Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's Throwing In the Towel Covered a Sucker Punch
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA threw in the towel, all right, but was only doing it in preparation for throwing a sucker punch. After dropping its 'making available' case, Warner v. Cassin, before Judge Robinson could decide whether to dismiss or not, it was only trying to do an 'end run' (if I may mix my sports metaphors) around the judge's deciding the motion and freezing discovery. The RIAA immediately, and secretly, filed a new case against the family, calling this one 'Warner v. Does 1-4.' In their papers the lawyers 'forgot' to mention that the new case was related. As a result, Does 1-4 was assigned to another judge, who knew nothing about the old case. The RIAA lawyers also may have forgotten that they couldn't bring any more cases over this same claim, since they'd already dismissed it twice before. Not to worry, NYCL wrote letters to both judges, reminding them of what the RIAA lawyers had forgotten."
That is all.
Wouldn't this be contempt of court or some other punishment? I mean, I'm pretty sure the judges can't be too happy about trying to be tricked like this - can they punish the lawyers in any way?
just to make sure he's safe from any shit riaa may try pulling.
now, which of you geeks want to take on this duty ?
Read radical news here
I advise old age. That's how I'm planning to kill myself.
Either their lawyers are incompetent or crooks or both but this is ridiculous. What were they expecting? That nobody was going to find out? Thanks to NYCL we get a little bit of fairness in the crooked justice system. How can you file a 'secret' lawsuit anyway?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It's hard to believe these people actually attended law school, or are they just grabbing more money from RIAA by making it look like they're doing something?
It sure seems ridiculous from an outside point of view, but I wonder what actually goes on. Any theories?
"we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
When's the RIAA going to stop suing families and finally go for the homeless people? ;)
127.0.0.1
It seems like the RIAA is throwing all the shit they can think of at the wall to see what will stick. Seems a little desperate to me.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
A question for Ray (and any other lawyers on /.): I know lawyers are required to do what they can to the best of their ability for their clients but, to me, a non-lawyer, it really seems like the RIAA lawyers are playing dirty pool to the Nth degree. They aren't just doing everything they can - they are going beyond the call of duty to succeed even if it is beyond the scope of law and morals. Is this sort of conduct "normal" for lawyers (as in, common enough that this isn't terribly surprising) or are the RIAA lawyers truly standing out from the crowd with their actions?
Seriously, if they're gaming the system this way, they deserve to lose their licenses. This is clearly unethical and deceptive.
Or, if you chose to think that they just forgot about the second suit, they're clearly so fucking incompetent that they deserve disbarment anyway.
Jeez, that's some scummy shit.
2 Words... Jack Thompson!
They need to disbar all the RIAA lawyers.
I would like to know how this sort of thing works within the boundaries of ethics rules. Sanctions? Disbarment?
Anyone have knowledge to input?
You would think so. But ethics charges against attorneys are rare and they are very hard to enforce. If you don't believe me, look at how long Jack Thompson has been toying with the system.
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't there some kind of estoppel that prevents a party from dismissing a suit that isn't going well and then refiling it?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I don't think this is a smart move. Given that the first case is still active, and that the new case involves the same acts and the same defendants, can't the defense move to have the new case reassigned to the first judge and consolidated with the first case? I'd think that would be a lawyer's worst nightmare, to have tried this kind of end-run and wind up back in front of the judge you tried to evade anyway. He's sure to be none too thrilled about it, and now has a reason to crack down harder.
...since there was no actual trial for the defendants in the initial case, but how is this remotely legal? IANAL, but if someone here actually is, how is it legal, procedurally, that a plaintiff is permitted to drop a claim and then immediately file an identical new one? This seems like blatant judge shopping, as it seemed possible that Judge Robinson would dismiss the charges with prejudice (so they could not be refiled), leaving precedent for dismissal of "making available" cases.
RW
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't just mean the RIAA, either. SCO v IBM stands out as another really big example where lawyers get to screw directly with the things that we in geekdom make a daily living from (e.g. the RIAA spewing mistruths about how the Internet works, corps claiming rights they do not have over code, etc).
As a bonus, maybe keeping the less scrupulous lawyers among us honest will at least make things a little easier for all of us.
