Friday, June 23, 2006


North of The Border Defense Attorney KO Morgan was suspended for 91 days by the Florida Supremes:

An alert reader posted the entire Sun Sentinel Article which you can read in the comments section. We print an excerpt here:

. . . [B]ut it was a small-time felony battery trial in 2004 that got Morgan in trouble with the Florida Bar. The lawyer snapped at Broward Circuit Judge Robert Collins, who curtailed Morgan's questioning of a witness."

I think you're out of line,"
Morgan shot back. "You don't talk to me like that in front of a jury."

In the protracted exchange, Collins threatened to have Morgan arrested.
"Go ahead and have me arrested," the lawyer taunted.
"Take me to jail and let's go with it."
The two parried on.
Collins: "And you are obnoxious."
Morgan: "So what?"
Collins: "You can't be obnoxious in a courtroom to a judge.
"Morgan: "You are obnoxious to me."
The attorney won a mistrial for his client, who later pleaded out to a probation sentence.
Morgan, who has 30 days to close out his one-man practice, accepted his suspension with aplomb. "I'm going to just basically work out, get back in shape, take a three-month vacation without pay," he said. "
I'm more concerned about the people I have to abandon. I'm trying to get good lawyers to step in and take care of these people."
Morgan was reprimanded for making derogatory remarks in 1995 and 1996 about judges, and was suspended for 10 days for making false statements about a judge in 2000. Once this suspension is up, he must apply to the high court for reinstatement to practice, after proving he's been rehabilitated.
"I'll try not to run over any babies and be a sweetheart between now and then," he said.

Rumpole Comments: It takes a special type of defense attorney to practice successfully north of the border. KO Morgan is that type of guy. Tough. Smart. Not afraid of prosecutors or bullying judges, KO is all about his clients.

Regarding Judge Collins’s comments to Mr. Morgan, the fact is that you CAN be obnoxious to a Judge in court. You shouldn’t be overtly obnoxious, but as far as we know there is nothing in the laws of physics that prevents an attorney from being obnoxious. Furthermore, taking Judge Collins's remarks literally, apparently it is ok to be obnoxious to a Judge out of court (which is why we still have our license).

Everybody has their own style. Our own personal style is to be so obsequious and nice to the judge who is being obnoxious to us that it is obvious to everyone with an IQ over 100 that we are really taunting the Judge. (Notice that for obvious reasons, while the clerk, client, and court reporter get what we are up to, the poor dear robed one, does not.)

However, we also fully believe that discretion is the better part of valor, and have successfully avoided telling Judges “go ahead and have me arrested” like Mr. Morgan did.

If there is one firm belief and standard that we have clung too during the good times and bad, it is that arrests are for clients…not attorneys.

The article notes that Morgan was reprimanded for making derogatory remarks about judges twice before.

Jeeze...we do that twice a week. That's why we remain anonymous.

Actually, we like most of the Judges in Dade County. We just like making fun of them more than we like them. (the real truth which we hope is plain to see is that we think most Judges in Dade do a good job. However it would so pain us to publicly admit that that we would rather just give then a good tweaking now and then anonymously. )

See You In Court.


Anonymous said...

KO always likes to monkey around!

Rumpole said...


Anonymous said...

Maybe an apology would have been cheaper in the long run.

We all say things to judges that we later regret.

We say those things since we can not shoot judges when they say dumb things to us.

This goes for prosecutors AND defense attorneys.

Rumpole said...

Many attorneys say things in the heat of battle that they later regret. And many judges who used to be trial attorneys recognize that and will accept an apology. But for better or worse KO is not that type of guy. When a client hires him, the client is not looking for a lawyer who can charm the judge or prosecutor for a good plea. Hiring KO is a declaration of war, and sometimes thats what a client needs.

Anonymous said...

the problem here is the 91 days rather then 90. 91 days means that he has to take the bar exam again. they fucked the guy good....

Anonymous said...

91 days does not require the taking of the bar exam. 91 days requires a showing of rehabilitation; which means that the 91 days can be far longer than 91 days. The attorney must show The Bar they have met conditions and has be rehabilitated to resume the practice of law.

