Sunday, January 28, 2007


In 1971 a young John Kerry , fresh from Vietnam, testified before Congress and said this:
''How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Last week Senator Kerry announced that he would not be a candidate for President in 2008.

John Kerry lost the race for presidency in what was to him, and his advisors, a stunning defeat. As election day proceeded, buoyed by final polls and early exit polls, Kerry’s advisors started calling him “Mr. President.” Then Bush won Ohio, and that, as they say, was that.

Over 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq, and over 45,000 have been wounded. Today the situation is worse than the day after the war began. If you read Bob Woodward’s latest book, State Of Denial, you know that the responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders on former Secretary of Defense John McNamara, …I mean Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld thought he was smarter than the military; he surrounded himself with a group of generals he could cower and browbeat, and he dismissed those professionals who said it would take 600-700 thousand troops in Iraq once Baghdad fell.

When people criticize the Bush administration, they tend to focus on the illusory weapons of mass destruction. While there is significant testimony and proof to suggest that professional intelligence officers were telling the White House that there was no proof Hussein had WMD’s, the bigger crime, the larger mistake , was in the way Rumsfeld bullied the White House and the military.

From Collin Powell and Dick Armitage, to General Tommy Franks, to Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General John Shalikashvili, the professionals told Rumsfeld and Bush that not nearly enough troops were committed or available to secure Iraq after the war.

Former President George Herbert Walker Bush’s decision not to invade Iraq looks, in retrospect, a wise decision. Then again, wise decisions are made when responsible individuals who have a lifetime of experience are in the position to make decisions. Responsible decisions are made when there is not one egotistical man bullying everyone around him.

Mistakes are made when rank amateurs who believe their ability to appear pious and religious is more important than silly things like experience, intelligence, and professionalism.

President Bush wants to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq. His generals, HIS GENERALS - told him in December they need about 7,000 more troops. Once again, the professionals are being ignored.

36 years after John Kerry asked

''How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

President Bush apparently has the answer.

First Person Post Script:

I lived through the Vietnam war and it’s aftermath, albeit at a much younger age. I came of age with a generation that studied Vietnam and the failures of the military and political leaders. Military thinkers and civilian theorists have written countless books and papers analyzing and dissecting the failures of Vietnam. Slowly our country emerged from the Vietnam hangover on the national consciousness. One could say President Regan was responsible for the beginning of the responsible and effective use of American Military power post Vietnam.

Then we had the first Gulf War and the Powell/Bush Doctrine: American military power should be used in specific situations where the U.S and an international collation can apply overwhelming force with specific goals identified, and reasonably obtainable. The Powell/Bush doctrine worked. The United States threw Iraq out of Kuwait in less than 100 hours of ground military action and less than 100 coalition deaths. Our standing in the world had reached a new zenith.

Then in less than 15 years a bunch of egotistical fools ruined it all. What I find amazing, in a twi-light zone sort of way, is that we are back to 1971. With the lesson of Vietnam clearly learned (so we thought), we are now back to arguing about the effects of a total withdrawal in the face of defeat, paralyzed by inaction, while Americans die. For a mistake.

Maybe that’s what happens when we have a President, Vice President, and Secretary of Defense, who all avoided military service in their youth.

Perhaps character in youth counts for something after all.

"How do you ask a man (or woman) to be the last to die for a mistake?"

I don't know. But I do know you never get into that position unless you make a series of mistakes to begin with.

The tragedy of Iraq is that we knew better. And the professionals who knew better were ignored .


old guy said...

War Is Hell(attributed to Sherman), and we have let ourselves be dragged into war - again- by fools with ideals, but no understanding of the human costs. Our children die so that we can speak bravely about the past. I watched it 40 years ago, and cry to this day for the friends I lost. I am heartbroken that the newest generation will also have this burden.

Anonymous said...

Now, with this "war history" blog subject written so well and with intellect, I am starting to think that Rumpole is Judge Lenny Glick instead if Judge Scott Silverman! Judge Glick is a war history expert. What do you think?

Anonymous said...

I meant "instead of" and not "instead if"....sorry

Judge Lenny Glick said...

Sorry to disappoint.
While I am an acknowledged "storehouse of useless information",
I do not have the writing skills of RUMPOLE.
I do not have the inclination to spend the time necessary to run the blog or compose the literary works of RUMPOLE.
I am not now nor have I ever been Rumpole.
Lenny Glick

Anonymous said...

