(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

(10-23-2013 09:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

That is a terrible story and an embarrassment for my profession. While his explanation is in no way a reasonable excuse, it goes to show that procrastination in litigation is usually never a good practice. A good lawyer prepares a petition within a short time after meeting with a client or at least takes good notes about the facts related to him. Sanctions may be instituted here as they appear deserved.

(10-23-2013 09:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

That is a terrible story and an embarrassment for my profession. While his explanation is in no way a reasonable excuse, it goes to show that procrastination in litigation is usually never a good practice. A good lawyer prepares a petition within a short time after meeting with a client or at least takes good notes about the facts related to him. Sanctions may be instituted here as they appear deserved.

(10-23-2013 10:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

That is a terrible story and an embarrassment for my profession. While his explanation is in no way a reasonable excuse, it goes to show that procrastination in litigation is usually never a good practice. A good lawyer prepares a petition within a short time after meeting with a client or at least takes good notes about the facts related to him. Sanctions may be instituted here as they appear deserved.

Glad that you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Let's see what the real facts and whole story are before we jump to these sorts of conclusions.

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  There is no telling what the real story here is. Lawyers have an ethical obligation to fall of their swords if they can in order to avoid prejudicing their clients. I don't know whether Bruse truly did anything wrong or is fading the heat for bad information he got from his clients or some combination of the two. And the attorney-client privilege may serve to prevent any of us from ever knowing what the truth is. If the story on its face is true, I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup. If it is cover for his client, then it is commendable that he is putting is ethical obligations above his personal best interests. Either way, I'd chalk this up as a lawyer caught in a bad situation doing what he can to rectify it. Is it embarrassing to either mess up or get caught? Sure. But that simply shows he is human, as we all are. I think it reflects well on Bruse and Rice as a whole that he is doing the right thing in this situation. JMHO.

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup.

(10-23-2013 10:08 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

That is a terrible story and an embarrassment for my profession. While his explanation is in no way a reasonable excuse, it goes to show that procrastination in litigation is usually never a good practice. A good lawyer prepares a petition within a short time after meeting with a client or at least takes good notes about the facts related to him. Sanctions may be instituted here as they appear deserved.

Glad that you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Let's see what the real facts and whole story are before we jump to these sorts of conclusions.

Don't shoot the messenger. He's just pointing out how bad this situation looks. Bruse's lack of professionalism reflects poorly on all lawyers, whether he's covering for his clients or whether he truly forgot their factual situation. Either way, when he signed that petition he was authenticating what was written. This is no ones fault but his own.

(10-23-2013 10:14 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:08 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

That is a terrible story and an embarrassment for my profession. While his explanation is in no way a reasonable excuse, it goes to show that procrastination in litigation is usually never a good practice. A good lawyer prepares a petition within a short time after meeting with a client or at least takes good notes about the facts related to him. Sanctions may be instituted here as they appear deserved.

Glad that you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Let's see what the real facts and whole story are before we jump to these sorts of conclusions.

Don't shoot the messenger. He's just pointing out how bad this situation looks. Bruse's lack of professionalism reflects poorly on all lawyers, whether he's covering for his clients or whether he truly forgot their factual situation. Either way, when he signed that petition he was authenticating what was written. This is no ones fault but his own.

I'm not saying Bruse didn't screw up, but I am suggesting that it could have been in believing his clients. If he believed what he wrote to be true at the time he filed it, there isn't a problem, particularly since he has promptly amended to correct the apparent misstatements. I wouldn't call that a lack of professionalism. Rather it is proof of something a mentor of mine once said, "This profession would be a lot more fun and have a lot fewer headaches if we didn't have to deal with clients or opposing counsel." You, sir, are playing judge and jury and convicting without hearing the rest of the story. It frankly reminds me an awful lot of those who were convicting the Duke lacrosse team of rape based on allegations rather than waiting until an investigation was done and facts were established.

(10-23-2013 10:03 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:56 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  http://www.chron.com/news/article/Houston-couple-suing-Carnival-over-stranded-ship-4919622.php?cmpid=hpfc

His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

http://jgl-law.com/bruse.php

That is a terrible story and an embarrassment for my profession. While his explanation is in no way a reasonable excuse, it goes to show that procrastination in litigation is usually never a good practice. A good lawyer prepares a petition within a short time after meeting with a client or at least takes good notes about the facts related to him. Sanctions may be instituted here as they appear deserved.

Glad that you aren't judge, jury and executioner. Let's see what the real facts and whole story are before we jump to these sorts of conclusions.

(10-23-2013 10:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup.

Wait, the (potential) fact that he didn't lie and throw his clients under the bus would earn him a "commendable"?

The other alternative you posited, lying on behalf of his clients, I suppose would be a bit closer to commendable since he's taking heat he doesn't deserve. But I certainly don't think anyone outside lawyers would actually go so far as to call lying "commendable".

Your comment reads like someone sticking up for a friend.

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup.

