Welcome to the JQC - the 15th Circuit's Krista Marx and the 5th Circuit's Michelle Morley were elected by Florida's circuit judges yesterday to replace Preston Silvernail and Paul Backman on the JQC. Both ran unopposed. Marx increases Palm Beach's potency on the panel, joining current member Jay White, an attorney based in West Palm Beach.
Florida Bar v. Gardiner - click here for the Bar's Reply Brief, made available online yesterday afternoon.
Of course, the Bar does nothing to defend everybody's favorite blog, or question why so much emphasis was placed on it by David Bogenschutz. Furthermore, the Bar makes no mention of all the nasty comments and lies that were posted on the blog concerning whistle blower Sheila Alu in rebuttal to Bogenschutz's claims. That was another obviously significant point the Bar failed to make, even if no one can say who authored them. The Bar also did not call into question the vast majority of the witnesses Bogenschutz relies on in his Answer Brief, including Richard Cole, who, according to Bob Norman, was awarded $600,000 in legal fees by Gardiner prior to her joining Cole, Scott & Kissane. In fact, the only Gardiner witness the Bar mentions is Michael Brannon, despite easy to draw connections that could have been made between the witnesses, Gardiner, and lawyer Bogenschutz.
From the Brief:
In her Answer Brief, Respondent continued her pattern of utilizing obfuscating and misleading statements in order to avoid responsibility for her misconduct, and demonstrated conclusively why disbarment is required in the instant case ... That she should continue to misrepresent her true relationship with Scheinberg before this Honorable Court conclusively demonstrates that she has not taken responsibility for her conduct and that disbarment is the appropriate sanction in this matter ...
Further, in the Answer Brief, Respondent argues that this Court should give great weight to the evidence of Respondent's severe depression in mitigation of the appropriate sanction ... However, in presenting this argument, Respondent neglected to mention that Dr. Brannon never diagnosed Respondent with depression. Dr. Brannon only saw Respondent twice in six months, and never in a professional capacity ... Indeed, when asked if he was making a diagnosis of clinical or severe depression, he answered "no one has asked me to do an evaluation or assess her in that way so I'm not doing it from a professional standpoint."
Additionally, in reference to her treatment for depression, Respondent asserts, "The Bar's suggestion that respondent go[t] no help until 2009 is belied by the testimony of Dr. Brannon ... Such statement by Respondent in her Answer Brief is yet another example of her tendency to state technically true facts, but through omission of pertinent details, create misleading and false statements ...
Further, even if this Court leaves aside the fact that Respondent was never diagnosed with depression, and that she did not seek treatment for any such condition until after her misconduct came to light, disbarment is still the appropriate sanction for Respondent. This Court has consistently imposed the sanction of disbarment despite evidence of depression and emotional problems of the Respondent ...
Indeed, the record is replete with Respondent's inability to grasp the severity of her misconduct, and to accept responsibility for her actions. She continues to argue that there was no real basis for the granting of a new trial, and even attack's the State's decision to provide one. However, this Honorable Court has repeatedly stated that, in a death penalty case, the appearance of impropriety "is as much a violation of due process as actual bias would be." ... This is because "life is at stake and . . . the . . . sentencing decision is so important." Respondent‟s refusal to acknowledge that her actions, standing alone, violated defendant Loureiro's constitutionally protected due process rights, and entitled him to a new trial before a fair and neutral arbiter, are conclusive proof of her failure to accept responsibility for her misconduct. Disbarment is the appropriate sanction for Respondent ...
And now it's up to the Supreme Court, with the entire legal establishment watching ...
Coming Soon - Laura Watson is no shrinking violet ...
↧
TUESDAY BONUS
↧