tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post6211111558566527302..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: This was no peppercornRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-66888868233283907062012-01-24T23:25:44.231-06:002012-01-24T23:25:44.231-06:00There's over 20,000 lawyers in Wisconsin, many...There's over 20,000 lawyers in Wisconsin, many of them suspended for unpaid dues (which are bite in the wallet if one isn't making Justice coin, and which support the mandatory bar) and CLEs (another bite in the wallet). If there's another reason beyond that for the suspension for the attorney you reference (and I don't know him at all but have generally found him to be a better read)--although www.wisbar.org doesn't suggest anything other than that--don't be shy--throw it out there. But if that's all you have, move on to something else, or be the better Christian from the Christian U and help him out. Its not like he didn't complete the college degree. Maybe you can help that guy out too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-83549182331116453422012-01-22T19:15:57.621-06:002012-01-22T19:15:57.621-06:00" Note that this argument can't rest on t..." Note that this argument can't rest on the fact that fees are awarded only if the client (Justice Gableman) prevails. That's true of all contingency arrangements."<br /><br />Of course the argument can rest there. When a lawyer takes a case on contingency, he or she always evaluates their chances of, first, winning the case and, then, recovering fees or a percentage of the award. If the lawyer did not undertake the first part of the analysis, the lawyer would be an idiot. If MBF had no chance of winning, then the arrangement was bogus, even if MBF was certain to recover fees in the (hypothetical) event Gablemen prevailed.<br /><br />By the way, your conflation of the definition of a gift under the state ethics law with contract formation doctrine was one of the dumbest things I've read in awhile. The statute says "valuable!"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-38453240271484942812012-01-20T21:25:17.834-06:002012-01-20T21:25:17.834-06:00Well it is obvious to all readers that not-profess...Well it is obvious to all readers that not-professor Rick is a liar. Why do we privilege his shittings with a response ?Ken Kersthttp://gmail.conoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-17088455019548883862012-01-19T18:32:15.106-06:002012-01-19T18:32:15.106-06:00"As to the reference to a suspended lawyer, I..."As to the reference to a suspended lawyer, I obviously wrote something and then intended to edit it out of the post."<br /><br />Yet, the professor leaves up the comment, rather than make the appropriate changes. That busy with thinking of yet another defense for the conduct of Gablemen, huh!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-60522735402097010442012-01-19T14:05:05.391-06:002012-01-19T14:05:05.391-06:00Christ Seraphim was suspended from office for thre...Christ Seraphim was suspended from office for three years for taking advantage of a cozy deal with Rank & Son -- getting a car rented for $90 to $175 a month below what Rank & Son would have charged a person off the street -- and then sitting in cases in which Rank & Son was a party, and other misconduct.<br /><br />How is Justice Gableman's cozy deal with MBF any different?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-55311239615392376522012-01-19T13:32:11.983-06:002012-01-19T13:32:11.983-06:00Hey, Rick, can you do me a favor and stop blogging...Hey, Rick, can you do me a favor and stop blogging about this little ethics thing?<br /><br />Oh, wait. Let me rephrase. <br /><br />How about them Packers?<br /><br /><br /><br />MikeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-61065693850987945952012-01-19T13:21:32.203-06:002012-01-19T13:21:32.203-06:00Wait a minute. Wait one minute. I've looked ...Wait a minute. Wait one minute. I've looked at the Claims Board statute, and what it is about is compensating claims against the State. How in God's name would Justice Gableman ever have a claim against the State for reimbursement of his fees spent defending the ethics charge here? I get it that if a public employee, in the course of his or her official duties, had done something that caused legal proceedings to be instituted against him or her, maybe there's some law or theory that would require reimbursement of expenses caused by the performance of their duties. The ethics charge related to ads Gableman ran before he was elected to the Supreme Court. How are fees spent defending them even remotely compensable as a claim against the State of Wisconsin? Isn't this just a fig leaf? Couldn't the fee agreement have said MBF will look solely to any fees awarded under 42 USC section 1988 (which wouldn't apply), or for that matter oil discovered in Gableman's backyard, for any recovery?<br /><br />The closer you look at this fee arrangement, the stinkier it gets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-21790170876169539912012-01-19T08:09:49.068-06:002012-01-19T08:09:49.068-06:00No, there is not a $ 5000 cap. One can seek a high...No, there is not a $ 5000 cap. One can seek a higher amount from the legislature - a process that I referred to in my post. That makes it harder (and I acknowledged that) but not so hard as to render it illusory and subject Gableman (and MBF) to potential discipline and criminal charges.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-86361174913955592572012-01-19T08:07:19.748-06:002012-01-19T08:07:19.748-06:00Anon 8:37
