point to Gregory Peck's performance as Atticus Finch as a touchstone and inspiration that led them into a life of law.

For me it was a little different....

I hope you enjoy this insight into what inspired me -- indeed, what still inspires me -- to become the best possible lawyer I know in my heart I can be.

Law Updates for November 19, 2010

Riggins, 35 FLW 2480, error to deny JOA - Charge of operating unregistered vehicle where the sole evidence presented by the state was officer's hearsay testimony that he ran VIN through database on his in-car computer and determined that the car was not registered properly.  Testimony did not fall "within absence of record or entry" exception to hearsay where officer did not perform a diligent search that failed to disclose a record that should have been made and preserved.  State failed to call witness who could have established a foundation. Officer only relayed the date written on the expired tag and the date of the traffic stop with nothing more.


The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

Ralph Behr Has a Phone App!

Why do lawyers always want to have phone apps?

Here's one from "top US criminal attorney" Ralph Behr:

Top US criminal attorney Ralph Behr is pleased to announce the release and immediate availability of his iPhone/iPad book Say No to Police. Using 21st century e-book functionalities the app puts at fingertips hundreds of one paragraph criminal law concepts. This new app is available for Apple and Android devices, makes simple what was complex and answers every legal question at the touch of a finger. 

Why stop at one paragraph?

I'd like tweet-limited criminal law concepts to be streamed directly to my brain, my "home page" so to speak, so I can know enough about any legal topic just to be dangerous or provocative, without any actual knowledge or meaningful understanding of anything I might have at my fingertips or accessible immediately on my phone.

Gunster -- Like a Rock!

That's according to Mershon Sawyer (I kid!) Gunster managing partner Bill Perry, in a nice interview with the PBP.

I agree with Bill about this:

What you tell young people about your business:

"One: You work very hard. Nobody is a success as a lawyer unless they're willing to work hard. Whatever your chosen area is, become recognized as an expert in that area. Get out in your community.

"Go out - and not in your lawyer costume."

BTW, Bill's a Gunster lifer who started there fresh out of law school in 1986.

We wish him much success.

$400 an Hour for Foreclosure Defense? (and Glenn Garvin).

Remember when Glenn Garvin laughably contended that the only people in foreclosure trouble were those who deserved it?

This was his particularly ill-informed contention:

For all their frothing fulmination, neither the lawyers nor politicians nor journalists have been able to come up with any credible stories of people losing their homes despite faithfully paying their mortgages. They couldn't even find stories about people losing their homes despite being just a couple of payments behind.

That's because there aren't any.

So it's not particularly surprising that Glenn Garvin's own newspaper once again proves him dead wrong, in this harrowing tale of a foreclosure nightmare gone from bad to worse.

But I found this part pretty outrageous:

Hall paid her first lawyer, Alan Soven, more than $10,000 to fight the foreclosure. At one point Judge Friedman rebuked the Miami lawyer for subpar legal work, and the Florida Bar ordered him to refund $2,000 in legal fees to Hall in a mediation settlement. With a $400 hourly rate, he charged Hall nearly $3,000 for the 7.2 hours he spent trying to get legal approval to quit the case, court records show.

Soven declined to comment on the case.

Hall's next lawyer, Johnny Kincaide of The Kincaide Law Group in Weston, routinely skipped crucial court hearings and failed to file a response to a court ruling, causing the judge to penalize Hall with an order of default. Kincaide's firm is being investigated by Attorney General Bill McCollum after several homeowners said he promised to help them get a mortgage modification and then disappeared after taking their initial deposits. He did not return calls seeking comment.

I don't know whether the allegations of legal malpractice or incompetence are true, but there's really no good reason to charge $400 an hour to handle the defense of any foreclosure action, let alone to charge the client to withdraw from the case.

Good thing there are "no credible stories" of people getting screwed over in the foreclosure morass for Glenn to write about.

Shuster & Saben saves another property by obtaining order voiding foreclosure sale, quashing service of process, vacating default and summary judgment.

