IS IT A LAWYER’S DUTY TO INITIATE DISBARMENT?

PROCEEDINGS WHEN SUPPORTED BY THE FACTS? What follows is an excerpt from my book, Disbarment, which deals with this weighty subject. As applied in this context, the word “duty” is, in effect, an instruction to a lawyer to proceed without discretion. Whew! This was dynamite; David sucked in a deep breath. Although hanging on every word, he coaxed himself to go slowly, soak in each meaning to make sure to climb the mountain only once! Canon 1 listed six ethical considerations, which he read with his finger pointed to each word. Then, big as life, as if the words were dancing on stage, Ethical Consideration 1-4 pirouetted in a twirl and landed like a thump. “My God,” he exclaimed.
“A lawyer shall reveal voluntarily to those officials all unprivileged knowledge of the conduct of lawyers which he believes clearly to be in violation of the disciplinary rules.”
David slumped to the floor. His shoulders sagged with the weight of his responsibility. The honor system in law school jogged his memory. There was Professor Crandon, tall, bi-speckled, bald-headed, graying, his Criminal Law professor, giving him his first law examination. No attendance was taken. Nothing. The professor left. Nobody was watching you, and yet, everyone was watching you. Each student had the duty to report cheaters. Without exception, so imbued was the system that no one dared look up during an examination to avoid the slightest suspicion. Disciplinary Rule (DR) 1-102 entitled “Disclosure of Information to Authorities” set forth what he had to do without choice. Needles pricked, his face drained.
(a) A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge of a violation of DR 1-102 shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
(b) A lawyer possessing unprivileged knowledge or evidence concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges. DR 1-102 went on to read: MISCONDUCT. (A) A lawyer shall not: 1. Violate a Disciplinary Rule. 2. Circumvent a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another. 3. Engage in illegal… Clumsily, he shoved himself up from the floor, blatantly tossing the pamphlet in the direction of the bookshelf. It hit the side, falling to the floor; he didn’t bother, nor consider, nor want, nor have the energy to pick it up. Funny. All those times he wanted to write a letter to the editor criticizing a public official and didn’t; the times when he wanted to bitch to the waitress to take back an overcooked meal and didn’t. Why? Because he didn’t want to get involved. He would keep his mouth shut and his pen silenced. Now more tha.n:ever he didn’t want to “make waves.” Feeling trapped, he began flaying wildly in his mind for ways to keep this disaster with Mason hushed up. Bewildering! A few months ago everything was going uneventfully well. Now, he was immersed up to his “eyeballs” in Mason’s unprincipled actions and feeling uncomfortably warm because of it. Rain. He longed for drenching rain. Prepared by Jerry Sonenblick, lawyer, author of the fictional legal thriller, Disbarment depicting a nefarious lawyer’s betrayal to his clients, and another lawyer’s maximum exercise of moral courage to overcome his misdeeds.

-JS

Is it true that with the use of Crowdfunding that money for business purposes can be raised over the Internet?

Absolutely true. Crowdfunding is but one platform for this purpose. There is also Kickstarter and IndieGoGo. To date, Kickstarter alone has raised more than $350 million on 30,000 projects.
The entire process is legal. Has been set up under the JOBS Act as an exemption under the Securities Act of 1933. There are rules for investors whose annual income is less than $100,000, and for those above either $100,000 in annual income or a net worth in excess of $100,000, they can invest up to 10%.
To abandon these funding rules, an investment of $2000, or less, requires that no net worth or annual income information be filed.
A Funding Portal is required to raise the money. These are independent gatekeepers for crowd funding offerings, who are act as an independent gate keeper for these offerings. There is other research and investigative work that the funding portal must do to approve the offering.
Should you wish to go forward it is recommended that you obtain the services of a law specialist specializing in securities work.
If you are an investor, you are required to conduct your own independent investigation concerning the integrity of the players and the soundness of their business.
If you are a raising the capital, you should furnish solid business information, including total background of the primary parties in the company, together with a budget as to the ways and means money raised will be used.

-JS

What can be done to save the Republican Party from” shooting itself in the foot?” Part Two

(This is the second and last of a two-part series)
Please read Part One before you proceed.
The big issues of today are:
• Immigration • Deficit reduction • Defense budget • Gun Control • New infrastructure • Additional jobs • Revise tax code • Climate control
Because of time and space limitations I shall address Immigration only.
IMMIGRATION
Let’s first be upfront. The Republicans have been primarily against immigration. One of their targets has been “the dreamers”, which refers to that group of young people that have grown up in this country, some, no doubt, are unaware that they were not legal citizens. With a few exceptions, most have gone to school in this country, observed the laws, and generally have been good citizens.

If we pass a law that allows these young people to stay in this country and eventually obtain citizenship, the Republicans in the past would have bellowed loud and clear it’s “Amnesty.” However, since President Obama’s reelection, many, and perhaps close to a majority, of the Republicans have switched gears.

As a result, Amnesty is no longer a subject for discussion. Similarly, let us no longer question political motivation. The Republicans now appear ready to deal with practical politics and solutions. The question is, what can be done to create bipartisan between the parties on this subject of immigration?

