A Kansas lawyer was suspended for representing a husband and wife in an arson and insurance claim from the fire where there was no informed consent by both. The lawyer did not talk to one of them about the potential conflict. The wife persuaded the lawyer not to tell the husband certain things. In re Johnson, No. 106,792 (Kan. May 18, 2012).

Woman represented by fake lawyer asks court to toss murder-for-hire conviction by Felisa Cardona of The Denver Post:

Ever since Gwen Bergman learned the lawyer who represented her during her murder-for-hire trial was a fake attorney, she has been fighting to have her conviction tossed out.

Over the last two days, U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martinez held an evidentiary hearing to decide whether Bergman's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated.

Following a bench trial, Bergman was convicted in May 2008 of trying to hire a hit man to kill her son's father.

She and her family had hired Howard O. Kieffer to represent her not knowing he was an ex-con with a record of fraud who never attended law school. They paid him about $70,000.

And, Feds Say ‘Second Chair’ Lawyer Paid $5K Gave OK Murder Defense Though Lead ‘Counsel’ Was a Fake on ABAJ.com.

In a civil case it was held that a failure to demand a jury trial was too speculative to support a legal malpractice claim. Colonial Freight Systems, Inc. v. Adams & Reese LLP, 2012 WL 1570103 (E.D. La. May 3, 2012).

In re Public Defender Service, 831 A.2d 890, 901 (D.C. 2003) (here in the context of a possible false defense):

“[A]bout half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” McCandless v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 697 F.2d 198, 201-02 (7th Cir. 1983) (attributed to Elihu Root).

McCandless:

We agree with Elihu Root that “[a]bout half of the practice of a decent lawyer is telling would-be clients that they are damned fools and should stop.” Quoted in A. Kaufman, Problems in Professional Responsibility (1976). We refuse to accept the notion that counsel may shift responsibility for a frivolous suit to his client.

The trial court adequately considered defendant's objections to defense counsel participating and found them lacking. The only possible justification was defendant threatening his lawyer's life on the record, but that didn't work, either. State v. Moore, 2012 Ohio 1958, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 1721 (8th Dist. May 3, 2012):

[*P25] Regardless of the basis for appellant's displeasure, we find that the trial court diligently considered appellant's concerns and complied with its obligation to ensure that the record contains an adequate investigation of the complaint before continuing with the trial. Upon hearing appellant's request for dismissal of counsel, the trial court inquired as to appellant's basis for dismissal and allowed appellant to speak freely in support of his complaint. Once the trial court understood the nature of appellant's arguments, it explained that attorneys commonly represent more than one client at a time and that attorney Sims was a highly qualified, competent, and well respected attorney in the community.

[*P26] Thus, the record adequately reflects that the trial court addressed appellant's concerns on the record and explained that appellant's quarrels with attorney Sims failed to establish any rational form of ineffective assistance of counsel. In fact, the trial court's only rational basis to excuse attorney Sims from the case was based on the actions of appellant, who threatened attorney Sims's life on the record. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion.

Law.com: The Recorder: An Exhausting Petition Meets An Exasperated Court by Scott Graham:

Last week the Supreme Court sent Thomson and his co-counsel a letter warning that the court was considering monetary sanctions because of the 519-page habeas petition they filed in 2004 raising 143 claims on behalf of a client who calls himself Reno. The petition included dozens of claims already raised and rejected on appeal or in a previous habeas petition.

The letter upset the capital defense bar, with California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the federal public defenders of Los Angeles and Sacramento submitting an amicus curiae brief a few days later.

In the Matter of Sobolevsky, 2012 NY Slip Op 02959 (1st Dept. April 19, 2012), on reciprocal discipline from the Second Circuit:

When respondent informed the Second Circuit's Committee on Admissions and Grievances that he waived his right to appear at a hearing and did not intend to present witnesses on his behalf, but would rely on his July 2009 response, the Committee issued a report without holding a hearing, relying on court records and respondent's submissions. It concluded that respondent had submitted briefs of "shockingly poor quality," replete with defects such as incorrect clients' names, inclusion of irrelevant boilerplate, and reference to evidence that had not been submitted. It observed that respondent's explanation that he had relied on a paralegal for some of his work, and had filed that work without reviewing it, constituted an admission that he had aided the unauthorized practice of law in violation of DR 3-101(A) and failed to supervise non-lawyer staff acting at his direction, in violation of DR 1-104[C] and [D]. It found that respondent had neglected numerous matters in violation of DR 6-101(A)(3), resulting in the dismissal of seven petitions. It also found that most of his filing of petitions in the wrong circuit resulted from a failure to read the records and, in any event, showed a lack of respect for and lack of candor toward the court. The Committee on Admissions and Grievances recommended a two-year suspension, with respondent required to present evidence of attendance at CLE classes in brief-writing and law office management before being permitted to resume practice.

On issues of trial strategy, defense counsel is "captain of the ship." People v. Bergerud, 223 P.3d 686 (Colo. 2010).

ABAJ.com: Is Legal Profession Shakeout Long Overdue? Ratio of Lawyers to Americans Is 1 to 257 by Debra Cassens Weiss:

The legal profession may be a victim of its own success.

From 1940 to 1960, lawyers were losing ground as their inflation-adjusted income eroded, Bloomberg News reports, citing information from an upcoming book on law firm economics.

. . .

The article offers another statistic to illustrate the surplus of lawyers. In 1950, there was one lawyer for every 709 Americans. Today there is one lawyer for every 257 Americans.

When I became a lawyer, there were 250,000. Now that number is five times higher. No wonder some lawyers are out of work.

Under Book Updates at the top is the 2012 supplement to § 7:9, a state-by-state analysis of the rules of nonrefundable retainers that took me two days on Westlaw and the Internet to find the sources. If anyone finds an error, please tell me by email to forhall @ aol.com.