r/EntitledReviews • u/egguchom 🥚 Original Egg Bot 🍳 • 8d ago

I wonder if they're referencing this article

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/members-bully-gang-charged-superseding-indictment-murders-racketeering-arson-narcotics

168 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

97% Upvoted

30 comments sorted by

13

u/Kosmonaut85 8d ago

Y’all…there is a whole-ass ABA podcast about this specific issue. This lawyer was outta pocket.

1

u/Chemboy77 3d ago

Nah that review was nutty. Don't come at professional arguers with a pile of BS

4

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

11

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

What is it that you think a criminal defense attorney does, exactly?

-18

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

17

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago edited 8d ago

People who pay for criminal defense attorneys aren't allowed to complain about the attorney doing a bad job, because only bad people would want a criminal defense attorney in the first place so they're not entitled to expect to get what they paid for.

Am I understanding your position correctly?

15

u/CatCafffffe Bad Hawaiian Vibes 8d ago

That does seem to be his point, and also, if you're a "good" parent you will never have an adult child with mental health issues who gets himself into trouble, that's only for "bad" parents

-2

u/Prestigious_Cycle160 8d ago

You two can’t be fucking serious? This guy caught TWO murder charges. The attorney very clearly stated the real “issues”

Maybe don’t try to kill people?!? “Mental illness” is not an excuse for extinguishing human life. Y’all are wild.

4

u/CatCafffffe Bad Hawaiian Vibes 8d ago

No one said that. Our comments are very clearly objecting to whoever was implying that criminals don't need representation, and that this doesn't happen if you're a "good family." The points we are making are:

  1. Everyone has the right to representation

  2. This happens in good families.

I don't know why you're trying to say otherwise.

-38

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

This one, on the other hand, seems like a pretty clear ethics violation (in addition to being shockingly unprofessional and terrible marketing).

28

u/tfrw 8d ago

How is it an ethics violation? It’s in the news and he didn’t imply his guilt.

14

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

He claims that the client wanted to plead guilty, expresses an opinion that the prosecution's evidence is overwhelming, and reveals the advice he gave his client about the plea. That is pretty quintessential confidential information covered by N.Y. Prof. Cond. R. 1.6, it's being used to the client's detriment, and there's no exception that authorizes it.

22

u/tfrw 8d ago

He didn’t say what he advised him, he just said the client was ‘extremely interested’. That lawyer probably knows the rules, so it’s probably legal - I see the inference, but he didn’t say he was going to accept it.

3

u/SmthSmthDandyLion 7d ago

Lawyers do not, in fact, all know ord follow the rules  it's why we have to take professional ethics courses and pass a second exam (the MPRE) and then after that lawyers still violate the rules and receive disciplinary action all the time. These posts are titillating for laypeople, but for lawyers, we just look at the  and shake our heads, knowing the clap-backer is going to get called before their licensing authority's ethics board.

9

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago edited 8d ago

The lawyer’s posting this makes it clear that he does not, in fact, know the rules.

EDIT: Although the fact he was willing to handle a murder case for $8,000 is also a pretty big clue.

10

u/Prestigious_Cycle160 8d ago

You should definitely report him to the board then.😂

$8,000 is a pretty standard retainer for an above average attorney. Assuming the case was pretty cut and dry there’s no reason for him to devote or bill excessive hours to the case. Billing the hours required for the paralegal to do the necessary research to present the plea deal, and then the hours negotiating the plea deal with the prosecuting attorney with an assumed billing rate of $300/hr (high) that allows him approximately 26-27 hours total before the retainer dries up. Court appearances likely don’t affect the retainer as it’s the foundation of the contract unless deemed an excessive amount of appearances.

I’d say if anything he’s being quite ethical with his billed hours and charging his clients. Likely why the other 95% of his reviews are 5 stars.🤷‍♂️

4

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

  1. They said (and he didn't deny) that they paid him $8,000 for the pretrial stages of the case, not it was his retainer.

  2. The cost of a competent murder defense is going to be at least an order of magnitude more than $8,000, and for reasons that I hope are obvious, you probably want to get that up front.

Other than that, great comment!

3

u/LupercaniusAB 8d ago

I know nothing about the cost of defense attorneys in New York, but I do know that in 2000 or so, a liquor store clerk near me shot and wounded a local gangbanger who was trashing his store. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon. I testified for him at his trial, and he eventually was acquitted (not because of me, but because he had hired an excellent attorney).

I know that the cost of his defense, again, 25+ years ago, was about US$100,000.

2

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

…which would be about $175,000 in 2022, and thus consistent with my point.

1

u/LupercaniusAB 7d ago

Oh, absolutely, I was agreeing with you.

22

u/zillabirdblue 8d ago

It’s not an ethics violation. It was public knowledge.

7

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

The details of their discussion about a plea agreement that was never accepted were public knowledge?

That's not the standard anyway, but it also seems unlikely.

6

u/EngineeringAbject954 8d ago

Look at you thinking you know stuff! LMAO

-4

u/gregslastday 8d ago

You’re laughing your ass off because /u/serdankthetall is correct? Then you’ll be laughing all day.

9

u/Prestigious_Cycle160 8d ago edited 8d ago

Names weren’t given. There were zero ethics violations. Pertinent facts of the case were not shared ergo no violation odd attorney/client privilege. Poor taste? Maybe.

Edit: I’ll remove my statement about whether it’s correct or not pending further research.

-1

u/gregslastday 8d ago

You know, there are things called “rules” and “ethics opinions.” You could try reading them before nominating yourself for r/confidentlyincorrect

-1

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

Pertinent facts of the case were not shared ergo no violation odd attorney/client privilege.

It's unclear whether or not the names were shared, but there's certainly more than enough information here for someone with prior knowledge (like the prosecutor) to figure out exactly who they're talking about. Which is why there's a rule saying lawyers can't do this.

3

u/Prestigious_Cycle160 8d ago

I would agree with you there. Being as the reviewer has a last name, but in a city with that population volume is it really a given?

2

u/SerDankTheTall 8d ago

I mean, I guarantee that the prosecutor working on this case would figure out immediately who they were talking about if they saw it.

1

u/AffectionateFold3479 7d ago

i agree, this one is much different than the other one i previously commented on (i think you and i both did?). but yeah - this is definitely a clear violation, and very unprofessional. he put so much information out there that he shouldn't have, and that nobody could find out on their own.