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. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Limited Registry Act II

What were you doing when the great and unexpected Saturday-FACDL Listserv-Limited Registry kerfuffle erupted?  Were you watching the olympics, grilling some ribs, or emerging from the shadows of some cheap yet thrilling Saturday afternoon assignation? 
For those of you who wear robes (and are thus not allowed to receive Listserv emails) prosecute (ditto) or were  just blissfully enjoying a Saturday afternoon, the email from David S. Markus (NOT DOM- David O Markus, the fine federal attorney and proprietor of the Southern District Of Florida Blog) where he “named names” and listed the phone numbers of five defense attorneys who had signed up for the category of the limited registry that enables them to receive murder case appointments for a cap of $2,500.00 in fees burst across the legal landscape of Miami like an unexpected appearance of Halley’s comet, or a judge picking up the check at lunch.
Mr. Markus’ email was lengthy, explaining his position and his conversations with two of the attorneys who signed up and deigned to speak with him. One lawyer basically told him “FU. I can do this and make it work for me” while the other not only gave an impassioned plea on the need for quality defense for the indigent, but ended up agreeing to serve as a co-petitioner on Mr. Markus and the FACDL’s quixotic quest to sink the limited registry. 
Know this: Mr. Markus is correct in all respects. With regards to the lawyer who thinks he can make this work for him economically with an economies of scales approach in which, by taking a lot of cases, the volume of work and fees makes up for the few cases he ends up trying for $2,500.00, the lawyer will fail because the committee overseeing the appointments to attorneys on the limited registry is going to impose a small cap on the number of open cases an attorney can have. Thus when the litigation of these cases bog down with intransigent  prosecutors (“I know your client probably didn’t do it but the victim wants the max and their feelings and knowledge of the legal system supersedes mine”)  and difficult clients (“Man,  you just work for the state. That video ain’t me and that DNA ain’t mine”)  the financial realities of working for years to earn $2,500 will trump visions of grandeur: “Let’s see. If I take a thousand cases at $2,500 that is...umm...two and half million dollars! So I have to try ten of them. I can still afford that vacation condo in the Keys....”
With regard to the lawyer out to save the world, Mr. Markus’ rejoinder to him was spot on: the way to ensure that indigent clients get good legal representation is not to give into the Legislature but to defeat the limited registry, because if nobody signs up, then the appointments automatically go to the general registry wheel where attorneys are not reduced to hourly fees less than than those who clean the REGJB bathrooms (who also deserve a big raise by the way.) 
We struggled with publishing Mr. Markus’ email because he included the names and phone numbers of those misguided lawyers who got down on their bellies and prostrated themselves before the Florida Legislature who has blatantly sought to treat criminal defense attorneys in this state like “dogs needin a whuppin”. We won’t lick their shoes and our colleagues who have ought to be ashamed of themselves. That being said, we were cautious about using  the blog as a public vehicle to upbraid our colleagues, however in need of upbraiding they may have been. Events however, have overtaken our caution.
So here is the email which most of you have probably read. Have at it. 
lrdsmpdf
Sleepy summer weekend? HA!

63 comments:

The Boss said...

"We take care of our own"

"Wherever this flag this is flown....we take care of our own, we take care of our own..."


Except Miami.

Scott Saul said...

There's a problem with these righteous-sounding challenges to the court appointed work...a lot of it is all bullshit!

1) As a private criminal defense attorney, as long as you work hard, you are dedicated, honest and treat the clients with respect, you will make a living. You will not make millions, because the nature of the profession doesn't lend itself to that, but you will make a comfortable living.

An issue with this is that many of the lawyers are assholes and they cannot adhere to this basic business model. People like to take shortcuts, they have personal problems that spill over into their professional life or they live above their means. Many of these lawyers can't even return phone calls, show up to court or they get too greedy.

If you work hard in this profession than these court appointments should be meaningless.

2) Nobody trusts the court appointment process with good reason. Look what happened in the early 90's with "court broom" and overbilling. You had a great system but it was corrupted.

I wish, when I first went into private practice, that I had the gumption that I have today. With judges giving the appointments to only their friends?! What a crock or sickening bullshit. If I sensed that today, I would call any judge out on that. Oh how I wish I did that in the early 90's!

