WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. THIS BLOG HAS BEEN CALLED "THE DEFINITIVE BLOG ON MIAMI CRIMINAL LAW" BY THE NY TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE POPE, AND DONALD TRUMP WHO ALSO ONCE SAID IT WAS "REALLY GREAT". POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

4th DCA BROUHAHA

The title of the post links to attorney Gary Kollin's letter to Governor Crist about his appointment of Judge Labarga to the 4th DCA. A great great choice if you like judges who hold grudges and wait to get even with lawyers they think have disrespected them. 

Apparently Kollin had Labarga recuse himself from a criminal case. Once that was done, there were some sarcastic comments from Labarga to Kollin. 

Then Kollin left the courtroom and Labarga really unloaded, including comments about how he never forgets and will get even with lawyers like Kollin at some point in the future. Labarga speculated that perhaps in the future he might have a hearing on a motion by Kollin for attorneys fees or the like. But it was clear from Labarga's comments that he holds grudges against attorneys and gets even when he can. 

Click on this link to the Broward Blog which has more of the Labarga transcript. 

And that folks, is the best and brightest person your Governor could find for the the 4th DCA. 

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, did you read the entire transcript? I think you are being a bit facetious on this matter trying to appear somehow righteously angry at a judge who just gave some general advice to an attorney going private and made some general comments about a fact of life in the practice of law. Your post sounds like you are pomposituously inflating the importance of this exchange of words because there was nothing else worth posting about this afternoon. Doing so undermines your credibility as a blogger and commentator.

Anonymous said...

and you've never had a bad day?

Anonymous said...

where was the JQC?

Fake Judge Labarga said...

Rumpole I will get even with you one day.

Rumpole said...

5:23 Am. Take a number and get in line.

8:02 PM. No I did not read the entire transcript. Nor do I read the entire case (headnotes will do for me.)

I finish nothing completely (except the bottle and the seconds at dinner) and I take little seriously, especially two bit notions on how to be a lawyer from some hack judge.

Let me say this- there are two ways to practice law- go along to get along- and fight like hell for your client.

Which type of lawyer would you want?

About two years ago our favourite federal blogger pulled a procedure which saved his client ten years and got the prosecutor very angry. The move was ethical and very strategic. He faked the AUSA out. There was some discussion about Markus never getting a good deal for future clients. He and I spoke by email- and I told him he owed no duty to clients who have not yet hired him and he owed a 100% obligation to the client who did. And he agreed with me.

To summarize- only dipshit lawyers sell out their current clients so that some day in the future the judge might give them a favourable ruling on another case.

In my career I have represented prosecutors and Judges under investigation. In two instances when the client called me I was a bit surprised because we did not have the best relationship. And both of them said the same thing- be the son of a bitch for me that you are when you used to go against me/appear before me. I was flattered because they got it. It was never personal.

Merry Christmas.

Rumpole said...

5:23 Am. Take a number and get in line.

8:02 PM. No I did not read the entire transcript. Nor do I read the entire case (headnotes will do for me.)

I finish nothing completely (except the bottle and the seconds at dinner) and I take little seriously, especially two bit notions on how to be a lawyer from some hack judge.

Let me say this- there are two ways to practice law- go along to get along- and fight like hell for your client.

Which type of lawyer would you want?

About two years ago our favourite federal blogger pulled a procedure which saved his client ten years and got the prosecutor very angry. The move was ethical and very strategic. He faked the AUSA out. There was some discussion about Markus never getting a good deal for future clients. He and I spoke by email- and I told him he owed no duty to clients who have not yet hired him and he owed a 100% obligation to the client who did. And he agreed with me.

To summarize- only dipshit lawyers sell out their current clients so that some day in the future the judge might give them a favourable ruling on another case.

In my career I have represented prosecutors and Judges under investigation. In two instances when the client called me I was a bit surprised because we did not have the best relationship. And both of them said the same thing- be the son of a bitch for me that you are when you used to go against me/appear before me. I was flattered because they got it. It was never personal.

Merry Christmas.

Anonymous said...

Thank god I live in Miami Dade. The worst that could happen to me is that Judge Rothenberg gets the case, and thats ok, if gay rights are not part of the litigation.

Anonymous said...

Hey Rump: the dipshit lawyer observation made the post worth repeating.

Anonymous said...

Just read the transcript and you'll see that Kollin started objecting before the judge even said a word. One thing is to vigorously fight for your client, as we all should do, and quite another is to antagonize judges for no good reason and without an actual benefit for the client. I used to be antagonistic like Kollin in my earlier years then I matured and learned to listen to what the judges were saying because, more often than not, they were about to rule in my favor when I was about to get confrontational. Judges know when you are being confrontational for advocacy reasons and don't mind that. They also can tell when the reason you are being confrontational is because you are a jerk.

Anonymous said...

Rump.........you're being way too dogmatic. You can be a nice guy and still get what you want for you client. When I was a young prosecutor, I was super aggressive. I believed that "zealous representation" and aggressive representation were the same thing, as your post suggests. I won a lot, got some stuff done, and thought I had it figured out. Later, I realized that it wasn't my aggressiveness that got me my results, it was my reputation for competence and honesty. In other words, I could've achieved the same thing and caused myself and others a lot less agina by handling my self differently.

The point is, that this is not the black and white issue you suggest it is. Reemberto Diaz was a prefect gentleman, yet did very well as a defense attorney. Same for Joe Reyes (one of the best APD's that office will ever see), Lynne Pachurek (a pleasure to deal with), etc. In fact, the majority of top notch defense attorneys are nice guys who value their credibility. You can win without being an SOB.

BTDT

PS----same goes for prosecutors...........ie. Laura Adams.

Rumpole said...

Perhaps I did not express myself well.

An attorney should always conduct themselves as a professional.

It's not personal and the fight should be left in the courtroom.

An attorney's strongest weapon is their reputation- especially for honesty and integrity.

BUT- being nice and honest and respectfully does not mean backing down to anyone when your client's best interest dictates otherwise. As you wrote, it is indeed a a fine line we walk.

The Judge is not walking a fine line- it appears to me that he is weak, has no intellectual confidence, and doesn't like lawyers who stand up to him.

Rumpole said...

Perhaps I did not express myself well.

An attorney should always conduct themselves as a professional.

It's not personal and the fight should be left in the courtroom.

An attorney's strongest weapon is their reputation- especially for honesty and integrity.

BUT- being nice and honest and respectfully does not mean backing down to anyone when your client's best interest dictates otherwise. As you wrote, it is indeed a a fine line we walk.

The Judge is not walking a fine line- it appears to me that he is weak, has no intellectual confidence, and doesn't like lawyers who stand up to him.

Anonymous said...

Fom what I read in the transcript, I do not get the same perception as Rumpole. In my reading, I perceive a frank judge who has the confidence to vocalize what everyone else would think but is afraid to say. I don't think the judge is talking about what he himself does or would do but as to what judges in general do or would do to attorneys who pick fights with judges for no reason.