Even coordinating a letter-writing campaign couldn't hurt, y'know?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
we use unearthly vengeful avatar magic instead. we bend space/time, shift densities, put shear force on souls, and do force pushes.
Read radical news here
"How are these underhanded lying scumbag tactics even legal?"
Because forum shopping isn't illegal.
And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues.
HOWEVER, because of the preceeding cases, every venue they pop up in should get their case shot down again, and again, and again.
Think "whack-a-mole".
But things like neglecting to attach case history is stuff that can get these fuckers censured and possibly disbarred.
Here's hoping!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
why it is so important to try and nail this particular defendant. It's not like they lack potential victims; drop "making available" (just as they did in refiling this one) and do the next sweep. Is it only because they're pissed this one got away? They can't afford it. Revenge is a dish best prepared from correct ingredients; if all you have is crap, just keep shoveling it in front of the ventilator, and don't attempt precision targeting.
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
We are very proud to announce our new workshop called Subversion of Justice.
We think this is the new trend in law at this moment, and have already found 4 speakers that are more than willing to state their case.
Our thanks go to Mr Bush, Mr Thompson, An anonymous person from the Scientology church who wants to go by the nomicker of 'Tom', and one or more speakers from an organization calling themselves RIAA for being this fast in giving their assent to speak at this great event.
Please stay tuned for more details.
Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
This clearly looks like an attempt by the lawyers to game the system. There are clear rules they should know. At some level lawyers for both parties are supposed to be agents of the court.
Fines to recover the courts cost for all actions are needed on top of disbarment of the RIAA's lawyers. The message "Don't Game the System" needs to be sent.
Maybe I'm wrong, but to be a practicing attorney, you are legally obligated to be ethical.
You should really look up Amicus curiae.
An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of the Court relevant matter not already brought to its attention by the parties may be of considerable help to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its filing is not favored.
--Rule 37(1), Rules of the Supreme Court of the U.S.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
I can't tell for sure, but there is some indication, if you follow the links back, that NYCL, you know, Ray Beckerman, is Counsel for the Defendants, and as such would of course have standing to address both judges. And if I'm wrong, well see my sibling post re: Amicus Curiae briefs.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
There's an old legal maxim that say if you can't win under the law, argue the facts. And if you can't win under either, well, there's always lying, cheating, and stealing.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
This is the direct result of all those dollars you and I have given the parent companies over the years. Next time a new CD, DVD, etc hits the shelves, consider buying it used first. Wait a month or two, until someone else gets bored of it, and support a local business instead of these vampires.
Yes you are, if you're the PE who signed off on it.
It it collapses because of your deliberate mistakes, then yes, you can be sued over it. The suit against you may not succeed, but you damn well can be taken to court over it.
Likewise, these RIAA lawyers should face some form of penalty or review before an ethics board. Will they? Probably not. But they should.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Contempt of court citations?
Seems to me that what they did here was clearly an action in contempt of court, since they ostensibly refiled the same case, hoping to get a free "reset" button with a new judge.
This is one of the real illustrative reasons why we need a "loser pays" system in the courts (where the initiating party would be liable for all legal and court expenses if they lose), since it would discourage megacartels like the MAFIAA from using their financial advantage to manipulate the legal system.
What the defendants should do is immediately file a contempt motion in the original court.
Corporatism != Free Market
Imagine a coin. Good is one one side and bad is on other. Then there are lawyers, which are opposite to both sides. They are greater than both good and evil, able to walk on edges between good and bad. And there is NYCL, he is in oppsoition to lawyers, and he is one of them. The most mythical man of all dimensions. He is the one which trims the edges, uncovering thruth before our eyes. He is the son of justice.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Andy
Today's oxymoron is "deliberate mistakes"
Boooooooo!!!!! Hisssssss!!!!
If I went around claiming I was an emperor...they'd put me away!
So you like your lawyers to do a half-ass job? His interest here is that the parties being sued were his clients, not strangers. He's doing his job. DO read TFA next time...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
And there is NYCL, he is in oppsoition to lawyers, and he is one of them. The most mythical man of all dimensions. He is the one which trims the edges, uncovering thruth before our eyes. He is the son of justice.
