New law prevents attorney from withdrawing from case

[LiveLaughLuv]

Attorney: New Law Prevents Baez From Stepping Down
POSTED: 5:21 pm EDT July 29, 2010

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. --

Attorney Jose Baez insists the foreclosure on his Kissimmee home will not affect his defense of Casey Anthony.

Baez said he has no desire to leave the capital case despite financial trouble.

Legal experts said they doubt Baez would even be allowed to withdraw from the case.

An amendment went into effect this month in Florida that bans judges from appointing attorneys where an indigent client has already retained and paid a lawyer. Experts said the idea is to prevent a private attorney from pulling out once a client’s money runs out.

more
http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/24442681/detail.html


Seems this prisoner is setting precedents in Florida law. Baez, even if he wanted to withdraw, cannot due to this new law enacted for July 1, 2010..so, like it or not...he's stuck with this prisoner till the bitter end...:angel:

 

[logicalgirl]

What I found really interesting was something Nums24 posted on another thread, taken from one of the media accounts.

That this amendment was drafted because of the Anthony case. So we know we aren't the only one watching these financial shenanigans.

 

[nyvictoria]

What I found really interesting was something Nums24 posted on another thread, taken from one of the media accounts.

That this amendment was drafted because of the Anthony case. So we know we aren't the only one watching these financial shenanigans.

bbm

Well that makes me wonder if JB was planning to jump ship? Why enact a law unless it's to prevent this exact thing from happening? Someone was planning to bail. Or was Andrea Lyon's departure the impetus for this amendment?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

...well now, that's interesting. Personally I'm not happy about this, I would rather Casey Anthony had better representation since this is a DP case, and such a high profile one. Now, judging by what we know, and having listened to her interviews with LE today just as a reminder I truly believe she is 'a unique individual' who most likely does deserve the maximum penalty here, however I don't want to see that judgement happen by default, or because the prosecution ran rings around the defence due to the fact that they simply outclassed them....I want a pure ruling based on the best possible arguments.

So this is a law to prevent a lawyer from swooping in, making a lot of money during the early stages of a defence and then leaving once the money dries up, yes? I certainly see the value in that, but I'm not sure how this preserves the rights of the defendant....could she not still change lawyers if she chose to?

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Sorry all, I wasn't aware this was already posted but found it of much interest since thinking Baez might want to jump ship...:innocent:

Yes, the article does state due to the Anthony case a new law was amended..but I don't think it would apply should ICA herself want to change attorneys...

It's written for an attorney who was once paid directly from his client who was deemed indigent in the middle of the case, cannot withdraw from said case due to the clients financial woes...JMHO

Whether this be good, bad or indifferent, Baez can now whine some more if things don't go his way...Hey, I was forced to stay on this case. I wanted to withdraw but the state law forbids me...LMAO JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Gnatcatcher]

How does a 'new law' get passed so darn quickly? It was written and endorsed by whom? When?

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

How does a 'new law' get passed so darn quickly? It was written and endorsed by whom? When?

It's not a new law but an amended law, Gnatcher.

An amendment went into effect this month in Florida that bans judges from appointing attorneys where an indigent client has already retained and paid a lawyer. Experts said the idea is to prevent a private attorney from pulling out once a client’s money runs out.

Justice for Caylee

 

[Tuffy]

I'm not sure how I feel about this law. Is it a good idea to keep an attorney on a case when the attorney is having financial problems like this? I guess Lyons bailed just in time to get out before this law went into effect.

 

[logicalgirl]

How does a 'new law' get passed so darn quickly? It was written and endorsed by whom? When?

It kinda sorta isn't new though is it? Didn't the payments from Caylee's pictures happen last summer, and the admissions re payments happen a number of months ago? Or certainly the speculation of it? It doesn't take a big leap for some one to come to a probably conclusion there might be a lawyer in this kind of scenario who is in it for the money.

Seems clear - ICA was indigent before JB came on the scene, he brokered the sale of the pictures, received the profits, spent the money on "various and sundry", and ICA is indigent again. To me that means he took the case to make some money. Looking at that picture, I wouldn't assume he would stick around to the end of the case if there was nothing else in it for him. Surely the good folks in the Florida State Legislature are able to spot a snake oil salesman when they see one.

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm not sure how I feel about this law. Is it a good idea to keep an attorney on a case when the attorney is having financial problems like this? I guess Lyons bailed just in time to get out before this law went into effect.

