(10-23-2013 10:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Your false premise and purposeful misreading is showing again. I did not say "silence" would be commendable. I said silence was an option. I said admitting a mistake and correcting it was commendable.

Come on, don't be that way. I said "silence was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided". That's the opposite of "'silence' would be commendable". As you'll remember, you said that not engaging in a coverup was commendable. I'm sure your misreading of my comments wasn't purposeful, but it was pretty big.

Anyway, given that all his other options would serve to compound his (likely unintentional) error and further damage the interests of his clients, it's an extremely low bar to deem telling the truth "commendable".

(10-23-2013 11:00 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:30 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:28 PM)JOwl Wrote:  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.

Your false premise and purposeful misreading is showing again. I did not say "silence" would be commendable. I said silence was an option. I said admitting a mistake and correcting it was commendable.

Come on, don't be that way. I said "silence was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided". That's the opposite of "'silence' would be commendable". I'm sure that's not a purposeful misreading of my comments, but it's a big one.

Anyway, given that all his other options would serve to compound his (likely unintentional) error and further damage the interests of his clients, it's an extremely low bar to deem telling the truth "commendable".

If the media is to be believed, given the propensity of lawyers to NOT do that, is commendable. In fact, doing the right thing is, in my opinion, always commendable, particularly when doing so is not necessarily in your personal best interests. You want me to condemn him for doing the right thing?

This is a lawyers' pissing match that needs to stop or go private!

(10-23-2013 11:04 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:00 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:30 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  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.

Your false premise and purposeful misreading is showing again. I did not say "silence" would be commendable. I said silence was an option. I said admitting a mistake and correcting it was commendable.

Come on, don't be that way. I said "silence was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided". That's the opposite of "'silence' would be commendable". I'm sure that's not a purposeful misreading of my comments, but it's a big one.

Anyway, given that all his other options would serve to compound his (likely unintentional) error and further damage the interests of his clients, it's an extremely low bar to deem telling the truth "commendable".

If the media is to be believed, given the propensity of lawyers to NOT do that, is commendable. In fact, doing the right thing is, in my opinion, always commendable, particularly when doing so is not necessarily in your personal best interests. You want me to condemn him for doing the right thing?

You've already admitted bias. Your opinion of whether what he's done is "commendable" or not means zero. Put the scotch down.

(10-23-2013 11:04 PM)RiceDad Wrote:  This is a lawyers' pissing match that needs to stop or go private!

I've got a solution??!! Don't click on the thread. Derrrr

(10-23-2013 11:04 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:00 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:30 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  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.

Your false premise and purposeful misreading is showing again. I did not say "silence" would be commendable. I said silence was an option. I said admitting a mistake and correcting it was commendable.

Come on, don't be that way. I said "silence was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided". That's the opposite of "'silence' would be commendable". I'm sure that's not a purposeful misreading of my comments, but it's a big one.

Anyway, given that all his other options would serve to compound his (likely unintentional) error and further damage the interests of his clients, it's an extremely low bar to deem telling the truth "commendable".

If the media is to be believed, given the propensity of lawyers to NOT do that, is commendable. In fact, doing the right thing is, in my opinion, always commendable, particularly when doing so is not necessarily in your personal best interests. You want me to condemn him for doing the right thing?

Nope, not looking for you to condemn. But there's a big middle ground between condemnation and commendation.

For example, I wouldn't commend someone for not snatching an old lady's purse.

(10-23-2013 11:06 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:04 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:00 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:42 PM)JOwl Wrote:  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.

Your false premise and purposeful misreading is showing again. I did not say "silence" would be commendable. I said silence was an option. I said admitting a mistake and correcting it was commendable.

Come on, don't be that way. I said "silence was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided". That's the opposite of "'silence' would be commendable". I'm sure that's not a purposeful misreading of my comments, but it's a big one.

Anyway, given that all his other options would serve to compound his (likely unintentional) error and further damage the interests of his clients, it's an extremely low bar to deem telling the truth "commendable".

If the media is to be believed, given the propensity of lawyers to NOT do that, is commendable. In fact, doing the right thing is, in my opinion, always commendable, particularly when doing so is not necessarily in your personal best interests. You want me to condemn him for doing the right thing?

You've already admitted bias. Your opinion of whether what he's done is "commendable" or not means zero. Put the scotch down.

Gee, I admit that I am biased, so my opinion means nothing? Apparently you are NOT a lawyer. My bias may be a factor in determining how much weight you give my opinion, but it does not mean it is worth nothing. To some, my opinion will be discounted. To others, the very fact that I openly acknowledge my bias will cause them to give it MORE weight. And no, I have not been partaking of adult beverages tonight, so your condescending accusation merely shows you for the **** stirrer that you were when you started this thread.

