But this is something you need to know.
While I have devoted much of the space here to talking about lawyers who lie on the internet and pretend they are someone else, this is a case where two lawyers have allowed another "lawyer" to treat them like a hostage in a third world country, (Link takes you to apology of Lori Palmieri to Joseph Rakofsky, it has no title as a title would give it "google juice" and not be a very good marketing tactic, better not to be able to find it when looking to hire Palmieri because it would damage her marketing plan), spewing propaganda for the purpose of saving themselves.
And they have done so magnificently.
Their next move should be to advise their state bar that they no longer have the character and fitness to practice law and are surrendering their licenses.
They have both settled a case, caved in to the plaintiff, where there is no jurisdiction over them.
Let me say that again.
They couldn't lose.
They couldn't even be ordered to attend one court hearing.
Nothing would have ever happened.
Settling a case under these circumstances is called incompetence.
And of course these lawyers have their defenders.
But defending incompetence and cowardliness is embracing those concepts as acceptable.
Lori Palmieri, markets herself as a fighter - she's "your key to justice." Former prosecutor turned criminal defense lawyer. She gives no appearance that she would ever cave in to nothing. Never. Ever. Nor that she would criticise those that chose to fight. Palmieri graduated from my law school and claims membership in FACDL, but I've never met her, and never heard her name, anywhere.
Martha Sperry, well I'm not sure she practices law, as she spends her days blogging advising on shiny toys and apps. But she is a lawyer, and she should know that if there's no jurisdiction, there's no jurisdiction.
In fact, Martha wrote:
I was sued by Mr. Rakofsky and I do not feel his legal claim has merit against me. But I believe in the legal system and that is where I feel this dispute should be resolved, not the blogosphere.
But then hypocrisy set in...
Martha wrote several posts in apology, and then shucked and jived in the comments section like no other in response to the questions of real lawyers, and former co-defendants.
She resolved her case, in the blogosphere.
And of course she claims that people are "messaging" her in support, as all tech hacks and cowards do. We haven't seen any of these messages, but I assume (if they really exist) they are from the people who think Martha is wonderful and nothing she does is wrong because she knows a lot about Google and shiny toys.
And it's not even that these "awwyers" settled, it's their attack on the fighters, those who understand the law, who really practice law, and who won't be bullied (there's that word again) by a lawyer with no case.
It's the, "uh, well, I, uh, what are you asking me, uh, well, I, uh," responses.
Why did they settle?
Fear.
Couldn't be bothered.
Maybe they're broke and can't afford to file a motion to dismiss.
Maybe they don't know any lawyers who would help them.
Maybe a combination of all three.
But if you check out their internet presences, you'd never know the background.
And don't we love that?
Anonymous comments are welcome as long as they say something relevant and half-way intelligent and arent a vehicle for a coward to attack someone. I trust you understand. Located in Miami, Florida, Brian Tannebaum practices Bar Admission and Discipline and Criminal Defense. He is the author of I Got A Bar Complaint.
No comments:
Post a Comment