Many lawyers were caught overbilling...and nothing happened to them. Even today, the death penalty work is a pseudo-closed fraternity that is it's own sector. With these issues, can you blame the apprehension in using taxpayer money to fuel such nonsense?

3) I like Bob Barrer, he's a nice guy. That's his business if he wants to take a case with a lesser profit margin. If a guy makes an honest living, but he chooses to have a lesser profit margin, what business is that of anybody else? Lawyers, the protectors of freedom do not like when somebody exercises their "freedom" in how they make a living?!

I sometimes charge lesser fees. I have no debt, own my own office building and have other sources of income. I can charge less, undercut my competition, yet my profit margin will be higher than somebody charging a whole lot more yet with higher overheads. Is that not the essense of business? Am I not committed to the constitution like attorney fancypants with their high fees?

4) This isn't about rights of defendants, it's about taxpayer money that won't be available any longer to lawyers that have previously relied upon it.

So many lawyers are backstabbing, cannibalistic and parasitical upon their own profession. This profession deserves the consequences that it creates.

Oh yu don't like what I have to say? Then confront me about it. I sign my name (unlike most of you backstabbing, dishonorable, name calling nerds).

I rip a lot of lawyers yet there are also a lot of very admireable lawyers out there that are not only assets to the profession but also to the community and human race. SOme of you are of the highest quality huma beings and I am proud to have known these people for so long.

However, it is essenial to call a spade a spade.

If a person wants to work for cheap, who is to criticize somebody making an honest living?

Anonymous said...

This is a new low. Please redact the names and phone numbers. This is outrageous.

Rumpole said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

But the email calls for others to attempt to intimidate and harass these lawyers. Youl should remain above these type of tactics.

Juan Ramirez, Jr. said...

Totally off the subject, I logged on looking for comments on the 3d DCA's opinion last Wednesday in State v. Delgado. I found none. It reversed a suppression order granted by Judge Zabel. The opinion states that the standard of review requires appellate courts to defer to the trial court's findings. It then states that the preponderance of the evidence established that the defendant consented to the search.

Anonymous said...

I agree with what DOM said on the listserve. You should post that as well.

Secret Judge said...

I have 2 comments. First kudos and props to Scott Saul for telling it like it is, and second, as per Juan Ramirez' comment, everyone knows that the 3rd DCA has become a rubber stamp for the State, which is understandable since so many of my colleagues never tried a jury trial before they became judges. Accordingly, the 3rd DCA compensates for the unprecedented ignorance of the trial bench, as opposed to doing what they should be doing, which is reverse for a new trial. To the 3rd, everything is harmless error.

Rumpole said...

My comment was removed by mistake. I will repeat it. I thought long and hard about publishing the email before it was sent out on the listserv. But once it was sent out then it generated dozens of comments. This blog was created to give those who work in the REGJB the ability to comment on the issues that affect us all. These lawyers put themselves in a position to hurt their colleagues and their clients. They have no right to expect to remain anonymous. But I am mindful of the effects of Google searches and thus published the email in sribd to keep their names off the front page.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole's right. By signing up these lawyers are bowing down and licking the boot of their master who kicked them and left them cowering. Jerks.

DS said...

Kudos to Scott on his comments and signing his public post. Bravo.

While I disagree w some of his statements, Kudos to Christian on signing his public posts.

Capt. Robert White, USA Ret. is a fighter, a good lawyer and a Better Man.

Why is the limited Registry $ Bad and the Regular Registry $ OK ? Is it just the amount you get paid?

Why not consider the $$ as overhead and the pay for the lawyering Pro Bono, you know helping the poor.

My Gross pay w Benis is about $1100 a case , where all my clients face a potential Life Sentence in their cases, leaving an equivalent of almost $1400 for overhead.

Jason, No One but Our Client, You and I care about a Jury Trial we won 20+ years ago . But I think it was a Machette not a Ginzu

NOTICE :These are personal mussings not Offical comments of ANY elected official nor Public Office

Anonymous said...

