"I Did Not Have Sex With That Woman!--uh, In the Courthouse"

The Des Moines Register has continuing coverage of the great Clovis Bowles, a lawyer who makes other lawyers cringe in disgust.  Here's the Register's account of the twists and turns in the disciplinary case pending against Bowles for sex with an emotionally disturbed criminal client:

"A Waterloo lawyer says allegations that he had sex with a client in an Iowa courthouse are 'completely baseless.' The Iowa Supreme Court’s Attorney Disciplinary Board alleges that Clovis M. Bowles, 56, had sexual relations with a 33-year-old female client on several occasions in 2007 and 2008.

Bowles was allegedly aware the client had a history of emotional problems and had hired him shortly after attempting suicide and checking herself into a psychiatric facility. The Grievance Commission of the Iowa Supreme Court is recommending that the court suspend Bowles’ law license for three years.  Bowles said Thursday he did have sex with his client, but the commission members erred when they implied that his client was performing oral sex on him in the Black Hawk County Courthouse’s law library when someone walked in and interrupted them.

'Those findings are completely baseless,'he said.

Bowles said he grabbed his client’s buttocks while ushering her into the law library where the conversation quickly veered from a legal proceeding that he was handling on her behalf to something that was sexual in nature. But, Bowles said, almost immediately someone walked into the law library. His client stood up and the two of them immediately left the library, he said. 'We weren’t in there more than 20 seconds,' he added.

The next day, Bowles allegedly represented the woman during a criminal court hearing.  Bowles said that at his recent disciplinary hearing, commission members asked him whether he and his client engaged in oral sex in the courthouse library.

'I asked them to define oral sex for me and they refused,' he said. 'So I denied it.'

Bowles said he fell in love with the woman shortly after she hired him as her attorney in August 2007. The two had sex in his office and, later, at her home, he said.  A few weeks later, the woman filed a formal ethics complaint against Bowles, outlining the dual nature of their relationship. Bowles contacted her a short time later and allegedly asked her how they could 'make this whole thing go away.'

Within days, the two were married. They divorced after just six weeks, with Bowles agreeing to pay her $200 per month in alimony.  Bowles said the couple divorced only because social workers were telling the woman she needed to demonstrate independence if she wanted to regain custody of her children. However, he said he also believes that the woman initially agreed to have sex with him as part of a conspiracy to blackmail him.

Bowles said he and the woman two have remained friendly although he has no plans to rekindle the romantic side of their relationship.

'She’s the greatest little cook in the world,' he said. 'But how many times do you urinate on an electric fence before you say, ‘God, this is not a good thing for me to do?’ '

The Grievance Commission’s recommendation is based in part on a finding that Bowles not only had sex with a client, but repeatedly lied about it to investigators when questioned. Bowles acknowledges both of those offenses, but says he regrets his actions. 'I had an affair with a client,' he said. 'And I lied when I denied it. I shouldn’t have, but I did.'"
_______________________
There's just so much to be said about Clovis Bowles, but I'll leave it unsaid.  What I want to know is how it is that the Iowa Disciplinary authorities think a 3 year suspension will render this guy's character fit to represent Iowans in the future? 

Do not screw the client, dammit.

The Malpractice Suit--Part 1

The malpractice suits--sorta sounds like a garment from the Menswearhouse.

27 years no malpractice claims--that is, until Pedro sued me.

From the standpoint of a client, the lawyer holds nearly all of the cards as it pertains to malpractice actions. Technically, a malpractice lawsuit is a "tort" action that alleges/says that the lawyer acted in a way that was negligent in his representation of the client and, this is essential--the lawyer's negligence caused the client's claimed injuries and damages. The first part of the claim against the lawyer requires that the client show that the lawyer owe the client a duty of professional care which the lawyer screwed up. The second part is called causation--in sum: the lawyer's screw up caused the damages. Lawyers screw up all the time, but they might not owe a duty to the person bringing the lawsuit; this happens all the time in divorce court where the pissed off ex-spouse wants to sue the opposing lawyer. No duty, no lawsuit. The second obstacle--causation is the more difficult obstacle to plaintiffs. Let face it, clients come to lawyers because things are already bollixed in their lives--the damages already exist. Proving that the lawyer caused damages through their screw up is a pretty arduous burden for most clients.

Pedro sued me because he said I gave him bankruptcy advice that he relied on to his detriment. To tell the truth, I really did not view Pedro's claim as a real threat to me--since I am not a bankruptcy attorney, and I wasn't Pedro's bankruptcy attorney; Pedro had a bankruptcy attorney, that was not moi. I represented Pedro in a civil lawsuit which settled for $175,000. Pedro had been told that he was to turn over the proceeds to the bankruptcy trustee by the bankruptcy trustee (see illustration), and his bankruptcy attorney. So where's the problem, you ask?

Pedro was 45 years old when I met him. He was one of 5 or 6 Hispanic men who as youth were raped and molested by a Roman Catholic Priest. The claim I handled was against the archdiocese--one of hundreds of claims I championed for victims of sexual abuse over my career. When Pedro's claim settled he told the lawyers that he didn't know if he could keep the money--we didn't know, I didn't know; but we said maybe his money because it related to a claim for injuries he sustained as a minor--perhaps it wouldn't be a bankruptcy asset. I agreed to hold his money in escrow until he obtained a definitive answer. In the interim Pedro was to consult with his bankruptcy attorney, and when he did not get the answer he hoped for I referred him to other bankruptcy attorneys. Eventually, I received a document from the bankruptcy court saying his matter was at an end, and I paid Pedro his money. He spent it. The bankruptcy trustee came after Pedro and came after me.

Eventually, the bankruptcy court deemed Pedro's actions tantamount to fraud and Pedro's claim that he relied on my advice--ridiculous. The bankruptcy court and a later appellate panel of the bankruptcy court pointed out that he had a personal injury attorney: me, and a bankruptcy attorney, Joe Haircut. he could not credibly claim to have relied on my "bankruptcy advice" when Joe Haircut was his bankruptcy attorney; and more importantly because, the Bankruptcy Trustee: Monee Grubber, ordered him to turn over all the dough from any settlement he might get, at Pedro's initial bankruptcy hearing long before the claim was settled.

Pedro hires a well-known former prosecutor: Evel Basterd. Attorney Basterd chooses to pursue me despite the facts. As I said, I gave the matter little thought and no concern. My sainted attorney, Lester, working by the way, pro bono, had already obtained the bankruptcy court results relating to my non-responsibility for Pedro's actions--we waived a jury and went to trial in front of Judge Irishname, brother of Judge Irishname, son of the late Judge Irishname, and grandson of the very late Judge Irishname; oh, and married to Judge Irishname.

Judge Irishname did not view the outcome of the federal bankruptcy court proceedings as binding on the state court and we proceeded to trial. How can I put this succinctly(?), I am fucked. So much more later!

Flabby-Assed County Attorney Suspended

Well there is another account of an attorney alleging screwing the client and the disciplinary (this time in Iowa) authorities treating the offense as something less than the heinous act that it is.  Jesse Marzen drew an indefinite suspension not to exceed 6 months.  This elected official represented a mentally ill woman in his seperate private practice and according to her engaged in sexual realtions with her in lieu of attorney fees.  She described his buttocks as "flabby."

At the time the allegations surfaced, Marzen was in a race for Floyd County attorney which he won.  Marzen disclosed intimate and confidential information about his client to the media.  The Iowa disciplinary authorities sanctioned this guy for those disclosures but dismissed the sexual misconduct charges, as "not proved."  I linked the Iowas Supreme Court opinion and you can see for yourself why I think this guy got a huge break on the sexual misconduct charges. 

It is abundantly clear from the evidence that Marzen and the woman called "Jane Doe" in the Iowa Supreme Court opinion had a personal relationship.  She says Marzen had repeated sexual intercourse with her. 

She descirbes his buttocks and his unclothed appearance as being that of someone who has lost an enormous amount of weight and carrying skin folds around his waist and buttocks.  Marzen weighed 350 pounds in school and weighs half that now.   She also describes a mole on his back, which he admitted he has, but claims she "could have seen" at the town pool or while he was cutting his grass which he says he does shirtless.   Various witnesses claim to have seen him at her house, even exiting a bedroom with her.  She described the layout of his house in detail, but he denies that she waas ever in his home, but he acknowleges being in her home on several occasions, "purely business."

What is apparent, is that Marzen set himself up.  His accuser suffers from at least one diagnosed mental defect and Marzen handled his relationship with her in a way that invited the allegations which may be true, at least one of the hearing panel memebers thought the allegations were proved.  Iowa's Supeme Court found credibility "problems with both Marzen and Doe." 

In the end, Marzen's sanction came from telling a local television channel that his client had had a sexual relationship with a probation officer and that she did not pay his fee bill.  Both matters were subject to professional obligations to maintain confidentiality.  Mr. Marzen was throwing mud on his client to deflect her accusations because Marzen was in a political contest for County attorney.   Look, however you look at it, Jesse Marzen screwed his client.  His 6 month suspension is a trravesty.

Oh, and she is suing him. 

Let me repeat myself, don't screw the client!

Screw You!

LaNia Copeland, a journalist with the Bay City Times reports on the Midland County Judge who refuses to recuse himself after telling a local defense attorney, to "screw you."  The underlying case involves a vehicular homicide charge and prior history between the lawyer, judge, and defendant.  Here's the story:
"A Midland County judge reportedly told a defense attorney 'screw you' during a closed-door meeting to discuss a case. Now, the attorney wants the judge disqualified from the case that involves the death of a 49-year-old Midland woman.

Share Gladwin County Circuit Judge Thomas R. Evans on Thursday will hear arguments on a motion to disqualify Midland County Circuit Judge Jonathan E. Lauderbach (pic) from the trial for Lewis C. Henderson Jr.. Bay City attorney Jason P. Gower filed the motion on Henderson’s behalf. Henderson’s relatives hired Gower in June to replace a court-appointed attorney.  Henderson, 54, of Midland, is charged with operating a motor vehicle under the influence causing the death of his ex-wife, Kelly S. Deering.

Gower filed the motion seeking Lauderbach’s disqualification Thursday, a day after the judge allegedly told Gower 'screw you' and Gower claims the judge made comments suggesting he had already decided Henderson is guilty. Specifically, Gower said Lauderbach told him the crash would not have happened had Lauderbach sent Henderson to prison for felonious assault in 2008. Henderson received three years of probation after pleading guilty, state records show. Gower alleges Lauderbach’s comments express the judge’s biases against him and his client.

'... (Lauderbach) would not be able to make decisions on pending motions or evidentiary challenges ... which would pursue truth and justice appropriately through a fair trial and impartial handling of a criminal matter,” Gower said, calling the alleged outburst 'outrageous.'

Lauderbach on Friday heard Gower’s motion for disqualification but declined to step down.  Transcripts from the hearing show Lauderbach denies having an outburst but admits saying 'screw you' to Gower during the Wednesday hearing in his chambers.

Lauderbach alleges Gower was argumentative and disrespectful and, at least once during the hearing, rolled his eyes, court records show."
________________________________
I had an elderly "visiting" Judge go wild on me in chambers in the middle of a "security" rape case after I told him that he had mistried the case.  He shouted at the plaintiff's husband who the Judge could not "hear" answer preliminary questions.  This Judge compounded the problem by telling the jury in open court that I "accused [him] in chambers of lying," but if he, the Judge, had done anything wrong "disregard [his] mistake."  A reviewing court later agreed that the Judge had committed a terrible error but that the Judge's "corrective instruction" rendered the error, "harmless."  The Court of Appeal refused to reverse a split defense verdict.
 
Judge Lauderbach sounds like a good judge who has been provoked.  I'm not sure what "prejudice" towards the defendant is indicated by the Judge's remark to attorney, Gower. But you can see what sort of line Judges must walk to do their jobs in a way that will withstand scrutiny if only in the opinion of lawyers and electors.

North Carolina: Really Creepy Elderly Attorney Hits On Divorce Client

The North Carolina Disciplinary police are dinging Perry W. Martin for hitting on a divorce client during his representation of her.  Since Mr. Martin was admitted to the bar circa 1050 that  would make him about as old as Moses.  Here's the two-page opinion courtesy of the Legal Profession blawg.