Starring Wesley Snipes, as Blade 4: Music of Blood
I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
Sanctions are in order that's for sure, & I'm also sure there are other remedies that the judge could impose. These sort of tactics are getting out of hand & the courts have got to be getting really sick & tired of these childish tricks by the RIAA Lawyers..
It is easy. Lets hope a judge does hear the case. Maybe go like this.
Judge: Defense, I would entertain a counter suit for harassment.
Defense: I can have one on your desk tomorrow AM.
Judge: Good, we reconvene tomorrow, 1PM.
Next day...1pm.
Judge: Before I dismiss the claim, I pronounce the defendants all receive 1M plus legal fees. This is compensatory damages for harassment. If this is appealed, or comes up a again I would like to add the notes to double the awards.
Judge: Case dismissed with prejudice.
Do you have any Torrent Tracker for it?
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
So if NYCL is our enemy, as you claim, then what the screaming budgie fuck does that make the RIAA lawyers? Boy scouts, paragons of humanity, and the future leaders of the free world? I think not. The RIAA lawyers, truth be told, are trying to get their clients a victory in civil court. But they are going about it in such a way, that even if NYCL was the stereotypical ambulance chaser kind of lawyer and the kind that carries a spare neck brace for defendants in auto accident cases, he would still look like the good guy in this by comparison.
Snidely Whiplash, tying Little Nell to the train-tracks, would look like a good guy by comparison.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
One interesting solution I've heard for this sort of unethical lawyering is to require lawyers to carry malpractice insurance. Talk to any doctor, and they'll tell you that malpractice insurance actually makes them targets for litigation, since the prosecution knows there is a higher chance of a high payout. At least in my state, it's mandatory doctors carry it. Apply that same rule to lawyers, and you would get a great, entertaining situation of lawyers suing each other over malpractice. Too bad politicians are typically lawyers.
So NYCL is to lawyers what Blade is to vampires. Intriguing.
Oh my god. Since lawyers and vampires are bloodsuckers, could that mean that NYCL... is... Blade?
So, what you're saying is that in contrast to most lawyers, who are coins with big edges, NYCL is a marble? Or just that he has more marbles than most lawyers?
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Hmmm, I don't think "trying his case on the internet" is as bad as it seems in this case. Given the tactics being used by the other side, and given that the RIAA is trying to get new case law favourable to their position that will affect everybody, bypassing the legislative branch in the process, it's good strategy to shine a big bright light on these cases, so people at least know what's going on.
Also, he pushes the news to us because we're Slashdot and we're interested, and because we can give him insights with regard to the technological issues that he couldn't get anywhere else. It's not like he's pushing updates to the New York Times or ABC news (at least, I don't think he is...).
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
You are Harvey Dent and I claim my five pounds.
Hey look, RIAA astroturfers have invaded /.
There is a war going on for your mind.
you're some sort of saint in the fight against corrupt business abuses upon society
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
See, this kind of thing should lead to all the lawyers working those cases being disbarred (personally), and the law firms they work for losing their licenses to practice law.
Legal tactics like this just waste taxpayer money (after all, the courts are taxpayer funded), and drive up the legal costs of the parties that are trying to defend against their claims.
In addition to all of this, he's also (and more importantly, imo) spreading details about the dirty and questionably or purely illegal tricks the RIAA are using. This information is useful to ANYONE that has been accused by the RIAA, and I for one am glad to know that we have people that are willing to share as much information about the situation as they can.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bits are not free. Do not waste them on another Blade sequel. Shut down the computer if you're not using it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
What the RIAA lawyers are doing is often referred to as a collateral attack - the attempt to undermine one Court's unfavourable ruling by seeking out a different ruling in another court. It is also related to the concept of litigation by installments. It is generally accepted that fundamental principles of justice (fairness, expediency, access to justice, finality, and certainty) are undermined by collateral attacks. The Court committing the collateral attack is often estopped (by collateral estoppel) from making a judgment which would undermine another Court's ruling. One example of this principle exists in mainstream media as "double jeopardy". In the practice of law, this is quite a common issue; for example, when a unionized individual brings a collective agreement grievance to labour arbitration they are often then precluded from seeking out a remedy at Court.