DS math applies to his salary. All the newer "A"s at te PDs office make $50k a year, I am not saying that the liminet registry is right, but quality representation can be provided at that rate.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of sanctimonius bullshit from Markus. The attorneys screaming like babies are the ones who for years have profitted from a court system that gave out money like it was going out of style. Congratulations to the attorneys that have the guts to challenge the money-grubbing freaks that falsely claim they just care about the rights of the accused. I hope you make good money AND do a good job for your clients. If I remember correctly, you greedy people also bitched endlessly about the regional counsel office... but the complaints were silenced once the program got going.

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney: "I don't always travel to England, but when I do, I remember to insult the populace. Stay Republican, my friend."

BTW-- How many times does Romney have to disrespect others before we stop calling it a "blunder" & start calling it a "personality trait?"

Anonymous said...

I'll jump in on Regional Counsel. I opposed it along with most people and now I work there. There is a fundamental difference with RC3 and this scheme. We have lawyers compensated fairly who do not have incentive to sell a client out at the first hint of a plea. The average murder case in Dade takes 3-4 years. Tell me how people can afford to work for 4 years and at the end get 2500? Don't you people see that this is the Florida Legislature telling us criminal defense lawyers that they hate us, hate Gideon and all it stands for and that in their opinion if a cop makes an arrest then the person is guilty and all we are are money grubbing liberal big city lawyers trying to game the system?

Phil R

Anonymous said...

Contgratulations to the five lawyers who had the guts to stand up to the David Markus and his synod of greed.
After years of happily feasting at the public trough he has gone into panic mode correctly noting that the party is over.

Mr. Marcus who has handsomely profited from the bounty of the State faces the unspeakable horror of actually having having to compete for work in the free market. Unfortunately he has overreacted by advocating that a few brave souls who chose to run a lean operation and think for themselves in setting prices are to be hazed and castigated, because they elected to not follow the holy truth as enunciated by Mr. Markus. Its a shame that a self styled champion of the rights of the indigent is advocating hazing and a black list that would have made Sen. Joe proud.

Anonymous said...

Be careful what you wish for. Has anyone asked themselves which cases will get to the 3rd level of representation (P.D., Regional Counsel, then Limited Registry)? I doubt those cases will be quick pleas or simple cases. Usually these are the difficult cases or the difficult clients, or both. Chances are the lawyers who agree to sign up for the registry will look down the road and regret they agreed to sign up for the registry due to the low pay, difficult cases, and the hit to their reputations.

Anonymous said...

Limited Registry Nightmare Scenario #1:
You accept a PBL case.
You work for 18+ months fronting all expenses, then you have a fight with the client who wants you off the case because you are not visiting him enough, not taking his collect phone calls, not talking to his family, girlfriend, etc. who you call you at least 3X per week with all sorts of emergencies, requests for forloughs, etc. Client files a bar complaint. You withdraw. You bill JAC. JAC will refuse to pay your flat fee until the case is closed which will take another 6 to 12 months. But then you will have to "share"-split your fee with the new PCAC lawyer. Multiply this by 10. Bar starts thinking-maybe there is something to all these complaints. You have to defend multiple Bar Complaints.

Lots of Luck guys!

Anonymous said...

You never have to front costs. The JAC pays all the costs as long as you do the right paperwork and use JAC approved providers.

Bar complaints come with the territory in criminal defense work. Do what you are supposed to do, keep records, cut and paste your case notes into the form letter response to the bar that wishes the client well with his new attorney and move on.

Rumpole said...

7:13 have you lost your mind? Nobody signing up for limited registry is showing bravery, to David Markus of all people. They are showing cowardice and bowing down to the Florida Legislature. And the more they bow and prostrate themselves, the more the legislature will rake advatanage of them by cutting fees next year. Under what theory are these people brave? They are sharpening the knife the legislature is holding to their throat.

Anonymous said...

It's academic to me, because Im a young PD getting paid less than 50k, but do any of you anti-LR warriors have law school debt? The image I have of you is of typical babyboomers -- whose law degree cost next to nothing, who began with the SAO or PDO and got raises every year while there, and who went private in the height of the boom years.

As pretty as your ideas are -- unity, not backing down to the Legislature in the midsts of a recession, etc -- Ive yet to hear any suggestions about how younger attorneys, with over 100k of debt, trying to begin a practice in the midst of economic downfall, and under the giant wave of boomers who won't retire, how are these young attorneys supposed to hold such noble ideals as yours, while failing to pay rent?

