Thread: Another comment on the education system

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Originally Posted by MW

snakeoil wrote:

Don't patronize me.

???????

Seems like you were being corrected, not patronized. After all, you did call him "Mr. DA" after he clearly stated he was a criminal defense attorney, not a prosecuter. [/quo

I didn't need to be "corrected" since I wrote what I meant and I understand the basic principle of "DA" prosecution and defense. The fine line between law and order is now called "making a deal" and I think if "Mr. DA" makes deals, he isn't on my side.

I pay for the terrorist's days in court and their incarceration, either way. "Mr. DA" should answer my question about his "clients" and "terrorists. I want to know who his "clients" are!

I was not patronizing. I thought you didn't know the difference. I have never heard a defense attorney referred to as a DA, only prosecutors. Do I make deals? Hell yes I do, like roughly 90-95% of all criminal attorneys. It is called judicial economy. Our court system could not handle the case loads without plea deals or settlements.
As far as my clients being terrorists, are you asking if they are illegal aliens? I have yet to represent an illegal alien, but probably because they have not walked through my doors. I am a private defense attorney, and more likely than not, they would be assigned a public defender. If one did walk through my doors and could afford my fees, I wouldn't decline representing them based on their legal status alone. I decline representations depending on the facts of their particular account and the charges they are facing.
Just because I am a defense attorney does not mean I am trying to get all of my clients "off." Most of my clients are guilty of something; not necessarily what they are being charged with. My priority is that they get a fair shot at the legal system, even if that means they are found guilty. I try my best to do what the client wants. Most of the time what the client wants and the evidence conflict. I know this full well and the fact that they will be punished. In this case I try to convince the client that even though they want to plead not guilty the evidence will be nearly impossible to overcome and to let me fight for something less severe. I don't know anyone who has been caught speeding willing to pay the full amount of the fine, when they can pay half.

Does the County of LA contract ( Public Defender's office) with you to handle criminal defense work on their behalf AAL?

No big deal, just curious - as in another thread - I recall you saying something about working for the county of LA.

Contract? I wouldn't say so, not for compensation anyways. There are various programs where you can volunteer to represent clients that would otherwise be represented by the public defender. It is on a voluntary basis. It looks good on your CV. You get to know the judges and you look like a good guy. It works for everyone.

Originally Posted by MW

alexcastro wrote:

I'm confused. Is attorneyatlaw here because he/she is against illegal immigration? I can't tell. Please let me know.

Of course he's against illegal immigration. Go back and read some of his previous posts.


CitizenJustice wrote:

[quote:1g4iic1c]Time to stop the childishness!!!!

Are you using DA as defense attorney, or DA as in District Attorney? Makes a huge difference.

Attorneyatlaw is here to help in the fight against amnesty, not to be attacked.

I too feel he's being personally attacked.[/quote:1g4iic1c]

I don't know attorneyatlaw, so it's not personal. I asked questions about his practice. He answered. He makes deals and would represent a "terrorist" (my term for IA's) if they could afford his fees. It's about lawyers, money and ethics.

If I posted on here that I would employ a "terrorist" gardner because they are cheaper, I wouldn't be for the those fighting against illegal immigration. attorneyatlaw says he will take their money. Go figure.

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Originally Posted by MW

alexcastro wrote:

I'm confused. Is attorneyatlaw here because he/she is against illegal immigration? I can't tell. Please let me know.

Of course he's against illegal immigration. Go back and read some of his previous posts.


CitizenJustice wrote:

[quote:1n4kc988]Time to stop the childishness!!!!

Are you using DA as defense attorney, or DA as in District Attorney? Makes a huge difference.

Attorneyatlaw is here to help in the fight against amnesty, not to be attacked.

I too feel he's being personally attacked.

I don't know attorneyatlaw, so it's not personal. I asked questions about his practice. He answered. He makes deals and would represent a "terrorist" (my term for IA's) if they could afford his fees. It's about lawyers, money and ethics.

If I posted on here that I would employ a "terrorist" gardner because they are cheaper, I wouldn't be for the those fighting against illegal immigration. attorneyatlaw says he will take their money. Go figure.[/quote:1n4kc988]

Ethically, I am obligated to take their case regardless of their immigration status. For the record, not in one case have I asked a client or potential client about their immigration status because it has never been relevant except in one case where the person was seeking my advice for a visa for his wife. It would be against the law for me to be anything but objective when representing a client. Therefore, irrelevant issues to the specific case that are not at issue are not discussed. I think you have to be an attorney to truly understand this. In other words, I AM TRYING TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT PERTAINS TO MY PROFESSION.