A collateral attack is not the same as an appeal. Appeals are to "higher" Courts that typically only have a limited scope to review the decision of a lower Court.
Of course, you ought to seek out proper legal advice in your jurisdiction to see how these rules would apply and in particular apply to the facts of your situation.
Suicide-bomb RIAA headquarters. Two birds with one stone! :D
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
An end run around the law (which is what the RIAA lawyers are doing) justifies Beckerman sending a letter to both judges. And I am sure neither will be upset by his action.
This letter should go as well to the bar associations to which these lawyers belong. This is a serious breach of ethics. (Yes, lawyers do in fact have a code of ethics; they are officers of the court first and foremost and their duty to their client comes second.)
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Horse hockey!
I deal with engineers and the crap they produce all the time. I can't even tell you how many times I've reviewed the as-builts for a facility (signed and sealed by a PE) only to visit the facility and find the as-builts do not truly reflect what is on-site. And I don't mean "oh, this is 3 feet further up the wall than the drawings reflect." More like, oh, despite what the engineer said they never bothered to build this legally required sampling port so now they cannot collect samples properly. I have never once seen or even heard of any repercussions back on the engineer who signed off on incorrect plans. Worse, it's usually engineers from the same one or two firms that pull this stuff.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
I say we play into their game... to their detriment.
Find the lamest, most retarded RIAA artist out there (I'm thinking orders of magnitude beyond Milli Vanilli here) and everyone (and I mean everyone) buy ONLY that artist's material. Buy every CD, online album, single, ringtone, whatever. I wanna see that artist as the sole occupant of every music chart and radio playlist. The more obvious to everyone of the sham that is taking place, the better.
Once the RIAA is dependent on this single jackass of an artist for all of their revenue (effectively killing off the rest of their artists or driving them outside the RIAA), stop buying. Let the competition, based on free market labels and artists with true talent, drive the final stake through their sorry butts. It will go down as one of the most hilarious (and satisfying) scandals ever.
I heard they're going to be placed on Double-Secret Probation
And I'm posting here because NYCL is precisely the kind of self-absorbed cunt that makes the world so unbearable.
Would a self-absorbing cunt require tampons? No idea why that thought popped into my head.
Trolling is a art,
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
> And there is no double jeopardy rules in civil cases. They're allowed to bring the case to court as many times as they can find venues.
Umm, no they're not. The FRCP (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) generally limits you to bringing the same case twice. After that, you're through. You're not allowed to sue someone and withdraw the minute you appear to be losing over and over, it simply isn't fair. You ARE correct in the fact that it's not "double jeopardy" because it's a civil case, though, but the FRCP does have rules covering this!
Now, there are probably crazy procedural gotchas here, like whether it's the "same" case or whether they can do something inventive, but that's the general rule. They'll probably say that they're retrying to Does case again instead of the case vs. a named party and that they're somehow legally "different" this time. I hope that the Court doesn't buy that, though, because it's total BS in my opinion. But IANAL, so they might be able to get away with it.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
He's a doctor, not a lawyer. Haven't you expanded his acronym? New York County Legalpractitionerofthemedicalarts.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Wrong on multiple counts.
/., I don't see any reason an artist, song writer, etc. shouldn't get paid for the works they produce. I don't torrent/p2p file share copyrighted works for this reason. However, the way in which the RIAA lawyers are going about the process is unethical at best and illegal at worst. There have been plenty of stories on /. and elsewhere regarding the probable illegality of MediaSentry's investigations without having a license to do so in the relevant jurisdictions. This story is an example of the RIAA lawyers trying to bamboozle a judge. There are plenty more examples; I'm sure a Google search will turn up plenty of reading, if you are so inclined.
/., I doubt it is because he wants a bunch of geek hero worshippers. From what I've been able to see, NYCL is actively dogging the RIAA, and even if he enjoys all the praise he gets here (wouldn't you?), the fact is, he is doing something to help others out. If you recall, on one of his first appearances here on /. he kinda got flamed a bit for a while -- there were a lot of "wow, you're a lawyer and you claim to want to help people out? What's the color of the sky on your planet?" snarky comments. However, his actions seem to have won over a lot of people. At least from what little I know about him, he has swayed /. public opinion by putting his money where his mouth is. For that, I respect him.