DUI diversion, the end of the cocaine boom, crushing demographics, skyrocketing law school costs... all of these make our decisions a little tougher than your sanctimony.

Anonymous said...

Can someone inquire as to who Rod plans to bring into the SAO if he wins? This might sway my vote one way or another.

THE TRIALMASTER said...

sy gaer and paul pollack took cases for less than that.

Rumpole said...

I am astounded at the stupidity of my colleagues. To not sign up with LR is a no brainer. If we all don't sign then we win, they lose. If some attorneys sign up then they win, we lose, including the attorneys who signed up who agreed to work for minimum wage or less. You can't run an office on these fees, you can't make money and live off of these fees. And once the legislature sees they can do this, then they have an incentive to lower and lower the fees until they reach a point people drop out. At fees below minimum wage they haven't reached it yet. There is NOTHING HEROIC in surrounding to this horrific nonsense. Nothing in the least. It is appeasement. it is surrender, it is rank cowardice. It's not standing with your black friend when a restaurant in the south won't serve him. Its not standing up to the House Unamerican Activities Committee and refusing to name names of friends who were communists. It's Chamberlin meeting with Hitler. It's the lowest expression of personal character and shows nothing if not stupidity because if you people can't see what the legislature is doing to you, there should be no way you had the smarts to pass the bar.
You all make me sick. Truly sick.

Anonymous said...

The solution is not to get into the limited registry but into the general registry. That way you make more money and the cases that would go to attorneys in the LR would go to attorneys in the GR because there would be no one signed up for the LR. Clear as water, I don't understand why it is so hard to understand!

Anonymous said...

I call an 11:59 Shumietime

Anonymous said...

I disagree with the the premise that the legislature has an incentive to lower fees until people drop out. At the current price point they are achieving an excellent value for the State. It is in their interest to maintain the current fees otherwise they lose the benefit of the change.
Second of all this chatter about
doomsday scenarios where the lawyers who bravely stood up to
Markus synod will make seven dollars an hour reflects Rumpolean arrogance that he knows
better about the operating conditions of the brave five lawyers than they do about what is a profitable scenario.
Furthermore the brave five lawyers are rational actors who have pointed out the fatal flaw in the economic analysis trotted out by Rumpole. In Rumpole's fantasy world imposing a cartel by menacing the Limited Registry lawyers will lead to a restoration of the previous state where open billing above the cap will be reinstated. Wrong the legislature has the easy option of setting up an alternate regional counsel to handle the conflicts.
Finally publishing the numbers with an admonition to call the people who dare to disagree reflects a disappointing lack of sensitivity by Rumpole who otherwise has make an admirable contribution to the community through his blog. I would strongly OPPOSE Rumpole publishing a list of the Marcus Synod behind the current push to harass the brave five lawyers, together with a list of those lawyer's phone numbers and a request to call those lawyers up and harass them.
Rumpole you have tragically gone over the line. Having failed to achieve your means by persuasion
you have enabled a group to bully these five lawyers by naming names
in a fashion that would cause Senator Joseph McCarthy("tail gunner Joe") to smile with appreciation.
Rumpole you owe the five brave lawyers an apology for your conduct in this manner.

Rumpole said...

Oh my lord. I cannot believe it. These lawyers along with others, signed up for the LR long before Markus ever wrote an email They're not brave, just dumb. As I wrote before, by giving into the legislature and these outrageously low rates and this brazen attack on criminal defense and Gideon, they are sharpening the knife the legislature will use to hold to all of our necks. These are not people who will stand up and fight for a principle, these are people who roll over and quit at the first sign of a fight. Hardly the right stuff of good criminal defense attorneys. Easy to see why they chose to get involved in a pay system that rewards them for surrendering and not fighting for a client.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand either the over the top criticism or support of the five lawyers who signed up for the registry.

As for the criticism: if these lawyers think they can do the job for such low fees and need the work, who are you to criticize them so personally? Are they supposed to give up a paycheck to make some grand stand against the state? Really? Seems like you're asking a bit much to me, especially in this economy.

