DC Court of Appeals Disbars Lawyer for ‘Egregious’ Murder-Case Misconduct While a Federal Prosecutor

From ABA Journal (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dc_court_of_appeals_disbars_lawyer_for_egregious_murder-case_misconduct_whi/?utm_source=maestro&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly_email)

Updated: Former assistant U.S. attorney G. Paul Howes was disbarred today by the Washington, D.C., Court of Appeals.

It is the first time in at least 10 years that a lawyer anywhere in the country has been disbarred by judges over conduct as a federal prosecutor, USA Today reports.

Howes misused $42,000 in vouchers he was supposed to give to witnesses for expenses related to their testimony in court, instead providing them as payments to informants' relatives and girlfriends in high-profile murder and gang cases. Once this came to light, sentences were substantially reduced in at least nine cases, says a three-judge panel in the court's written opinion (PDF).

In addition to giving vouchers to individuals who weren't supposed to receive them, Howes "compounded this initial misconduct by failing to disclose the voucher payments to either the court or opposing counsel, pursuant to District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3.8 (e), Brady v. Maryland, and Giglio v. United States, even though such payments were relevant to the jurors’ credibility determinations of key government witnesses’ testimony," the opinion continues. "Finally, respondent intentionally misrepresented to the court that such disclosures had been made."

The Board on Professional Responsibility recommended, by a 5-4 vote, that Howes be suspended rather than disbarred, and Howes, who sought a one-year suspension, pointed to his lack of prior discipline, lack of any financial gain, cooperation with bar authorities and what the court described as his "altruistic motivation."

However, calling Howes' misconduct "decidedly egregious" and saying that it was "significantly compounded by the protracted and extensive nature of the dishonesty involved," the court decided to disbar him.

"Respondent exhibited a consistent, aggressive disdain for statutes, rules and procedures as a prosecutor, which resulted in his use of the voucher system as a discretionary fund to be distributed at his will. Respondent’s steadfast determination to achieve convictions led him to circumvent federal laws and ethical rules, displaying 'a continuing and pervasive indifference to the obligations of honesty in the judicial system,' " the opinion states, quoting from an earlier case.

"The severity of this conduct is amplified when misconduct as subtle and undetectable as voucher distribution is actively concealed from both the courts and criminal defense counsel," the panel continues. "Additionally, failure to sanction respondent with our most extreme sanction would endorse respondent’s reasoning that honorable ends justify unlawful means, failing to deter others from adopting similar attitudes. Not only does this type of conduct impugn a prosecutor’s moral fitness to practice law, but prosecutorial actions such as these can place another’s liberty interests in the balance. The appropriate sanction should reflect this gravity."

A USA Today page provides a link to a series of previously published articles in its "Misconduct at the Justice Department" investigation.

Additional coverage:

ABAJournal.com: "Disbar Ex-Federal Prosecutor for Alleged Ethics Issues in Criminal Cases, DC Appeals Court Is Urged"

Updated at 4 p.m. to link to and include further information from appellate opinion and link to USA Today page on prosecutorial misconduct coverage.

SO THE INSURANCE COMPANY WANTS TO SEND YOU FOR AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION

 What you should know about your IME.

Lawyer Who Failed Courthouse Breath Test When She Arrived for Client Hearing Now Faces Criminal Case 

Posted Jan 24, 2012 3:08 PM CST in ABAJournal.com
By Martha Neil

• Email
• Print
• Reprints
• 

A California lawyer has been criminally charged after allegedly appearing at court to represent clients at hearings in a drunken state.

Michelle Winspur is accusing of blowing twice the legal limit on Oct. 7, when she was given a breath-alcohol test as she entered Kings County Superior Court in Hanford, reports the Visalia Times-Delta.

She was tested because a court clerk said she sounded drunk when she called to say she was going to be late for trial.

Winspur, now 45, also failed a sobriety test she was given on Dec. 8 as she left court after a client hearing, according to the Times-Delta and the Hanford Sentinel.

She was criminally charged in Kings County both with appearing in court under the influence and with drunken driving because she was seen driving to court prior to the Oct. 7 breath test, Larry Crouch told the Times-Delta. He serves as chief trial deputy for the Kings County district attorney.

Already facing an attorney discipline case for allegedly being drunk during a 2010 trial in Monterrey County, Winspur had her law license suspended earlier this month.

A defense lawyer pleaded not guilty on her behalf to the criminal charges last week, but Winspur herself did not appear because she apparently is in rehab.

Alabama Senator Proposed Harsh Changes to the Workers' Compensation Law

Senator Arthur Orr represents District 3 which consists of Limestone, Madison, Morgan Counties in northern Alabama.  Sen. Orr has indicated he will be introducing a bill in the next legislative session to make changes to Alabama’s workers’ compensation law.   He says the changes will help in job creation.  The truth is, they will help insurance companies keep more of the premiums they collect.