First, don't put all your eggs in one basket. NYCL may or may not be a musician, so he may or may not have the ability to "build a viable alternative." However, he is a lawyer, so legal action is something he is capable of (and therefore is actively) doing. If you really want something better, let everyone interested do what they do best. Don't just pin your hopes on one method of attack and pray it works.
Second, how do you know the enemies of the RIAA aren't trying to build a viable alternative? Ever been to MySpace (gag) or Soundclick or any of a number of other indie artist web sites? There are quite a few indie musicians trying to produce music without working within the existing power structure; I'm one of them, as is my brother and several of my best friends.
Third, the RIAA lawyers aren't "just trying to win cases for their client." If all they were doing is taking reasonable steps to protect the IP of their client, I wouldn't have any problems with them. As unpopular as it may be on
Fourth, and finally, while NYCL may be building a cult of personality here on
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
You just having used Microsoft Visual Bridge Express 2008 yet. Collapsing is a standard feature if the road becomes overburdened by traffic (at which point it is assumed that you would want to demolish and upgrade the new 12 lane Enterprise Edition).
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
THE LIBRARY!!!!
Use the public library as your media collection. There are over 16,000 libraries and branches in the USA, I'm sure one is near you.
Go there, BORROW what you want and return it when you are done. If they do not have what you want, buy one and donate to the library for others.
Published works are important to society, but the copyright cartels MUST be killed. Buying fewer and sharing more is the only way.
You can't handle the Thruth!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
More than that. As many people mentioned, in Federal court, you can dismiss you claims and then refile them. You basically get a second shot if you screwed up and there was never a final judgment. However, if you dismiss a second time, your claims will be dismissed with prejudice. E.g., you can't file them again. In fact, it functions essentially as a final judgment on the merits of the case.
This means that they can't shop around now for a more sympathetic forum. The principal of res judicata (claim preclusion) means that the same parties can't raise the same claims after there has been a judgment. Ever. Automatic bar. All you can do is attack the judgment itself, say that it was flawed somehow. All you're going to do is piss off the judge, most of the time.
So for all those who haven't, or forgotten to say it, THANK YOU NYCL.
In support of his fine work, he is the first Friend I picked on Slashdot. Show your support by listing him as a friend. I noticed you haven't done this yet, otherwise your post would have shown on my screen as you being a friend of a friend. Can you add him as a friend to say thanks and show your support? This guy should have a huge Fan list. He earned it.
The truth shall set you free!
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Forget the 12 lane Enterprise Edition, that is so old!
Now we got the 12 lane SUPER NEAT VISTA edition!
It has the same number of lanes, and less cars can go at once, but more can wait in line... and don't you want the bridge to take advantage of that line?
I steal signatures. This one used to be yours.
But I try to be.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
And this is the real reason the RIAA gets as much traction as they do. No matter how egregious the RIAA's legal moves are, you and many others feel that, yes, artists do have a right to make a profit off their hard work. Well, of course they do. You think we're arguing that. We're not. You and most of the public have been bedazzled into assuming, without even noticing that the whole concept needs a bit more critical thinking, that there can't possibly be any other way to profit. Flawed though copyright is, nothing else seems as good. And therefore that while the RIAA's methods are objectionable, their hearts are in the right place.
Sooner or later, probably as late as possible, entertainers are going to have to face up to the fact that copyright is broken. You think copying is easy now? People thought the cassette tape, the VCR, and a little later the Xerox copier would be the death of the entertainment industry. Today copying is far easier, it can be done without any messy paper or tape and their propensity to jam, tear, and mangle. In the future copying will be easier yet. It may well be mostly automatic. Today you at least have to push a few buttons to initiate copying, and wait a little for what passes for broadband in some countries. And even with the enormous expansion in storage space in recent times, you can still run out of room all too easily. When the entire output MPAA and RIAA members, decades of material, can be stuffed onto a fingernail sized crystal, with room to spare, and the whole thing can be transmitted anywhere in the world in under 1 minute, then what? Why bother picking and choosing among torrents, just download the entire library of mankind, then pick over it at your leisure. With tech like that, copyright is going to make about as much sense as having to obtain the rights to breathe air-- for each individual atom.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
And for the record, I do love life, have no suicidal tendencies, and never engage in high risk activities.