Somebody find a football game for Rumpole!

Anonymous said...

I must confess. I am Rumpole.

Anonymous said...

Is Judge Edward Newman in County or Circuit these days?

Anonymous said...

What's the Statute of Limitations on the filing of a bar complaint?

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, that piece should be run in the new york times.

Anonymous said...

This comment says it all:

''How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Good job Rumpole. Just a guess you voted for Davis?

Anonymous said...

Miami could use some judges with balls.

"Pinellas Circuit Judge Crockett Farnell’s wife awoke him early Tuesday morning with some news. . . . She heard Gov. Jeb Bush on the radio accusing Farnell of throwing a judicial “temper tantrum” for threatening to jail the secretary of the Department of Children and Families because the agency wasn’t removing mentally ill inmates from local jails quickly enough. . . . “If this is a tantrum,” Farnell said, “he’s lived a very sheltered life. We’re just trying to help these poor folks.” . . . A Pinellas judge for nearly 25 years, Farnell has gained national attention recently for his battle with DCF. . . . He has threatened to fine the agency thousands of dollars a day and jail its leader, Lucy Hadi, if DCF doesn’t start following a state law that requires mentally ill inmates to be removed from local jails within 15 days. . . . While advocates for the mentally ill are praising Farnell, Bush is critical. . . . “With all due respect to judges pounding their chest in their big black robes up on top of a big chair looking down and castigating Secretary Hadi, they’re not governor,” Bush said Monday. . . . “They’re not the secretary. They’re not the legislature. There is a separation of powers... I think that some of the temper tantrums that have taken place have gone too far.” . . . In his chambers Tuesday afternoon, Farnell smiled and shook his head as he recalled Bush’s comments. . . . Farnell finds himself pitted against the governor not just over the fate of the mentally ill, but also over whether a judge really can throw a high-ranking government official in jail. . . . “The governor just doesn’t want anybody doing what he doesn’t want,” Farnell said. “He doesn’t have a scintilla of knowledge about judicial independence.”

Rumpole said...

Anonymous said...
What's the Statute of Limitations on the filing of a bar complaint?

Rumpole says: What have I done now?

Please leave Judge Glick alone. He has enough on his plate without having to dodge Rumpole accusations. Same with Judge Silverman. I am in private practice. Before that I was a PD/ASA (not saying which). Never was a Judge. Probably never will be, unless one of my cronnies becomes governor/President.

Anonymous said...

bar complaints must be filed within 6 years of incident.

Anonymous said...

Newman is in county court.

Anonymous said...


(a) Time for Inquiries and Complaints. Inquiries raised or complaints presented by or to The Florida Bar under these rules shall be commenced within 6 years from the time the matter giving rise to the inquiry or complaint is discovered or, with due diligence, should have been discovered.

(b) Exception for Theft or Conviction of a Felony Criminal Offense. There shall be no limit on the time in which to present or bring a matter alleging theft or conviction of a felony criminal offense by a member of The Florida Bar.

(c) Tolling Based on Fraud, Concealment or Misrepresentation. In matters covered by this rule where it can be shown that fraud, concealment, or intentional misrepresentation of fact prevented the discovery of the matter giving rise to the inquiry or complaint, the limitation of time in which to bring an inquiry or complaint within this rule shall be tolled.

(d) Constitutional Officers. Inquiries raised or complaints presented by or to The Florida Bar about the conduct of a constitutional officer who is required to be a member in good standing of The Florida Bar shall be commenced within 6 years after the constitutional officer vacates office.

Anonymous said...

Be Careful:

"People who file bogus Florida Bar complaints against attorneys for ethical misconduct can face criminal charges for making false allegations, the state's 4th District Court of Appeal has ruled.

Those who file grievances against lawyers with the Florida Bar are granted absolute immunity from civil lawsuits. But that immunity does not extend to criminal prosecution, the 4th DCA held Wednesday in West Palm Beach.

In State v. Bryce Rutherford, a three-judge panel unanimously reinstated criminal charges against Bryce Rutherford, a Lake Worth woman who allegedly made false allegations in a Bar complaint filed against her former employer, John Carter, a partner at Carter & Thomas in Boca Raton."

Full Story at this link:


fake mean gene oakland said...

I guess he's in between that 2 week time period when he reads the blog, or Stan Blake would have responded to the godfather posts yesterday.