According to the opinion, Martin asked his client what "each button" on her top would cost to unbutton, and he promised her that they would sexually explore everything they could think of, if she spent the night with him.  Of course, the answer to the first question was, his license.   By the way a quick look at Google came across the following comment from a former client, "he should have retired 30 years ago."

Do not screw the client.  Clients are vulnerable, especially divorce clients.  If as a young practitioner, and you don't think you can control your sexual impulses, choose another area of law.  Even the client who "thinks" she wants a romantic relationship with "irresistible you" will come to her senses and you, my friend can find yourself looking like a real jerk in the disciplinary docket. 

Jury Selection Part B

Lawyers are required in Our State to obtain additional education and report at least twenty-four hours of this "continuing legal education or CLE" every two years to maintain the law license. I think most lawyers will concede that this requirement is all-in-all pretty smart; although, there are some pathetic examples of what passes for CLE out there.

Over the years I've attended some good classes, including valuable trial tactics classes. In my opinion trial tactics seminars are virtually worthless until you've tried something. I know, this is putting the cart before the horse, but how can you appreciate a "trial tactic" until you've tried a case? The best trial experience comes from sitting "second chair" to a good lawyer, and alot can be gleaned from watching lawyers try cases even without sitting at the trial table. Some of the greatest trial lawyers I've seen were the least obvious, the non-bombastic, quiet men and women, but thorough--the ones who knew how to connect with jurors and judges and lay out a narrative that made sense.

At first, trial work is all false start. There are so many formal vestiges of courtroom manners and traditions and more importantly there are the rules: civil, criminal, and evidence. After so many trials, even after a quarter century of preparing for trial, I move slowly and deliberately at the outset of a trial, not always certain that the trial, itself, is going to happen, and always uncertain about what the Judge is going to permit.

A trial begins when the jury is seated--beginning with the venire: the pool of prospective jurors and continuing with voir dire--he jury selection process. Voir dire is the trial attorneys only opportunity to talk to and hear back from prospective jurors and make a first impression. Voir dire is also the first opportunity you have as a lawyer to seed concepts and ideas that you hope the jurors will examine and contextualize as the evidence is introduced or arguments are made.

Now who do you pick? I like to say that I pick the first 8 (juries for civil lawsuits in Our State have 8 jurors)--sensate, persons. But the reality is that the court's provide you with a little upfront information about your prospective jurors--and, the actions of the other lawyer and Judge may push your choices. Plus, in my view the client should have input.

The standard of proof in nearly all civil lawsuits is what is "preponderance of evidence." this means for something to be proved, the juror must believe that something is more likely than not. In my opinion many lawyers screw the pooch by playing games in voir dire by focusing too much on the subject. If you are the person having to prove something aren't you instilling doubt when you tell a prospective juror that "I only have to prove something by the weight of a feather on evenly balanced scales?" I'd much rather tell the prospective jurors that I'm going to prove everything to you, but "bear in mind something is proved even if I can't bring in every possible eyewitness, every possible document or thing relating to the event--I can't recreate everything for you to see it as if for the first time--neither you nor the court have the time or resources to do that--and, that is why we have trials."

If I'm trying to prove something and I'm worried in any way about the quantity or the quality of my proof--I certainly don't want bean counters: accountants, engineers and empiricists on my jury. And yet, if you properly prepare a jury, you can get persons with precise attitudes to embrace uncertainty.

My experience tells me that once a Jury is seated, it's incredibly important not to waste their time, which overly repeating, or overly emphasizing points--does. Brevity, if done well is very persuasive. Making the connection with the jurors on the level of narrative common sense is the single most important arrow in sleeve of a trial attorney. In doing this so many lawyers reach for this ingratiating style that is repulsive and offensive--can you say Charles Binder!

