Friday, August 21, 2020

BAR NONE BAR ALL

 A fascinating thing is occurring within the hallowed halls of FACDL.  But to understand the dimensions, you first have to understand the contretemps surrounding it. 

As self-absorbed lawyers, few blog readers know that due to a software snafu the Florida Bar exam was recently canceled. What to do...what to do?  Three thousand or so erstwhile lawyers were denied the opportunity to join the brotherhood and sisterhood of the shark. There is a rumor that the exam will be rescheduled in October, but nothing is for sure yet. 

Enter FACDL and the question of whether new lawyers should even take a Bar exam. And you thought police departments were the only thing millennials want to defund. DEFUND THE BAR! DEFUND THE BAR ...if you chant it long enough, it is catchy. 

What position should FACDL take? Here is the juicy part of the story. However, because FACDL listserv emails require code word secrecy clearance, here is the only part of the myriad of email exchanges we can print:

It is, as we all know, a violation of biblical proportions for us to reprint an FACDL email. (Memo to FCADL: if you don't want your emails on the blog, tell your damn members to stop sending them to us, willya?). 

The substance of the issue is as follows: Be it resolved, FACDL is for or against admitting as CLIs on a continuing basis the law students who covidly cannot take the Bar. Some members voted "ay", others "nay", and some "present". At least one FACDL board member told the peons to pound salt and that if they didn't like the Board's position to run for the board next year (the legal lingo was "we will do what we want. Kindly act accordingly"). 

Some members howled in response that the Board was elected to do what the members wanted, not what the board wanted. Suddenly in this yawn inducing mess we sat up and took notice. Unknowingly, FACDL stumbled upon an age old question of  democracy: whether elected representatives should vote as they think best,  or merely as their constituents want them to vote. 

While FACDL members were busy fighting, we retired inspired  to our library and pulled out Madison's Federalist #10:

Among the numerous advantages proposed by a well constructed union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction... Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens ... that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided not according to the rules of justice and the rights of minor parties but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

So as the emails fly through the bits and bytes of the digital age, and FACDL members fight over whether their Board votes the will of the members or the best singular judgment of individual board members, take solace you weekend warriors of the listserv that you are debating nothing less than a problem addressed by the Founding Fathers (is that a politically incorrect term? Can we still use "founding fathers" or  will the blog  be defunded and the statute being erected to Rumpole in parking lot 26 that no one uses any more be tumbled like a cheap Saddam Hussein knockoff?).

Defund the Bar? Go for it. Admit law students without scrutiny? Why not? As long as they wear masks on Zoom hearings. We care not. 

But resolving the classic question of representative government; this will keep us up until the early hours of the morning, perusing the emails being sent to us as we search for our next James or Jane Madison. 

PS. We neglected to mention that Attorney Brian Tannebaum is representing the law students here gratis.  As an avowed anti-altruist, that offends us of course. But he means well. There are many Bar applicants who are facing severe financial hardships. One is on the verge of homelessness. Others, having devoted years in school, were counting on jobs that are now as far away as ever.  

24 comments:

  1. Next thing you know Horace will be quoting Edmund Burke .
    Sir Wilfred

    ReplyDelete
  2. Defund the bar? All for it.

    Once and future never lawyer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, I still hate Neil Rodgers. You know they have blogs and podcasts and websites that still distribute that filth?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Law Students Lives MatterSaturday, August 22, 2020 12:50:00 PM

    Law Students' Lives Matter (LSLM) is proud to announce the appointment pro tem of
    Brian Ignatius Tannenbaum, Esq., as general counsel to LSLM
    DEFUND THE BAR
    FIGHT THE POWER
    MONEY FOR ALL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Replies
    1. Why are we still pummeling rebull? Did he not already do the same to himself?

      Delete
  6. There will be a rally at the courthouse this week in the evening. Law students lives matter.
    In solidarity everyone will wear Brian Tannebaum masks. In a pinch a Senator Ted Cruz Mask will do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hear the Herald is supporting the defund-the-bar movement with reservations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s how you know it’s a rebullshit movement.

      Delete

  8. COVID-19 ADVISORY #32

    SELF-MONITORING NOTICE

    An individual who worked at the Miami-Dade Children’s Courthouse, 155 NW 3rd St., in the locations listed below, has tested positive for COVID-19.

    Persons identified as having been in close proximity to the confirmed individuals have been notified and are asked to take all necessary precautions.


