Deters Update: His Law Firm to Get a "Special Master"

A Kentucky federal judge reviewing potential sanctions vis-a-vis mouthpiece hall of infamy honoree, Eric Deters, yesterday, ordered Deters to agree to the appointment of an outside lawyer to reivew his law firm practices, adopt any recommendations based on the "special master" review, and to attend an additional 20 hours of continuing legal eduction.  Reporter Jim Hannah's follow-up story for the Cincinnati Enquirer follows:

Lawyer and radio personality Eric Deters filed a federal lawsuit in January to stop the Kentucky Bar Association from moving forward with disciplinary proceedings against him.


What he got on Wednesday was a federal judge who accused him of filing lawsuits before fully researching the facts and the laws that apply - a similar claim that has been made in the state disciplinary proceedings. To discourage such frivolous filings, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves said that he was ordering Deters to have an independent lawyer review the operations of his law firm and adopt any recommendations. Deters must also attend 20 hours of continuing legal education on ethics.

If Deters fails to complete these tasks, he will have to reimburse Kentucky Supreme Court Chief Justice John Minton Jr. and the state bar association the about $23,000 in legal bills they incurred defending the federal suit. The suit has since been withdrawn.  Deters said he would not appeal Reeves’ decision. He says he welcomes the review and gets to decide on who will conduct it, though the judge must approve the choice.

"I'd like to put this in perspective," he said. "I was not told that I or (a) loved one has cancer today. I did not lose a child today. I did not lose my good health today. I still have a great law practice, a great radio show and plenty of business interests. I will not lose any clients today. In fact, I will gain clients based upon my courage of standing up for my cause."

Reeves repeatedly expressed concern that Deters acts impulsively. Reeves said Deters' approach to litigation was "ready, fire, aim."

Reeves said another example of Deters' impulsive actions appeared to be the recent release of a YouTube video where Deters criticizes Reeves. In that video, Deters said he refuses to let Reeves paint a picture that he is "some kind of sloppy incompetent attorney."

Deters said he was just defending himself so not to lose clients because of the bad publicity the suit against the bar association created. Deters has since removed the video from his website.

Reeves then demanded Deters' attorney, former gubernatorial candidate Larry Forgy, elaborate on what he meant by statements that a "cabal" of lawyers was forming to destroy Deters' career.  Forgy said lawyers jealous of the success Deters has found as a radio personality and the business it brings his firm were behind the bar association's disciplinary proceedings.

A trial commissioner has recommended Deters be suspended from the practice of law for 181 days, but the Kentucky Bar Association's Board of Governors has agreed to review all the charges before acting on the recommendation. A hearing before the board is set for September.

While Deters withdrew the January suit, he filed a second suit against the bar association in June.
Forgy said the June suit makes different legal claims than the January suit, but the underlying theme is the same. Forgy claims the trial commissioner who recommended the suspension had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself.

One of the bar association's ethics charges against Deters is that he charged an excessive $1,500 fee for filing a suit. But Forgy claims the trial commissioner's law partner took the case after Deters was no longer in it and took a $25,000 fee.

"My wife, children, family, friends, clients and fans still support me and think more, not less of me," Deters said leaving the courthouse. "My enemies, who are petty and mean people, can enjoy their victory. My life is wonderful and I'll keep fighting the good fight."
______________________________
The hemming and hawing, grandiosity, rationalizations, and bluster never ends with this guy.  Eventually, unless he has a "come-to-Jesus-moment" his time to take corrective action to save his career will run out.  Not yet.

Mouthpiece Hall of Infamy: Gloria Allred

She's always there!  Gloria Allred's firm website is at this link.

At the elbow of every publicity seeking hooker, mistress, wife, gal pal, porn star, and aggrieved female"celebrity" wanna be in the news.  Allred's most recent tout was the ex-porn star (can you really ever be an ex-porn...and what passes for "star"?), Ginger Lee (left) who received tweets from Congressman Anthony Weiner, but moments before that she was on the Governator's mistress beat. 

Allred reached as close to a moment of zen in the Weiner circus with her press conference performance reading Weiner tweets for all the sensational impact she could achieve.  Check the YouTube video:  Attorney Gloria Allred and Ginger Lee video from the New York Post, a tabloid, of course.

The Post video is pretty funny, a bit of the pot calling the kettle black and all that. 

The thing is, Gloria Allred, she of the garish-colored business suits, was once alot more that a celeb wanna-be wingman and fierce exploiter of tabloid culture and money.  At one time Allred stood for the rights of women, a scholarly advocate against pornography,...Allred willing reduced herself to the caricature of a banshee at the elbow of the porno performer talking about Anthony Weiner's "package." 

