TUESDAY NOTES

Dennis Bailey’s public reprimand at the hands of the Supreme Court is scheduled for Wednesday morning, June 5th, at 9:00 A.M.

Watch it live here, or wait for it to archive here.

Suskauer comes out swinging Zach Schlein of the DBR gets a statement from Michelle:

The DBR also posted the transcript of the federal court hearing that has her under investigation by the Bar:

COMING SOON – Jack Seiler & Mark Bogen to SAO race?; TFB Standard Bearers Brenda & Michelle, and you …

27 thoughts on “TUESDAY NOTES”

  1. 7

    0

    Judge Cohn seems to be reading directly from the rules. Did she know about the issue before court?

  2. 8

    0

    What–Bar rules? I know nussing and I don’t have a copy with me to look up the rules I swore an oath to “know” and I cannot be presumed to know them—another lying whiney irresponsible Bar slug. seems I heard this same crap from Gardiner in her disbarment trial— didn’t know nothing, and even if I did it was post-partem depression, yeah, that’s what it was, and besides, it was harmless, anyway.

  3. 6

    0

    http://www.dmlp.org/threats/ratingz-inc-v-adrian-philip-thomas-pa#node_legal_threat_full_group_description

    On February 22, 2012, Ratingz, Inc., operator of LawyerRatingz.com, a user-review site for reviewing attorneys, filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court in California.
    According to Ratingz’s complaint and the attached exhibits, the background to the declaratory judgment filing is as follows: On December 9, 2011, the managing partner of Florida law firm Adrian Philip Thomas, P.A. emailed Ratingz concerning a number of negative reviews of the firm on LawyerRatingz.com. That email requested the name of Ratingz’s agent in Florida, so that Adrian Thomas could serve Ratingz with a complaint over the reviews.

    On February 2, 2012, an attorney representing Adrian Thomas sent a cease and desist to Ratingz, stating that Ratingz had until the next day to remove all of Adrian Thomas’s ratings from the site. This letter contended that neither CDA § 230 nor California’s Anti-SLAPP law protected Ratingz.

    On February 10, 2012, Adrian Thomas sent another letter to Ratingz. Along with this letter, the law firm sent a copy of the complaint Adrian Thomas was planning to file against Ratingz in Florida state court. The letter described some business the firm had lost because of poor reviews on LawyerRatingz.com, and also stated that the firm was planning to file a defamation lawsuit against the person who wrote one of the reviews. The closing of the letter stated that litigation was a “business decision,” and that it would be more “cost effective” for Ratingz to remove Adrian Thomas from the reviews site than it would be to “stand on principle . . . regardless of whether you believe you will prevail.”

    The attached Draft Complaint against Ratingz detailed one of the reviews at issue, and described the unsuccessful steps Adrian Thomas had taken to get the review removed. This Draft Complaint would have sought an injunction to remove Adrian Thomas from LawyerReviewz.com during the litigation, and alleged one count of tortious interference with a business relationship.

    In response to the threatened Florida litigation, Ratingz filed its declaratory judgment action in California. Its complaint contains four causes of action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, based on CDA § 230, the First Amendment, Florida tortious-interference law, and Florida’s statute of limitation.

      1. 6

        0

        https://www.wired.com/2012/02/attorney-threatens-take-down/

        Scorned Attorney Threatens to Take Down Lawyer-Review Site

        A Florida lawyer unhappy with poor reviews posted in an online attorney review site is threatening legal action to shutter the LawyerRatingz.com site.

        In response to the threatened legal action, the Electronic Frontier Foundation asked a federal judge Thursday to declare the website immune from any threatened legal action on the matter. The EFF contends that, even if third-party comments about attorneys are defamatory, federal law immunizes the Sunnyvale-based website from being sued for the speech of its users.

        The legal flap began last year, when a representative of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, lawyer Adrian Philip Thomas demanded that his poor reviews be removed from the site. The representative said the anonymous reviews, which among other things gave him “bad” marks in knowledge, communication, tenacity, work quality and value, have led to a loss of business. Another said Thomas’ firm “accomplished nothing” and “DO NOT HIRE THIS LAW FIRM!” However, not all reviews of Thomas were negative.

        A proposed lawsuit by Thomas forwarded to the review site, which sports some 42,000 lawyer ratings, sought to shutter the entire site, or, at the very least, have his reviews removed.

  4. 10

    0

    Big fundraiser at Timpano last month only raised $3,425.00. With your loan you have $43k. It may be time to cut a deal with Lynch to keep a job at the office before it is too late.

    1. 13

      0

      Lynch won’t let all the PD Supervisors skate when it comes to carrying full caseloads like everybody else. The end of the free ride skaters won’t be allowed like it has under Finkelstein and his little band of butt kissing yes men.

      1. 0

        0

        Really? And how do you know this?

        Lynch hasnt done or said shit other than file to run. As someone who works there, I’m looking for more than just an old dude who is bored and already pulls in 150,000 as a pension.

  5. 2

    0

    10,000 is a nice fee for just the disbarred guy. Her fees may have gone up since she joined the bigger firm. This below is what her partner husband reported from The Suskauer firm on his disclosure filed with the elections people.

  6. 5

    0

    Who would not want a prison life coach, when hiring a lawyer to fight for your life?
    Besides, I spend all my free time tearing down our society through radicalizing females, and punishing straight white guys.
    After all, The Florida Bar is an extension of The SC.
    And our private corp., has other esoteric agenda’s.

    Also,
    We would like to thank our members for funding our diabolical programs. And think we should take the time out to acknowledge our other esoteric Anti-American subversives.

  7. 2

    2

    Hey Bill,

    You have been the leading critic of Mike Satz for years. Why don’t you run for State Attorney? You have had so many complaints and insults about him over the years that surely you must be an expert at it by now. How hard could it be? Seems like such an easy job. I am sure that the four people who read your juvenile blog would support you. Run Billy Run!

  8. 3

    0

    Satz : One reason among many for term limits for all these government gophers sucking at the public trough …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.