Anonymous said...


Not Judge Glick said...

Talking about military minutae:

Captain Ramius: What books did you write?
Jack Ryan: I wrote a biography of, of Admiral Halsey, called "The Fighting Sailor", about, uh, naval combat tactics...
Captain Ramius: I know this book!
Capt. Vasili Borodin: Torpedo impact...
Captain Ramius: Your conclusions were all wrong, Ryan...
Capt. Vasili Borodin: ...10 seconds.
Captain Ramius: ...Halsey acted stupidly.

Rumpole: You know all: Did Halsey act stupidly???

Anonymous said...

Stan is skiing......

Anonymous said...

Once upon a time in a college dorm room far far away Rumpole and the Captain was born.

One day as the story begind in October of 2005, two 19 year old college students sat around completely bored and decided to start a blog and pretend to be lawyers using aliases. The conversation went something like this:

First Kid: Lets pretend to be lawyers and make fun of the idiots who run our Government.

Second Kid: Will never work people in the Government are smart and will catch on.

First Kid: You obviously have never read the Miami Herald. Are you down, lets search for aliases.....Hey look at this name “Rumpole” an amazing lawyer from England. From this day forward I shall be Rumpole.

Second Kid: (after searching the internet for hours replies) I can’t find any good names.

First Kid: I know, you can be the Captain of the Blog.

Second Kid: Super cool dude. From this day forward I shall be named the Captain.

As the story continues the birth of Rumpole and the Captain a.k.a. Rumpole’s bitch, was born.

Today they sit back and start rumors, gossip and flat out lies to the enjoyment of the masses that flock to the Blog. Two college students who are non-lawyers who do not fear a Bar complaint or the JQC and have fooled everyone.

Soon to be a Disney motion picture event.

Rumpole said...

To : 3:46

Ahh…Now you’re entering my real field of expertise. The quote from the Hunt For Red October about Admiral Halsey refers to the Battle for Leyte Gulf, and the famous message sent by Admiral Nimitz to Admiral Halsey

“Where is Task Force 34? The World waits”.

The Japanese knew that McArthur was returning to the Philippines. They also knew that Admiral Halsey would be commanding the Third Fleet, with 6 battleships and aircraft carriers. The Japanese knew Halsey’s reputation as “The fighting Admiral” and they devised a ploy based on their psychological assessment of him. They created a series of fake radio messages to indicate that a large Japanese fleet was to the North West of the San Bernadino Straits- a body of water Halsey was assigned to guard to prevent a Japanese naval fleet from coming through to attack the US Invasion Fleet.

Halsey was spoiling for a fight. He didn’t want to just guard the rear of the US Invasion fleet. In every previous carrier action of the war - Coral Sea, Midway, Eastern Solomons, Santa Cruz and Philippine Sea - the Japanese, although badly mauled, had saved most of their ships. Halsey was determined that this would not happen again. He expected that the (fictitious) Northern Force was planning to shuttle-bomb him by ferrying planes back and forth between carriers and airfields, as they had attempted to do in the Battle of the Philippine Sea.
He felt it unwise to leave any considerable surface force to watch San Bernadino Strait without detaching one carrier group for air protection, which would weaken his striking power.

Halsey’s actions left only a few light cruisers and destroyer escorts to guard the straits. They engaged the large Japanese surface fleet. While they performed bravely, the Seventh Fleet lost an escort carrier and three destroyers (totaling 660 men) to Vice Admiral Takeo Kurita's battleships and cruisers.

The true value of studying the Halsey and the Battle of Leyte Gulf is the lessons that can be learned. This situation, like most battles back then, was a situation of incomplete information. The decision makers were also faced with several courses of options, and resulting possible rewards that increased as more risks were taken. From a Game Theory standpoint, and a military decision making stand point, the Battle Of Leyte Gulf is a perfect “test tube” scenario to examine decision making. From a Military standpoint, Rumpole believes the Japanese got to Halsey and exploited his character- his known trait to run to a fight.

I would blog all day about WWI Naval battles if I could. Especially Leyte Gulf. I just love it.

Anonymous said...


ABE LAESER said...


The only real naval battle of WWI was Jutland, and obviously only you and I are old enough to remember.

I am sure that Leyte Gulf was in WWII.

CAPTAIN said...


to 4:38 PM:

I am nobody's bitch, especially Rumpole's. I do not even know who Rumpole is and I don't believe he knows who I am.