As for the support: there's nothing "brave" about what they're doing (has there ever been a more abused word than "brave?"). They're not putting their lives on the line or taking a courageous stand to their detriment. In fact, they're doing what we all do: trying to make ends meet.

That fact is that the fee schedule IS way too low and will discourage lawyers with successful practices from taking these cases and that's unfortunate, to say the least.

The reality is that our perpetually mismanaged state doesn't have the money it needs to do things the way it should and won't have the money any time soon. So what is the alternative? Additionally, people hate lawyers unless they need them. So the state's move should come as any great surprise.

We SHOULD fight what's happening. We can do that by banding together, lobbying, petitioning, etc. We can't, however, expect struggling lawyers to give up opportunities they need to put food on the table.

BTDT

Rumpole said...

Are you reading what I am writing BTDT? The reason I and any other lawyer has a right to criticize the other lawyers is because what they are doing hurts me, and clients and emboldens our mutual enemy and plays right into their hands. It's Vichy French handing over their Jewish neighbors. Its German business men buying businesses from Jews forced to sell them. Its enjoying the only open seat on the front of a bus while an elderly black woman is forced to stand in the back.

If these people want to be heroic altruists there are hundreds of innocent people in prison who need pro bono representation on their post conviction motions. Funny, but I don't see them signing up to do that. There is habitat for humanity. There are thousands of charities that can use help. But they don't do that. They collaborate with people that are out to destroy us and our clients. What is heroic about that collaboration? Why should I and all other lawyers remain silent in the face of this infamy?

Anonymous said...

Everyone criticizing these people is a hypocrite.

You quote a fee on a case - client negotiates it down and you accept. Are you selling the client out now that you are not going to make what was fair? Or, were you purposefully quoting a higher fee (not being fair) in hopes of getting it and/or negotiating it down.

Perhaps Scott Saul (who is no hypocrite) has it right - some people can afford to work for less. I suggest that there are others who have to work for less, but work just as hard as anybody else, and are equally as competent. How many of you who charge less have looked at the "big shots" who command six figures on a case and thought that they are not worth it? The size of the fee don't mean shit.

I charge and receive for one case, what many of you who are bashing these people charge for 10. Forget about the so called JAC rates that these people seem to be missing as though it is a memory of the golden days - those are even lower, and are laughable.

Do I call less expensive attorneys bottom feeders and suggest they are unethically charging so little that they cannot possibly be giving adequate representation? Nope. I assume they are professional and dedicated and that we have a different approach to the practice of law.

David S. Markus wrote like elite Northeastern Liberal, sitting fat in his leather chair in front of the fire telling the struggling workers to stick together (and starve). It was a shameful use of the list serve.

Go ahead and do a public records search and see where David S. Markus lives - you can be sure that if it is accurate and he lives in Eastern Miami Shores, things aren't too bad these days and he can afford to cheer on a boycott of the LR.

What the lawyers should do is sue the shit out of DSM for suggesting that they are unethical and attempting to intimidate them into relenting to his wishes. Fuck him.

Rumpole said...

You miss the point. Let them work for free. I don't care. Let Scott Saul do a murder case for a dollar. I could care less. It doesn't hurt me. But this SYSTEM hurts all of us. And the only way to beat it was to refuse to join. But these coward collaborators don't have the smarts and backbone to stand up to the legislature.

Anonymous said...

The exact same thing could be said for attorneys who participate in the wheel as it was.

What counts is the quality of representation. You and all the other critics ostensibly say that people cannot deliver quality representation for the rates of the LR - I believe there is a ton of self-interest at issue.

But to call these people cowards and collaborators compared to people who sent innocent Jews to slaughter at the hands of the Nazis is simply insane.

You should apologize for the collaborator comment, it is way out of line. If somebody said that to me, I would kick the shit out of them.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for belittling the handing over of Jews to the Nazis by comparing it to this registry shit.

What hurts the practice and has been hurting the practice is lawyers taking felony cases for $1,000 privately. And $750 for a DUI.

And expecting lawyers to band together was just a stupid dream.

Anonymous said...

dude - stop comparing (choose your cheap political issue) to our holocaust, when you want to attack others who hold a valid position that differes from yours. Its cheap, wrong and cheapens what our ancestors suffered through. Really.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, this isn't Vichy France, and the attys who signed up for the registry aren't collaborators, so let's not get ahead of yourself.