The Republicans already have done something positive. They announced that they were working on a bipartisan basis with the Democrats to come up with a workable solution. Perhaps it was unwise, but in any event, president Obama also proposed legislation on the subject. Right away the Republicans claimed that the president was “grandstanding” and said “no” immediately. Assuming, that the president’s actions were either grandstanding or in any event, ill-timed, that was the time for the Republicans to step up as statesmen, react positively to what the president proposed and suggest that for the time being his proposal be held in abeyance, until the working committee set up by the Democrats and the Republicans could arrive at their own solution. They should’ve ignored motivation; they should have” stood above the fray,” and showed that they were upstanding, mature, legislative leaders. Unfortunately, they fell into the” no” trap all over again.

Of course, let us not be naïve. Had the Republicans reacted positively, it could have been ” window dressing.” Yet, sometimes, even an artificial response can be of value for purposes of establishing momentum and purpose.

Let’s hope that the Democrats and Republicans working together can propose something original and more acceptable to their respective parties for the benefit of the country, and not for the benefit necessarily of any individual candidate seeking reelection. If they want to tighten border security as part of their immigration proposal, which is a very complex issue and very difficult to define,
why don’t they ibiththeir definition of border security, nonetheless, since there is no such things as full security, make that a simultaneous requirement, and work together from there. Once again the Republicans can be heroes if they spell out what they thinkknecessary for full security and stop just knocking proposals by Administration.idtherwise, they are to be faulted once again for seeking political advantage and not seeking what is best for society.

I say to the Republicans, as a fellow American of the opposing party, act as is expected of a statesman. Ego, self-dealings, reelection considerations, have no part in decision-making. This is true, and applies to all Democrats as well, especially those Democrats, who are highly idealistic and find it difficult to move towards the give-and-take of a reasonable solution.
Prepared by Jerry Sonenblick, lawyer, author of the fictional legal thriller, Disbarment, depicting, Mason Grewe, a nefarious lawyer, who betrays his clients, and, David Sherwood, a fellow lawyer, who is called upon to exercise maximum moral courage to overcome Mason’s misdeeds. A pitched courtroom battle presented by brilliant legal minds ensues before the Supreme Court of Arizona.

-JS

What can be done to save the Republican Party from” shooting itself in the foot?” Part One

(This is the first of a two-part series)
Although I am a lifelong Democrat, I favor the two-party system and want to keep the Republican Party alive and well. It is better this way for the overall health of the country.

So, despite the fact that I do not have all of the insider political knowledge and information, and notwithstanding the fact that I have never run for public office myself, though I confess to being a political ” junkie” at times, I shall sound off nonetheless.
The results of the last election have made the Republicans aware of the fact that they’ve got to do something. They talk about cleaning up their rhetoric, so that they appear more positive and less the party of “No.” I think they are fooling themselves. The American public is not that naïve. Quite a bit more has to be done
Having said all this I am quite aware of the Tea Party faction within the Republican Party and how difficult they can be. I’m not sure they look for solutions, because they are so ideologically inclined. I’m sure that they hate to hear the expression “the practical,” but such inflexibility will not work. What will work is to develop ways and means of arriving at “solutions.”
Instead of saying” no” to everything, and in order to clear up their image, why don’t the Republicans say to something that is proposed by the Democrats, such as “that has merit” or “we agree in part” or something else, which indicates cooperation, but reserves the right to offer their ideas towards a workable solution.
Out of necessity, the Republicans are going to have to adapt to this new approach. Let’s examine this approach with more specificity.

In broad terms, especially as viewed by the Republicans, the Democratic Party likes to pose new programs to improve conditions, most of which the Republicans believe are too costly. On the other hand, the Republicans in broad terms favor deficit reductions, smaller government, and only new programs that do not add to additional deficits. The only exception, the Republicans might allow has to do with spending for security and proper military defense.
So as a general rule, under the old rules of conduct, prior to the recent elections, if a new proposal does not fit into these parameters, they oppose it because in their opinion, no matter how worthy, higher deficits and greater bloated government will result.
If, the Republicans truly wish to improve their image, what solutions can they propose? I recognize the risk they would be taking. By making the first proposal, they open the door to getting “shot down,” because it exposes the Republicans to criticism. Despite this possible paranoia, if they did so proceed anyway, they would be taking a positive approach and would be indicating that they’re looking for solutions. What I really don’t understand is, since the Republicans do not want to raise taxes, why they don’t offer other ways to generate income?
Consider the following sources of potential income:
1. Set up of a committee, hopefully with the Democrats to revise the tax code. Perhaps, it would be wise to start out slowly, and work on the major areas first. Since the tax code is very complex, it may take 5 to 10 years. So what, get started. 2. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to eliminate waste in government, organize tighter expenditure controls, and consider possible job elimination (notwithstanding the fact that job elimination may be politically difficult). 3. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to remove earmarks, and spell out in advance, those few areas or subjects, where earmarks may still be allowed.

4. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats to examine the expense accounts all legislators and to tighten the rules.
5. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to examine all waste a foreign expenditures, especially military expenditures, and work out ways and means of tightening all spending.
6. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to establish proper auditing to maintain tight controls over all government expenditures.
7. Provide for an investigative committee, hopefully with the Democrats, to investigate the establishment of toll charges for new infrastructure.
Now it is true, and I recognize that the Republicans will have to “swallow hard,” because to make these investigations, it will require more hiring and larger government, perhaps on a temporary basis, and perhaps not. Yet, the overall gain in the long run will far exceed these additional expenditures.
This is the end of Part One. Part Two will next follow in three days.

-JS