This article is about an attorney who was going to the jail to see an inmate that he’d been smitten with (not to do lawyerly stuff, but to see and visit her), and writing her a postcard under an assumed name. 

This is fascinating.  First of all, she is in JAIL for DUI.  I certainly can’t understand the attraction, but they say love is blind (and can’t smell, either).  Secondly, SHE IS IN JAIL FOR DUI.  Enough said. 

There was no allegation of hanky-panky, but he did clearly step well outside the lines with his conduct.  Ultimately, his boss (whom I know and have the ultimate respect for) filed a Bar complaint on him for one type of misconduct.  What I don’t understand is that the Bar found him guilty of doing a different type of misconduct.

The Bar attorney originally correctly charged a violation of Rule Regulating the Florida Bar 4-8.4(c):

A lawyer shall not . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule . . .

The attorney entered a plea to violating Rule 4-8.4(d).  That rule reads: 

A lawyer shall not . . . engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic. . .

Here is the link to his plea, you can see for yourself what I am talking about (alleging subsection (c)).  The Supreme Court referee ratified that plea in its report,  and the Supreme Court accepted the recommendation and reprimanded the attorney (finding him guilty of subsection (d)).

How he ended up pleading and being found guilty of violating the wrong rule is anyone’s guess.  I guess this is a case of everyone proofreading their work before signing it and submitting it to the courts.  Maybe they should all check Rule 4-1.1. . . .  I’m just saying . . .

Here’s the story:  Naples attorney reprimanded for jail romance with client » Naples Daily News

I was quoted by some random author on eHow.com, about what happens after one is arrested. Pretty cool. Here’s the link:

http://www.ehow.com/about_6607426_information-arrest.html

I am very excited that the New Port Richey (or NPR, as we like to call it) office will be open next week.  This is a fantastic opportunity for the people of Pasco County to have an energetic, experienced, Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer in their community.   It’s a great opportunity for me to provide my services to a booming area.

From where I live, I can hit a golf ball from my front porch into Pasco County.  I love the area and am looking forward to becoming a permanent part of the West Pasco legal community.

My career started in Pasco County (in NPR) in the 1990’s, as a Assistant State Attorney.  After a few years, the big city called, and I relocated to the Tampa prosecutor’s office.  In 1999, I opened my criminal defense practice and have not looked back.  My practice has been mainly in Tampa, where I learned the craft of being a “big-city” defense lawyer.  I was presented with many cases with tough facts, in State and Federal court.  I have been able to be involved in so many interesting trials, motions, hearings, depositions . . . the experience has been quite an adventure.  I find myself saying on a far-too-regular basis, “Just when I think I have seen it all  . . . “  And I have, truly, seen it all.

Over the years I have had many, many cases in NPR and Dade City.  I have successfully defended attempted murder, burglary, and DUI cases at trial.  I have litigated and won tough motions for new trial, motions to suppress, and violation of probation hearings.  I have represented countless people in virtually every type of criminal case in Pasco County.  I had a satellite office here several years ago, and have had a “727″ number for years.  It’s always been a big part of my practice.

I have seen Pasco grow and grow and GROW over the years.  When I was a young prosecutor, driving to work in the early morning, I could drive from my home in the North Hillsborough County area (where I still live, all these years later) to the NPR courthouse in the dark, and not hit “civilization” until way up on Little Road.  Now, I pass THREE STARBUCKS, two Targets, two or three Publix supermarkets, a hospital, and countless other big businesses – all in a 20 minute drive!  I am happy to have that growth in my backyard.

In opening this office in Pasco, it is my goal to provide the very best in aggressive and creative criminal defense to Pasco and Hernando counties.  This is where I will spend al lot of my time – this isn’t just a satellite office that sits vacant most of the time.  No, I’m going to be there meeting clients and going to court on a daily basis.

It is my commitment to the State of Florida and its people to be a great defense attorney.  I am a sixth generation Floridian, born in sleepy North Florida.  I think I am a combination of small-town boy and big-city lawyer.

Don’t worry, Tampa, I still have an office there – I will be there if you need me!

PS:  Thanks to an old mentor, Bob Attridge, for proofreading this for me.

