will never make up for a lack of ability on your part.'
NEW:
Question:
How Many Rat CT Defense Lawyers
Can Fit In Feds' Pockets?
Norm Pattis Column & Comments
Criminal Law Today said...
Jealousy runs rampant in this business and that is unfortunate. Right now the talk of the Connecticut Criminal Defense Bar is what is going on in the City of Waterbury. This issue is a lightning rod situation. When Norman Pattis tries to raise a valid issue relevant to all members of the criminal bar regarding the position of the CCDLA he is accused of trying to undermine the organization. What reason Norman Pattis has to undermine the CCDLA and what he stands to gain from doing that is likely one of the questions of the ages.
There is a great deal of talk regarding what is going on in the City of Waterbury and the investigation of its Chief Prosecutor and a lawyer who has won more trials than most members of the bar combined.
This like many other things has been the subject of much gossip. Now this is a matter of public concern so discussion would seem to be appropriate. Many people want to advance their own agenda when it comes to this topic, these people want to ignore one major question that being “How did this investigation start”? The smart money is that a group of lawyers thought that it was a way to somehow increase their own “share” of the business by removing a prominent member of the bar, and this is well known.
Here is the bottom line as far as this is concerned. To those involved, you need to take a brief moment and make note of the fact you are not slick and you did not pull a [coup]. Just because your name does not appear on a letter does not mean that your involvement is not well known or you are fooling people into believing that you are not a part of this.
You should be prepared for the day when your questioned about conduct involving grievance panel investigations into the use of “runners”, multiple bar presentments taking place in the same month and a great deal of other activity that you believe nobody knows about. You were not “slick” in taking the actions that you did in this case nor were you” slick” the numerous other times you have tried similar stunts designed to humiliate lawyers by speaking ill of them behind their backs the basis being you are jealous of them and the success they have achieved in the area of trying cases. You are not “slick” when you attempt to steal business from practice areas you had no idea could be fruitful until you saw the fruits of their labor.
Maybe you should tell one of your partners in crime about the comments you make about him having to borrow money from his mom to pay his quarterly taxes. This is a complicated business but one thing about criminal law is fairly simple and straight forward. Those in need of a criminal defense attorney want a good one. They want a lawyer who has tried and won cases, and at a minimum brings their practice book to a jury trial. They want a lawyer who will work hard on their behalf and they want a lawyer knowledgeable on the law. If you do not possess these qualities then you will not be taking over any “market share” you believe you should have. The long list of people who you advised to plead guilty in cases where they did nothing wrong so as to not ruffle any feathers and who later realized this and voiced their displeasure to anyone who will listen is going to keep your share of the business where it exists today. You should take note of this before you pat yourself on the back behind clothes doors and give yourself so much credit for being so clever. One thing is clear and will not change pushing for a federal investigation will never make up for a lack of ability on your part.
September 5, 2010 11:34 PM
Norm Pattis Column & Comments
5 comments:
I'm tired of this thing being fought in public in innuendos that only a certain audience with separate non public knowledge will really understand.
The badly written post by "criminal law today" says preposterously that it is "a matter of public concern." Well if that is the case, then treat the public with enough respect to be explicit about it. Give us the background, the facts, and stop throwing tea leaves at us to read.
If you can't do that, then keep your cat fight behind closed doors, take a time out and think about the childishness of acting out.
God knows, half the sorry members of the bar treat their clients like objects of gossip and derision as it is.
I hope to hell Minnella knows what he is doing hiring Pattis because this is no joke.
The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella.
Q and A with Hartford Business Journal:
http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14963.html
I guess potential white collar clients read it.
I guess his Minella strategy is if he just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated.
My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,:
I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.
Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys.
He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far.
I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says.
The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish.
Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.
Pattis also has made it clear to the Criminal Defense Lawyers Assoc. in Connecticut that they have no right to report possible wrongdoing by a fellow lawyer to authorities.
Pattis is making as jagged and wincing an attempt to enter the arena of white collar defense as he has with everything else he does.
And it is not surprising that no sooner does he embark on this, does he come out as an authoritative critic on the ethics of this practice group as well. A Gaslighter?