The thing is I had a bit of exposure to this sort of stage managing via Jeff Anderson and SNAP media events.  Don't get me wrong, Jeff and the folks at Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) achieved a needed and brilliant narrative necessary to break through the wide denial about clergy sex abuse in our major faiths that in the 1990s dominated judicial, law enforcement, the media, and community thinking.  As I've said in many different ways, who wanted to think that our Father Joe up at St. Agnes was a pervert?  It took brilliant public relations led by Anderson and the SNAP with client victims to achieve something of a level playing field.  But I confess, I was never terribly good at this, because I see it as more than a little phony.  At least with Anderson et al., there was a worthy purpose to the staged lawyer-victim hugs.

Allred reduces this sort of art direction to banal absurdity as Allred, feigned outraged, stands next to some young woman who formerly fucked on film for a living spouting about the outrages of Anthony Weiner's embarassing social networking inflicted on her.

And Allred makes millions from this routine.  Is this a great profession, or what?

Deters Update: Pay Sanctions

US District Judge William Bertelsman ordered troubled Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky lawyer and former WLW-700 AM radio personality, Eric Deters, to pay nearly $13,000 in sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit Deters filed against 2 Covington, Kentucky police officers. This is the link to the nky.com story.

Deters is the newest honoree in the Bad Lawyer's Mouthpiece Hall of Infamy.  At the earlier link you can find links to all sorts of mishegas from Deters including his bizarre website with rant and rave video links.

Mouthpiece Hall of Infamy: Eric Deters

Last year, I told you about the Cincinnati-area high school teacher and sometimes Bengals Cheerleader who obtained an eye-popping $11 million dollar default judgment against an Internet gossip website.  After I left off talking about that story, my curiosity about Ms. Sarah Jone's lawyer, Eric "Bulldog" Deters was tirggerd.  This was because there were suggestions in the coverage, at that time, that Mr. Deters sued the wrong entity.  This meant that the $11-mil judgment was nothing but a chimera.   I don't know if Mr. Deters was able to collect anything for Miss Jones who claimed her reputation was sullied by an ex-boyfriend who posted something unkind about her at the website.  Of course there's no more glaring publicity than news articles in your hometown paper trumpeting you mega-millions lawsuit with suggestions that you go look at the obnoxious things said about you justifying a million dollar default judgment.

It turns out that Eric Deters is, or should I say, was a radio personality at WLW 700AM, Cincinnati.  WLW is one of those old-fashioned (owned by Clear Channel) AM channels with a huge (50,000 watt, a friend claims that the station once had a 500,000 watt) radio signal and lots of right wing talk--although, not Deters who got canned for racially "insensitive" remarks.  The remarks that cost Deters his weekend radio slot were made in a video (now deleted) at Deters' Facebook page according to the Cincinnati.

Then it came out this week that a Kentucky Bar disciplinary authority is looking to suspend Deters for a systematic pattern of filing frivolous lawsuits or put another way, filing lawsuits without first figuring out if he has a good faith basis for the lawsuit.  Deters response, sue the Bar Association  Brilliant. 

Here's an excerpt from the Kentucky Post account on the status of the current investigation: 

Lawyer and [former] WLW-AM (700) radio personality Eric Deters may be in danger of having his license to practice law in Kentucky temporarily suspended.

Trial Commissioner Frank P. Doheny recommended the suspension in a report claiming that Deters has abused his position as attorney by adopting a "sue first, ask questions later" mentality. Deters is also being accused of reckless action without accountability.

If the suspension is carried out, it would last 181 days. All suspensions lasting longer than 180 days require the lawyer to go through the bar association’s character and fitness committee before he or she can be readmitted. In that case, readmittance is not a guarantee.

Doheny's report claims [Mr. D]eters violated several rules including contacting clients already represented, claiming bias on the part of Judge Stephen Bates during a radio broadcast and accusing former Kenton County Judge Ralph Drees of conspiring with a home builder to place a bid for a new jailhouse in Independence.

"(Deters) simply spits out words to see where they splatter and injures people in the process," Doheny wrote in the 21-page report.

Deters issued a statement in response to the requested suspension.

“Those baseless charges against me do not include: dishonesty, a crime, theft, malpractice, harm to a client, moral turpitude or any shameful act,” the statement said. “They are nitpicky nothings.”

Deters plans to fight the recommendation filed by Dehony Tuesday in Frankfort's Office of the Disciplinary Clerk.