When a resident of Colorado consulted with firm attorney Richard Shuster, to save his Florida investment triplex, the internet docket showed that the property had already been sold at foreclosure action. Every other lawyer who looked at the case told the property owner that it was to late. The court docket reflected that a process server had served the property owner in Colorado, and that shortly thereafter Deutsche Bank Trust Company through their lawyers, Shapiro & Fishman, had moved for and obtained a default against him. After obtaining the default, Shapiro & Fishman moved for summary judgment, conducted a hearing at which the unrepresented homeowner failed to appear, and obtained a summary judgment and a sale date.

On the date of the foreclosure sale, no bidder bid the amount of the foreclosure judgment and Deutsche Bank was the winning bidder. Six days after the foreclosure auction, the homeowner contacted the firm. Other lawyers had already advised the homeowner that his case was already lost and their was nothing more to be done.

When firm attorney Richard Shuster checked the on-line docket, he noticed that Bank’s lawyers did not serve the homeowner within the 120 days required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j). Shuster advised the homeowner, that the service of process upon him more than 120 days after suit was field violated the rules but given that the property had already sold at auction it might be to late to do anything. Shuster advised the client: “We won’t take your case unless we are 95% certain that we will be able to void the sale and vacate the default based upon the service of process issue. Please give me one day to do the legal research to find out it if there is anything we can do. If your case is hopeless we will tell you and the research will be free.

The research confirmed Shuster’s hunch that it was not too late. Since the Plaintiff bank bought the house and it was less than 10 days from the date of the auction, the firm could file an objection to title being issued to the bank. The property owner hired the firm as soon as he was advised of the results of the research. The next day Shuster & Saben filed an objection to issuance of title. Thereafter the firm filed a Motion to Quash Service As Untimely, Vacate Default, Vacate Summary Judgment, Cancel/Void Sale and to Dismiss the case.

On October 19, 2010, a hearing was held on the motion before Circuit Judge Charles Holcomb. Shaprio & Fishman, the bank’s lawyers appeared at the hearing by phone but firm attorney Shuster was present in person with all of the legal research and case law to present to the Court. The Court rejected the banks arguments, quashed service, vacated the previously entered default and summary judgment order, and voided the sale. Deutche bank must now start over from scratch and serve the homeowner property. In the interim the firm has commenced its efforts to resolve the case by loan modification.
To review a copy of the actual court order please click the link immediately below.

Order Granting Defendant’s Motion To Quash Service As Untimely, Vacate Default, Vacate Summary Judgment and Cancel/Void Sale.

SFL Friday -- Jeremy Alters Cleans House.

Well kids, it's beginning to feel like the holidays -- I just set a depo in March(!), so apparently no one plans to work for at least the next six weeks minimum.

What else?

Paul Brinkmann, writing behind the SFBJ firewall, has a great piece on all the departures, defections, lawsuits, and other rumors swirling around recent changes at Jeremy Alters' firm.  Here's a choice tidbit:

Alters acknowledged that moving the firm into heavy-duty, national class actions meant a longer-term payoff, but he predicted large fees from the eventual settlement of the cases, especially Chinese drywall litigation.

Neither Boldt nor Culmo returned phone messages and e-mails about their issues with Alters.

Not discussed -- who keeps all those fakakta surfboards?

But seriously, we wish all involved good luck and much success.

In other news men should do more chores, here's a liberating way to improve voter turnout, and communication is apparently a form of foreplay?

Oy veh -- have a great weekend!

Law Updates for November 12, 2010

Quick, 35 FLW 2451, 4th DCA, Jury instructions - Error to deny def's request for jury instruction on the affirmative defense of lack of knowledge that substance he possessed was cocaine where he testified that he did not know the glass pipe in which cocaine residue was found contained cocaine at exact time of his arrest. Error not harmless where lack of knowledge of what the pipe contained was def's sole defense.

M.L. 35 FLW 2456, 3rd DCA, Officer's warrant-less of a seizure of a pipe with residue. Officer observed pipe partially sticking out of a bag on the floor near where juvenile was sleeping. Was not justified under the plain view exception. State failed to present evidence that it was immediately apparent to officer that partially concealed pipe in the bag contained evidence of a crime or illegal paraphernalia, or that the officer, prior to seizure, had probable cause to believe that the pipe was evidence of criminal activity.