Anonymous said...

rehab is for quitters

Anonymous said...

Another jerk in a robe who abuses a lawyer, then resents a reaction. This began when the judge curtailed CX -- not by ruling, "Objection sustained," but rather by an obnoxious, uncalled for and non-legal statement: "I think you're out of line." That's not a legal ruling -- it is a deliberate effort by the judge to discredit the lawyer in the jury's eyes. Whether or not we like KO's response, the judge's demeaning and abusive comment started all this. Why not a review by the JQC?

Anonymous said...

Captain we need more of these stories.

Let's start a new feature on the blog: The Reversal of the Week.

Once a week, we will highlight an appellate court case from the 3rd DCA where one of our fine jurists and their decision was sent packing back to the REGJB.

Why not start with the judge that is by far the favorite among those to criticize on this blog, none other than Judge David "Maximum" Miller (also voted the best State Attorney in a Rump poll)?

On March 22, 2006, the 3rd DCA decided Bauder v. State, 31 FLW d858.
The panel included Cope, Ramirez and Rothenberg.

The defendant was instructed by Judge Miller to sit in the box because of a possible outstanding warrant. At some point, it appears that the defendant decided he had better things to do, so he walked out of the courtroom, out of the courthouse and across the street to the parking lot. Judge Miller's bailiff ran after him, detained him and brought him back to the courtroom.

Judge Miller immediately held the defendant in contempt and sentenced him to six months in jail. [Rumpole. notes, bailiffs don't get paid enough to risk their lives, plus, most of them do not have formal law enforcement training.]

Only one problem; Judge Miller forgot to hold a hearing. [Rumpole notes that legally, this is called the WOOPS doctrine]

As the 3rd DCA opinion reads:

"Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830 allows for a finding of direct criminal contempt when the court sees or hears the conduct constituting the contempt. Pursuant to the rule, however, prior to a finding of contempt or the imposition of a sentence, the accused must be informed of the charges against him, be permitted to provide good cause why he should not be held in contempt of court, and be given an opportunity to offer any mitigation of his conduct. As the trial court summarily found Mr. Bauder in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him without complying with the rule, the judgment and sentence must be reversed."

By the way, you'll love the argument made by the government's attorney to support Judge Miller: The AAG, after filing for several extensions of time to file her answer brief, argued that the appeal was moot because the defendant, (by now), had already done the six months.

The 3rd DCA decided that it was their responsibility to remind Judge Miller, that wearing a robe and holding a gavel, does not mean you get to forget the rules. keep watching this blog for our weekly Gong Show segment called "Hook of the Week".

Anonymous said...



We took the time to re-print the letter seeking nominations to the Third DCA:


QUALIFICATIONS: MEMBER OF THE BAR. REPUBLICAN OR TO THE RIGHT OF REPUBLICAN. Cannot have practiced criminal defense law. Cannot have ever said anything nice about a criminal defense attorney or a defendant.

The ideal applicant will be a Judge who has never granted a motion to suppress, a JOA, or sentenced a Defendant to anything under the top of the guidelines. Having never granted a motion for a defense continuance is a plus.

Must work well with Judge Rothenberg and be willing to overlook, ignore, or explain away at least eight of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

Legal research skills must be limited to the late 1700’s case law, as only those candidates that promise to apply only the original intent of the framers will be considered, especially in cases involving the internet, computers, telecommunications, or searches of automobiles.

Membership in organizations that espouse the belief that the United States Of America is a Christian Country, and that separation of church and state is an outmoded concept will receive a favorable and expedited review.

Democrats, people who read books other than the Bible, and defense attorneys need not apply.

Pay flexible based on experience.
Ask about our ‘per curiam affirmed” bonus program for criminal appeals!!!!

Captain Wannabe said...

Say what you want about Judge Glazer, it took brass ones to make this ruleing against John Rivera. BIG brass ones.

Report censures police union pay dealMiami-Dade police director Bobby Parker and two former directors said they were unaware of a union president's extra pay through an off-duty work program. The union president insists the deal was approved.
Read the Inspector General's report
Three current and former Miami-Dade police directors said they never agreed to boost the pension benefits of the police union president and two others by funneling their union salaries through the county's payroll system, according to an Inspector General's report released Friday.