However it could be argued that my entry into this arena may have displayed some masochistic tendency.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Planned parenthood.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Just out of interest: has Ms. Cassin decided whether to pursue a claim for attorneys' fees as a result of the previous suit being dropped?
Boy, if this doesn't convince her to go after them, nothing will. I'd be feeling a little vindictive myself!
licet differant, aequabitur
Actually, here in New York we do see a string of lawyers getting disbarred. Usually these are very young, or very NOT-powerful lawyers, getting sacked for some very minor crap- missing a deadline, good faith mediation between two friends/ clients.
On the other hand, one of the most powerful Landlord attorneys (I think named partner from Borah, Goldstein) used his subpoena powers to improperly and secretly invade tenant's financial privacy, perjured his affidavits of service that stated he mailed copies of the subpoenas to both sides, violated undiscoverable tenant financial/ ID theft level information, and benefited financially from his unethical and criminal conduct. Penalty after being found guilty for over a decade of outrageous conduct? Two months suspension and a pat on the back. Currently back in action. This is a major named partner mind you. If he's not the example then who is? Note- two month suspension is rumored to have come with free airplane tickets for worldwide junket and room and board covered all courtesy of the Bar(s) here. A two month paid vacation for criminal conduct? New York Bar in action.
Contrast. Young lawyer panics, misses deadline for litigation that could be nunc pro tunc extended retroactively any damn way. Penalty- permanent disbarment and vicious public tongue lashing in the Law Journal.
Representing adversaries- lawyer, my lawyer. Gets disbarred for representing both sides (decent guy, bad choices). His firm, my firm, then represents the other side against me in a related action to the one he represented me in. USCA Second Circuit 3-judge panel- it's AOK despite having my litigation file- even after a state judge ruled they were indeed my attorneys defending against the slumlords. And even after they bailed from another case when Judge Reena Raggi ordered the matter investigated. So in New York, state and federal, serving up an associate as sacrifice is all it takes.
Last but not least. Stephen Romer, most famous NY client funds case circa 1992- his case inspired the set up of NY's IOLTA scheme after his case depleted the fund. He was the landlord of my office, and while he did not try to evict me personally, he evicted my staff (the Dúnedai) who then built me my own office in the years before the Black Tower (a/k/a White & Case) took up arms to defend me from the demon Nemisis (not Nemesis) at the Pale High Priest's bidding. (Lord of the Rings makes law sooooo much more interesting.) This successful and rich lawyer who owned swaths of property claimed to have been kidnapped, robbed, and otherwise mishandled, but without so much as a peep became a non-entity. He claimed that powerful car companies had crushed his efforts to create a new car line of efficient cars. His claim was deemed ludicrous and absurd. He was railroaded into jail without so much as a lawyer friend helping him. Total pariah- gone. Romer, a man of wealth, a philanthropist, adopted father of Sudanese children, suddenly was toxic.
But I, for whom his eviction of my crew certainly did not endear me, sat scratching my head in my new office. Why was his claim so easily dismissed? It is no secret that the mighty Darth Nader, before turning to the dark side, defeated the Greedy Monster in the Supreme Court for doing all of the things that Stephen Romer claimed. Nader v. General Motors. It's a classic case- we know that the auto industry has a history of that sort of conduct. Romer did actually have mobilized plans to start up a real eco-friendly car company. Surely someone should pursue the possibility? Well, not I, my own problems with an evil High Priest and a demon that makes Balrogs look lapdogs in comparison.
My point here is that any attorney who aspires to be clean, or philanthropic, or ethical in any way, shape, or form, can find himself or herself the sacrificial lamb for other attorney's crimes. And when you actually do something wrong, as a clean attorney you get hit with the max every time, while blatant crooks prance around unscathed bragging about the Bar's "self-policing".
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful