Maybe big city lawyers use this approach, but I’ve never seen an ad like this one
from Schenectady, NY, lawyer Charles J. Mango:
Your Child’s Most Important Lawyer
Will Be Your Child’s First Lawyer
If Your Son or Daughter
Has Been Arrested Call
MANGO LAW OFFICES
[518] 382-0203
Caring For Your Kids Since 1982
Talk about preparing for your child’s future! And, aiming high.
. . . .
breathing in
shadows pass over
the mango tree
Graham Nunn, from A Zen Firecracker.
Impressed Publishing (2003)
streetwalker
with a black eye halo
around the moon
by George Swede from
Am I too unforgiving? The NYS Appellate Division, Third Department, has suspended
a lawyer for two years, who converted $117,000 in funds and engaged in a conflict of interest
in his dealings with an estate. The Court noted in mitigation that, besides repaying all converted
sums, the attorney “has waived all legal fees and executor commissions for services rendered to
the estate. “(Matter of Paul M. Whitaker, NYSlipOp 06822, Sept. 30, 2004). Why not disbar him?
A Pa. judge ruled this past week that Calling Lawyer a ‘Moron’ [Is] Not Defamatory (The Legal
Intelligencer, 10-01-2004). However, before lawyer Romolo Versaci of “so-called lawyer” fame gets too disheartened, it is only fair to say that Judge Gene D. Cohen didn’t say that it could never be defamation to call a
lawyer a “moron” or an “idiot.” The audience, the context, and the addressee surely must be taken into account.
foolish crow
do you think this first snow
is my fault?
by Kobayashi Issa,
translated by David G. Lanoue
No, you are not too unforgiving. I fail to see any reason why Mr. Whitaker should be allowed to continue practice law ever again. He only gave the money back because he was caught. And being a lawyer, he knew his chances of being reinstated would increase by his compensating his victims. I’m saddened, though not surprised, that he was not disbarred.
Comment by UCL — October 3, 2004 @ 1:23 am
No, you are not too unforgiving. I fail to see any reason why Mr. Whitaker should be allowed to continue practice law ever again. He only gave the money back because he was caught. And being a lawyer, he knew his chances of being reinstated would increase by his compensating his victims. I’m saddened, though not surprised, that he was not disbarred.
Comment by UCL — October 3, 2004 @ 1:23 am
UCL, What are we doing weblogging this late on a Saturday night? If you keep agreeing with me, I’m going to have to get into a new line of business!
Didn’t you love the fact that the client wasn’t billed??
Comment by David Giacalone — October 3, 2004 @ 1:27 am
UCL, What are we doing weblogging this late on a Saturday night? If you keep agreeing with me, I’m going to have to get into a new line of business!
Didn’t you love the fact that the client wasn’t billed??
Comment by David Giacalone — October 3, 2004 @ 1:27 am
Re: The best lawyer your child will ever have.
Well, David, it’s sure a hell of a lot better than having parents send their children into the police station to just “answer a few questions.” Cf. Yarborough v. Alvarado (Parents take child, sans lawyer, into police station. Child is now in prison).
Comment by Fedster — October 3, 2004 @ 5:26 pm
Re: The best lawyer your child will ever have.
Well, David, it’s sure a hell of a lot better than having parents send their children into the police station to just “answer a few questions.” Cf. Yarborough v. Alvarado (Parents take child, sans lawyer, into police station. Child is now in prison).
Comment by Fedster — October 3, 2004 @ 5:26 pm
As a former “law guardian” for juvenile delinquents and persons in need of supervision in Family Court, I agree with your general sentiment, Fed. Of course, trying to be too adversarial can make a prosecutor into an enemy rather than a ally looking to “divert” the young accused.
Although I can’t put my finger on it, there’s something about the general tone of this ad that seems a little strange — or at least strange-funny — to me. I’d like “Make you child’s first criminal lawyer, the child’s last criminal lawyer.” (On second thought, you might need an asterik: “death penalty or life without parole excepted.”)
Comment by David Giacalone — October 3, 2004 @ 6:06 pm
As a former “law guardian” for juvenile delinquents and persons in need of supervision in Family Court, I agree with your general sentiment, Fed. Of course, trying to be too adversarial can make a prosecutor into an enemy rather than a ally looking to “divert” the young accused.
Although I can’t put my finger on it, there’s something about the general tone of this ad that seems a little strange — or at least strange-funny — to me. I’d like “Make you child’s first criminal lawyer, the child’s last criminal lawyer.” (On second thought, you might need an asterik: “death penalty or life without parole excepted.”)
Comment by David Giacalone — October 3, 2004 @ 6:06 pm