As for continuing the discussion here, I tend to agree with those who suggest it should end or be taken private. Therefore, I'll not address it further here.

(10-23-2013 11:14 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:06 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:04 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 11:00 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:49 PM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Your false premise and purposeful misreading is showing again. I did not say "silence" would be commendable. I said silence was an option. I said admitting a mistake and correcting it was commendable.

Come on, don't be that way. I said "silence was the coverup you were suggesting that he commendably avoided". That's the opposite of "'silence' would be commendable". I'm sure that's not a purposeful misreading of my comments, but it's a big one.

Anyway, given that all his other options would serve to compound his (likely unintentional) error and further damage the interests of his clients, it's an extremely low bar to deem telling the truth "commendable".

If the media is to be believed, given the propensity of lawyers to NOT do that, is commendable. In fact, doing the right thing is, in my opinion, always commendable, particularly when doing so is not necessarily in your personal best interests. You want me to condemn him for doing the right thing?

You've already admitted bias. Your opinion of whether what he's done is "commendable" or not means zero. Put the scotch down.

Gee, I admit that I am biased, so my opinion means nothing? Apparently you are NOT a lawyer. My bias may be a factor in determining how much weight you give my opinion, but it does not mean it is worth nothing. To some, my opinion will be discounted. To others, the very fact that I openly acknowledge my bias will cause them to give it MORE weight. And no, I have not been partaking of adult beverages tonight, so your condescending accusation merely shows you for the **** stirrer that you were when you started this thread.

As for continuing the discussion here, I tend to agree with those who suggest it should end or be taken private. Therefore, I'll not address it further here.

****stirrer may be your characterization since the article reflects negatively on your pal, others - perhaps privately - may acknowledge that articles such as these need to be brought to the forefront. Either way, thanks for the discourse.

(10-23-2013 08:50 PM)Hou_Hater Wrote:  His bio says undergrad at Rice and "R" Association member

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

He earned football letters in 1983-84.

The September 2, 1983, Thresher introduced him in that season's team preview article:

Quote:Tackles: Bruse Loyd is a junior transfer from Northeast Junior College near Memphis, Tenessee (sic). He figures to solidfy Rice's offensive line.

He later moved to guard, as mentioned in thie 1984 season's Thresher preview:

Quote:Guards: Russell Moses (54) will probably fill the left guard position, while Bruse Loyd (63), a senior who played tackle early last year, and Steve Lister (71) continue to fight for the right guard position. Lister has the edge there.

This reminds of what my old UohH Law Professor Hippard used to say:

If you don't have the facts, argue the law,
If you don't have the law, argue the facts,
If you don't have either the law or facts, whine, whimper and snarl!

I'm not one to cast stones on something like this.

(1) we have all had friends or family that messed up. The fact that RiceDoc has stuck his neck out a little here certainly gives me pause.
(2) as a fallible human who has on occasion messed up, but has also tended onward the path of admitting my mistakes as soon as they are discovered rather than going into CYA mode, I can at least appreciate RiceDoc's initial sentiment.
(3) sucks that the screw up had to be on something major and something that went public.

I have never met RiceDoc though I do appreciate his posts, nor have I met the gentleman from the article. So feel free to assign my lack-of-opinion opinion weight accordingly!

Oh yeah, and I have absolutely no sense for the standard of care for dealing with clients or drafting petitions. I am not quite sure what that means regarding my attorney skills. ***insert , either a joke about plaintiff attorneys or a witty joke about I must not be practicing law, I must have perfected it, here***

Fellows, I am a little disappointed here. I know the guy is a fellow alum and that might tend to make one feel a little more sympathy to him than what a total stranger might engender, but the fact is he screwed up. Honestly, would any of you retain him or recommend him to someone else? I certainly would not.

The standard of care here in preparing a petition which all lawyers should know from both law school and whatever ethical CLE requirements they have to meet (and as a member of both the Texas and Louisiana Bars I have to comply with both) is pretty much set forth in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

***

(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

***
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery...

In other words, when he signed that petition, he was certifying the above. And if we take him at his word, under various state bar rules of conduct, by waiting seven months to draft the pleading and relying strictly on him memory, he was negligent. Rule 1.01 (b) and © of the Texas Disciplinary Rules state:

(b) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:

(1) neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer...

© As used in this Rule "neglect" signifies inattentiveness involving a conscious disregard for the responsibilities owed to a client or clients

If he has "fallen on his sword" by making false statements to protect the client, he may have violated other rules, such as:

Rule 3.03 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

***

(b) If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall make a good faith effort to persuade the client to authorize the lawyer to correct or withdraw the false evidence. If such efforts are unsuccessful, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure of the true facts.