As to the reference to a suspended lawy...Anon 8:37<br /><br />As to the reference to a suspended lawyer, I obviously wrote something and then intended to edit it out of the post. I have bitten my tongue countless times on that subject. I had intended to do it again but was in the middle of about six things and missed it. (I am, in any event, one of the world's worst proof readers.)<br /><br />Apparently the guy is leaving Wisconsin and I wish him well.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-89296730528938106352012-01-18T20:37:04.840-06:002012-01-18T20:37:04.840-06:00"But, in fairness to Dr. Baynton, he's no..."But, in fairness to Dr. Baynton, he's not the only one. For example law school graduate (and suspended lawyer) Others ahve done the same thing"<br /><br />Professor, you probably should proofread before you post.<br /><br /><br />Yes, "others" have made it well-known of their insistence that the actions undertaken by Gableman, in their view, constitute a breach of judicial ethics. <br /><br />Now, professor, why did you choose not to name specifically this "law school graduate"? <br /><br />Why the insinuation regarding this person's PAST problems with their credentials? Indeed, what are the reasons why this person had a suspended license?<br /><br />Care to elaborate?<br /><br />True, this person has not been kind to you in a number of his posts, and he has "punked" you out several occasions, but why stoop to his level? I thought you would be above the fray, you know, with your Marquette gig and all. <br /><br />Apparently, not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-49030813570772332232012-01-18T20:01:09.591-06:002012-01-18T20:01:09.591-06:00Justice Gobleman is a posterboy for shady protocol...Justice Gobleman is a posterboy for shady protocol. The perception is reality, and that is Gobleman used his position to curry favor that otherwise would not be proffered him. Question for the Perfessor - is your role to defend all malfeasance on the right? Call a spade a spade fer cryin out loud! You can still keep your conservative credentials.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-67510260953475977442012-01-18T18:12:06.683-06:002012-01-18T18:12:06.683-06:00Anon 5:44: No, Siefert v. Alexander does not supp...Anon 5:44: No, Siefert v. Alexander does not support the MBF-Gableman arrangement here. The federal statute authorizing an award of attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in civil rights cases, 42 USC section 1988, has no cap on how much can be awarded. Siefert's actual attorneys' fees and expenses were about $52,000, and, evidently after minor quibbling about the reasonableness of something, $50,177.03 was awarded and paid. That's a far cry from the $5000 MBF stood to earn, for what was probably about the same amount of work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-78677865181250384022012-01-18T17:44:35.481-06:002012-01-18T17:44:35.481-06:00No one would argue that someone who has suffered p...No one would argue that someone who has suffered personal injuries but is unable to recover damages has received a gift from the attorney who represented her on a contingency fee basis. Furthermore, there is recent precedent in this state that supports the MBF-Gableman arrangement here. A few years ago, a Wisconsin state court judge challenged in federal court the judicial ethics code that prohibited him from running in a judicial election as a Democrat. He won the case and, under the federal statute analogous to the state statute relied on by MBF, his attorneys were awarded fees. No complaint was ever made that he received a gift from the attorneys, whom he paid nothing and who had represented him on a contingency basis under the federal statute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-80299186547714878752012-01-18T15:05:32.879-06:002012-01-18T15:05:32.879-06:00Your post is disingenuous. You fail to mention th...Your post is disingenuous. You fail to mention that the Claims Board by statute had a $5000 cap on what it could reimburse. MB & F didn't do Justice Gableman a favor to collect $5000, maybe. MB & F did Justice Gableman a favor to do Justice Gableman a favor. You know it, I know it, the people of Wisconsin know it. Let's not play make-believe.<br /><br />Your reference to the legislature is a most oblique reference to an argument you've made more openly elsewhere, that the Legislature could have passed a law allowing the reimbursement of more than $5000. Evidently it's done that once before for a portion of a public official's legal fees. This is way too thin a reed to support your argument that this wasn't a gift. It would have taken an Act of Congress to create the reimbursement right required to turn this into something other than a gift. Not really, but an Act of the Wisconsin Legislature. If the world were other than it is, if the laws were other than they are, this wouldn't be a gift. Ba-loney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-22809009938057392632012-01-18T10:38:43.610-06:002012-01-18T10:38:43.610-06:00And the absence of this arrangement from his finan...And the absence of this arrangement from his financial disclosure forms?Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.com