The findings of the report -- released after a judge refused to keep it sealed -- flatly contradict the statements of Miami-Dade Police Benevolent Association President John Rivera. Rivera has said that his pay arrangement with the Miami-Dade Police Department was approved by current director Bobby Parker and Parker's predecessors, County Mayor Carlos Alvarez and former chief Fred Taylor.

Inspector General Chris Mazzella found that Rivera and two former PBA officials, Richard Kolodgy and Anthony Loizzo, had their union salaries paid through the police department's off-duty work program, which allows private businesses to hire off-duty police officers for security or traffic control.

Because their union salaries were declared off-duty pay, the three will receive increased pension benefits, which are calculated based on total income from the police department. No other Miami-Dade union leaders count their union pay toward their government pensions, Mazzella said.

Rivera is a police sergeant, but he works full time as the PBA president. Last year, his $77,700 police salary was supplemented by $44,400 in union pay through the off-duty program, records show.

Mazzella has said the off-duty program is supposed to apply to police functions performed off-duty, not to union administrators. He has called the arrangement a ''flagrant abuse'' of the program.

Rivera insists he has done nothing wrong, and has attacked the investigation as politically motivated. He also filed a lawsuit in an effort to halt the investigation.

The PBA has had a longtime contract with the police department for off-duty services -- though paperwork for this contract is incomplete. Through this contract, Rivera says he is paid just as other officers receive extra pay for attending sporting events or other off-duty jobs.

''The PBA is a bona fide vendor, the proper process is conducted and the PBA pays its bill,'' Rivera said in a written response to the report.

Rivera said Parker endorsed the off-duty arrangement in a Nov. 28, 2005, letter to the union president. The letter refers to bookkeeping procedures for off-duty work, but it doesn't specifically mention Rivera's pay. Nearly three months later, on Feb. 16, Parker told investigators that he didn't know Rivera or other union officials were paid through the off-duty program, according to the IG's report.

Parker ''told the OIG that he would not have approved such an arrangement,'' the report says. Parker said he would not object to officers working off-duty for the PBA at picnics or similar events, the report said.

In his response, Rivera said Parker ''could not'' have said that, ``as he has provided in writing his acknowledgement and approval of the PBA as a vendor and the manner in which [off-duty pay records] are submitted.''

Parker did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Alvarez, who was police director from 1997 to 2004, also told investigators that he didn't know Rivera was paid through the off-duty program, and he wouldn't have approved of it, the report said.

Rivera said Alvarez was misquoted but offered no evidence. Rivera ''has never disobeyed or disrespected his superiors,'' he said in a statement. Alvarez was ''not available'' to comment on Friday, according to his office.

The Inspector General's Office released the report Friday morning after Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Mindy Glazer denied Rivera's request to prevent the report from going public. Rivera and the police union have three lawsuits pending against the inspector general.

KO Morgan wannabe said...

South Dakota may be on its way to “J.A.I.L.” this November, when the Judicial Accountability Initiative Law appears on the ballot as a referendum in the general election. The controversial initiative would amend the State Constitution of South Dakota to completely remove judicial immunity as a defense in suits against judges brought by disgruntled litigants. In addition, the measure would create a “Special Grand Jury” - a fluctuating 13-member body that would have statewide jurisdiction with the power to decide whether a judge has violated law, disregarded facts, blocked lawful conclusions, or violated the State or U.S. Constitution. The Special Grand Jury would also have the power to indict a judge if it “finds probable cause of criminal conduct” where the sentencing would then be performed by a “Special Trial Jury”. After three such “strikes”, a judge would lose his/her job forever along with half of his/her pension. Early polling showed over 70% of voters supported the measure; however, both legal and political circles have found it so extreme that it has drawn bipartisan opposition in the State Legislature. As a result, the legislature has passed a unanimous resolution urging citizens to reject the amendment.


Rumpole said...