Bennett, 35 FLW 2461, 2nd DCA, Trafficking in Cocaine-Constructive Possession - Drugs found in living room and bedroom of cottage, some of it in plain view, where evidence failed to show def had control over the premises and no independent proof that the def had dominion and control over the contraband. Fact that def's drivers license and a letter addressed to him were found on or in cardbox box containing men's clothing and sandwich bag containing drugs insufficient to establish dominion and control over contraband where evidence did not show the cottage was def's residence or suggest how many others have visited or used cottage and did not prove who owned the clothes in the open box.



The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

Peter Tictkin Discovers Meaning of Irony.

Peter Ticktin, who recently came under fire for placing mortgages on his clients' homes as payment for saving those very homes from foreclosure, is himself facing foreclosure of his own home:

Deutsche Bank National began foreclosure proceedings on Ticktin's Boca Raton home in 2007 after the lawyer and his wife fell behind on their loan. The couple haven't made a mortgage payment since December 2006 and continues to live in the home 3,920-square-foot house in Paradise Palms.

Ticktin has fought Deutsche Bank using the same strategy that he's been able to use for his clients: uncovering sloppy paperwork and poorly prepared mortgage files. In the Ticktins' case, Deutsche Bank didn't have their mortgage note, a problem that has surfaced in tens of thousands of foreclosure defense cases nationwide.Deutsche Bank dropped its foreclosure action in February after the Ticktins' attorneys claimed they didn't have enough information to respond because there was no note. The bank refiled the foreclosure last month.

"It's embarrassing that I'm in foreclosure. But I now understand my clients better than some lawyers who never had a problem in their lives," said Ticktin, whose firm is handles 3,000 foreclosure defense cases at two Florida offices, one in Deerfield Beach and one in Tampa.

He said he's confident his attorney Jamie Sasson, who works for his firm, can defend against the action. "[Deutsche Bank] doesn't have the paperwork," Ticktin said. He says he also was talked into a badly structured loan when, desperate for money, he refinanced.

 I wonder whether Ticktin's attorney Jamie Sasson -- if successful -- plans to place a mortgage on his boss' property.

Awkward!

Gene Stearns: It Wasn't Me!

Well I guess the big headline this morning is Gene Stearn's rare loss in a rare securities fraud case tried to a jury before Judge Ungaro.

In a case marked by particularly vituperative, some would say overheated rhetoric, Gene now seems to be suggesting it's all Judge Ungaro's fault:

Eugene Stearns, an attorney for BankAtlantic, said the company would appeal on a variety of issues, including U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro’s ruling before the trial that four of the 19 statements were false.

“We are obviously disappointed with the outcome, but in light of the court’s ruling on the four statements, we’re not particularly surprised,” Stearns said. “The probability that they will ever collect a penny on this is infinitesimally small.”

In a DBR article inexplicably not yet online, Gene reportedly added that "he has never seen a case with so many issues to pursue on appeal in his 40 years of practicing law."

Seriously -- most trial errors ever?

Who the hail presided over this piece of dreck anyways?

I can only begin to imagine -- deliciously -- what this thing must have cost in attorney's fees and costs.  For example, I noticed that nine Stearns Weaver attorneys apparently participated in the failed mediation of this matter back in June.

The NYT Throws A TwIqbal Party!

I'm always amused by judges who caution lawyers not to be verbose in filings, and to adhere strictly to the page limits in briefing.  This is usually accompanied by a whine about "all the paper" the Court has to deal with and that brevity is a virtue and you should be able to convey your legal position succinctly and clearly.

Yet many of these judges write long, repetitive, confusing opinions, sometimes twice the page limits of the briefs submitted by the parties themselves.

In a truly fascinating article, no court is more guilty of this than our own Supremes:

Yet the number of words per decision has been climbing. The Roberts court set a record last term, issuing majority opinions with a median length of 4,751 words, according to data collected by two political scientists, James F. Spriggs II of Washington University in St. Louis and Ryan C. Black of Michigan State. The lengths of decisions, including the majority opinion and all separate opinions, also set a record, at 8,265 words.

In the 1950s, the median length of decisions was around 2,000 words.

The opinions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the January decision that lifted restrictions on corporate and union spending in candidate elections, spanned 183 pages and more than 48,000 words, or about the length of “The Great Gatsby.” The decision — ninth on the list of longest majority opinions — was controversial, but the questions it addressed were not particularly complicated.

