Friday musings -- and more on ethics complaint

First, the musings. I was on shelter duty today (Thursday) and noticed a couple of things. The first thing I noticed was that I had a new case that was truly significant. "Medical neglect" is a tricky thing when it is parents and one set of doctors vs. a 20-something social worker who has a doctor to consult who has a different opinion. Those are enormously important cases. It didn't go the way I'd hope, but I got a shelter review out of it and another three days to prepare for the next round. The second thing I noticed was something that I'd not noticed for the first time: I argued. I argued law and facts. I engaged the Department and challenged the judge. I presented testimony.

The attorney for the regional counsel didn't say a single word. Not one, though her client had the same position and concerns as my client had.

I'm just saying. If I'm right about this particular case and it gets dismissed, for my flat fee of $1,000 I'll not only save a family from being torn apart and a baby from enormous trauma, I'll save the taxpayers of Florida a big pile of cash. And people will still say that private counsel are the single biggest drain on the system.

OK, having indulged myself in posting that, I'll begin to serialize the email I got the other day. I've talked with some of the people involved, including the author of the ethics complaint. I have permission to post it here.

I am not including any names in what I reproduce here, because that's not the point. I don't care about politics or personalities; I care about the dependency defense system operating well. There are some lessons to be learned from what I'm going to post, even when keeping in mind that there are two sides to ever story.

Serialization part one (this is a complaint sent to the Governor's inspector general and to the Florida Bar by a former employee of one of the Regional Counsels):

"After a longstanding professional relationship with (defense attorneys A and B), private attorneys hired as Chief Assistants of the Civil Division to (an RC), in October 2007, I accepted a position with the RCC as a Managing Attorney for the (X)Judicial Circuit in the Civil and Mental Health Division. At that time the new office was facing litigation claiming that (RC's) appointed position was unconstitutional. My office employment began in January 2008 although I attended organizational meetings at the (attorneys A and B) law office prior to that.

The position that I accepted was to be based out of (a town) Florida although I was
responsible for court coverage of the civil cases in (three other) Counties. I was told that until the (town) office opened I would be reimbursed for my mileage and would work out of the (other, distant town) office.

However at the time of my hire, the RCC (X)District did not have an operating state office. The office was being set- up and run out of the private practice owned and operated for over twenty years by the (law office of attorneys A and B). This office was located in (town #3) Florida. The (attorneys A & B) were responsible for the creation, organization and staffing of the civil division in (3 different circuits). (The RC), myself and the other managing attorneys were given keys to this private law office and allowed to use the office equipment and computers free of charge. The ( ) District RCC operated out of the private law office of (Attorneys A & B) from October 2007 until mid-January 2008 without any reimbursement for the use of the equipment or space.

I was further advised by (RC) of the challenges this new agency faced and I assured him of my willingness and commitment to the mission of the RCC. I agreed to take the position because of my knowledge and faith in (attorneys A & B) ethics and organization skills. They were willing to close their practice to work for the RCC and (RC) and that allowed me the faith and determination to leave my job and work with them in this new and exciting project. (RC) assured us of his desire to reward all who were willing to take on the challenges this office faced at the onset. The salary that was offered was lower than I requested but (RC) indicated that although he could not pay the requested amount, he would reward the attorneys who worked with him in the beginning to set-up this agency once he was up and running.

My commitment to this new agency extended to my following the lead of the Chief Assistants and agreeing to use my own resources to help with the new office. (RC) was having difficulty securing space for his new offices. We were required to continue to use our homes, cell phones, internet services, home computers and printers without reimbursement. The (attorneys A & B) and myself worked tirelessly to establish relationships in the 19th Circuit and to hire the attorneys needed to cover those four counties. We went about the administrative aspect of managing and setting up the only space finally secured in the ( ) Circuit in downtown (town # 4).

At the beginning of March 2008 the ( ) Circuits Civil Divisions were fully staffed and located in state leased office space. The staff in the ( ) Circuit were notified of a reorganization to the management of the office without my knowledge or presence. As Managing Attorney I was not consulted or notified and was not even present when the news was told to my staff. (RC) removed the (attorneys A & B) from their position in the ( ) Circuit and placed a long term friend, (Friend of RC)in charge of the ( ) Circuit’s Civil and Criminal Divisions . (RC) stated that he had overhired for the ( ) Circuit and he decided to reorganize management personnel and the manner in which the office operates. The friend that he hired possessed 6 months experience working in dependency law and was clearly without the necessary qualifications for the position.

[note: all parentheses denote redactions on the part of the author of this blog.]


Part two of the serialization to follow.