What our representatives did is wrong but they don't care until their behavior directly effects them or their families. Our representatives don't give a rat's ass about poor black, Hispanic, or white criminal defendants. Our reps would rather see these people locked up and out of sight than to actually make sure that they receive adequate representation.

By the way, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Just wait until the poor are locked away in privatized jails and prisons. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Anonymous said...

Bravo to Judge Sayfie on an brave act of mercy .

She was under intense pressure not to act but cut a Juvenille's sentence in half from 30 years to 15 years of Prison.

Congratulations to Gary Pont on a incredibly effective mitigation presentation.

Below is the linc to the Herald Article. Please read the pages of reader comments.

Those comments may be the inner thoughts of many our potential Jurors

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/28/2918171/judge-halves-30-year-sentence.html

Rumpole said...

First of all anyone who starts a comment with "dude" ha already shown their ignorance.
I am not belittling what occured in the past. I am comparing these attorneys attempt to profit from a wrong as similar conduct philosophically. They all lacked courage to stand and fight. Dude.

Rumpole said...

11:23. If you join the LR and post your name I will specifically call you a gutless dumb collaborator. Then what tough guy?

Anonymous said...

If I were to join the LR, I would not need to post my name because I would be the guy kicking your ass and you would know who I am.

Anonymous said...

Is that really you Rump at 923?

You're comparing the five lawyers on the registry with the Vichy French? REALLY?!?

"Its enjoying the only open seat on the front of a bus while an elderly black woman is forced to stand in the back." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

Your comparing the five lawyers on the registry to murderers and racists?

Talk about over the top. I understand that they're impacting your bottom line and you have the rigth to criticize them as you see fit, but don't you think you're being a least a little unfair here?

BTDT

Anonymous said...

Rumpole, comparing this issue to the Holocaust is ridiculous and insulting. You sound like a fool.

I didn't sign up for limited registry, but I don't fault anyone who did. And it is BRAVE because it was inevitable that their names would come out and that every asshole criminal attorney (including yourself) would give them shit about it.

Publishing names is despicable. You and Marcus can go fuck yourselves.

Anonymous said...

What if everyone removes themselves from the general registry and the limited registry, while the JAC have to pay hourly rates regardless of their flat fees?

Why is that not a thought?

Anonymous said...

You will anonymously call someone gutless?

Very brave of you, Rumpole.

Lots of anonymous tough guys here.

Anonymous said...

WTF? I though Bob Amsel, the ol Kenosha Comet was going to file a lawsuit and get this taken care of. What happened?

Rumpole said...

You people have no ability to reason critically. I am not comparing this to the holocaust (although no one seems to pick up on the other comparison of the racist south). I am comparing the philosophy and the actions of the LR attorneys as similar to the collaborators of WWII. All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, and all that.

The LR is outright wrong. What would you compare the actions of lawyers who are doing something wrong, not caring who it hurts, in the misguided attempt to make money for themselves?

Anonymous said...

Last year on Monday Jan. 24, 2011 Kathy Rundle was invited to the NAACP Executive Members Installation Meeting and she was a "No Show". Judge Sanchez-Llorens Showed up, Judge Lundy-Thomas showed up, Judge Prescott, Judge Miller I believed showed up but there was no Kathy in sight.

Today is Jan 30, 2012 guess who's going to show up dun duna dun you guessed it Katthyyyy Rundle the Selective Unequivocal Prosecutor. I guess she thinks no one pays attention... What are you going to say Kat, "I know I did an unscrupulous job and my time is far over, but give me 4 more years so I can make it an even 24 and cater to my wealthy contributors=$.

"No Kathy" sorry we will show up at the polls, the time has come for a change and integrity to be in that office you have become to complacent and your ASA's have been cited numerously for "Prosecutorial Misconduct" Richard Scruggs, Levine, just to name a couple.

We also know that there are several categories of Murder in the FDLE report Firearm/ Hands,Fist,Feet,/Knife,Cutting,Instr., and Other, you took one cat and ambiguously bolstered it for your stats which aren't impressive, if you really calculate the 2% variable by the 20yr tenure that is not a significant decrease in crime, as a matter of fact murder by firearm is up, and murder collectively has constantly stayed at a count of over 200. See you at the polls early Voting to Election Day Aug 14, 2012.
Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens and Judiciary of Miami-Dade County

Anonymous said...