Children Children..calm down. Someone posted something about Attorney Miguel De La O. Its in the comments section of a previous post. They posted it again, and some people followed up with posts that did not make a lot os sense. We deleted them because one post is enough.
1)Take your private grudges elsewhere please. 2) Just because we let a post stay up does not agree with believe it or support its premise. 3) Somehow the fact the post about De La O made someone else deduce that we are not Michael Catalano. We never confirm or deny our identity except to admit we are not Juan D'Dopey.

4) We are seriously considering making this blog members only. Anyone who joins can post, but not anonymously. We deplore the nasty comments, sexist comments, homophobic comments about attorneys Judges, candidates, and the only reason some stay up is because we get busy and cannot monitor every post. We have gone to great lenghts to show how you can slyly insult a judge without making a crude comment. Put a little more effort into your posts please.

Anonymous said...

Who go D. McGilllis upset in South Dakota? Seems like a law he would lobby for and have fun promoting.

To think about it, I agree. Let's do it in the State of Florida. What say you?

Anonymous said...

Stop smoking weed. It makes you paranoid.

lost in Qinghai said...

让我们将较为温和,. 挖不多. 你说什么?

Anonymous said...

free mary jane

Rumpole said...

更温和. 要设置投票?

Anonymous said...

I demand a blog totally dedicated to Jeff Swartz. I want every minute of his boring Jeff Swartz day detailed and analyzed so we can keep apprised of his Swartzzy activites.

Anonymous said...

It's funny, how Mr. Morgan got suspended for 90 days. But how many judges get reprimanded for their actions and disrespect to the public and attorney's. NONE! It is not fair, judges think they are God. They should treat people how they like to be treated themselves. I am tired of judges disrespecting people and acting superior than anyone else. Remember, you can be out of a job as a judge and working as a regular attorney with no friends. Ask Jeffrey Swartz, he knows about that.

Anonymous said...

The difference between God and most Judges is that God does not think he is a Judge.

Anonymous said...

i like when a subpoena says 9:00am, the judge shows up at 9:45 like he owns the place. no apology for making everyone wait. but if a defendant shows up 45 minutes late, big problem. seems fair to me.

Anonymous said...

Why is everyone always picking on JEFF SWARTZ? Isn't there anyone else whose actions merit blog news? So he's a pompous jerk sometimes. Move on.

Anonymous said...

Because he spent 12 years pissing on everyone around him. Karma, Kramer, Karma.

ORJ said...

Rumpole: Deleting Anonymous posted blogs and holding editorial control over the Blog expressly holds you liable for libel posted from any member. WHY: Because you are now taking a active role in choosing what will stay and what will not. You are not the editor in charge.

How do I know this? Becausde a United States Federal Judge was kind enough to write a 20 page opinion two weeks ago from a Federal Court up north, that specifically says you are liable when you take editorial control of a Blog.

Ps. The plaintiff lost the case because he could not prove that the defendant had taked editorial control or no proof existed that he ever deleted any anonymous post.

Maybe Miguel De La O, is buds with the Captain?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the news. Now I only hope that Rumpole is not a ticket attorney so we can all get paid.

Keep the ugly baby though.

lost in qinghai said...


Anonymous said...

I assume orj (the 5:44 comment) is referring to the decision in DiMeo v. Max, 2006 WL 1490098 (E.D. Pa. May 26, 2006). Luckily for Rumpole (and us), orj has the holding completely wrong.

In DiMeo, the judge explained that the Communications Decency Act offers immunity from defamation claims to a provider of an interactive computer service who posts information provided by another individual. The opinion explains that Congress enacted the CDA to promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and (here's the important part for us) "to encourage service providers to self-regulate the dissemination of offensive material over their services." DiMeo argued that because Max can select which posts to publish and edits their content, he should be held liable. THE JUDGE REJECTED THAT ARGUMENT.

So, Rumpole, please feel free to edit posts to remove offensive and insulting and derogatory language. There is absolutely no need to let YOUR forum be overrun by potty-mouthed individuals. Edit away!

Anonymous said...

That opinion has been appealed and I disagree with the previous poster in his incorrect interpretation of that order and a closer read should be made by the captain and rumpole.

Please update us .... or did the captain run and hide ??