Long opinions are perilous, said Edward H. Cooper, a law professor at the University of Michigan. “The more things you say, the more chances you have to be wrong and the more chances you have to mislead the lower court,” he said. 

Not only are recent Supreme Court opinions ponderously long, they are also frustratingly vague and confusing!

Guess which ones gets featured:

In a pair of civil procedure decisions in 2007 and 2009 that have been cited many thousands of times, the court gave trial judges more authority to throw out cases early based on, in the words of the later decision, their “experience and common sense.”

That standard, Arthur R. Miller wrote last month in The Duke Law Journal, is “shadowy at best” and has caused “confusion and disarray among judges and lawyers.” 

You don't say!

Bob Josefsberg Rises To Jim Morrison's Defense Once Again!

It's nice to see Governor Crist do the right thing and possibly pardon Jim Morrison, whose arrest was more a product of the 60s culture wars than anything especially criminal.

The NYT takes another look this morning, and Morrison's old attorney Big Bob Josefsberg is right there continuing to defend his client to the bitter end:

“Not that I’m saying dropping your pants in public is acceptable,” Mr. Josefsberg said. “It’s not. It’s also not the worst thing in the world that ever happened.”

Hey, I thought there was a genuine factual dispute about whether Morrison drunkenly hung his schmekel off the Dinner Key or not?

Bob continues, reflecting on Jim's clemency chances:

“Jim’s a total loser, in terms of rehabilitation and what he’s done,” he said. “He’s shown no remorse, no sorrow.” 

Admirable honesty, it's true, but wait a minute -- which side was Bob on again?

Shuster & Saben obtains order dismissing foreclosure for lack of prosecution. Firm will now pursue lender to obtain reimbursement of client’s legal expenses

When a Brevard County homeowner visited Shuster & Saben’s Melbourne office, the homeowner explained to firm attorney Richard Shuster, that nothing seemed to be happening in his case. During the homeowner’s Free No-obligation consultation, attorney Shuster looked up the case on the Brevard County Clerk of Court's website. The Court’s online docket showed that the bank’s law firm, Florida Default Law Group, P.L. had not touched the file in over nine months. Shuster’s advice to the client was, Do NOT hire our firm right now. Shuster counseled: “It appears the other side is asleep at the wheel. The best thing you can do right now is to do absolutely nothing, but please come back and see me in late July when it has been a year and a day since the last record activity.”

In late July the homeowner returned to the firm’s Melbourne Foreclosure defense office, and retained the firm. On July 26, 2010 the firm filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. The motion asked the Court to throw out the case because the Plaintiff, Credit Based Asset Servicing and Securitization, LLC had not had any record activity in the case in the year prior to the filing of the motion. Shortly after Shuster & Saben’s motion to dismiss the case was filed, the Plaintiff Credit Based Asset, hired new counsel and the new counsel were substituted for the Florida Default Law group. At a hearing that took place on October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff argued that there was good cause why the case should not be dismissed. The Plaintiff argued that the “good cause” why the case should not be dismissed was that the case was on “loss mitigation hold.” Shuster’s response was that the only loss mitigation undertaken during the year by the Plaintiff was to send the homeowner a generic letter about short sales and deed-in-lieu. Shuster suggest that the fact that the Plaintiff got rid of their original counsel and hired new counsel suggested that the original counsel had dropped the ball.

The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s arguments and granted the homeowner’s motion to dismiss. The Court reserved jurisdiction to award attorneys fees against the Plaintiff/Lender. The firm has already filed a motion for attorney’s fees against the bank. Shuster & Saben’s goal is to make the Plaintiff pay for all of the legal work the firm did in the case. If this goal is accomplished the award of attorney’s from the bank will be used to reimburse our client for his legal expenses. To read a redacted copy of the order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss please click the link below.

Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

About Shuster & Saben: The foreclosure defense lawyers at Shuster & Saben, have offices in Miami, Doral, Plantation/Fort Lauderdale, and Melbourne. We defend homeowners in foreclosure from Miami to Titusville on the east coast, Orange, Seminole, Polk, Collier, and Lee Counties. As this blog post illustrates we do NOT do cookie-cutter foreclosure defense. Shuster & Saben carefully analyses the cases filed against our clients, listens to our clients’ objectives, advises our clients as to their options and on asset protection strategy, creates a plan to achieve the clients goals and then we go to work implementing the plan.