CAPTAIN OUT ................

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows The Captain is Brian Tannebaum ...

CAPTAIN OUT'D AGAIN.............

Anonymous said...

Finally relief to the South Florida legal community. It appears that McGillis is selling his web site www.operationrestorejustice.com his home page says this:

WE ARE GETTING OUT OF POLITICS IF YOU WANT THIS DOMAIN "TO DO WITH AS YOU PLEASE" EMAIL US NOW AT forsale@operationrestorejustice.com all offers over $1,000.00 will be considered."

It may be worth the money just to be rid of this creep!

Anonymous said...

How to extricate ourselves from the war? it would require an admission by the Bush administration that he relied on faulty intelligence and overreacted to the 9/11 attacks to protect our country and we are withdrawing and letting them fight over their country themselves. When was the last politician/egomaniac made such an apology. Some think it would have saved Nixon's presidency and Clinton from impeachment if they just admitted they were wrong. The real story for the 1/millionth of the imformed is that Bush wanted to retalitate against Husein because when Clinton was President Hussein tried to kill Bush's father who invaded Iraq on the pretense of saving Kuwait when it was and always will be about OIL AND BILLIONAIRE wannabes. Bush is concerned about his legacy and will never admit to anything and has said we will be there during his entire presidency. To admit a mistake would hurt the republicans in elections and his presidential library. Bottom Line: we are going to be dedicating a war memorial on the mall in DC in 15 years with 50000 names on it because the Bush family are elitist assholes.

Anonymous said...

can we get a fund started to buy that web site?

Anonymous said...

I recently read a litany of posts from ASA's and defense lawyers's complaining about each other's practice.

To the ASA who complains that he / she's tired of defense lawyers announcing ready when they are not. Quit trying to be the "KING OF THE WORLD". You have no idea when we are ready. We may not want to take a depo or 2 for strategic reasons, we may not want to file a specific motion FOR STRATEGIC REASONS. I think it's cute when you try and tell us how to try our cases but, remember what your mommy told you, "mind your business."

Anonymous said...

the captain had to tell rumpole his identity before rumpole would allow him to be a guest blogger. bank on it.

Anonymous said...


CAPTAIN said...


to 6:55

Negative - full writing privilege without having to reveal my identity - bank on it.

to all others:

Now there are four - that is four candidates listed for 2008 Circuit Court seats.

Josie Perez Velis joins Migna Sanchez-LLorens, Abby Cynamon and Stephen Millan.

Velis has filed to run in Group 11. That seat is presently held by Judge Eugene Fierro, but The Captain believes that Fierro is age limited.

CAPTAIN OUT ...........

Anonymous said...


since you dont write anything controversial, bar complaint worthy or scandalous, reveal your identity.

Anonymous said...

Anyone care to share what their experience was as an ASA in County Court?

Anonymous said...

6:38. I'm an ASA. And this is what I see happen with some frequency: It's the first time up. I'm not ready. I'm waiting for lab results, a witness has disappeared, an officer is on vacation, whatever. The judge inquires as to my readiness, and I state not ready. The judge then inquires of defense counsel, and s/he states ready. The judge gives me a continuance and resets the case for trial in two months. Speedies are ticking. Flash forward two months. I'm not ready. Got the lab report, located the witness, no one is on vacation, whatever. Judge asks me if I'm ready, and I answer in the affirmative. Judge then turns to defense counsel. Suddenly, the very same attorney who was ready two months ago needs to take depos, needs to file a motion that will be "dispositive," wants me to go to career criminal and see if I can get a min/man waiver, etc., etc. It's obvious what's going on here and it has nothing to do with strategy. It's playing games, speedy games that is, and it's dishonest and unethical. Tell that to your "mommy."

Anonymous said...

That should read, "I'm now ready."

Anonymous said...

I also think you are BT. But DP the PD? Interesting

Rumpole said...

If course I meant WWII. U dropped an "I".

I have no idea who el capitan is. I can make anyone a guest blogger by inviting them through their email address. Indeed, our favourite federal blogger David O Markus with a K made us a guest blogger on his blog, and I dare say he does not-despite his confidential predictions to the press over a year ago- know who I am.

Being a guest blogger does not give you the power to remove posts, or remove comments. It jusy gives you the ability to write posts.

Rumpole said...

To the bitter ASA.