A Robed One said...

Sleep tight Rumpy.

Mr. McGillis (I assume ORJ is McGillis), if this is how you interpret cases in your pro se appeals, you need to hire a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Well, he usually provides exhibits as well as google searches to the Appellant Courts...

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

responding to A Robed One at 10:56

why did you send me to a link of a news article?

Talk about legal rulings based on news reports.

I had better get the herald today I may have a real legal argument for my hearing monday in court. It has to be somewhere in the pages of the Miami Herald.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole must be K.O. since anyone that knows K.O knows he is an A.Hole. It is O.K. for an attorney to be aggressive, but if you reaqd the case with K.O. the judge simply sustained the State's objection when K.O. asked "what the victim was wearing" in a grand theft case...and told the judge he was interfering with his x-examination (isn't that usually what happens when the objection is sustained). So, Rumpole read the case before you irresponsibly blog about it. Even you will agree K.O was an A.Hole, unless you are K.O or his friend.

Anonymous said...

The judge in KO Morgan's case was Robert "Bobby" Collins who happens to be a very nice guy. Morgan was obviously trying to take advantage of Judge Collins knowing he was vunerable. Morgan should be disbarred.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I am laughing at some of the remarks made about the KO Morgan suspension case. I did something a little different than some of the commentors - I actually inquired about the matter. [I am in law school and I want to be a criminal defense lawyer, so this situation actually fascinates me.] Anyway, the case it involved was NOT a "grand theft" case as someone suggested, but a FELONY BATTERY CASE. Also, KO was not asking "what the victim was wearing" as someone suggested, but he was asking HOW THE WITNESS HERSELF WAS DRESSED AT THE TIME OF THE BATTERY. One might ask, "What difference does it make?" Well, it turns out that the defendant (KOs client) was managing a lounge in a hotel when the incident with the 'victim' happened. There was a free buffet for customers in the inside lounge as well as a separate one for customers outside the lounge. However, there was a 'dress code' to come into the inside lounge buffet the defendant was managing. Anyhow, the defendant was in the process of ARGUING WITH THE WITNESS to leave BECAUSE OF THE WAY SHE WAS DRESSED when the fight started with the actual 'victim.' As I understand it, KO was trying to make a 'proffer' of the evidence being excluded when judge Collins sustained the prosecution's general 'relevancy' objection. If you actually read Florida law you have to make a proffer to preserve the issue of a ruling excluding evidence being reviewed in an appeal court. So, the lawyer HAD to do what he tried to do. It turns out that when the jury was finally taken out of the courtroom KO wanted the judge to recuse (disqualify) himself because of the way the judge was treating him in front of the jury. Apparently KO believed the judge did something to prejudice the client. YOU CAN READ THE WHOLE TRANSCRIPT OF THE EVENT AND GET ALL THIS! Maybe he was wrong for reacting like he did. As a wannabe attorney-law student, I am getting the impression that in Florida the lawyers need to be very subdued and meek, OR THEY WILL BE DISBARRED IF IT HAPPENS A FOURTH TIME. Maybe soon Florida's criminal defense lawyers will 'inherit the earth.' Maybe. OH. By the way: DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO ACTUALLY MADE THE BAR COMPLAINT AGAINST KO MORGAN THIS TIME? I hear it was NOT judge Collins but some other judge that did it. I also found out that a judge named 'Green' made one of the earlier (maybe both) complaints against that lawyer. IF ANYONE KNOWS THAT SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER VERY INTERESTING VISTA TO EXPLORE. The need for meek lawyers and vengeful judges. What a brave new world awaits us. In Florida.

Anonymous said...

So we can't yell back at judges? Eff that! KO may have overstepped his place, but maybe not. When fighting for a client's life in front of a jury, it is imperative that a judge remain in control, but not disrespectful. After all, we are all just people who are working in a system, and we know that everyone plays combative rolls in nature, but there has to be a line in front of a jury. Sounds like both of these men need a little work. Good luck to KO on his way back to the practice...

Anonymous said...