    Last Day Worked:
    Wednesday, 8/19/2020

    Work Areas:
    Room 14325
    Courtroom 12-2
    Courtroom 10-4
    13th Floor
    14th Floor

    ReplyDelete
  9. Alex Michaels said:

    This is rebullshit. I am going to Janet Reno.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why not let the law students practice without taking the bar exam. The exam does not filter out the unqualified or plain incompetent. No one could be dumper or more ill equipped to be a lawyer much less a judge than Aponte.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Rumpole: Why don'y you make 1:01 P.M. identify themselves. Aponte isn't a judge yet and no one knows how she is going to function. Moreover, there are a lot better arguments for dumping the bar exam like the fact that you never learn or use anything useful from it. maybe they should just have folks in a certain quintile take it. Joe Klock

    ReplyDelete
  12. I cannot make people identify themselves. If you chose to no longer write comments I can stop people from responding about you. That's about it for the rules of the game.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rosy Aponte will be disbarred or suspended before she takes the bench, becoming one of the first elected judges in the history of Florida to not be able to serve because of pending bar complaints.
    That's my opinion and I'm Mikey Disney
    (old Neil Rogers drop that should get wacky jacky crazy)

    ReplyDelete
  14. You do have a rule about Ad Hominem attacks. Rule number three. Your words. 1:01 pm violated that rule. Calling someone Dumb and I’ll equipped is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. The least you could do is enforce your own rules.

    “I have a few simple rules. I do not moderate based on content other than content that 1) attacks a person's physical characteristics- i.e.., joe schmo is fat; 2) discusses a person's personal life- see above; 3) is a complete ad hominem attack- i.e.., rumplole is a bad lawyer who never shows up to court, cheats his clients, loses all his trials, dresses poorly, and has bad taste in wine.“

    ReplyDelete
  15. As I reach the end of my career I would like to thank the Florida bar to implement the policies that guaranteed that as an honest lawyer I would languish in mediocrity and financial insecurity
    Specifically let me congratulate the addition of 5 law schools and 80000 lawyers since 1987 and doing nothing about those who practice law without a license. The bar has also grown by hundreds of employees wasting our dues. Disrespectfully submitted.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The entire context of the comment that no one could be dumber or more ill equipped to be a judge then Aponte is both not an ad hominem attack and is in fact the truth. And I will add this- with the least amount of ethics. She worked for a law firm run by a disbarred lawyer that she allowed to operate in Florida and split fees with by signing her name to pleadings. That law firm solicited cases unethically and illegally by using runners to go to accident scenes and solicit cases from victims. This is 100% true and you had better buckle up because I will be pounding this and the Bar and the JCQ to act on this shocking violation of the rules of ethics every week until 2021 starting tomorrow. Additionally I will Be starting a movement for the legal community to shun her by every litigant filing a motion to recuse based on her lack of ethics. So you think being called dumb is bad? Ha. Be careful what you ask for in life as you may get it. She wanted to be a judge. She got it. Now let’s see.


    ReplyDelete
  17. You know that JOE KLOCK was the head of Steel Hector and Davis - one of the most feared firms in Florida.

    As a young Judge, I felt blessed to have his endorsement and was very grateful.

    He is a brilliant lawyer and I have to give his opinion great deference. Let’s see what happens. I’m sure if there is something not kosher - The JQC will vigorously act - and so will the Florida Supreme Court.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Rumpole will you be able to pursue your efforts regarding Aponte's obvious lack of ethics and qualifications anonymously?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well if Aponte gets hammered by the Bar, it will be a double win. Tunis gone and then Aponte gone.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I’m sure if there is something not kosher - The JQC will vigorously act - and so will the Florida Supreme Court."

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    Oh, yeah, judicial compliance bodies watch those judges like hawks and keep everything above board!

    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-judges-misconduct/

    We can always trust judges to honestly judge other judges.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-judges-deals-specialreport/special-report-with-judges-judging-judges-rogues-on-the-bench-have-little-to-fear-idUSKBN24A1AH

    Took three years for the JQC to got off its ass about Gardiner's misconduct, and then another four years for her to finally get disbarred. And none of that would have ever happened without muckracking reporters and agitating court blogs. Had it been left to the respectable sycophantic legal community, she'd still be on the bench today. She's just one of the few that was finally caught and exposed, while scores of other venal judges remain on the bench or were allowed to quietly retire and keep their faces and fat pensions.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Aponte isn't a judge yet and no one knows how she is going to function."

    And when known pedophiles apply to become school teachers, we don't know how they are going to function until they get the position and access to children, so I guess we're all obliged to give them the job and withhold our "judgment" until we catch them in flagrante.

    ReplyDelete