Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
STAMP AND THE BEACH CASE, WE
ARE TALKING ABOUT THE
CONDUIT AND THE LAWYER GOT
90 DAYS LOTS LESS.
AND THE ABRAMS CASE WAS JUST
AS SYSTEMIC, JUST AS
PERVASIVE BECAUSE IT'S THE
RELATIONSHIP.
>> YOU KNOW WHAT TROUBLES ME
ABOUT THAT IS THIS CASE WAS
A CASE INVOLVING A LAWYER
WHO HAD REPRESENTED THIS
PERSON AT AN UNLICENSED
PRACTICE OF LAW SITUATION
AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HE
HAS NOW PUT HER IN THE SAME
POSITION TO BE ABLE TO HAVE
THE UNLICENSES PRACTICE OF
LAW.
>> IN THE END RESULT IT DID.
HE DIDN'T MEAN TO DIE --
THAT DOESN'T MEAN HE DIDN'T
MEAN TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
THE STANDARD FOR DISBARMENT
IS HIGH.
YOU WANT TO FIND THIS IS A
LAWYER WHO CANNOT BE
REHABILITATED SHOULD NEVER
HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE
BAR AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
MITIGATION PRESENT IN THIS
CASE, THE RESUME MY CLIENT
PRESENTS THAT HE IS A GOOD
LAWYER.
HAD A BAD RELATIONSHIP THAT
ENCOMPASSED ONLY PART OF HIS
PRACTICE.
THANK YOU.
>> IN ONE MINUTE I WILL
ADDRESS THE CASES FOR
DISBARMENT.
>> OKAY BECAUSE WE, WE
REALLY HERE, YOU KNOW, WE,
IF THERE, IF IT HAS A
REASONABLE BASIS IN THE CASE
LAW, TO UPHOLD THE REFEREE'S
SANCTION OF THREE YEARS.
>> YES, I BELIEVE THAT THE
87-PAGE LONG REPORT OF
REFEREE IT GIVES COMPETENT,
INCLUDES COMPETENT AND
SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT REPORT,
IT WAS BROKEN DOWN IN 28
COUNTS.
IT'S SOLID.
>> BUT WE TAKE IT THAT IT'S
ALL TRUE.
>> YES.
>> NO WHY DON'T WE UPHOLD
THE THREE YEARS.
>> BECAUSE THE START POINT
FOR THIS ANALYSIS COMES ON
THE L SIR CASE.
THE L CERT CASE THIS COURT
FOUND A THREE-YEAR
SUSPENSION WAS APPROPRIATE
FOR ONLY ONE TYPE OF
MISCONDUCT.
WE HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT
GROUPINGS OF MISCONDUCT.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING AT
THE BEGINNING.
WE HAVE QUICKLY, WE HAVE THE
ISSUE OF THE VIOLATION OF
INJUNCTION.
WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF HIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
CLIENTS.
WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF HIS
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP.
AND THIS ONE CASE ONLY DEALT
WITH ONE AREA.
WHICH WAS THE, THE
COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE
ATTORNEY AND THE CLIENT IN
IMMIGRATION MATTERS.
YOU HAVE TO MULTIPLY THAT BY
FOUR DIFFERENT OTHER AREAS
OF MISCONDUCT IN THIS CASE
SO THE L. SERT GIVES THUS
BOTTOM LINE FOR ONE TIME OF
FOUR TYPES OF MISCONDUCT WE
HAVE HERE.
>> THEY ALL -- DOES IT ALL
ARISE BECAUSE OF THE
RELATIONSHIP, IN OTHER WORDS,
DID HE INDEPENDENTLY AS A
LAWYER SAY THAT THIS WAS AN
ANOTHER LAWYER THAT WAS IN
PARTNERSHIP?
DID HE -- WAS THERE GROSS
ACTS OF MISCONDUCT
INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE
RELATIONSHIP.
>> ABSOLUTELY MR. GLUECK
LIED TO THE BAR DURING THE
INVESTIGATION.
HE TRIED TO MISREPRESENT HIS
RELATIONSHIP WITH
MS. BECHTINGER.
