Retired? I'm still playing twice a week (or were you referring to my "legal" career?).It would take many more cheap shots than dished out here for me to retire (I may not skate too fast anymore but I still know where I should be skating to) ... but it did teach me a pointed lesson about the power of anonymous and unfounded (and unwarranted?) posts to stain one's hard-earned reputation. Bobby Reiff
Rumpole sez: we meant retired from blogging because of what morons post about you, like the one in the comment section which we didn’t delete, but was written by a coward.
We live in a free market society (supposedly). Mr. Reiff is free to charge a nickel or a million dollars a case. His client will make the decision to hire Mr. Reiff and Mr. Reiff will or will not get new clients based on his performance. That’s the legal business in a nutshell (minus the scumbag bondsman runners who steer cases) and it is nobody’s business what Mr. Reiff charges. The bottom line is that if he cannot live up to what he tells his clients he will do for them, he will not get referrals on new cases. Apparently, Mr. Reiff lives up to what he promises. If we have learned anything from our years in practice it is this: the best source of new clients are happy former clients. People who disparage Mr. Reiff without any logical basis to do so, are clearly 1) jealous 2) not as good as Mr. Reiff.
Rumps, Is it fair to say that calling someone out as a Brown Noser is a personal attack under your guidelines?
Rumpole says: no- that’s allowed. But the more important issue is if someone calls lawyer “X” a brown noser anonymously, it really stinks to high hell. If you want to comment on a poor aspect of a person’s character, why not stand up and say who you are?
Anonymous, unaware of the first amendment, wrote:
Not to change the subject, but Brownwyn Miller's JA just sent the most beautiful email to all judges and staff of the 11th Circuit. I post it so you too can revel in the glory of Christ...
Rumpole responds: the full version of the post, including the religious message, is on the blog comments section. If JA’s shouldn’t be selling perfume, should they be proselytizing Christianity on the internal email system used by Judges and JA’s? Are Muslims and Jews entitled to equal time to spread the word about their religion on the Judge’s email system? And has any of these legal eagles read the establishment clause of the first amendment? Quite frankly we are more disturbed about JA’s using publicly funded email networks to promote their religious ideals, than JA’s selling a knockoff bottle of Channel #5.
A critic writes:
Rump this censorship is pathetic and you are taking this blog too seriously. On another note, I cant believe you would stoop so low as to accuse one of your posters of being an anti-semite merely because they make the rather obvious point that in the past A Jewish surname was often helpful in a judicial election in much the same way a hispanic surname might prove helpful in 2006. What exactly is anti-semitic about this? As a Jew I am truly offended when anyone throws out a baseless charge of antisemitism becuase it makes people think we Jews are always crying wolf. Rump I love the blog but think you are way way out of line on this one.
Rumpole replies: your points are valid and we posted them. But, we think we have done a fairly good job in not taking ourselves too seriously at all. Certainly we do this blog merely because we have fun doing it. But we are mindful of people’s reputations and try and discourage nasty, mean, and possibly offensive stuff. Discourage- but not censor-unless they violate the two golden rules- no dissemination of private information, and no ad hominem attacks like calling a particular lawyer fat (why does that bother us so much?)
Phil Maniaty- pro that he is- steps up and talks about a loss:
Regarding Steve Levine having beat me in a trial:
1. I did not cry.
2. Steve did a great job tearing my case apart. This was a case in which ALL of the courtroom personnel(maybe even Steve?) were expecting a fast guilty verdict.
3. I have the utmost respect for Steve as a professional. This is an opinion I have held since long before the above-mentioned trial took place.
Spiderman writes in (nice to hear from you again Spidey)
TGK, DCJ, MIA...the questions are the same:Did you pack your bags yourself? Have your bags been in your possession the entire time?
Rumpole sneers: yeah, those questions did a lot of good on the morning of September 11, 2001.
See You In Court- praying for a not guilty- but keeping our prayers to ourselves.