I hope our fellow alum has been truthful because the latter sin seems more serious to me that the former one. I have practiced on both sides in my career. I know how a busy docket can create the possibility that some matters get the short effort or even neglected. But that is no excuse if a client is prejudiced. We are supposed to be fiduciaries and officers of the court. As Newell Blakely at UofH instructed, we play hardball in and out of court for our clients, but always within the rules.

I don't think this violation means the guy should be crucified, but his conduct is not worthy of any praise. The general public often takes umbrage when we defend one of our own thinking that all miscreants stand together. I am not afraid to state emphatically that I do condemn this conduct.

Well this was interesting. And this whole discourse has made me very glad/sad I did not go to law school.

Nola, where in that story do you see any indication that he made any knowingly false representation to any tribunal? And where do you see any indication that he told the coir anything more than, here is my first amended complaint, as he implicitly did when filing it.

My whole point is that while a mistake was was. We don't know what it was or by whom, but immediate steps to correct it were taken rather than attempt to hide the error. So you want to crucify the guy for being honest? Now we see why the public has come to expect lawyers to lie and cover up - they expect lawyers to hide errors instead of being forthright. You are providing the very reason more lawyers don't act in a forthright and honest way this one did.

Note: I have seen very good cases torpedoed when lawyers were less than honest and got caught, getting their clients sanctioned and then bailing out on them. This lawyer prevented that from happening at the risk of some overly aggressive, self appointed, holier than thou lawyer who claims to have never made a mistake calling for his head and license. That is putting your clients' interests first, as your ethical obligations require.

You cite Rule 3.03. I suggest you read it and then go back and see what the lawyer did here. Looks to me like he followed it to the last t.

(10-24-2013 09:24 AM)RiceDoc Wrote:  Nola, where in that story do you see any indication that he made any knowingly false representation to any tribunal? And where do you see any indication that he told the coir anything more than, here is my first amended complaint, as he implicitly did when filing it.

My whole point is that while a mistake was was. We don't know what it was or by whom, but immediate steps to correct it were taken rather than attempt to hide the error. So you want to crucify the guy for being honest? Now we see why the public has come to expect lawyers to lie and cover up - they expect lawyers to hide errors instead of being forthright. You are providing the very reason more lawyers don't act in a forthright and honest way this one did.

Note: I have seen very good cases torpedoed when lawyers were less than honest and got caught, getting their clients sanctioned and then bailing out on them. This lawyer prevented that from happening at the risk of some overly aggressive, self appointed, holier than thou lawyer who claims to have never made a mistake calling for his head and license. That is putting your clients' interests first, as your ethical obligations require.

First of all, I don't know that he is lying to anyone. You posited that hypothesis to justify your position that what he is doing is commendable - i.e. covering up his client's duplicity. .

Second, I don't know what he had to tell the court to justify the amendment. Sometimes you need to obtain leave to do so. If not, someone will still have to explain to a factfinder the changing story. If the attorney does that in the way he has spoken publicly, he may be misleading the court.

Third, if he is being honest, that is good, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he screwed up a central allegation in the petition through neglect. I dispute your contention that lawyers should not act forthrightly to admit mistakes because they will be criticized for them. Sometimes, criticism is earned and deserved.

Finally, you claim to have seen cases where very good cases were torpedoed when lawyers were less than honest and got caught, getting their clients sanctioned and then bailing out on them. If the lawyer was less than honest, he deserves sanctions but not necessarily the client. You are claiming that your friend in this case is lying to save his client. We will just have to disagree. I really don't think I am being "holier than thou."

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  First of all, I don't know that he is lying to anyone. You posited that hypothesis to justify your position that what he is doing is commendable - i.e. covering up his client's duplicity. .

No, sir, that is NOT what I said. Your revision notwithstanding, he is either telling the truth, which IS commendable whether you think it should be or not, or providing cover for his client in a manner that meets his ethical obligations.

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Second, I don't know what he had to tell the court to justify the amendment. Sometimes you need to obtain leave to do so. If not, someone will still have to explain to a factfinder the changing story. If the attorney does that in the way he has spoken publicly, he may be misleading the court.

So you acknowledge that you don't know if the attorney has misled anyone, much less the court while calling for sanctions because in your worst possible case scenario he might have misled a reporter?

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Third, if he is being honest, that is good, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he screwed up a central allegation in the petition through neglect. I dispute your contention that lawyers should not act forthrightly to admit mistakes because they will be criticized for them. Sometimes, criticism is earned and deserved.