“My battle with the Kentucky Bar Association is far from over,” Deters said. “Frank Doheny, my hearing officer, was supposed to serve as an unbiased one. He is not a judge in real life.”
__________________________________________
Deters is a flame-thrower in the mode of Hall of Infamy member, Geoffrey Fieger, except Fieger actually appears to fairly investigate his claims prior to filing.  Deters sounds like he's a whole lot more improvisational and maybe a little more low-rent.  Of course, this is just O-P-I-N-I-O-N.  Lest you think I'm being overly paranoid, Deters sued a Cincy blogger last year over an item in the Whistleblower blog.

I added the latter caveat, because Mr. Deters likes to file lawsuits including his second lawsuit against the Kentucky Bar Association last week over his disciplinary process.  The coverage of that lawsuit in the Cincinnati Enquirer caught my eye suggests that Deters will have his Kentucky law license suspended.  Deters, of course, felt it was necessary to respond to his public and posted the YouTube video at this link to the BluegrassBulletin.com where Marcus Carey writes:

"Deters tends to polarize people, but he says he doesn't care. This week the bar association, through a hearing officer, recommended that he be suspended for 181 days. That kind of punishment means that the suspension would not end with automatic reinstatement, rather would require a character and fitness review and perhaps permanent removal from the practice.

Deters has rammed his head into a number of brick walls lately. He has been criticized for suing prosecutors, sanctioned by state and federal courts and sharply criticized for his challenge to the impartiality of the hearing officer assigned to rule on his disciplinary case."

______________________________

This means , contrary to what Deters say in his YouTube rant would likely cost him his license to practice law in any state with reciprocal discipline--which is every state including Ohio and Florida.

At this link you can look at Mr. Deters' colorful law firm website.  Truly a remarkable piece of work--and, probably in itself qualifying for disciplinary scrutiny since his representations as an "expert" contravene prohibitions under most disciplinary regimes.  And I was a practing attorney for nearly three decades and I never heard of the US Bar Association which Deters claims to be the president of; nor, does a web search turn up any such entity. 

Then again maybe you can find something at Deter's other shrine to himself, his Facebook page.

All my career I've known lawyers like Eric Deters.  Some had less on the ball than Deters, and some were sufficiently competent that the self-promotion could be forgiven.  Maybe once upon a time, Deters actually cared about the law, and his clients--now, it seems that his gigantic ego totally swamps all commonsense.  He's totally foolish if he thinks an unctuous approach to the disciplinary authorities is a good approach.  In fact the disciplinary rules require lawyers to cooperate and be forthright.  Deters appears from this distance to be taking the opposite approach.  We'll keep an eye on Eric Deters, it should be fascinating and instructive.

Mouthpiece Hall of Infamy--Philip Edward Kay

Let me quote the preface of the disciplinary opinion that culminated in the 3 year supsension of Bad Lawyer, Philip Edward Kay of California:  "This is an unfortunate case.   A savvy, experience attorney fought hard for clients in several noted sexual harassment cases and won huge awards on their behalf.  But somewhere in his overzealous advocacy, he lost it, not the cases, his integrity, professional decorum, credibility and respect of the court."  An account of the disciplinary trial can be found at this link.

Phil Kay is prominent in California lawyer.  He won buckets of money for victims of workplace sexual harassment in the late 1990 until his recent suspension.  Kay won a $30 million dollar lawsuit against the Ralph's Grocery chain (a subsidiary of Krogers), he won a $6.2 million dollar verdict against mega-lawfirm Baker and MacKenzie, and so on and on.  Here's the link to his former firm website (which is now devoid of any mention of Kay--but, amazingly calls itself, "California's best sexual harassment, discrimination . . . law firm.")

Kay is an attorney in the apparent mode of legendary verbal flamthrowers like Mouthpiece Hall of Infamy honoree:  Geoffrey Fieger.  Let's consider what the Law.com article had to say on Kay's alleged misconduct:  State Bar documents accuse Kay of causing all kinds of trouble during [a sexual harassment] trial.

Kay is accused of yelling and screaming at witnesses, opposing counsel and Judge Weber; ignoring Weber's orders by asking questions that were prohibited; and openly accusing Weber of bias. State Bar prosecutors contend that Kay almost got into a fight in a hallway with opposing counsel and took a tone so severe with Judge Weber that her bailiff threatened to remove him from the courtroom.

"Kay was repeatedly warned by the court that his conduct was improper and that as an officer of the court he had a responsibility to be professional, polite to all counsel, the court and the witnesses," [disciplinary counsel] wrote in his charging documents. "Despite these warnings, admonitions and directions, respondent Kay continued to be unprofessional, disrespectful and rude."