These changes will apply to every Alabama worker who is unfortunate enough to be injured on the job. 

Not surprisingly, the changes will only benefit employers and insurance companies.  Who will pay for these changes?  The injured workers.

Sen. Orr’s proposed bill would make it illegal for a judge to consider the injured’s worker’s pain in most cases.  If you get hurt on the job and have severe pain that your doctors believe to be credible, too bad - - the judge cannot consider your pain.

If a worker’s job-related injury is such that he is permanently and totally disabled, current law allows him to receive workers’ compensation benefits for the rest of his life.  Sen. Orr’s proposed bill would let the insurance company off the hook as soon as the worker reaches age 65.  This proposed change will benefit insurance companies at a time when most workers are living longer lives and at a time when you have to turn 67 to collect Social Security benefits.

What else is Sen. Orr wanting to give to the insurance companies?  Under current law, probably the most generous aspect of the law is that medical treatment remains open for life after a job-related accident.  Sen. Orr wants to change that so that if an injured worker goes without medical treatment for a certain time period, the right to receive medical is over.  The insurance companies win; the injured worker loses.

Finally, what happens if you go to trial in your workers’ compensation case and win? Sen. Orr wants to give the appeals courts the right to re-weigh the evidence and decide whether to over turn the trial judge’s decision.

What does Sen. Orr give back to injured workers in exchange for helping the insurance companies?  He gives them a $20.00 per week raise and increases the amount of permanent partial disability benefits from $220.00 per week to $240.00 per week.  Put another way, at a time when minimum wage is $7.25 per hour or $290.00 per week, the rate paid to injured workers will increase from $5.50 an hour to $6.00 per hour.  If a worker suffers a severe injury on the job and is 99 percent disabled or less, he is capped at $220.00 per week under Alabama’s unfair law but Sen. Orr will “allow” injured workers another $20.00.

            What can you do?  Call Senator Orr and tell him injured workers deserve better.   Contact him at (256) 355-3285 or (334) 242-7891.

What is Avvo?

First - check my Avvo profile:  http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/36303-al-tracy-cary-661603.html?ref=header

The Avvo Rating is our effort to evaluate a lawyer's background, based on the information we know about the lawyer. The rating is calculated using a mathematical model that considers the information shown in a lawyer's profile, including a lawyer's years in practice, disciplinary history, professional achievements and industry recognition - all factors that, in our opinion, are relevant to assessing a lawyer's qualifications.

For some lawyers, the only information we have been able to collect is the publicly available information from state bar associations or other organizations that license lawyers. If that is all we have, then we display an Avvo Rating for the lawyer of either "Attention" or "No Concern." We display the "Attention" rating if there is information in the licensing records that, in our opinion, you should pay attention to, such as a disciplinary action against a lawyer without offsetting positive information. Otherwise, we display the "No Concern" rating.

We periodically collect background data from multiple sources, including state bar associations, court records, lawyer websites, and information that lawyers choose to provide to Avvo. Please keep in mind that we are not able to collect every piece of information about every lawyer's background. Information that we do not have could very well change the lawyer's Avvo Rating. So whether you see the numerical or the basic Avvo Rating, you should do further research regarding the lawyer to collect all relevant information regarding the lawyer's background.

Here's why the Avvo Rating can help you find the right lawyer:

• It's unbiased. Because ratings are calculated using a mathematical model, all lawyers are rated by the same standards.


• There's no favoritism. Here at Avvo, all lawyers are treated equally. They can't pay to change their ratings, and we don't play favorites to lawyers we know.


• It's developed by legal experts for non-experts. The model used to calculate the Avvo Rating was developed with input from hundreds of attorneys, thousands of consumers, and legal experts.


• It's easy to understand. With simple ratings from 1 to 10 or "Attention" and "No Concern," we hope to make clearer the murky process of understanding lawyers' backgrounds.

ABOUT ME - Alabama Workers' Compensation Attorney Tracy W. Cary

     Since 1994, Tracy W. Cary has worked exclusively for people who were injured or killed by companies or people who cause injury or death by violating safety rules that are designed to protect the public and make our lives safer. Tracy is passionately devoted to working for injured victims and he works hard to prevent insurance companies from unreasonably delaying or denying legitimate claims and to make them compensate injured victims fairly.

Tracy has been involved in obtaining numerous jury verdicts for his clients. His firm obtained one of the largest verdicts in Alabama history, a record $21 million jury verdict achieved in 2011. In addition, Tracy has represented hundreds of injured workers with workers’ compensation claims and tried numerous cases all over the State. Whether handling a large case or a very small case, Tracy takes his mission very seriously and he is available for consultation toll free at 1-800-638-3665. No case is too large. No case is too small. Every case is important.

