Tuesday, November 4, 2008

The Election

Wow.

What a wild night. At the moment, I'm still rather speechless at the county-wide rejection of some of the finest Judges in the Country.

It is incredibly sad to me that Judicial Races still carry partisan titles with them, because that (and only that) is the reason the races ended today in the way which they did. Excellent judges were swept out by uninformed voters that pulled straight ticket. I'm still slightly confused by how one survived when the rest didn't (although I'm happy for Judge Ellis).

As I've discussed before (ad nauseum) the race for District Attorney was a tough one for me to evaluate. Ultimately, I'm satisfied that Lykos won the race, because I know that she will continue to prosecute as the job dictates that she should. I sincerely wish her luck in the job. It's not an easy one, and given the circumstances, it's going to keep getting tougher.

As for me, I believe that I will get up tomorrow morning and go do my job.

47 comments:

James Dixon said...

Good luck to all who were adversely affected by these races. I can't even really be snarky this morning.

Anonymous said...

What an embarassment to the people of Harris County. We now have lost six fair and great Judges. (Sorry Rains, you are not one of them). To lost the likes of Devon Anderson, Roger Bridgwater, Caprice Cosper, Brock Thomas, and Don Stricklin hurts not just the system, but the community.

ADAs jobs will now include baby-sitting these new Judges who have not EARNED the right to be on the bench.

Just wait for the reversals to start coming back and costing the tax payers $$$$$ before they may notice.

What a crock of sh!t.

Ron in Houston said...

Well after all the hell we gave Lykos, I'll bet you're glad you're mostly anonymous.

Politics is amazing and insane all at the same time. You're so right about the straight ticket voters. Who knows what sort of crazy folks got swept into office now.

A Harris County Lawyer said...

Well Ron, I'm pretty much only semi-anonymous anymore. Pretty much everyone knows who I am because I've told them.

It really wouldn't be my style to keep in hiding.

Anonymous said...

Partisan, straight-ticket voting for judicial races is ridiculous.

But also remember that some mail-in ballots have yet to be counted. Could be important for the closest races.

Thomas Hobbes said...

Unlike Anon0640 (an appellation that reminds me of the "good and gentle townsfolk of locker C-18"), I'm only bothered by the loss of Cosper and Thomas, and, in a broader sense, by the replacement of all four Drug Court judges at once. I don't think that's good for any program.

Contrary to his/her/its assertion, those who were elected to replace the incumbents earned the right to be on the bench in the same way that anyone else earns it in Texas - by popular vote. No one ever said that the consequences of democracy were always pleasant. Speaking as someone who voted for both Republicans and Democrats in local races, I am disgusted by the availability of straight-ticket voting that permits voters to abdicate deliberative thought in favor of expediency or blind obedience to ideology.

Leviathan

Anonymous said...

I'll believe Lykos won when I hear it officially. I think Bradford is still going to try and steal this election somehow. I think he'll demand a recount, then file a Lawsuit maybe? Who knows.

But I never heard Bradford concede. There is a reason for that. I know Bradford and I don't trust him.

I guess we'll see...but I've got this nagging feeling...

Mark Bennett said...

Anon640, I am pretty sure that only a prosecutor would with a straight face call Devon Anderson and Don Stricklin "fair and great judges."

All of the incumbents you name were baby judges when they took the bench; most did so fairly recently. How do you think they "EARNED" the right to be on the bench?

Most ADAs don't know a whole lot of law. Are you worried about these new judges not toeing the Office line?

Anonymous said...

Mark,

I look forward to hearing your comments regarding several of the newly elected judges come February or March. Especially the one who has never practiced criminal law. That should be "interesting" for both sides.

Anonymous said...

Will Lycos let me wear my pant suits??????

future crook said...

The New Year's resolution for the Harris County criminal element will be "time to rock and roll hood rats....what a GREAT county!!!" I love it!!!!

Anonymous said...

I would like to take this opportunity to speak directly to Mark Bennett. First, Mr. Bennett was licensed in Texas in 1995. Out of the eight incumbent criminal district court judges, three have been sitting on the bench longer than Mr. Bennett has been licensed to practice law in the state of Texas. Additionally, all eight incumbent criminal district court judges have a greater tenure of licensure in the state of Texas than Mr. Bennett.

Why is this important? A “fair and great” judge is generally defined as an individual with experience, sense, and judgment. It is an individual who is above reproach.

Among the eight incumbent criminal district court judges in Harris County, there is a vast amount of experience even within their tenure at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office. I have listened to Mr. Bennett’s routine criticism of prosecutors as idiots, buffoons, and bad lawyers. Mr. Bennett, you would not survive one week as a prosecutor at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office because you do not possess the heart to do so. I have colleagues who habitually take time away from their families in order to promote justice and truth. You, however, continuously perform a circus of distortion both in and out of the courtroom. There are prosecutors who have so dedicated themselves to the mission of justice as a prosecutor that they jeopardize their own health and safety. There are prosecutors who suffer from serious illness but continuously report to duty because they believe in their position and task. Certainly, no lawyer’s mind if filled with all of the legal knowledge in the universe; however, you choose to accept and litigate cases against baby prosecutors who are new to the practice of law and are learning on the job. They may not be the most brilliant legal minds yet; but, they still give you a run for your money.

Anonymous said...

I find it amusing that everyone is complaining about straight ticket voting now. So how does it feel to have the shoe on the other foot?

Anonymous said...

I think there is a HUGE difference between straight ticket voting when the voter is informed, and agrees with a particular party's platform and values...and straight ticket voting just because one candidate is a particular skin color.

Anyone who votes for a person just because of that preson's skin color is a moron...

Anonymous said...

Wow, I wasn't even talking about race, I was talking about political parties alone. But now that you mention it, Anonymous at 4:43pm, are you attributing the harris county outcome to straight ticket voters who voted based on skin color? That is a pretty bold statment to make considering the demographics of where we live.

That's like saying the people who voted against a candidate because he has a certain middle name represent a huge part of the other side. I believe the majority of both republicans/democrats are a little more open minded than that.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying. I've spoken to a lot of friends and acquaintances who told me unashamedly why they were voting straight party this time. And, surprisingly or not, it was because of race. Bold statement or not, it's the truth.

And I don't think its all that shocking if you're honest with yourself.

If you think the largest turnout for the Democratic party in years had nothing to do with the fact that Barack Obama was at the top of the ticket, then you're either 1) lying to yourself, 2) trying to lie to us, or 3) just can't get past all the politically correct bs...

Thomas Hobbes said...

To Anon1643 (and I assume 2120, etc.) . . .

There is little difference in whether one votes straight-ticket because of race or political philosophy. Either requires a significant amount of Kool-Aid, laziness, or blind obedience to ideology, all of which are equally deserving of ridicule. The knothead who fails to consider the individual candidates - regardless of the aforementioned factors - does a disservice to everyone.

Leviathan

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone would disagree with me when I say the loss of Caprice Cosper is a huge one for the citizens of Harris County. She has always been fair, impartial, honest, and exceedingly intelligent.

While I respect the voters' right to choose, it's way past time this state found a better way to choose judges than by popular vote.

Judge Cosper's loss is our loss too. Hopefully she will move on to better things, like a position on the Court of Criminal Appeals.

Anonymous said...

I can't wait to go before Judge Roll, that will be superrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Did you see what Judge Roll put in the paper today? That he and the other newbies will shake things up a bit. I guess for some of them...you put your name on enough tickets, you get lucky.

As for Cosper and Thomas... two huge losses for the County. And the most rediculous thing is that Judge Jackson has no experience handing out anything other than $500 fines. How does that make you feel? Me, not so good.

And in speaking with a more seasoned defense attorney, I inquired about Ruben Geurrero and what it was like when he was the bench before. The answer was....LAZY LAZY AND LAZY. And not good for either side. Wonderful. Just what I want in a judge...

Anonymous said...

Oh, I DO think the largest turnout in years for the democratic party was because of Barack Obama, I just think there are alot more reasons than just his race. You're the one who needs to wake up.

Anonymous said...

Randy Roll is the same person who asked an African American prosecutor if she was a "Canadian" as the "Canadian" email scandal hit... Great person to have on the bench.

Anonymous said...

Partisanship is the only reason those judges were where they were for so long, so it's kind of fitting that partisanship is what did them in.

Mark Bennett said...

1201, There's no question that some terrific judges were replaced by judges who are, at best, questionable. That is -- as others point out -- the cost of partisan election of judges.

1441, you're welcome to address me "directly" at mb@IVI3.com. I don't come back here often.

Neither tenure as a lawyer, nor prosecutorial service, nor time as a judge raises one above reproach. I don't argue with your characterization of Bridgwater, Thomas, or Cosper. But a judge may appear fair from one side of the courtroom and not from the other. When a judge is really fair, both sides can agree.

Six of the eight new judges have been practicing law longer than I have. Here's how long:

Guerrero - 32 years,
Reagin - 19 years,
Fine - 14 years,
Mendoza - 29 years,
Roll - 20 years, and
Ritchie - 34 years

(6 years and 12 years for the other two, Jackson and Jones).

Except for Judges Bridgwater (28 years) and Stricklin (26 years), all of the seven ousted incumbents attained the bench when they had fewer than 15 years of experience as lawyers (and none as judge):
Rains - 12 years,
Anderson - 13 years,
Wilkinson - 14 years,
Thomas - 9 years,
Cosper - 9 years.

So on average, the new judges have more legal experience than the old judges had when they became judges. But experience doesn't substitute for sense and judgment, and it doesn't make a judge fair. A couple of the Democratic challengers have judicial experience (in real courts), but they're not the best of the new crop. Judge Rains, similarly, has been sitting on the bench longer than I've been licensed; he is still, by acclamation, a terrible judge.

Even though I've apparently been a lawyer long enough, I'm still not running for judge.

I'm also not looking for a job at the DA's office. I hold freedom as a higher good than safety. I recognize that reasonable people might have different priorities, and I admire those who are as dedicated to their vision of justice as I am to mine. But if you believe that being a prosecutor gives one a monopoly on justice and truth, you probably need to spend some time in the real world.

Like the prosecutors you admire, lots of defense lawyers neglect their families and their health because they believe in their task.

But employment in the DA's Office doesn't qualify a person to be judge any more than being a defense lawyer does. It doesn't qualify one to "babysit" a judge either. All it qualifies one to do is carry out Office doctrine.

Most ADAs don't know a whole lot of law just like most defense lawyers don't know a whole lot of law. (I saw Kelly Siegler in trial once betray an absolute ignorance of the fundamental evidentiary law governing the case.) Most ADAs, like most defense lawyers, shouldn't be babysitting judges. There are notable exceptions on both sides of the courtroom; there's no reason for you to get all snitty.

I accept and litigate cases against whoever happens to have them. I also take and try federal cases, which are a whole 'nother world of challenges for the defense. I have absolutely no fear of getting my ass kicked in trial; I don't know where you get the idea that I'm picking and choosing.

I'm sure I haven't had the pleasure of litigating a case against you (at least not in recent years) because if I had you would know that instead of a "circus of distortion" I win (or lose) by telling the truth that helps my client. You're free, of course, to sub in for the prosecutor on any of my cases and find out.

I always wonder whether I should even respond to slimy personal attacks from people who don't have the honor even to put their names to their accusations. What's your excuse? You attack people from the cover of anonymity because otherwise it might affect adversely affect you in some way? That makes you a coward. You're breaking your employer's rules? Well, then you're a liar and a cheat too.

Anonymous said...

Judge Randolph Roll- sweet Jesus!! Have fun with that one folks!!

Anonymous said...

If Mark ever went against Kelly, it would be a massacre; sorry Mark - you are not on the same skill level she is.

Mark Bennett said...

1645, no need to apologize. I have always had great admiration for Kelly's advocacy skills. I'm an unabashed fan of Kelly's, and am not so arrogant that I think I'm as good an advocate as she is. She's quite a bit older than me, and she's beaten some of the best defense lawyers in the world. I've never claimed to be the best; I'm shooting for "the best for those cases I take."

Not only is your attempt to take a swipe at me ineffectual, but it is irrelevant as well.

I would try my hand against Kelly (like I said, I'm not afraid to lose in trial, and I might get lucky with those pesky facts), but -- and you may not have noticed this -- Kelly's no longer at the Harris County DA's Office. And if she can't convince the jury to kill the defendant in the whale (murder of a cop committed on video) she's trying in Wharton County, I don't foresee much future for her as a prosecutor-for-hire either.

So you telling me I'm not on her level is, in the end, kinda like me telling you you're not on Percy Foreman's level -- we'll never find out in this lifetime.

The discussion was about judges, and Kelly's a good example of a great trial advocate not necessarily making a good judge. The only time I ever faced Kelly in trial, she was sitting second, and her lack of knowledge of the evidentiary law that applied to the highly-specialized case was evident woeful. Many of the best trial lawyers aren't good "law women". (Nor, incidentally, are their ethics always beyond reproach.)

So are you as good as Kelly?

HPD 101 said...