Wasn't this amendment intended to be a warning to other lawyers for future cases ? - don't try the old bait and switch, because you've made your money and want to bail - it isn't going to happen.

I imagine this law doesn't preclude the judge tossing a lawyer out for incompetence, or having a client throw their lawyer out, it just seems aimed at those who would "take the money and run."

 

[The World According]

Wasn't this amendment intended to be a warning to other lawyers for future cases ? - don't try the old bait and switch, because you've made your money and want to bail - it isn't going to happen.

I imagine this law doesn't preclude the judge tossing a lawyer out for incompetence, or having a client throw their lawyer out, it just seems aimed at those who would "take the money and run."

I never wanted him to step aside of his own accord, I have wanted the judge to order him off the case for egregious behavior, a pattern of it, that leaves the judge no choice, or the Florida bar to effectuate this with their discipline.

There is always an exception to every rule. If he were in good faith in dire straights the judge could make an exception if working on this case proved to be moving him into bankruptcy and foreclosure. There is no chance of that, whatsoever for the many reasons we have discussed, not having made a single payment in a year, meanwhile taking a European vacation make that argument dead on arrival.

Every law is in place to deter future misbehavior. I want him made an example of alright because what he has done in this case is vile. I just want the harshest rebuke possible. Having had the nerve to accuse Mrs. Drane Burdick, Mr. Ashton, Mr. George, Mr. Nejame and Judge Strickland of ethical violations......I want him to get a very public discipline, much more severe than he just can't resign his post.
In the words of our Mr. Hornsby..." A bi--h slap", of biblical proportions would work.

 

[logicalgirl]

I never wanted him to step aside of his own accord, I have wanted the judge to order him off the case for egregious behavior, a pattern of it, that leaves the judge no choice, or the Florida bar to effectuate this with their discipline.

There is always an exception to every rule. If he were in good faith in dire straights the judge could make an exception if working on this case proved to be moving him into bankruptcy and foreclosure. There is no chance of that, whatsoever for the many reasons we have discussed, not having made a single payment in a year, meanwhile taking a European vacation make that argument dead on arrival.

Every law is in place to deter future misbehavior. I want him made an example of alright because what he has done in this case is vile. I just want the harshest rebuke possible. Having had the nerve to accuse Mrs. Drane Burdick, Mr. Ashton, Mr. George, Mr. Nejame and Judge Strickland of ethical violations......I want him to get a very public discipline, much more severe than he just can't resign his post.
In the words of our Mr. Hornsby..." A bi--h slap", of biblical proportions would work.

I do also and am puzzled that AZLawyer states he hasn't done anything even close to being tossed off the case. He is a dufus like a lot of other dufus's out there practicing apparently. But she's the pro.

 

[USARDOG]

...well now, that's interesting. Personally I'm not happy about this, I would rather Casey Anthony had better representation since this is a DP case, and such a high profile one. Now, judging by what we know, and having listened to her interviews with LE today just as a reminder I truly believe she is 'a unique individual' who most likely does deserve the maximum penalty here, however I don't want to see that judgement happen by default, or because the prosecution ran rings around the defence due to the fact that they simply outclassed them....I want a pure ruling based on the best possible arguments.

So this is a law to prevent a lawyer from swooping in, making a lot of money during the early stages of a defence and then leaving once the money dries up, yes? I certainly see the value in that, but I'm not sure how this preserves the rights of the defendant....could she not still change lawyers if she chose to?

I hear you, but think the other side of that coin is this; she deserves the lawyer she chose. That is the way of freedom. She is not subjected to the lawyer we, or the judge, or her family thinks she needs, but rather she is entitled to the lawyer she chooses. She likes JB... God Bless her, I don't, but he is not defending me, (Thank God!) The verdict she gets will be in part, a refelction of the lawer she chose. This, IMO, is as it should be.

 

[moodyblue]

Just curious here, suppose jb did want to leave case but could not because of the amended law, Could KC later claim a poor defense case for an appeal?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

I hear you, but think the other side of that coin is this; she deserves the lawyer she chose. That is the way of freedom. She is not subjected to the lawyer we, or the judge, or her family thinks she needs, but rather she is entitled to the lawyer she chooses. She likes JB... God Bless her, I don't, but he is not defending me, (Thank God!) The verdict she gets will be in part, a refelction of the lawer she chose. This, IMO, is as it should be.