3d DCA Watch -- Good Luck With the Florida Legislature!

I don't know what I'm more happy about -- that the Beatles are finally on iTunes, or that the turning-children-into-compliant-consumers processing machine otherwise known as Wannado City is finally gone (via SFDB)

I already own all the Beatles records, so I'm going with Wannadon't City.

Let's see what tasty legal morsels the bunker denizens have prepared for us this week:

Markham v. FUAC:

This is a classic hold-your-nose opinion from the 3d, in which a manifest miscarriage of justice occurs to a hapless (now unemployed) citizen, but legal "technicalities" require that he be totally shafted out of unemployment benefits.

From Judge Salter's sympathetic concurrence:

This is another unemployment compensation benefits case in which the employer wins on a technicality and the former employee is denied even the meager safety net provided by law to cushion the trauma of unemployment. While I am obligated to concur in affirming the Commission’s order finding Mr. Markham’s appeal untimely, I write to identify a recurring problem that merits attention by the Legislature and the Agency for Workforce Innovation. That problem is the “short fuse” on procedural defaults applicable to appeals to the Agency.

Judge Ramirez is even more pointed:

Thus, Oak Construction Co., Inc. saved itself the additional unemployment taxes it may have incurred, and can discharge Mr. Markham with impunity. This in the midst of an economic recession and Mr. Markham’s inability to receive any assistance from the Agency for Workforce Innovation. We are powerless to redress this grave injustice.

 While the good Judges' hearts are (as always) in the right place, I'm not so sure the legislature is going to fix this injustice anytime soon.

From today's Herald:

Haridopolos, a college professor, used his opening remarks to set the tone for what he has pledged will be the most conservative Senate in more than 100 years.....Haridopolos warned: ``If your piece of legislation raises a tax, makes it easier to file a lawsuit against a fellow Floridian or increases red tape, then I don't like your chances.''

Looks like you'll have to keep holding your noses a while longer, your honors.

More Good Karma From Scott Salomon.

Hey I don't like this headline:

South Florida Lawyer Misrepresentation Causes Jacksonville Family to Lose Home

Who could allegedly be responsible for this?

Of course:

"We lost our home, our business; we lost everything," she said.

Dasilva and her husband bought a house in Coral Springs, Fla. In 2003; after eight years there, they decided to refinance to reduce their mortgage rate from 10.5 percent. They went to Scott Alan Salomon, an acquaintance.

"He is the godfather to my youngest granddaughter," said Dasilva.

Salomon, a lawyer and the owner of the Platinum Title Company, was able to secure a new mortgage for $166 thousand, but 90 days later Dasilva received a message from her old mortgage company that she was behind.

"So I called them and said, 'I don't have a mortgage with you anymore, we refinanced'. She said, 'we don't know anything about that'. I said 'maybe you should call my lawyer'," said Dasliva.

"She said, 'no, maybe you should call your lawyer.'"

The Dasilvas eventually lost their home to foreclosure. "He did not pay off our first mortgage," she added.

"(It was the) biggest mistake in my life...I felt sick."

You can read more about Scott's exploits here, here, and here or you can visit him yourself at the federal detention center downtown.

(Hey, at least he's got a home.)

Law Updates for November 5, 2010

Urban, 35 FLW 2416, 5th DCA, Youthful Offender - Trial court applied wrong version of statute and is refusing to consider Y.O. for def who was under age 21 on the date of the crimes, but over 21 at the time of the sentencing. Statute at time of the offense applies.

Post-Graham, Manuel, 35 FLW 2417, 2nd DCA, Attempted First Degree Murder with Firearm - Sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment where def was juvenile when he committed the non-homicide crime at issue.



The Law Offices of Roger P. Foley,P.A.

Depositions and DUI

Driving Under the Influence charges are generally misdemeanors, which means that the ability to depose witnesses is not guaranteed. In order to be able to take a misdemeanor deposition, Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(h) requires that "good cause" be shown to the judge. To determine if there is good cause to order depositions, the judge will consider the consequences to the defendant, the complexity of the issues involved, the complexity of the witness' testimony, and the other opportunities available to the defendant to discover the information sought by deposition. Some jurisdictions make it difficult to take depositions in misdemeanor cases, which means that lawyers have to be creative in finding other means to get the information. But, when a deposition is permitted, it should be taken.