Doing something wrong?

They are representing indigent people charged with crimes. How is that wrong?

Here is an idea. Every lawyer who thinks this is such a travesty should take two cases on the registry. To prove this is all about constitutional rights and Gideon, and not about the money, each of those lawyers can donate the pittance they are being paid to a charity that benefits indigent defendants, assists people with post conviction relief, or any other similar organization.

Or they can send the money to the opponent in the next election to oust the lawmaker of their choice who passed this law.

Any takers, big talkers?

By the way, how can you say in the same breath that the registry pays too little money for anyone to take these cases, and that the lawyers who signed up for the registry are in it for the money??

Anonymous said...

Actually, I DID comment on your analogy to what happened in the South (see my comment at 223). Your comparison is ridiculous any way you slice it as I posted previously.

You're so blinded by the fact that this is hitting you in the wallet that you've abandoned the critical reasoning you claim to be engaging in.

Frankly, I can't believe you're even defending the analogies.

BTDT

Anonymous said...

Murder by hands fist and feet which went from 12 to 6 is down -50%, by fire arm which in 2009 2010 went from 215 to 224 which is a 4.2% increase for that particular category only has been on an overall increase over the last twenty years. Overall last year at a rate of 709. Sex crimes is ridiculous up from 1,109 in 2010 to 1,303 in 2011. We need to be more concerned about violent and despicable crimes than with a 20 year incumbent who's politically focused on enemies of alliances and lenient to wealthy contributors,. C'mon guys twenty years is too darn long. The highest office in this land only has a term limit of 8 years. Wake up and brake up with Kathy's long gone and deteriorated Leadership.

Anonymous said...

Murder cases are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more 2nd and 3rd degree felony cases out there. The math is totally different for those cases. Yes, the fees are lower, but trials are infrequent and relatively short (usually 1-3 days).

Rumpole, you seem to believe that all registry attorneys are similarly situation. They are not. Not everyone is as successful as Marcus and yourself. I know many (mostly young) attorneys who struggle to make a decent living.

Yes, if they don't sign up for the LR, the whole system will be better off... maybe. But then again, maybe not. Maybe the Florida legislature will tell us all to suck it anyway.

Or these attorneys can take LR cases, make some extra money, pay their bills, and provide for their wife and kids.

But whatever, your head is so far up Marcus's ass that you've lost all perspective.

Publishing names is just pathetic, and calling/berating attorneys is even worse. Classic douche behavior.

Anonymous said...

Rumpole: It's one thing for you to justify your anonymity by saying it's necessary for you to be able to criticize the powerful and still practice law without fear of officials' reprisals against you or your clients.

It is an entirely different thing -- and kind of creepy, craven thing -- to lurk behind your anonymity while "naming names" of decidedly less powerful private figures in your current spasm of McCarthyite fear of the LR.

It makes you a bully. (And the "well, Markus already did it anyway" argument makes you sound like a the weaker, second bully on the scene, ready to join in once the bigger bully starts.)

Not that you care, but I'm done reading here.

DS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Rumpole?? Hi, this is the Fonz. You just jumped the shark!

Ayyyy!

Rumpole said...

5:54 pm. 3,220 page views today. So tomorrow there are 3219. BFD. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Somehow I will struggle to get out of bed tomorrow and face the dawn and day haunted by the knowledge that never more will you grace these pages.

Lets try and get basic with this.
What was the legislature's goal with LR? To help us? To help clients? Can you view what they did as anything other than a strike at us, our clients and Giddeon? Don't you all see the bare naked attack on all we value and why we chose this profession and the ideals most of us struggle to uphold?

If so then what to make of the people who have aligned themselves with these attackers and against the rest of us?
What does the naked greedy attempt to profit off of the unconstitutional acts of our legislature remind you of? When else in history did a government act in an illegal manner allowing a greedy few to profit off of the misery of others?

I wrote what I thought and I stand by it. By doing so I do not diminish the tragedies of the past, but highlight that human nature is what it is and people repeat the mistakes of the past, albeit in less life and death tragic circumstances.