NEVER MENTIONED HER NAME IN
ANY OF THE RESPONSES NEVER
MEMBERSED HE HAD A LAW FIRM
IN THAT LOCATION BUT WHEN
THE BAR STARTED ASKING THEM
THE CLIENTS WERE TELLING
THEY WENT TO YOUR LAW FIRM
EVERYTHING STARTS UNFOLDING.
AFTER THE SWORN STATEMENT I
TOOK FROM GLUECK WHERE HE
DENIED HAVING BECHTINGER
WORK FOR HIS LAW FIRM, I
SHOWED HIM AT THE END THE
CARD WITH HER NAME AS
PARALEGAL.
I, AND THEN THROUGH HIS
COUNCIL HE COMES AND SAYS,
0, I DID HAVE A SATELLITE
OFFICE AT MILLENIA.
2 1/2 YEARS AFTER HE'S
STARTING DENYING HE HAD
ANYTHING TO DO WITH
MILLENIA'S IMPROPER HANDLING
OF THE CASES.
>> MAYBE YOU DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS REALLY THAT
IF SHE HAD BEEN A LAWYER
BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT THE
CLIENT, THE SEVEN MONTHS,
DID HE COMMITMENT VIOLATION
SEPARATE VIOLATIONS
INCOMPETENTLY REPRESENTING
PEOPLE AND ABANDONING THEM?
WERE THOSE SEPARATELY
CHARGED OR DOES IT ALL ARISE
BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP
--
>> IF SHE WERE AN ATTORNEY,
HE WOULD'VE HAD A PROBLEM
WITH ALL THE LETTERS THAT
WERE COMING BACK ASKING FOR
FOLLOW-UPS AND THE
APPLICATIONS.
AND NOBODY RESPONDED TO
THOSE.
NOTHING WAS DONE WITH THOSE
BECAUSE THEY WERE THE
MILLENIA CLOSE LOCATION.
THEY STILL ABANDONED THE
CLIENTS BECAUSE THINGS WERE
NOT BEING RESPONDED TO SO
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT HE
ABANDONED THOSE CLIENTS, AND
I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE
ON THE INJUNCTION BECAUSE WE
HAVE FOCUSED ON THE FORMS.
THE INJUNCTION ACTUALLY SAYS
IN LETTER G, TAKING
INQUIRIES OR ANSWERING
QUESTIONS FROM PERSONS WHICH
PARTICULAR INS FORMS AND
APPLICATIONERIZE SUITED SO
SHE WAS THE PERSON ANSWERING
ALL THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE
THAT IS THE EVIDENCE FROM
THE COMPLAINANT.
CER SO IT'S NOT ABOUT THE
FORM HE GAVE HER.
SHE WAS THE FRONT OF THE
OPERATION.
IT'S PROVEN THROUGH THE
TESTIMONY, AND IT'S
CONSISTENT FROM ALL THESE
PEOPLE THAT WERE HURT.
THESE IMGRANTS THAT SOME OF
THEM WE GREAT FROM BRAZIL.
SOME OF THEM WERE IN OTHER
STATES.
HE REALLY AFFECTED THESE
PEOPLE'S LIVES AND THEIR
DREAMS TO BECOME EMIM GRNTS.
HE'S WRONG.
HE TARGETED PEOPLE THAT WERE
DESPERATE AND VULNERABLE.
>> WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT TO
PUNISH HER BY THE BAR WHEN
SHE CAME BACK TO THE
COUNTRY.
>> SHE LEFT BRAZIL.
WE DON'T KNOW HER STATS AND
I WILL ASK THE COURT --
>> SHE DIDN'T TESTIFY AT THE
HEARING.
>> NO, NOT AT THIS HEARING.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE IS.
PLEASE THE COURT LOOK AT THE
MITCHELL CASE, WHICH LOOKS
AT THE FREQUENCY AND
TOTALITY OF THE CPLINTS.
LOOK AT WILLIAMS WHICH DEALS
MORE HARSHLY WITH CUMULATIVE
DISBARMENT.
WHAT GLUECK DID IS
UNACCEPTABLE.
HE HAS BEEN IN PRACTICE FOR
31 YEARSF.
YOU DON'T DO THIS TO
CLIENTS.
HE MUST BE DISBARRED.
IT'S THE ONLY FAIR
CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE WILL TAKE THE CASE UNDER
ADVISEMENT.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.