Oh absolutely....I'm certainly not thinking she should be told who her lawyer should be by the her family or the state, but there should be a way of keeping higher standards - he's not up to it, he's using the case for his own ends, he doesn't have the interest of his client in mind, he puts forth stupid arguments which take up the courts time and which are pre-destined to blow up in his own (and therefore his client's) face, and in doing so makes a mockery of the court. And worse, the defence strategy so far seems to be 'Well, everything about Casey doesn't look good, so we'll take the focus off her, and point the finger of suspicion at anyone and everyone she knew, and or tried to help finding Caylee', which means a lot of people are going to get hurt by it, which makes me sick.

I really don't think the verdict should be a reflection of the lawyer she chose, I think the verdict should just be a reflection of the evidence of the crime itself, and the interpretation of the evidence as presented and argued in court. This case is going to be derailed into ridiculous-land by Baez and co, and I'm not sure that's going to get us true justice for Caylee, it might still get her murderer the DP, but it will leave a lot of important questions, un-argued IMO.

I am glad however that lawyers can't just leave a high profile case once the money runs out, and leave their client high and dry...at least we wont see that kind of opportunism happen with the new amendment, that's a good thing to be sure.

 

[The World According]

Baez on Issues with jane Velez Mitchell now

 

[faefrost]

I do also and am puzzled that AZLawyer states he hasn't done anything even close to being tossed off the case. He is a dufus like a lot of other dufus's out there practicing apparently. But she's the pro.

I think the point is you, I and even KC, have the basic right to make an informed decision to hire a doofus. The best the state and the judge can do barring truly egregious criminal behavior is to make sure you are given every opportunity to witness what a doofus your lawyer is in order to make your decision.

 

[USARDOG]

Oh absolutely....I'm certainly not thinking she should be told who her lawyer should be by the her family or the state, but there should be a way of keeping higher standards - he's not up to it, he's using the case for his own ends, he doesn't have the interest of his client in mind, he puts forth stupid arguments which take up the courts time and which are pre-destined to blow up in his own (and therefore his client's) face, and in doing so makes a mockery of the court. And worse, the defence strategy so far seems to be 'Well, everything about Casey doesn't look good, so we'll take the focus off her, and point the finger of suspicion at anyone and everyone she knew, and or tried to help finding Caylee', which means a lot of people are going to get hurt by it, which makes me sick.

I really don't think the verdict should be a reflection of the lawyer she chose, I think the verdict should just be a reflection of the evidence of the crime itself, and the interpretation of the evidence as presented and argued in court. This case is going to be derailed into ridiculous-land by Baez and co, and I'm not sure that's going to get us true justice for Caylee, it might still get her murderer the DP, but it will leave a lot of important questions, un-argued IMO.

I am glad however that lawyers can't just leave a high profile case once the money runs out, and leave their client high and dry...at least we wont see that kind of opportunism happen with the new amendment, that's a good thing to be sure.

JB is a member in good standing of the bar, and state of Florida. There are many assumptions about his motives and ability in your post that I am not willing to make. Further he has a team of lawyers backing him up, and one is as the laws of Florida perscribe, a "death penalty qualified" attorney to see to it that she has qualified representation.

The way I see it, every verdict is also a reflection of the lawyer representing the client, as it is his/her job to portray the evidence in the best light for his client, i.e., the OJ trial. While I see the evidence in that trial completely differently than the jury did, I was not a member of the jury, and the court and state has to honor their verdict.

I don't see any mockery of the court, and think the defense strategy of,"point the finger anyone and everyone," is a common one, especially if their client is guilty, and has a mountain of evidence against them. At that point few options remain but this tactic.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think the point is you, I and even KC, have the basic right to make an informed decision to hire a doofus. The best the state and the judge can do barring truly egregious criminal behavior is to make sure you are given every opportunity to witness what a doofus your lawyer is in order to make your decision.

Love it! We have the freedom to be complete idiots if we so choose! LOL

 

[butterfly1978]

While I agree somewhat with this new law, I think it sets the stage for many appeals based on ineffective counsel. IMO what shoulkd be done is requiring lawyers to invoice thier clients money and explain what they did with the monies paid to them before they became indingent and if it found that the lawyer miss used the funds or in someway "blew" the money as it appears that Baez did than the attorney must repay those funds or face charges. Then the person must use a public defender. I understand that the law states a person can use a lawyer of thier choosing, however you dont get to use a divorce lawyer in a DP case so an indigent client shouldnt be allowed to still keep a high pay attorney who has done NOTHING to defend her in 2 years and wasted almost 300,000 dollars.....