I understand exactly what you are saying. I, too, have followed professional standards and adhered to the guidelines dictated by my licensure.

OTOH, I have political beliefs that are outside that realm and I am very much against illegal immigration and invasion for all the obvious reasons.

What is your stance on the issue?

I feel compassion for some, and wholeheartedly understand why most come. When I have visited countries and witnessed the conditions, abuse, corruption and lack of opportunities, I don't blame them. If I were in their shoes, I don't disagree that I wouldn't attempt to come. HOWEVER, that does not take away from the fact that it is illegal, and that THE LAWS SHOULD BE FOLLOWED EVEN IF IT MEANS DEPORTATION. THERE IS A LEGAL PROCESS AND IT SHOULD BE ADHERED TO STRICTLY, even if some will argue it is unfair.

HAPPY?

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

HAPPY?

No. I'm never happy about human suffering but it's way past time to draw a line between the invading hordes happiness and those who pay for them and their offspring. This country and the taxpayers who maintain the "draw" for these terrorists cannot support any more people. This invasion has become a 'me or them' situation.

I opt for me and mine and our happiness. Legal citizens are not obligated to support illegals aka terrorists aka Mexican citizens aka invaders. Mexicans want to conquer and I want them to leave my tax dollars alone. Wonder how that's going to end. Go figure.

Happy?

to say you are "Ethically, I am obligated to take their case regardless of their immigration status" is really a choice, we can all choose to take or decline cases nobody forces any work on us.

I choose to Not take clients that do not speak English! No matter what language they speak! I don't want things mis-understood! Simple as that! Then they can NEVER come back and say "we didn't understand" Hogwash.......

Call it discrimination if you like, I call it common sense!

Ken

Originally Posted by attorneyatlaw

Originally Posted by snakeoil

Originally Posted by MW

alexcastro wrote:

I'm confused. Is attorneyatlaw here because he/she is against illegal immigration? I can't tell. Please let me know.

Of course he's against illegal immigration. Go back and read some of his previous posts.


CitizenJustice wrote:

[quote:1552fwob]Time to stop the childishness!!!!

Are you using DA as defense attorney, or DA as in District Attorney? Makes a huge difference.

Attorneyatlaw is here to help in the fight against amnesty, not to be attacked.

I too feel he's being personally attacked.

I don't know attorneyatlaw, so it's not personal. I asked questions about his practice. He answered. He makes deals and would represent a "terrorist" (my term for IA's) if they could afford his fees. It's about lawyers, money and ethics.

If I posted on here that I would employ a "terrorist" gardner because they are cheaper, I wouldn't be for the those fighting against illegal immigration. attorneyatlaw says he will take their money. Go figure.

Ethically, I am obligated to take their case regardless of their immigration status. For the record, not in one case have I asked a client or potential client about their immigration status because it has never been relevant except in one case where the person was seeking my advice for a visa for his wife. It would be against the law for me to be anything but objective when representing a client. Therefore, irrelevant issues to the specific case that are not at issue are not discussed. I think you have to be an attorney to truly understand this. In other words, I AM TRYING TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS IT PERTAINS TO MY PROFESSION.[/quote:1552fwob]

I'm not sure that's entirely true AAL, as I recall it anyway. I may be mistaken ( and apologize beforehand if incorrect) , but ABA Code EC 2-26 states as a general rule: A lawyer is under no obligation to act as an advisor or advocate for every person who may wish to become his client. While this is a general rule and subject to limitations, nothing presented here would seem to apply. This is especially true if your ability to represent this client would be compromised because you find their actions morally reprehensible.

An attorney is obligated to provide zealous representation. If however, an attorney were so diametrically opposed to illegal immigration that it might compromise his ability to provide such zealous representation, he could probably exclude himself from representing such a client.

Further, their is no lack of skilled counsel in the Los Angeles area who would be willing to represent an illegal invader( ACLU, legal aid organizations and a host of others in private pratice ), resulting in a minimal chance that declining representation would result in loss of effective counsel.

I have not read Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code 6068(h) as of late. But I do not recall anything in that provison which obligates you to provide legal services to every client that walks through your door. Please educate me if if my recollection is incorrect.

While the immigration status my not be legally or materially relevant to the case at hand, it my be relevant morally when considering when deciding to represent a client.

And yes, I understand that one could make the "morally reprehensible" argument for just about any prospective client who walks through the door. However, many believe that representing an illegal invader equates to aiding and abetting the invasion of this country by those who have no legal right to be here. One is not asked to sacrifice principles in order to pratice law.