Mark Bennett,
Guilt or innocence was never a real issue in the game warden case as it was in the David Temple case. Kelly has, as expected, already convinced the jury of the game warden's guilt. You're confusing the David Temple case where your mentor Dick DeGuerin had workable facts but inferior skills; with the real issue at hand which is proving future threat in a case where the defendant has no past history to support the assertion. Death is not a "whale" in this case......maybe you're projecting since Kelly would kick you're butt soundly in this case or any case and you're an excuse maker.
The illegal alien with an extensive criminal record who recently shot and killed an HPD officer while handcuffed in the back of a cruiser......now that was a "whale" that didn't get the harpoon.
Kelly's age is not relevant to her superior courtroom prowess....she's inherently a better trial lawyer then you today, yesterday and tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

hpd 101:

From what I have seen of her, I think you are vastly overestimating her skill level. In Harris County a prosecutor need not know the rules of evidence or procedure, because the courts will just give them everything they want anyway. Like in the family courthouse, evidence and procedure are loosely construed at best, and oftentimes completely ignored.

I mean, with falsified DNA/drug evidence from the crime lab, false breathalyzer reports from uncalibrated machines, prosecution witnesses manufacturing Law & Order episodes as proof of sanity, and judges joking that it's OK for a defense lawyer to sleep during trial because the Constitution doesn't specifically say that your lawyer has to be awake, it's a wonder than any defense lawyer wins in Harris County, ever. Under those circumstances, I bet even you could get a conviction or two.

The system needs to change. I hope Lycos has been looking at Dallas County and will open files (and their minds) to the way things should be done so that the rights of all citizens are protected and where conviction rate is not the only test of effectiveness.

ahcl: No offense man, there are good public servants out there that are more concerned with justice, and the above examples are certainly not an indictment of every prosecutor. But Holmes, Rosenthal, Siegler (and Bradford) were all part of the system that helped sweep the scandals under the rug for too long. That system needs to change. I hope Lykos can be that vehicle, but I remain skeptical.

HPD 101 said...

ANON 1037,
If the current Dallas County DA and Lykos serve as your benchmarks of ethics and equity.....you need to do your homework. Let's see what transpires in Dallas and Harris Counties over the coming months and years before you pass judgment in such a cavalier fashion. There's more to the current Dallas County DA's tenure then truth and justice....and we haven't seen anything yet in Harris County. Echols/Lykos arrogance will give new meaning to good old boys....hold on to your seat.

Anonymous said...

hpd:

I believe I specifically stated that I hoped Lykos could be the vehicle for change.

(checks previous post)

Yep, that's what I said. I did not make a rousing defense of Lykos. Get your panties out of a wad, go arrest someone for DWB to get rid of some of that anger and frustration.

As for Dallas County, at least Watkins is taking a serious look at past questionable convictions. That's a step in the right direction.

I think you might also need to take your own advice as to waiting to pass judgment. It seems you may have some infatuation with Siegler that causes your bias (and admittedly, I'd hit it), but she left on her own terms. Hell, her paperwork was so late that she's lucky nobody contested her filing. That was the single greatest mistake made by the Democratic Party--Bradford would have beat Siegler.

Best of luck to you in your future anger management classes.

Anonymous said...

Ummm...let me check your posts...

"Get your panties out of a wad, go arrest someone for DWB to get rid of some of that anger and frustration."

"It seems you may have some infatuation with Siegler that causes your bias (and admittedly, I'd hit it)..."

Yep! I think that it's you who might need those anger management classes, Anon 1:45. You're a real class act.

HPD 101 said...

Anon 145,
Guilt by mere association trumped actual wrong doing. Rosenthal was and is a total and complete disgrace on so many levels that his stench tainted any prosecutor under him that dared to stand up and run in this past election. Notwithstanding, Kelly Siegler gave it a heck of a shot and would have fared better then Lykos in a general election. The Republican run off was dominated by a bunch of angry old blue haired republican women and some good old boy politics. Integrity and honesty took a back seat to political corruption that day and we all know it.
As for my infatuation with Kelly Siegler: it is more appropriate to label my feelings towards her as profound gratitude. Kelly Siegler prosecuted the killer of my son. She demonstrated a degree of compassion way beyond any reasonable expectation our family could have imagined. She was always available to me, my wife and my son's widow during our terrible ordeal. The day to day tragedies I had experienced prior to my son's brutal murder did not come close to prepare me for my horrific loss. My family and I will always share a profound debt and gratitude for Kelly's compassion as well as her courtroom brilliance. I have probably seen more human suffering then you will ever know.....at least I hope so. To disgrace Kelly Siegler with your vile sexual innuendos is revolting. Let it be enough that Harris County has lost one of her greatest prosecutors and victim advocates......to disparage her behind her back reveals your character.