For the record- I don't take court appointments for other more personal reasons. But I view this attack on the payment system as an attack on Giddeon, clients, lawyers, all fostered by the right wing belief that if a cop makes an arrest than the person is guilty and all he needs is a suit next to him as he pleads guilty.

Rumpole said...

5:54 pm. 3,220 page views today. So tomorrow there are 3219. BFD. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Somehow I will struggle to get out of bed tomorrow and face the dawn and day haunted by the knowledge that never more will you grace these pages.

Lets try and get basic with this.
What was the legislature's goal with LR? To help us? To help clients? Can you view what they did as anything other than a strike at us, our clients and Giddeon? Don't you all see the bare naked attack on all we value and why we chose this profession and the ideals most of us struggle to uphold?

If so then what to make of the people who have aligned themselves with these attackers and against the rest of us?
What does the naked greedy attempt to profit off of the unconstitutional acts of our legislature remind you of? When else in history did a government act in an illegal manner allowing a greedy few to profit off of the misery of others?

I wrote what I thought and I stand by it. By doing so I do not diminish the tragedies of the past, but highlight that human nature is what it is and people repeat the mistakes of the past, albeit in less life and death tragic circumstances.

For the record BTDT- I don't take court appointments for other more personal reasons. But I view this attack on the payment system as an attack on Giddeon, clients, lawyers, all fostered by the right wing belief that if a cop makes an arrest then the person is guilty and all he needs is a suit next to him as he pleads guilty.

This isn't an attack on my wallet. I don't need their stinking money and I sure as hell won't grovel. lick their boots like a whipped dog and thank them for the chance to work for 5 bucks an hour. if it came to that, I would take a job and earn an honest five bucks an hour. A job where I wouldn't have to sell my professional soul and hurt my clients. I can live with shoveling gravel or flipping burgers. I can't live with hurting a client who has placed their trust in me.

Anonymous said...

Will this be an issue when attorneys are retained privatley and ask the JAC for costs for depos?

Anonymous said...

What amazes me about this discussion is the absolute stinginess of society in paying the impressive costs of social/economic control that is our criminal justice system. To hear lawyers dismiss the utility of adequate government fees for indigent defense costs is mind-boggling, as if private doctors would begrudge higher Medicaid fees to their colleagues. Everybody else gettin' paid, the jailers, the police, the judges, the prosecutors, the probation people... have you read Gideon? It's part of our social contract now. I practice in a cadillac of indigent defense systems in an urban area; everybody hauled into the maws of the system gets a free lawyer, those that can pay often prefer to, but hundreds of private lawyers earn respectable incomes assuring justice for all in a courthouse where EVERY misdemeanant is reperesented, most at public expense. Why is that something we shouldn't pay for? Public safety is like public education and benefits all of society. The system described in these comments is decrepit.

Anonymous said...

tomorrow i am going to trial for free. a pro bono matter if you will. if all of us handled one criminal case per year for free- the problem would be solved? where was rumpole when they formed regional?

Rumpole said...

I was a fairly harsh critic of regional when it was formed but more because of the non-criminal defense attorney yahoos who were running it. I never said that clients would be shortchanged under the new regional system. By all accounts it is running fine but I have never seen a study to show that it has achieved its goal and saved the state money.

I like Ike said...

When Eisenhower left the Presidency after 8 years he asked Kennedy to petition congress to restore him to General of the Army and his five stars. Kennedy and Congress did it. Five star generals never retire and draw full pay for life. Once his rank was restored, Eisenhower preferred to be called "General" as opposed to "Mr. President."

That's something rump never mentions.

Kissimmee Kid said...

In 1726, Ibrahim Muteferrika convinced the Grand Vizier Nev┼čehirli Damat ─░brahim Pasha, the Grand Mufti, and the clergy on the efficiency of the printing press, and later submitted a request to Sultan Ahmed III, who granted Muteferrika the permission to publish non-religious books.

That's something else rump never mentions.

Anonymous said...

Broward is in way worse shape, with a bunch of low-life attorneys selling their souls for chump-change.

The list of scabs is here:

http://www.clerk-17th-flcourts.org/Clerkwebsite/CACS/CACS_Limited_Registry.pdf