Ok, here's my surprising jury selection story. I was picking a jury in a car accident case. the bailiff had given the lawyers a list of the prospective jurors, the venire, as the jurors walk in, I notice that one of the prospective jurors is a police officer that I represented in a seperate matter. Not only is this prospective juror a former client, he is also the "investigating" officer in the very car accident that we are in court about to try. I don't need to tell you, but Our Home Town is a very large city, so what's the chance this is going to happen? Now get this, this guy is actually too-stupid-to-live, a disability recognized here in Our Home Town as not a reason not to employ a person a police officer. So I figured when the Judge asked the automatic questions, like do you know any of the lawyers, the parties or anything about the case he would acknowledge these facts and be "excused." Not this guy, he sat staring blankly into space. But for asking the Judge at sidebar to disqualify this guy, he would have been seated as a juror in a case he investigated. Clueless.

Touchy-Feely Lawyer, In Trouble for Being Touchy-Feely Lawyer!

The Legal Profession Blawg had another account of a Lawyer with a screw loose. A Springfield, Illinois attorney is in hot water with the Illinois disciplinary authorities for "overreaching" in the attorney-client relationship.  James Rodney Reppy is a personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. 

Reppy is in trouble because he was falling into pattern of calling up both male and femal clients of the firm and offering, er, um, ...other services.  In one situation he offered to perform certain oral services not related to argument or advocacy for a male client while the client's wife was listening on the speaker phone.  And in a second instance Reppy offered massotherapy to a female workers' compensation client along with gas money and cash.  Touchy-feely (illustration) attorneys are probably in the wrong profession. 

As I have said many times on Bad Lawyer, do not screw the client!

Post-script:  Reppy's law firm website connects itself to Abraham Lincoln,--this is very amusing to me.  Somehow I doubt that the attorney, Abraham Lincoln even with all of his prophetic skills could have envisioned  a day in which his name would be bandied about by a personal injury operation staffed by a perv.  Then again histories of Lincoln "riding circuit" as a lawyer--get pretty suggestive.

Shepard Fairey Lied

Who is Shepard Fairey? Fairey is the artist that designed the famous poster to the left. He's also the guy who created the "Andre the Giant" handbill that commands you to "Obey" and is papered all over the city light posts, bridge abutments, etc.

There is an ongoing copyright dispute between the Associated Press, its photographer, and Mr. Fairey concerning the "HOPE" Obama image which Fairey developed from an AP photo. I may or may not get into the issues relating to the intellectual property disputes underlying the copyright lawsuit between Fairey, the photographer and the AP--it is very compelling. I have followed the case. Terry Gross (one of the world's great interviewers) had the AP photographer, Shepard Fairey, as well as a copyright expert on her Fresh Air program, to air out the issues--check the NPR archives to hear it for yourself. I know less about intellectual property law than I do, even about family law (bleaaah!), but I know more than the lay person--so, let's revisit the subject at another time.

What has my attention is that yesterday Shepard Fairey admitted that during the litigation, he lied. See, link: http://www.eandppub.com/2009/10/surprising-developments-in-shepard-fairey-vs-ap-case.html. Not only does he admit that he lied, he admits he destroyed evidence and manufactured other evidence. Wow.

Generally speaking, litigant lying, perjury, spoliation of evidence is pretty heavy-shit. A local physician was up on malpractice charges. The doctor was the scion of one of our Home Town's wealthiest industrialist families--the arrogant bastard destroyed evidence of his medical malpractice and was caught out during the litigation because nursing staff kept copies of the original records. Not only did the jury hit him with a compensatory damages verdict, the punitive damages verdict for many millions of dollars was the largest verdict in local history up to that time. Moral: don't screw with the facts, the facts are the facts.

When I was a baby Bad Lawyer my closest friend was a young accountant. He, his senior partner, and their small business CPA firm were sued by the owner of a regional record retailer that had collapsed after financial irregularities surfaced that were undetected by my friend's accounting firm despite an audit. The record retailer's controller created the appearance of robust financial health by manipulating an aspect of inventory. The auditors should have visually confirmed the existence of these items but instead took the controller's/wrongdoer's verbal representation. Mistake. Malpractice.

No problem, my pal's firm had malpractice insurance, but my pal made a mistake that haunted his conscience. My friend lied during the deposition that the record retailer's attorney took in preparation for trial. My friend testified that he and his auditors had visually verified the existence of accounting items, that the company comptroller only verbally confirmed existed.