Do any of you people know this K.O. guy? Some people I spoke to about him had only good things to say. Poor bastard. Maybe he's just too much of an idealist in a world where justice is coming to mean how many people the government can turn into convicted felons. Remember in law school the old saying, "Equity depends on the length of the chancellor's foot"? Now a lawyer's career depends on the sensitivity of a judge's skin. I always thought of lawyers as adversarial knights taking the brunt of the cold stabs of the government's sword for the common 'people.' I guess that's a crock of sh*t, huh? I just never thought that because a given judge might be a 'nice guy' the defense lawyer needed to be quiet. Even nice guys can have bad days; and if a judge is having one at the peril of an accused, well, if I am the accused on want my lawyer "kick ass baby!." If Kayo Morgan is reading this, I wish you luck guy and hope you don't change too much. Justice will always need people like you just to be there. Good luck guy.

Anonymous said...

Some anonymous ass said this: "The judge in KO Morgan's case was Robert "Bobby" Collins who happens to be a very nice guy. Morgan was obviously trying to take advantage of Judge Collins knowing he was vunerable. Morgan should be disbarred." DISBAR!!!! You must be a very stupid person to say that about anyone's career because some 'nice guy' judge gets confronted by a lawyer, even if the lawyer is not a 'nice guy'. However, I met Morgan a couple of times and he is also a nice guy - he just cares more about his clients sometimes than he does himself. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF!!!! I have seen that 'nice guy' judge talk very harshly to lawyers now and then; and be very complimentary too. People change day to day, good moods and bad moods, ups and downs. Damn, its life people! I bet the person that suggested disbarment for this bullsh*t matter (even if it happened a hundred times before) never even met Morgan or saw him work in a courtroom. However, even morons are entitled to their opinions, and I bet Morgan would stand up for even that. I wouldn't. So take a hike you idiot! VULNERABLE?!!!! What about the client? What about a fair trial? What about 'the appearance of impartiality' they a judge must display? What about adversarial advocacy? If you want lawyers to help people, to assert rights, to insist on justice, then allow a little passionate humanity in that lawyer for crying out loud! The low intellect of human's that can type continues to confound me. How is that possible? Go to hell you limpbrained fools. I just can't wait until the day you are represented by someone who is afraid to protect you lest they be berated. You deserve that sort of advocate. Me? I will take a Kayo Morgan anyday. And sleep well knowing it. I really hope the supreme court redefines its standards. Go get the piece of crap lawyers; leave the real advocates to do what needs to be done to protect presumeably innocent people - even if sometimes they get a little aggravated doing it.

Anonymous said...

Everyone should log onto the Fla. Sup Ct website and actually read teh KO Morgan opinion.

What he did and said was wrong. When a judge says shut up, we have to shut up and appeal.

We can not talk to judges like that even tho many should be screamed at...

Anonymous said...

Everyone should be civil; e.g., nice. It's just common courtesy. I don't care ho you are.

Anonymous said...

I will say this about the Kayo Morgan thing. Lawyers are under a lot of stress. They have not only their own personal problems to deal with day in and day out, but the problems of their clients day in and day out. A 24-hours 7 days a week stress schedule. One would think that judges would be sensitive to this. I guess supreme court judges are just too removed from the 'battle field' to understand, but trial judges should know. I don't know this guy Morgan, never met him, but I hesitate to judge him too quickly. A courtroom trial is expected to be adversarial. It may ought not to be expected that a defense attorney would be unresponsive to or casual about a judge expressing hostility towards him or her, especially with the client-defendant sitting right there witnessing it - let alone in front of a jury in a jury trial. If it were me sitting there and the judge was scolding or embarrassing my lawyer I would take it personally - and be very scared about justice being served in my case. Anyway, I hate to see a person's career being compromised or at risk because he or she vigorously fought for the 'appearance' of fair justice. However, having said that, there are less direct ways - and more intelligent albeit crafty means - of displaying a judge's (apparent) prejudice. I hope this lawyer overcomes the direct approach from now on. He comes off as the kind of guy most criminal defendant's would want on their side. So, ease up people. Even if 'you' would not risk yourself for a mere client, maybe those that would yet deserve some honor for being different. This is America after all. Happy 4th of July.