Wait, the (potential) fact that he didn't lie and throw his clients under the bus would earn him a "commendable"?

The other alternative you posited, lying on behalf of his clients, I suppose would be a bit closer to commendable since he's taking heat he doesn't deserve. But I certainly don't think anyone outside lawyers would actually go so far as to call lying "commendable".

Your comment reads like someone sticking up for a friend.

You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup.

Wait, the (potential) fact that he didn't lie and throw his clients under the bus would earn him a "commendable"?

The other alternative you posited, lying on behalf of his clients, I suppose would be a bit closer to commendable since he's taking heat he doesn't deserve. But I certainly don't think anyone outside lawyers would actually go so far as to call lying "commendable".

Your comment reads like someone sticking up for a friend.

You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

(10-23-2013 10:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup.

Wait, the (potential) fact that he didn't lie and throw his clients under the bus would earn him a "commendable"?

The other alternative you posited, lying on behalf of his clients, I suppose would be a bit closer to commendable since he's taking heat he doesn't deserve. But I certainly don't think anyone outside lawyers would actually go so far as to call lying "commendable".

Your comment reads like someone sticking up for a friend.

You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

There is a big difference between affirmatively acknowledging a screw up and "not lying (and thereby) throwing his clients under the bus". One is taking personal responsibility, whether deserved or not. The other is purposefully shifting the blame. I commend the former path, not the latter.

(10-23-2013 10:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  I think it is commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup.

Wait, the (potential) fact that he didn't lie and throw his clients under the bus would earn him a "commendable"?

The other alternative you posited, lying on behalf of his clients, I suppose would be a bit closer to commendable since he's taking heat he doesn't deserve. But I certainly don't think anyone outside lawyers would actually go so far as to call lying "commendable".

Your comment reads like someone sticking up for a friend.

You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

There is a big difference between affirmatively acknowledging a screw up and "not lying (and thereby) throwing his clients under the bus". One is taking personal responsibility, whether deserved or not. The other is purposefully shifting the blame. I commend the former path, not the latter.

(10-23-2013 10:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  Wait, the (potential) fact that he didn't lie and throw his clients under the bus would earn him a "commendable"?

The other alternative you posited, lying on behalf of his clients, I suppose would be a bit closer to commendable since he's taking heat he doesn't deserve. But I certainly don't think anyone outside lawyers would actually go so far as to call lying "commendable".

Your comment reads like someone sticking up for a friend.

You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

There is a big difference between affirmatively acknowledging a screw up and "not lying (and thereby) throwing his clients under the bus". One is taking personal responsibility, whether deserved or not. The other is purposefully shifting the blame. I commend the former path, not the latter.

And what were his alternatives to affirmatively acknowledging a screwup, other than lying about it?

(10-23-2013 10:30 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

There is a big difference between affirmatively acknowledging a screw up and "not lying (and thereby) throwing his clients under the bus". One is taking personal responsibility, whether deserved or not. The other is purposefully shifting the blame. I commend the former path, not the latter.

And what were his alternatives to affirmatively acknowledging a screwup, other than lying about it?

Silence. Withdrawal from representation without giving any reason at all. I'm sure if we think about it, there are bound to be other alternatives too that don't immediately jump to mind.

(10-23-2013 10:30 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:19 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  You misconstrue what I said. I think it is "commendable that Bruse immediately acknowledged that he screwed up and didn't get involved in any sort of coverup." Perhaps a matter of nuance, but in the legal profession, nuance is often the difference between legally right and legally wrong.

And I have no problem acknowledging that I am biased - Bruse is indeed a friend on both a personal and professional level.

I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

There is a big difference between affirmatively acknowledging a screw up and "not lying (and thereby) throwing his clients under the bus". One is taking personal responsibility, whether deserved or not. The other is purposefully shifting the blame. I commend the former path, not the latter.

And what were his alternatives to affirmatively acknowledging a screwup, other than lying about it?

Silence. Withdrawal from representation without giving any reason at all. I'm sure if we think about it, there are bound to be other alternatives too that don't immediately jump to mind.

(10-23-2013 10:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:30 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:25 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:21 PM)JOwl Wrote:  I fail to see the nuance. Where was my misconstruction?

There is a big difference between affirmatively acknowledging a screw up and "not lying (and thereby) throwing his clients under the bus". One is taking personal responsibility, whether deserved or not. The other is purposefully shifting the blame. I commend the former path, not the latter.

And what were his alternatives to affirmatively acknowledging a screwup, other than lying about it?

Silence. Withdrawal from representation without giving any reason at all. I'm sure if we think about it, there are bound to be other alternatives too that don't immediately jump to mind.

So "silence" was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided in your opening comment?

Seems like a pretty terrible coverup, given that the Chronicle had a February 15 article proving his allegations were completely false. At best (from the perspective of a cover up that benefits the lawyer), silence would cast doubt on whether his clients had told the truth -- throwing them under the bus.