Anonymous said...

Game warden's killer should die, Wharton jury decides


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6100749.html


Congrats to Josh and Kelly.

outraged said...

Hey Mark Bennett was correct...when Kelly Siegler's at the helm every case becomes a "whale"! Kelly's prowess with the harpoon is unparalleled! Never say never Mark....you never know what's around the next corner. CONGRATULATIONS to KELLY SIEGLER once again!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stanley Schneider can now join little Dick DeGuerin in praising whoever it is they pray to that they won't have to face Kelly Siegler for awhile. We'll miss you Kelly!

REALITY said...

Mark Bennett,
Your libelous assertion that you once observed Kelly Siegler in trial and that she demonstrated absolute ignorance of the Rules of Evidence is misleading at best. The case you referenced was one in which she sat 2nd chair in the sole capacity of mentor. She never once opened her mouth. The mentor program was designed as a teaching tool to improve the advocacy skills of young prosecutors. It is not a spoon feeding process but rather a constructive critique on how to improve trial skills of prosecutors. At the trial's completion, mentor's review the good the bad and the ugly with the junior prosecutor. Ironically you advocate prosecutors having better knowledge and skills and then condemn a program designed to meet those goals.
As for Kelly's "whale" in Wharton....you can take that insult off the table too.
I would pay to watch Kelly take you apart in trial. The talkers usually aren't the doers....

REALITY said...

Mark Bennett,
Your libelous assertion that you once observed Kelly Siegler in trial and that she demonstrated absolute ignorance of the Rules of Evidence is misleading at best. The case you referenced was one in which she sat 2nd chair in the sole capacity of mentor. She never once opened her mouth. The mentor program was designed as a teaching tool to improve the advocacy skills of young prosecutors. It is not a spoon feeding process but rather a constructive critique on how to improve trial skills of prosecutors. At the trial's completion, mentor's review the good the bad and the ugly with the junior prosecutor. Ironically you advocate prosecutors having better knowledge and skills and then condemn a program designed to meet those goals.
As for Kelly's "whale" in Wharton....you can take that insult off the table too.
I would pay to watch Kelly take you apart in trial. The talkers usually aren't the doers....

jigmeister said...

Now children--behave. If you can't say something nice, say nothing.

Mark,

In order to be a good trial lawyer, you must think you are good, so you have a least a good start. Secondly, there is much truth to the proposition that a good DWI lawyer is not necessarily a good lawyer on a murder or sexual assault case, or that one who tries cases in state court can automatically be a good federal trial lawyer. (or good defense/prosecution-- apples and oranges).

Having tried 10 cases with Kelly over the years, I can tell you she is the best at what she does. If she were to try a DWI against you, without alot of preparation and study, I daresay she would lose. And you are right, its a moot point.

On another subject: The DA's office still has many, many good, talented people who try to do the right thing every day. I hope they stay, and I hope Lykos recognizes the talent the office has.

As for the judges: Most of those who lost were old friends who tried daily to do a good fair job. I really regret their loss. However, I have seen this before, even in Harris County. Many of those who won will do a good job. Judges Love, Hearn, Bacon and many others did before these folks. The political worm turns every so often. Besides as I tell my one of my oldest friends who is still on the bench, but lost 1/2 his family income, being a judge ain't hard, just call the balls and strikes as you see them, and if your strike zone is fair, you will do fine.

Anonymous said...

hpd:

I am of course truly sorry for your loss. As a father of three I hope that I never know half of the sorrow you have known, and know no words of mine can bring peace to you in any respect.

However, that does not give you a trump card when it comes to her knowledge. It might also make you a bit biased. I'm not the only lawyer who believes that prosecuting cases in Harris County is like shooting fish in a bucket, even death penalty cases. A whopping 20% of the country's death penalty convictions come from Harris County. The tables are dead set against defendants when it comes to manufacturing evidence, Judges allowing anything to go where prosecutors are concerned and running court rooms like a circus (try half of those shenanigans in the civil courthouse and the judges will have you in contempt), and the appellate courts filled with judges like Judge Keller who will manufacture possible scenarios for a defendant's guilt that were not in evidence at trial, like "he could have used a condom and had an accomplice," when the theory and evidence at trial was that a defendant acted alone. Your personal experience does not change the embarrassing politics and policies of the DA's office in recent years.