You can (and should) read the Declaration of Independence. But it was in the amendment to that great legal document that our personal freedoms were born. The first 10 amendments are the “Bill of Rights.”

* * * * *

Amendment I [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition (1791)]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II [Right to Bear Arms (1791)]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III [Quartering of Troops (1791)]

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV [Search and Seizure (1791)]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V [Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process (1791)]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI [Criminal Prosecutions - Jury Trial, Right to Confront and to Counsel (1791)]

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII [Common Law Suits - Jury Trial (1791)]

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII [Excess Bail or Fines, Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1791)]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX [Non-Enumerated Rights (1791)]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X [Rights Reserved to States (1791)]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

This is interesting.  A guy who changed his given name to “Jordan Jordan” almost 20 years ago, and now is a chiropractor, wanted to be a judge – BUT UNDER HIS OLD NAME (“Breslaw”, which apparently is Jewish.  The sitting judge was wise and wiley enough to file for an injunction, prohibiting this chiro from using his given name as it is no longer his LEGAL name.  She was right, and he was booted off the bench.

We have all kinds of people running for governor and Senate.  Now we have people who (1) are weird/unhappy/whatever enough change their name, (2) think that being a chiropractor qualifies him to be a judge.

The moral of the story:  THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT YOUR JUDICIAL CANDIDATES.  The bLAWgger will have a Bay area judicial candidate comparison coming up soon – stay tuned.

Jordan Jordan a/k/a Breslaw runs for a Broward judgeship – South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Today at 5PM at Mailo’s Restaurant (400 North Ashley Street).  Check out www.vasquezforjudge.com!

See you then!

JOE

OK, as a defense lawyer I never want to see the Feds rush into anything.  However, the Gulf disaster is something near and dear to my heart.  I love the Gulf.  Now, somebody bad has hurt someone I love.  And they have to pay.

I grew up swimming in, boating on, and living around the Gulf.  I have always loved marine biology and the study of the Gulf, its mysteries and all its creatures.  I love to take my family on the boat in the Gulf.  I have fished in it many, many times.

The LA Times article that I am sharing with you here reports that:

The senators — seven Democrats, including California’s Barbara Boxer, and one independent — asked Holder to examine whether BP “made false and misleading statements to the federal government regarding its ability to respond to oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Misleading statements?  Who cares about that – what about the fact that they ran the oil rig with (1) no way to shut off the oil flow in case of an emergency, and (2) had no plan in place to contain ANY spill at all?  That’s criminal.

In the law, we have two tenets that are at play here.  First: NEGLIGENCE.  If you do an act that is not designed in and of itself to kill, but is an act that is so dangerous that it does, then you are guilty of murder.  If you have a duty to others that you wipe your butt with, then you are negligent and liable for damages.  Second:  FORESEEABILITY.  The old case on foreseeability had to do with a moored ship catching afire, then eventually burning down the whole marina.  The ship owner was liable for everything because of his own negligence in burning up his own boat, but also for the other boats as it was forseeable that such an accident could happen.

In other words, BP has clearly been negligent, and should pay for every wage, every cleanup, every animal rescue, EVERYTHING related to this spill.  And there is no doubt that the damage BP has caused was foreseeable.

Where did they think the oil was going to go . . .  back in the earth?

I say charge them criminally.  I say everyone use them.  I say boycott BP products (I have been boycotting BP since about 1991, for other reasons).  Then call your senator and your Attorney General and demand that the United States not bow to the pressure of Big Oil, but that it protect its citizens and natural resources.

Here’s the article:  Gulf oil spill: Senators call for criminal, civil charges against BP | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times

Attention All Carrollwood Community Bar Association Members:

Our next membership meeting is approaching quickly! We are happy to announce that Criminal Defense Lawyer, Joe Bodiford, will be our guest speaker for the day. The topic of discussion will be: “If your client gets arrested…”

Please take a moment to RSVP promptly.

When: Thursday May 13, 2010 at 12:00pm

Where: Emerald Greens Golf and Country Club
13903 Clubhouse Drive, Tampa, Florida

Cost: $15.00 per person including tax, tip, and water or iced tea.

Please bring a check payable to Emerald Greens Golf and Country Club.

Members of Emerald Greens may charge their own account.

http://www.carrollwoodbar.com/