Good to see you acknowledge that being honest is good. Bad to see that you have found neglect without knowing most of the facts. Perhaps knowing what happened should be a prerequisite to determining if negligence exists? I think so. And once again you misread what I wrote - I did NOT say lawyers SHOULD not act forthrightly because they could be criticized. I said some do. They shouldn't but they do. That is simple reality. And your rush to judgment here is every bit as bad as the rush to crucify the Duke lacrosse team when a prosecutor made the same mistake you are making - prejudging what happened instead of finding out the facts. Yes, criticism is sometimes earned and deserved. But lets save it for when all the facts are known and criticism has in fact been earned. Here you haven't even considered, much less heard, "the defendant's story". So much for the Court's instruction to jurors to wait until they have heard all the evidence to form an opinion - you're there and the story isn't even half out and may never be! And for that, I do think that criticism is deserved. Does Bruse deserve criticism? It appears so. For what? We don't yet know. Believing his client and not checking it further? Rushing to meet a statute of limitations bar date when a client comes in and says, "Remember that case I talked to you about a year ago? I want to pursue it now."? Maybe. I don't know. And that is the whole point - we don't know and premature judgment isn't going to make it any better.

(10-24-2013 09:36 AM)NolaOwl Wrote:  Finally, you claim to have seen cases where very good cases were torpedoed when lawyers were less than honest and got caught, getting their clients sanctioned and then bailing out on them. If the lawyer was less than honest, he deserves sanctions but not necessarily the client. You are claiming that your friend in this case is lying to save his client. We will just have to disagree. I really don't think I am being "holier than thou."

I agree with you that the cases where lawyers were less than honest and got their clients sanctions are cases where the lawyers deserved sanctions. Sometimes the client deserved sanctions too, but in the more egregious instances I've seen, the client did not, but bore them anyway. Your apparent wish to sanction the lawyer where it is not clear that he deserves sanctions doesn't make the bad decisions to sanction clients that did not deserve it in other cases right. They have no bearing on what is right in this case. But it does show that the truth is not always readily apparent from a telling from one side alone.

By the way, I never called you a "holier than thou lawyer". I said, "This lawyer (took action) at the risk of some overly aggressive, self appointed, holier than thou lawyer who claims to have never made a mistake calling for his head and license." If the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't, then recognize that the risk is real, even if it isn't a risk coming from you.

I take it from your reaction that you have never seen pleadings where factual recitations are made that later prove to be untenable, resulting in amended pleadings or summary judgment motions? That suggests you are not involved in litigation much, if at all, because that is a fairly common occurrence and precisely why the discovery process exists - to determine what the truth and facts really are. Any good trial lawyer will tell you that in every case, there is the Plaintiff's truth, the Defendant's truth, and somewhere in the middle, the truth as determined by the fact finder.

No doubt it was a screw-up by plaintiff's counsel. The best practice would be to have your clients read and review the Petition before it is filed, to avoid embarrassments such as this one.

But, an Amended Petition appears to have been filed within a week of the original filing, thus the (egregious) mistake was corrected before defendant had to file an Answer. So, nobody appears to have been harmed by the error.

The amended lawsuit may well lack any legal merit, but that is a different question, and one that defendant will have a fair opportunity to address.

Having filed state court Petitions and many federal court Complaints on behalf of plaintiffs, my take on the screw-up of my fellow Rice alum as reported in the article: judge not lest ye be judged.

(10-24-2013 11:26 AM)Owl Movement Wrote:  No doubt it was a screw-up by plaintiff's counsel. The best practice would be to have your clients read and review the Petition before it is filed, to avoid embarrassments such as this one.

But, an Amended Petition appears to have been filed within a week of the original filing, thus the (egregious) mistake was corrected before defendant had to file an Answer. So, nobody appears to have been harmed by the error.

The amended lawsuit may well lack any legal merit, but that is a different question, and one that defendant will have a fair opportunity to address.

Having filed state court Petitions and many federal court Complaints on behalf of plaintiffs, my take on the screw-up of my fellow Rice alum as reported in the article: judge not lest ye be judged.

AMEN!

(10-24-2013 11:40 AM)RiceDoc Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 11:26 AM)Owl Movement Wrote:  judge not lest ye be judged.

AMEN!

Or become a judge, where you can judge everyone and no one can tell you when you are wrong, except an appellate court or an attorney who never expects to practice in front of you again!

(10-23-2013 11:23 PM)NolaOwl Wrote:  This reminds of what my old UohH Law Professor Hippard used to say:

If you don't have the facts, argue the law,
If you don't have the law, argue the facts,
If you don't have either the law or facts, whine, whimper and snarl!

I thought those Cruise Ship Conditions of Carriage had a Binding Mandatory Arbitration provision in them.