The malpractice case had not come to trial, and my pal was afraid. His senior partner, a real shit--was using my friend's mistake against him in their dealings and disaster loomed. What to do?

We looked at the procedural rules, depositions are governed by Rule 30 of Our Home State Rules of Civil Procedure. The rule permits persons to review transcripts of the the things they said under oath and change the testimony: yes to no, no to yes, add testimony, take away testimony, change anything. The caveat to this provision is that the person making the changes to his or her testimony is required set out the reason for any change, and submit to reexamination. Again this rule applies only if the attorney who took the deposition order the transcript of the discovery deposition. The record company's attorney did not order the transcript, but we amended the testimony anyway.

When my friend's case went to trial he and his firm was represented by one of Our Town's legendary civil litigators (not me, I was a spectator.) The defense was based on the idea previously explored, in the Bad Lawyer blog, that negligence requires proof of damages caused by the breach of the duty of care--consequently, the defense conceded the malpractice by my client and his firm (in effect admitting that the accountants did not visually verify inventory items that the company comptroller said existed)--but, denying that their audit mistake caused the collapse of the retailer. The defense, instead let the retailer demonstrate how out of touch he was with his business operation and employees. The jury returned a unanimous verdict for my friend, his partner and their accounting firm. Amazingly, my friend and his senior partner were able to survive this trauma, their accounting firm continued, and today, he is the sole owner, and one of Our Town's most respected accounting and financial authorities. My pal accomplished this, because he is honest and he is decent. I remain very proud of him.

Recently I successfully concluded the defense of a manufacturing company. During the discovery phase I deposed the plaintiff, and I ordered the transcript for my trial preparation and I directed it to be filed with the court. In the mail some weeks after the deposition I received a large stack of transcript "changes." In fact there were 24 separate changes to the testimony--it turns out that the Plaintiff's mother had inserted herself into the plaintiff's claim and lawsuit and she reviewed her son's testimony, sand she submitted the extensive changes over his signature. While none of the deposition changes were important, the fact that the mother involved herself so directly in her 31 year old adult son's injury claim led to a line of inquiry that resulted in developing facts that led directly to the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice by the court.. The mother's manipulation of the facts and evidence destroyed her son's claim, a claim valued by his attorney at $200,000 and which my client offered $40,000 to settle--now worth: $0.

Honesty in litigation is the only way the system can possibly work. Shepard Fairey has by his own admission destroyed the principle he purported to represent. By lying. Shame.

Hunter Hogan: Lawyer-Photographer, Problems

An Illinois Bar Complaint targets Hunter Hogan (pic) a Chicago-area attorney and photographer.  This is a link to Mr. Hogan's Linkedin page and profile.  This is a link to his photography page at "Model Mayhem."

Apparently Mr. Hogan has on one or two occasions confused his roles as attorney and artist.  Mr. Hogan appears to be attracted to the subject of the nubile young adolescent models he photographs.  This is the come on from his model mayhem page:

"I have been shooting for 13 years but until a couple of years ago, I focused on candid and travel photography [. . . ] I need models, however, for an artistic series about beauty. [ . . .] I am currently exploring how we view and define "beauty" in modern America. When we say a woman is "beautiful", for example, I don't think we are usually referring to her natural, physical beauty. I think we are usually commenting on her youth, sexuality, conforming to cultural norms, membership in a subculture, health, wealth, race, attitude, make-up, or something else. I'd like my art to help people see the difference between physical beauty and these other concepts.

Escort: Bring anyone; bring your mother.

Nudity: I do not shoot nude photos.

[Oh, and Hogan's list of "genres"]
Acting
Art
Bodypaint
Cosplay
Dance
Editorial
Fashion
Fetish
Fit Modeling
Fitness
Glamour
Hair/Makeup
Lifestyle
Parts Modeling
Performance Artist
Pinup
Spokesperson / Host
Sports
_______________________________
This guy needs some professional help to sort out his various impulses before it's too late. 

Do not screw the client.  Maintain your boundaries.  Don't try to rationalize inappropriate behavior with a client by calling it art.