- Quickdraw McLaw
- 34 Comments
- 348 Views
Brian Bloomfield is in the news again as Chief Deputy District Attorney Marc DiGiacomo accused him of lying to a state bar disciplinary panel. You can read the RJ article here.
Our question for you is based on a quote of Mr. DiGiacomo in the article,
“All lawyers are distrusted because of the actions of Mr. Bloomfield. He harmed the community.”
What do you think? Do the actions of one lawyer really affect all lawyers like that? Is this really that upsetting to the community? Are there other instances you can think of that cause more damage to the profession (i.e. actions involving judges)?
People hate lawyers and think they are liars already. This just adds fuel to the fire.
I 100% agree with 7:13. Then we have things with corrupt judges (e.g. Jones and a few others that shall remain nameless) in the news all the time or lawyers giving their client the "Couch discount" in the Clink…no wonder why people do not trust lawyers. It makes a good media nugget.
I agree completely with 7:13 and 7:25. I'll add that certain stories involving lawyers or judges (Jones for instance) add fuel to the notion of "lawyers being above the law" when it seems like a particular entity dropped the ball ( i.e. the Judicial Commission's poor handling of the Jones matter or arguably the Southern Disciplinary Panel's failure to recommend disbarment on Bloomfeld).
What, no mention of Michelle Fiore's heroic role last night in the Oregon standoff??
I love her.
She is a nutjob, but she's actually done a great job deescalating this situation. I've listened to hours of it, it's compelling. Regardless of what you think of her politics, Fiore may have very well saved lives.
I want to make babies with her.
It's probably too late to have babies with her.
She's already a grandma and a legend at the trailer park.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/us/michele-fiore-returns-to-spotlight-during-oregon-standoff.html?_r=0
Big Buxom Bouncy and Bold
1:06, that blog article is mostly gobbledygook.
Women have babies into their mid-late forties. Fiore 44-45. Love it when male attorneys act like they know gynecology.
If a woman wants kids, it's best to start sooner than later.
Certain stories vilify lawyers for no good reason. Keith Gregory getting 10 years for being the lawyer for the wrong guy should send chills down any attorney's spine. Stories about attorneys get sensationalized. There is no secret that our local federal prosecutors have made known their intention to go after attorneys and physicians because the public splash is bigger.
But does it upset the community? Bloomfield's case I would argue the answer is really no. Bloomfield was overzealous and lying for his clients, with the "victim" being the courts. Are members of the community "outraged" that hookers were getting out without unnecessary counseling? No.
What's also outrageous is that the hookers were being forced to complete Aids Awareness every time they were arrested. Was it really about teaching a hooker about risks for the 14th time or was it about a cash grab for the counseling program?
IMO, Bloomfield was wrong and probably doesn't deserve to practice law again. But I also don't think that the public thinks any less of lawyers because a guy who made a living representing hookers did something shady.
Spot on.
It is that sense of entitlement and minimization of violating the law that fuels the public's anger. I the attorney didn't like the counseling requirement, or any other aspect of the law for that matter, they should do what any member of the public is expected to do, work to change the law… not violate it themselves or assist their clients to violate it.
There is no sense of entitlement and minimization. Quite the opposite. Attorneys should be held to the same standard of conduct, punishment, rehabilitation and second chances as everyone else. You are correct: there is a blood lust in the public– not just against attorneys but against anyone accused of a crime. Bloomfield has admitted he broke the law. He is automatically going to pay a higher price for his crime than the average defendant because (regardless of sentence) it will destroy his ability to effectively practice law (even if not disbarred). No, lets not minimize it but also not make this contretemps into a larger public issue than murders and rapes which occur in our community.
The perception of the public is affected by what they read in the papers. They think that Brian Bloomfield is a representative of the profession as a whole. It's like how many in the public are for "tort reform" because they remember that story of a woman spilling coffee on her lap. The public doesn't see the ethical attorneys who don't make news, they only see Brian Bloomfield. So yes, he has harmed us all.
But if a Hooker falsified her certificates, would it have been in the newspaper 60+ times? If the story was just about Brox falsifying certificates, would it be in the paper this often? The perception of the public is that this is a HUGE story because the newspaper made it a huge story. Honestly we have all sat quietly and said "Well it must be a huge story because the RJ says it is a huge story. Bloomfield is representative of all of us because the RJ says he is representative of all of us."
Here's the current live stream of the militants. Last night, it was complete hysteria. They were ready and wanted to die. They are about to surrender, thanks in large part to Michele Fiore. She may be a terrible Assemblywoman, but she is a great crisis negotiator. She really talked these wackos off the ledge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=616S8t9tek4
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/oae/STATEWIDE%20PUBLIC%20HRG%20LIST%20-%20Combined.pdf
XIV-2014-0375E HAFTER, JACOB LOUIS Hearing Violation Code: MONEY – KNOWING MISAPPROPRIATION [1.15]
Great. Did they find anything because this is just a list of hearings which arise out of a case started in Nevada which the Defendant Pal appears to have attempted to wrongfully remove to New Jersey. http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020141028O86/HafterLAW,%20LLC%20v.%20PAL. It appears that Hafter prevailed in the District Court and got a large Judgment against this Defendant. https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=11154642 So before we smear someone (even someone for whom I personally have no love lost), how about a little context to the post?
Hafter can be a pain in the ass, but he is a smart guy and good lawyer. He is tenacious, but understands unique areas of law. For example, if I was a doctor I hire him to handle a medical license suspension. The guy also knows constitutional law.
Will Hafter please run against Sue or Erich Johnson? He has my vote.
He did run against Johnson. He lost.
He runs again, he may win.
and then…BOOM..he misappropriates money, in NJ, evades taxes, files a fake bankruptcy in Arizona. He is a "good" lawyer alright!
Where is the evidence of that? Where is the evidence of ANY of that? Did NJ find that he misappropriated money? I looked at the Disciplinary Review Board of the Supreme Court of New Jersey and find no adverse rulings against Hafter. So I would be interested in seeing your citations to support the allegations above.
http://bankrupt.com/misc/nvb13-10573.pdf Hafter's bankruptcy filing
Susan Johnson's complaint against Hafter for campaign finance funding irregularities
APREA II v Hafter et. al.
Susan Johnson's complaint https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2cb_IKo93KQdkJZa0VTWDZKSEU/edit
So wait a minute…. The allegation was "he misappropriates money, in NJ, evades taxes, files a fake bankruptcy in Arizona. He is a "good" lawyer alright!" When asked for evidence, you provide his BK Petition from Nevada (where is the fake one is AZ?) and you provide a link to a Campaign Finance Complaint, without any disposition of the same. There is no evidence that the misappropriation of money was ever validated. There is no allegation of tax evasion.
This goes way back. "The American Rule has been explained as "a deliberate departure from the English practice, stemming initially from the [American] colonies' distrust of lawyers and continued because of a belief that the English system favored the wealthy and unduly penalized the losing party." Smith v. CROWN FINANCIAL SERV. OF AMERICA
If people hate lawyers, let 'em do the job themselves. After all, they will probably try to stiff you for doing a good job.