There is a big difference between being dishonest and using the system to your client's benefit. Does the scenario about being ready when the state isn't and asking for a continuance when the state is ready -happen? Of course. But.....but....how about when the state files possession of a firearm by a convicted felon along with carrying a concealed firearm. Does that give the prosecution a benefit? Sure. Sometimes two bites at the apple. It's what experienced attorneys do. It's what you would want an attorney to do if they were representing you: use the system for your benefit. Not abuse-but use- the system.

There are dozens more instances on both sides. Personally my own bug-a-boo is when the prosecution won't give me a reasonable plea and then after the JOA motion, they ask for all lessers when I don't want any, and then they spend the whole trial trying to get my client convicted of a misdemeanor so they can get 364 when before openings the offer was 20 years. That bothers me a lot. However, its legal and I would never call a prosecutor who does it unethical.

Stop being so righteous and try and see the good in both sides. It will make you a better lawyer.

Rumpole said...

OK- let me give you one more hint to my identity- I have never run for judge. And I wouldn't run for judge while running the blog. As the first president Bush might say "Wouldn't be prudent. Wouldn't be right."

So stop calling Gina Mendez names. She ran a fine campaign and I believe earned the respect of many people including Judge Larry Schwartz. (although I can't speak for him, but I seem to remember a post he made after the election.)

Anonymous said...

Hey 8:52 - If the state's not ready, the judge shouldn't even ask the defense the question. You do have the burden of proof don't you?

Anonymous said...

speedy games? in five years of practice, half pd, half private, i have actually got one case dismissed based on speedy trial. one case. and i am constantly aware of speedy issues on every case.

maybe other defense attorneys get tons of dismissals on speedies, but i got one in five years. and i am a pretty good attorney.

Anonymous said...

i can see how an asa might be annoyed at the defense announcing ready when the state isnt, but for a def atty not to announce ready, i think, is gross malpractice.

the state has the burden, and if they say we dont have the ability to present evidence to a jury, then clearly i (as a def atty) am ready.

and we dont need depos on every witness in every case. its a right to take depos. not a mandatory predecessor to going to trial. dozens of stragegic exist for not taking a depo.

alsoa vast majority of states do not have criminal depo practice.

Anonymous said...


Monday, January 29, 2007 8:52:39 PM

I like your point. I think that the state should be ready on the day they arrest and place a person behind bars PERIOD! If at the time they start breaking down doors to make arrest and cant be ready to go to trial the following day then WTF was the arrest all about? I will tell you what it was a card to play for the poor defendant that cant afford bail because he lives in poverty. He wants to go home to his chilren and family and pleads out on a case that if he had money would probally be dismissed. Now starts the chain reaction the poor guy pleds to probation and one day during his probation he is pulled over for driving with a suspended license because he forgot to pay a traffic ticket and now he will spend the next 5 years in prison for what might have been dismissed had he been able to make bail and fight the charges.

This happens every day and is sad. Don't get me wrong murder suspects, child molestors etc should be arrested immediately upon getting enough to file information and the state should have time to prepare the case to protect us. But that guy who had a business partner who swindled money or the guy who took his grandmas car for a joy ride or the guy who bounced a check etc ...

Rumpole help me on the subject.

Anonymous said...

10:01 pm next time use spell check!

Anonymous said...

If any of you so called lawyers had any ethics you would follow in the footsteps of this new young Florida Bar member:

"Attorney takes up inmate's cause
By Marcia Lane

Recently minted Jacksonville attorney Charlie Douglas flipped on his television set on a Friday night in November 2006 and caught the end of a segment on ABC's 20/20 news magazine about justice in Texas -- specifically, how two men sentenced by the same judge were treated when they violated probation. . . . One was a white man who had killed a prostitute, been sentenced to probation and was then caught several times with cocaine. He came from a well-to-do family with political connections and had a private lawyer. His probation was lifted and he only had to send a letter to the judge once a year -- postcard probation, as it's called. . . . The other was a black man sentenced to probation after an armed robbery that netted him $2. The charge was lowered to aggravated robbery. While on probation he tested positive for marijuana, and the judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. He was poor and had a court-appointed attorney."

For the whole story follow this link:


After you follow in his footsteps come back and post about how great you think of yourself. Otherwise just shut the fuck up!

Anonymous said...


Charlie Douglas is an attorney at Harrell and Harrell, PA. in Jacksonville, Fla. by Daron Dean, daron.dean@staugustinerecord.com

Anonymous said...