Depositions are extremely important resources in the defense of a criminal case. Often, a simple question asked in a deposition will lead to the discovery of information that the defense attorney and prosecutor did not know existed, such as an additional police report, or witnesses that were on scene but not noted. Depositions show the defense lawyer what to expect the witness to say at a later court date and/or provide fodder to impeach the witness if his story later changes. Depositions also provide valuable insight to possible flaws in the case that may not have been otherwise revealed through the standard discovery documents. Examining these flaws can help a case by either revealing grounds for motions to suppress evidence or motions to dismiss the case based on a violation of a Constitutional right, or by simply showing the prosecutor the weakness of the case and giving a lawyer grounds to argue that the case should be dismissed or broken down into lesser charges.

Unfortunately, many attorneys do not take depositions in misdemeanor cases. It is possible that this is due to their feeling that depositions in misdemeanor cases will not reveal anything new or believing that they are a waste of time. However, depositions are a great tool that is extremely under-utilized in the current legal arena. Attorneys who do not take depositions are missing out on a wealth of information that they may not even realize exists in each case. More often than not, an officer's answers in a DUI deposition will reveal extremely helpful defense issues such as Taylor warnings not being read, simple improper phrasing by an officer that turns a request into a command, invalid consent for searches, and numerous other grounds for suppression that may never have otherwise crossed a lawyer's mind when reviewing a case.

Hiring an attorney who will work hard to get all of the information available is important in successfully defending against criminal charges. Although depositions are not always necessary, a case cannot usually be properly defended without digging deep, going outside of the box, and searching for the answers that aren't necessarily obvious at first glance. Depositions are just one weapon in a defense attorney's arsenal, but they can be one of the deadliest if used properly. Defense strategies are always formed more completely when all of the information available is laid out for the attorney to see. Why wouldn't an attorney use such a great tool that is available at the simple filing of a motion?

Copyright (c) 2010, Law Office of Roger P. Foley

11th Circuit Upholds Judge Zloch Sanctions Order Against Loring Spolter!

Remember that time in band camp when Judge Zloch hammered -- and I mean hammered -- Fort Lauderdale attorney Loring Spolter?

Well the digital ink is barely dry on the 11th's unpublished affirmance of the sanctions order:

A review of the record, including the 68-page district court order, shows Spolter has been intensely persistent in seeking the recusal of Judge Zloch because of a perceived bias he believes the judge has against him. It is clear from the record that Spolter has repeatedly attempted to create the appearance of impropriety to further his requests for the recusal and reassignment of cases by Judge Zloch. Spolter has repeatedly attacked Judge Zloch’s faith and political affiliations, and has also called into question the credentials of some of his former law clerks. Spolter has further impugned the dignity of the court by alleging that both Judge Zloch and the Clerk’s Office have manipulated the case assignment system of the entire Southern District of Florida for the sole purpose of ensuring Judge Zloch receives a disproportionate number of Spolter’s cases.

Ok, so?

I'm not following.

The Court continues:

Spolter’s conduct in filing multiple recusal and reconsideration motions without providing a good faith basis supports the district court’s imposition of sanctions. Even though Spolter claims he had a good faith belief the case assignment system operated on a blind random basis before filing his motion for reconsideration, his claims are unpersuasive. The record shows he was notified by a letter from the court explaining how the case assignment system operates in the Southern District of Florida. If Spolter reviewed the case assignment rules cited in this letter, he would have known the Southern District of Florida does not operate on a pure blind, random basis. Instead, Spolter enlisted the services of an expert five days after receiving notification from the court, and provided him with inaccurate information in an attempt to try and prove the case assignment system had been manipulated and that Judge Zloch was behind it. Further, Spolter even admits that prior to filing his motion for reconsideration, he should have investigated the Court’s internal operating procedure and that he mistakenly directed the expert to assume facts that he knew were not true. Although Spolter claims he made a good faith mistake, we believe Spolter’s actions were done in bad faith and for an improper purpose. See Jones, 49 F.3d at 694. Accordingly, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed sanctions against Spolter pursuant to Rule 11.