Again, I hope Lykos will be an agent for change. There is a lot of work to be done.

Anonymous said...

First of all, I thought this topic was "the election" not the merits of Kelly Siegler. Or was Ms. Siegler running for a bench this year?

Anyway, Mr. Bennett has already said a lot of what I wanted to say. But I do think it's funny that when straight ticket voting elects your candidates it is a good thing. But when the political winds change, the sky is falling.

As far as inexperience goes, you are only "experienced" if you have been a district judge previously. None of the defeated Republicans had been a district judge prior to assuming the bench. In this election, one of the elected Democrats-Guerrero-had been.

The real issue is that the new judges are not straight out of the DA's Office, i.e., they will not have a pro State bias. I am sure some of the most apoplectic posts here come from prosecutors...especially the laughable one about babysitting a new judge. The truth of the matter is that now some of the lesser able prosecutors won't have "fair" judges holding their hands! If a judge is "fair," why would s/he be furious when a jury returns a not guilty? After all s/he is no longer a prosecutor, right? And the case is now disposed, right?

I do, however, disagree with Bennett on his assessment of Judge Rains. If he is a such a bad judge, notwithstanding anecdotal evidence, how did he win the bar poll? So clearly, this is not a near unanimous sentiment among his peers.

Which brings us back to the dilemma of electing judges. What is a voter supposed to do to be informed? Read the Chronicle endorsements which are based on...? The bar poll? Apparently it is to be disregarded if it reaches the "wrong" conclusion. Word of mouth? Then you don't know if a prosecutor or defense attorney's assessment of a judge is based on qualifications or some personal slight. In light of all the above imperfections, voting straight party is no less rational than relying on any other factor.

Anonymous said...

I think most of you are way off base. It's simply horrible to have partisan elections, period. I don't care for the election part either but I can live with it as long as you ban contributions from attorneys.

As far as straight ticket voters, this county has been locked up by republicans for decades and people get to the point where they just want some D's representing the changing nature of the county demographics.

I, for one, welcome our straight ticket Overlords.

Anonymous said...

Why are you dissatisfied that these judges got swept out in partisan judicial elections, when that is how they got swept in -- when excellent, qualified Democratic judges got just as unceremoneously booted?

Live by the ballot, die by the ballot. Some of the judges who got swept out were never qualified, were horribly biased, and should never come back (sayonara Stricklin! Toodles Thomas! Arivederci Anderson!) Others will be missed -- Bridgewater, Cosper.) One other should have gone (Ellis).

All in all, though, this is an improvement. Not perfect, but pretty damn good for a start.

I, for one, breathlessly await 2010.

Anonymous said...

One other should have gone (Ellis).

But he said God wanted him to keep his job...

Mark Bennett said...

I'm no longer responding to cowards, thieves, and cheats -- that is, anonymous attackers, the pestilential vermin of the blogosphere.

You think I got the facts wrong? Doubtful, but maybe so. So put your credibility on the line with your version of the facts. Sign your name, and we'll talk about who's right and who's wrong.

You think you're better than me? You probably are; that doesn't bother me a whole lot. I don't define myself by my successes as a lawyer, so I'm not afraid of getting my ass kicked. In fact, I like most of the lawyers who've done it for me in the last 13 years. (I've even come to like Vic Wisner!) Sometimes all I can do is make them work harder than they expected to. So I'm happy to give you some direct personal knowledge of my meager abilities. Let's tee it up, and I'll look forward to your detailed critique.

But if all you've got is personal attacks from the cover of anonymity, or if you're not a trial lawyer, you might as well, for all I care (and with great respect to our esteemed anonymous host), go fuck your anonymous self.

me said...

who's being chickenshit now?

common sense said...

Mark Bennett,
If you act like a punk expect to be treated like one. Kelly Siegler had nothing to do with this post and your bringing her up in a libelous fashion without provocation reveals your bitter insecurity. For one who advocates truth and fairness....try walking the walk.

Anonymous said...

AHCL:

Blogmeister, this has turned into nothing but a bunch of anonymous attacks on one another.

We're supposed to be educated professionals.

If it gets to the point of people telling one other to f___ each other, (and all the back and forth counter-accusations) why don't you just shut this whole thing down?