OK, I'm the "bitter" ASA. My issue is with the dishonesty of lying to the Court. If a judge asks you (and by you, I mean either side) if you're ready, you must answer honestly. If you (as a defense attorney) don't plan on taking depos, then fine, answer ready. But if you (again, as a defense attorney), do plan on taking depos (as 99% of you do), then suck it up, be a (wo)man, fulfill your duty to act as an officer of the Court, and answer not ready.

Anonymous said...

i may initially plan to take depos, but before i set them, at a sounding, if the state says not ready, then at that point my strategy changes and i am ready. down the line it became necessary for me to take depos, and i may have to ask for a continuance. i have deciced to change my strategy.

am i wrong? i am curious what asa's and def attys feel on the subject. i also assume most def attys do the same, right?

CAPTAIN said...


Lest we all forget how important it is to give back to our community, I invite you to read the following:

The Florida Bar will recognize 21 lawyers for their work on behalf of poor and indigent clients at a January 25 ceremony at the Florida Supreme Court. President Henry M. Coxe, III, of Jacksonville, will present the 2007 awards.

Lawrence D. Silverman
Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Dade)

Lawrence D. Silverman has served since 1995 as a member of the board of Family Resource Center, Inc., which provides emergency shelter and support for children in foster care and/or situations where no parent or guardian exists.

In 2001, he was presented a Miami-Dade County Bar Association “Adopt an Agency” pro bono award for his work with Shelbourne House, a not-for-profit agency providing housing to indigent, HIV-positive persons. He also has provided legal counsel to the Embrace Girls Foundation, Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami and the Keys, and the Coconut Grove Playhouse. In all, Silverman has donated more than 800 hours of pro bono service to the community through the Put Something Back Program of the Miami-Dade County Bar Association and community contacts.

Congrats To Mr. Silverman.

CAPTAIN OUT ...............

Anonymous said...

The thing that you (the ASA) do not understand is that part of the reason that we are ready is the very fact that you are not ready. If the State can't prove its case, then the defense, as things stand now, is ready, because going to trial with a State attorney who is not ready to present a case is a perfectly ethical and legal way to get an acquittal.

Anonymous said...

Captain, donating time to those organizations is great. I want to hear about the average joe or elderly person who is being sued in a bogus complaint get some pro-bono help. When I hear about a lawyer taking a case for someone on SSI or SSD or even welfare and cant afford services I will truly be impressed.

Hype is all that we see in the pro-bono service. I want to hear about the lawyers who's hands are dirty from meeting with and representing the poor against bogus complaints and not just for a paycheck at the end.

The Profiler said...

i used to get speedy dismissals all the time, b4 the plate glass "window" exception was created for the state.

these were mostly in county court where s/t period was 90 days with no wiggle room for the state. judge mapp (all-righty-diddy, what say ye state?) would set a case for trial on the 89th day and continue it for a day if the state wasnt ready or they gave you late disco.

i remember coming back like 3 days in row for a dui case, on the 88th, 89th and 90th days.

ive been a defense attorney for over 20 years, after 3 at the sao. truth is defense lawyers want speedy dismissals, not speedy trials, and to say otherwise is disingenuous. true believers at the pdo can say whatever drivel they want about burdens of proof and the state's obligations and so forth, but the truth of the matter is that its a smokescreen for what we really want...have the client walk.

of course we defense lawyers play games, but so do the asa's...especially the young ones who do so out of fear, lack of honesty or lack of persepctive or a combination of those. i have no problem with what i do.

Anonymous said...

Pro bono: any attorney who accepts life felony sapd cases-murder, armed robbery, att. murder, sex crimes does INVOLUNTARY PRO BONO- you don't get paid for all your work when they decide to pay you and it is one of the most stressful jobs in the legal profession. totally thankless. any young attorneys out there- if you can afford it stay away from accepting life felony appointments- they are nothing but misery and heartache. a totally thankless job.

Anonymous said...

2:30....don't forget to mention the thanks you get in the Rule 3 that follows every conviction.

Anonymous said...

As a defense attorney, being "ready" is a fluid concept based upon the prosecution's ability to prove its case. I may prefer to have a deposition of a witness, or perform some further investigation of the matter, but if that witness, or another crucial witness is unavailable for trial, I may chose to proceed without it. That does not limit me to not taking that deposition should things change down the line, nor should it.