Oy.

Is that full-page, Judge Zloch-approved DBR ad still an option?

Willie Ferrer -- The Democratic Rubio?

I find the premise of this otherwise flattering Sunshine State News article on U.S. Attorney Willie Ferrer to be fundamentally flawed:

Through his parents' odd jobs and his solid class work at Hialeah-Miami Lakes High School, Ferrer went on to college (University of Miami) and law school (University of Pennsylvania). Today, with misty eyes, a wife and two sons, he says he's living the American Dream.

Using stirring, Rubio-esque language to describe his up-from-the-bootstraps journey, the 44-year-old Ferrer blends loyalty to family and allegiance to American exceptionalism. The only difference is that Ferrer's party of advancement is Democrat, not Republican.

The only difference?

One's a schemer who created a malleable, slightly dishonest "man of principles" persona to ride a wave and advance an agenda of maximizing personal power via national politics, and the other is a career civil servant who has invested his life and significant legal and personal skills into serving the public and doing the right thing.

Other than that, they're exactly alike.

No Easy Road to Attorneys’ Fees

The Fourth District Court issued an opinion last week in Campbell v. Campbell, in so doing reversing a lower court ruling granting fees and costs to the Appellee.  In short, even when a default is in place, the lower tribunal will always be required to make sufficient findings to justify any award of fees.

Judge Shenberg's Tip Line!

Are you going to the slammer?  Interested in how best to make that transition?

Then call convicted Operation Court Broom defendant, ex-judge Harvey Shenberg, who is prepared to disprove the old F. Scott Fitzgerald adage about "second lives," all for a fee:

Shenberg's firm addresses defendant and inmate questions: the surrender; safety concerns; what to tell the kids; how a commissary works.

Fee range: $300 to $750 for a phone consult, $1,500 for a face-to-face; and up to $10,000 to see a client from indictment to release.

``It's a lot more than just preparing the inmate,'' Shenberg explains. ``The family does the time with the inmate, even though they're not inside.''

He solicits business through attorneys and prisonplanning.com. Shenberg runs the operation from his condo in Phoenix.

Hmm, a pay-for-play internet business run from a condo in Phoenix?

Makes perfect sense to me.

BTW, drop Harvey a line and check out his LinkedIn profile here.

Bob Josefsberg and the Lizard King!

The NYT gives the legendary Hairy One (I'm talking Josefsberg, not Morrison) the love in this look back at those crazy times in Miami when possibly brandishing a schlong onstage could get you arrested and drop you front and center into the heated culture wars of the 60s (you know, the ones Glenn Garvin continues to fight).

Great interview, here's an excerpt:

Q.

How were you connected to this case, and what were your impressions of Jim Morrison at the time?

A.

I was co-counsel and local counsel. I think I’m the only one from the trial who’s left alive. The defense co-counsel has passed away. Three different prosecutors have passed away, the judge passed away. And Jim passed away. Jim and I were pretty close in age, and we kind of hit off. He was a very nice person. I’ve seen the movie about him and the Doors. Oliver Stone, with all due respect, is a revisionist. In the movie Jim was portrayed as a selfish druggie, and he wasn’t. He was a very nice person, a nice, decent human being with a very good sense of humor. We spent a lot of time with notepads, passing notes back and forth to each other, and he was very perceptive, very bright. He understood everything going on around him. And for the three weeks I was with him, he was sober.

Q.

I realize your perspective is colored somewhat because you defended him, but then how did he go and get himself arrested?

A.

Well, the charges brought against him were that it was 1969, it was a different world. There were all sorts of political and social pressures, as was shown by the immediately following “Rally for Decency,” with Anita Bryant and Pat Boone. People were terribly offended by what he did. And I think it got blown out of proportion, as most things do. It gathered its own steam and fed off itself, and it became an atrocious thing. Not that I’m saying dropping your pants in public is acceptable. It’s not. It’s also not the worst thing in the world that ever happened. I’m not justifying his behavior – I think there was an overreaction.

Bob's being politic.  Jim got arrested in deep "South" Miami for the same reasons Keith Richards got busted in deep "South" Arkansas and, for that matter, the same reasons Easy Rider ends the way it does -- that's just how things were back then.