7 ms·

>The respondent’s statement in his January 13, 2018 letter that the defendant “had yet to respond to the complaint” was false and misleading, and the respondent

by ugh123 3y ago

>The respondent’s statement in his January 13, 2018 letter that the defendant “had yet to respond to the complaint” was false and misleading, and the respondent knew that it was false and misleading when he made it. The January 13, 2018 letter failed to advise the court of the months-long history of communication between the parties, beginning in July 2017, as mentioned above. How is that not outright fraud?

dllthomas 3y ago
I'm also curious about that, but we should recognize that whether it's fraud and whether it should be prosecuted as fraud are different questions. For a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, where disbarment seems (from a cursory search) to merely require preponderance of the evidence. If that's right, some people will rightly be disbarred for crimes they cannot be convicted of.
- starspangled 3y ago
  Lawyers rule the entire justice system. Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    That may also be the case, and not knowing a lot about this case it does seem like prosecution is probably merited here, and we should push back on tendencies like that across industries. My comment still stands, though; we should be quicker to disbar over a thing than to prosecute, evidentiarily speaking.
    - omeid2 3y ago
      On the contrary, I believe the existence of and ease of disbarring works as a substitute for prosecution, albeit under different terms of "law" and "justice-- if you can call it that. At the same time, the very existence of disbarring without the due process required for convictions, also means, the "good ones" wouldn't risk it by speaking up and demanding "prosecution" of their peers.
      - dllthomas 3y ago
        I see what you're saying, and... maybe? I do think we need to pick apart two questions that I don't think I kept clear. On the one hand, "given the rules we have, how much can we infer bad behavior of decision-makers in that system because someone is disbarred for a crime they are not charged with"; this is more of what I had in mind, and I think I stand by my position of "based on the rules we should expect to see that when the system is performing nominally, though it's not a bad idea to look closer." On the other hand, there is the question of whether these rules are appropriate. I think philosophically there is something to say for "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them", but that doesn't rule out the possibility that the system is abused in the ways you describe. The practical probably should win out over the philosophical, here, but I don't have the information myself to weigh in.
        omeid2 3y ago
        > "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them" Sure, but the revoking of license can be codified into the law, essentially, the same "disqualification" but under the same framework of law as for any other crime and punishment, most of it anyways.
        dllthomas 3y ago
        I don't think I have a problem with that, although I would have to see the specific proposal, talk to people, and think deeper before I would wave my magic wand to make it happen.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law. Eh. Prosecuting someone for borderline calls and novel arguments is a slippery slope, but unambiguous and intentional fraud isn't that.
MBCook 3y ago
As ridiculous as that is, claiming his grandfather died as an excuse then claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and decorum by asking for proof is really something. Damn.
- 3836293648 3y ago
  His Grandfather did die, just three days before the day he claimed, according to Leonard French (Lawful Masses)'s stream on the topic
  - hibbelig 3y ago
    Maybe I should read the article again but I thought the grandfather died in April but the excuse was for November.
    - dchest 3y ago
      "But perhaps the most bizarre story involves Liebowitz missing an April 12, 2019 hearing, explaining that his grandfather had passed." "The respondent also admitted that his grandfather died on April 9, 2019, and was buried that same day."
    - xymostech 3y ago
      My source was also the Lawful Masses stream, but it sounded like the original excuse was made in April, but it took until November for him to actually produce the death certificate to prove that he had lied about when his grandfather had died.
      - justinclift 3y ago
        It sounds like he didn't lie though? His grandfather did pass away a few days prior. Depending upon what was happening with the related family, there can be a whole bunch of things that need urgently taking care of in relation to it.
        3y ago

by ugh123 3y ago

dllthomas 3y ago

I'm also curious about that, but we should recognize that whether it's fraud and whether it should be prosecuted as fraud are different questions. For a conviction you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, where disbarment seems (from a cursory search) to merely require preponderance of the evidence. If that's right, some people will rightly be disbarred for crimes they cannot be convicted of.

starspangled 3y ago
Lawyers rule the entire justice system. Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  That may also be the case, and not knowing a lot about this case it does seem like prosecution is probably merited here, and we should push back on tendencies like that across industries. My comment still stands, though; we should be quicker to disbar over a thing than to prosecute, evidentiarily speaking.
  - omeid2 3y ago
    On the contrary, I believe the existence of and ease of disbarring works as a substitute for prosecution, albeit under different terms of "law" and "justice-- if you can call it that. At the same time, the very existence of disbarring without the due process required for convictions, also means, the "good ones" wouldn't risk it by speaking up and demanding "prosecution" of their peers.
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      I see what you're saying, and... maybe? I do think we need to pick apart two questions that I don't think I kept clear. On the one hand, "given the rules we have, how much can we infer bad behavior of decision-makers in that system because someone is disbarred for a crime they are not charged with"; this is more of what I had in mind, and I think I stand by my position of "based on the rules we should expect to see that when the system is performing nominally, though it's not a bad idea to look closer." On the other hand, there is the question of whether these rules are appropriate. I think philosophically there is something to say for "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them", but that doesn't rule out the possibility that the system is abused in the ways you describe. The practical probably should win out over the philosophical, here, but I don't have the information myself to weigh in.
      - omeid2 3y ago
        > "we should disqualify people from positions of trust faster than we should jail them" Sure, but the revoking of license can be codified into the law, essentially, the same "disqualification" but under the same framework of law as for any other crime and punishment, most of it anyways.
        dllthomas 3y ago
        I don't think I have a problem with that, although I would have to see the specific proposal, talk to people, and think deeper before I would wave my magic wand to make it happen.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Not even the "good" ones want to normalize the prosecution of lawyers for committing crimes while practicing law. Eh. Prosecuting someone for borderline calls and novel arguments is a slippery slope, but unambiguous and intentional fraud isn't that.

MBCook 3y ago

As ridiculous as that is, claiming his grandfather died as an excuse then claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and decorum by asking for proof is really something. Damn.

3836293648 3y ago
His Grandfather did die, just three days before the day he claimed, according to Leonard French (Lawful Masses)'s stream on the topic
- hibbelig 3y ago
  Maybe I should read the article again but I thought the grandfather died in April but the excuse was for November.
  - dchest 3y ago
    "But perhaps the most bizarre story involves Liebowitz missing an April 12, 2019 hearing, explaining that his grandfather had passed." "The respondent also admitted that his grandfather died on April 9, 2019, and was buried that same day."
  - xymostech 3y ago
    My source was also the Lawful Masses stream, but it sounded like the original excuse was made in April, but it took until November for him to actually produce the death certificate to prove that he had lied about when his grandfather had died.
    - justinclift 3y ago
      It sounds like he didn't lie though? His grandfather did pass away a few days prior. Depending upon what was happening with the related family, there can be a whole bunch of things that need urgently taking care of in relation to it.
      - 3y ago