      Tracy is licensed to practice law in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee and the District of Columbia. In addition, he has handled cases in Arizona, Kansas and Connecticut. Tracy practices in state and federal courts handling a variety of accident and injury claims including wrongful death cases, car wrecks, trucking accidents, motorcycle wrecks, workers’ compensation claims, dog bite incidents, consumer fraud, Social Security disability claims, insurance bad faith claims and product defect claims.

     Tracy co-founded the law firm of Morris, Cary, Andrews, Talmadge & Driggers in 1999. We have grown to seven attorneys and 17 total staff.  Each of the lawyers in our law firm have similar interests. We are dedicated to our faith, our families and our firm.

     Although Tracy focuses on all types of injury and accident claims, he also has chosen to focus on workers’ compensation claims. Many times injured workers are among the most vulnerable of our society. Tracy has authored and published a consumer-rights book – The Injured Worker’s Survival Guide -The Five Mistakes That Can Wreck Your Workers’ Compensation Claim - and has also authored many articles and reports to help accident victims. He has created a website – www.bamacomp.com and blog, http://bamacompcom.blogspot.com exclusively devoted to job-related accidents. The firm website also contains valuable information, see - http://mcatlaw.com.

     Tracy earned his law degree in 1992 from the University of Alabama School of Law. He received his Bachelor’s Degree from the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications in 1985. Tracy served as a field artillery and JAG officer in the United States Army and the Alabama Army National Guard.

Tracy is married with four children. He is active in his church, Covenant United Methodist Church, and in his community. Tracy has been peer rated by other lawyers as having very high ethics rating, which denotes adherence to professional standards of conduct and ethics, reliability, diligence and other criteria relevant to the discharge of professional responsibilities. In legal abilities, his peers rated him very high.  http://www.mcatlaw.com, http://bamacomp.com

New York Times calls Alabama's Immigrant Law the Cruelest in the Nation

The New York Times

The Nation’s Cruelest Immigration Law

The Alabama Legislature opened its session on March 1 on a note of humility and compassion. In the Senate, a Christian pastor asked God to grant members “wisdom and discernment” to do what is right. “Not what’s right in their own eyes,” he said, “but what’s right according to your word.” Soon after, both houses passed, and the governor signed, the country’s cruelest, most unforgiving immigration law.

The law, which takes effect Sept. 1, is so inhumane that four Alabama church leaders — an Episcopal bishop, a Methodist bishop and a Roman Catholic archbishop and bishop — have suedto block it, saying it criminalizes acts of Christian compassion. It is a sweeping attempt to terrorize undocumented immigrants in every aspect of their lives, and to make potential criminals of anyone who may work or live with them or show them kindness.

It effectively makes it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Alabama, by criminalizing working, renting a home and failing to comply with federal registration laws that are largely obsolete. It nullifies any contracts when one party is an undocumented immigrant. It requires the police to check the papers of people they suspect to be here illegally.

The new regime does not spare American citizens. Businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants will lose their licenses. Public school officials will be required to determine students’ immigration status and report back to the state. Anyone knowingly “concealing, harboring or shielding” an illegal immigrant could be charged with a crime, say for renting someone an apartment or driving her to church or the doctor.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department have also sued, calling the law an unconstitutional intrusion on the federal government’s authority to write and enforce immigration laws. The A.C.L.U. warns that the law would trample people’s fundamental rights to speak and travel freely, effectively deny children the chance to go to school and expose people to harassment and racial profiling.

These arguments have been made before, in opposition to similar, if less sweeping, laws passed in Arizona, Utah, Indiana and Georgia. What is remarkable in Alabama is the separate lawsuit by the four church leaders, who say the law violates their religious freedoms to perform acts of charity without regard to the immigration status of those they minister to or help.

“The law,” Archbishop Thomas Rodi of Mobile said in The Times, “attacks our core understanding of what it means to be a church.”

You’d think that any state would think twice before embracing a law that so vividly brings to mind the Fugitive Slave Act, the brutal legal and law-enforcement apparatus of the Jim Crow era, and the civil-rights struggle led by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. But waves of anti-immigrant hostility have made many in this country forget who and what we are.

Congress was once on the brink of an ambitious bipartisan reform that would have enabled millions of immigrants stranded by the failed immigration system to get right with the law. This sensible policy has been abandoned. We hope the church leaders can waken their fellow Alabamans to the moral damage done when forgiveness and justice are so ruthlessly denied. We hope Washington and the rest of the country will also listen.