The State Bar also printed verbatim comments by Kay and Judge Weber [the sexual harassment trial judge].

"Sir, I will tell you what," Weber said at one point. "I have had to [resist] a thousand times sanctioning you in front of the jury ... I have never, ever seen an attorney more rude and disrespectful on so many levels."

Nonetheless, Weber never held Kay in contempt or sanctioned him, even though the judge said she found it a "close call" that his conduct had potentially prejudiced the jury.
________________________________________________
Several observations, I don't know Philip Kay, but I do know what it is like to be involved in sexual harassment litigation.  I can not justify, Mr. Kay's reported and apparently documented misconduct, but I do know that dealing with opposing counsel in flamboyant situations involving sexual misconduct allegations the stakes are raised--it is often, not unlike trying a case agaisnt Eddie Haskell from Leave it to Beaver; opposing counsel can be the dirtiest, underhanded, evil advocates in the world--who on the record and in court are perfect ladies and gentlemen.  Obviously, this does not excuse discourteous conduct, but just for the purpose of giving you some perspective, sometimes what seems "overzealous" is behavior which was wholly-provoked.

But there is no denying that Philip Kay is an over-the-top guy.  Full-dorsal-fin, you don't call your law firm the "best" in online advertising if you are fully in the face of disciplinary authorities since the ethical canons really prohibit self-aggrandizement in lawyer advertising. 

Canons of ethics once required lawyers "to zealously represent their clients."  This unfortunately became a fig leaf for rude, unprofessional, in-your-face misconduct by lawyers like Fieger and Kay.  On the otherhand, your "over-"zealous advocacy may be in the eyes of the beholder when that which stands between your client and injustice is your verbal aggressiveness, at least this is the rationalization of the verbal flamethrowers.  Here's the point, over do it in court, over do it and your client LOSES.  How,then, do you justify your unprofessionalism?  Iin both the Fieger situation and with Kay, they win eye-popping verdicts for clients, but when the pissed-off appellate courts vacate what has their advocacy gained for your client?  Oh, by the way, at least in the Bad Lawyer's jurisdiction that requirement to zealously represent your client language has been erased--the focus these days is on competence.

I'm also just a little troubled by the intorductory language of the disciplinary opinion vis-a-vis Kay authored by Judge Lucy Armendariz, she said, once again,  "A savvy, experience attorney fought hard for clients in several noted sexual harassment cases and won huge awards on their behalf. But somewhere in his overzealous advocacy, he lost it, not the cases, his integrity, professional decorum, credibility and respect of the court."  It sounds to me like Judge Armendaiz' places an inordinate value on the buckets of money Kay was able to win for his clients--that that was his worth as an attorney.  Then she says he lost the "respect of the court."  Seriously?  Well, Judge the court includes the jury;  and,  apparently Mr. Kay didn't lose their respect. 

Philip Kay was convicted of 16 disciplinary counts, you can read the entire opinion, his financial dealings are implicated in the disciplinary findings.  I will take this opportunity to work in an observation that will remarkably sound like "everybody does it"--sorts of rationalizations.  Everybody does not do what Philip Kay did, what I did, what other Bad Lawyers do--but, let me ask you to pause for a moment.   Ask yourself, if the disciplinary authorities subpoena the financial records of any law firm that you are aware requiring them to account for their expenditures what do you guess will be the rate of disciplinary prosecutions in your jurisdiction?  You see, the disciplinary authorities will give you a proctological examination--all will be punish-ed.

Mouthpiece Hall of Infamy: Robert Simels

Robert Simels is said to have been a brilliant criminal defense attorney throughout his 35 year career.  A real aggressive hard-nosed, hardball kind of lawyer.  He represented the mobster turned informant Henry Hill he represented the drug lord Kenneth "Supreme" McGriff.  According to the NYC papers he was highly regarded by colleagues in the defense bar, invariably meticulously prepared for trial.

Last week Simels was sentenced to 14 years in the federal penitentiary for crossing the line during the representation of a Guyanese drug dealer.  Caught on tape talking to an undercover federal agent, Simels  passed along messages from his client Shaheed Khan ordering the man, Simels thought was an associate of Shaheen to "eliminate or neutralize" witnesses.

I found the words of Judge John Gleeson as reported in the New Your Times particulalry chilling,  "Judge Gleeson spoke at length before imposing his sentence, crediting Mr. Simels for his contrite words and acknowledging the torrent of letters filed by supporters on his behalf: “You are — were — a very good lawyer.” He added addressing a statement of contrition by Simels: “You still haven’t quite held yourself accountable for your criminal acts. But you’re not required to. I will.”