I guess his handling of a former Pequot Hedge employee's divorce qualifies him now as Connecticut's, wait, New England's most prominent white collar crime attorney.
This is a dog and pony show, and I hope F. Lee Bailey isn't doing his talk for free.
The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella.
Q and A with Hartford Business Journal:
www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14963.html
I guess potential white collar clients read it.
I guess his Minella strategy is if he just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. Is this some hail mary pass to own the jury pool come trial time? I am sure that jury nullification passion will really reach a fever pitch when the feds have the nerve to prosecute a lawyer!
My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,:
I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can, and do. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.
Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys.
He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far.
I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. The Hartford Business Journal says nothing. The Law Tribune, well, he's their security blanket that makes it feel it is hard hitting, because Pattis has ticked people off, who cares whether he ticks them off with the truth or his own ranting obnoxiousness, the Law Tribune will take what it can get and doesn't know the difference.
The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish.
Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.
Pattis also has made it clear to the Criminal Defense Lawyers Assoc. in Connecticut that they have no right to report possible wrongdoing by a fellow lawyer to authorities.
Pattis is making as jagged and wincing an attempt to enter the arena of white collar defense as he has with everything else he does.
And it is not surprising that no sooner does he embark on this, does he come out as an authoritative critic on the ethics of this practice group as well. one of his recent blog entries focuses on this too. He is shocked supposedly at how other lawyers treat their clients and potential clients, as if.
A Gaslighter?
I guess his handling of a former Pequot Hedge employee's divorce qualifies him now as Connecticut's, wait, New England's most prominent white collar crime attorney.
Let's not even get into how he treats his clients on his new twitter account, which is rightly causing a buzz in the blawgosphere, and should be causing press coverage here but is so far a nonstarter with the clueless Connecticut press.
This is a dog and pony show, and I hope F. Lee Bailey isn't doing his talk for free.
The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella:
See Q and A with Hartford Business Journal.
Potential white collar clients read it.
I guess the Pattis Minella strategy is if Pattis just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. Maybe it is some hail mary pass to own the jury pool come trial time. I am sure that jury nullification passion will really reach a fever pitch when the jury learns the feds have the nerve to prosecute a lawyer.
My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,:
I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can, and do. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.
Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys.
He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far.
I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. The Hartford Business Journal says nothing. The Law Tribune, well, he's their security blanket that makes it feel it is hard hitting, because Pattis has ticked people off. Who cares whether he ticks them off with the truth or his own ranting obnoxiousness, the Law Tribune will take what it can get and doesn't know the difference.
The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish.
Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.
Pattis also has made it clear to the Criminal Defense Lawyers Assoc. in Connecticut that they have no right to report suspected wrongdoing by a fellow lawyer to authorities.
Pattis is making as jagged and wincing an attempt to enter the arena of white collar defense as he has with everything else he does.
And it is not surprising that no sooner does he embark on this, does he come out as an authoritative critic on the ethics of this practice group as well. one of his recent blog entries focuses on this too. He is shocked supposedly at how other lawyers treat their white collar clients and potential clients, as if.
Ever hear of a Gaslighter?
I guess his handling of a former Pequot Hedge employee's divorce qualifies him now as Connecticut's, wait, New England's most prominent white collar crime attorney. In that case, he was whipped by opposing attorney, then his own client.
Let's not even get into how he treats his clients on his new twitter account, which is rightly causing a buzz in the blawgosphere, and should be causing press coverage here but is so far a nonstarter with the clueless Connecticut press.
This is a dog and pony show, and I hope F. Lee Bailey isn't doing his talk for free.
Maybe Norm should focus on editing his legal briefs so they have at least as few spelling and factual errors as his blog entries, which appear to be the subject of much more care and attention. .
The latest in what appears to be a Pattis combo marketing junket/defense of minella.
Q and A with Hartford Business Journal:
www.hartfordbusiness.com/news14963.html
I guess potential white collar clients read it.
I guess his Minella strategy is if he just keeps talking, the feds are going to get really confused. Or maybe he believes all that judiciary paranoia that juries are easily contaminated. Is this some hail mary pass to own the jury pool come trial time? I am sure that jury nullification passion will really reach a fever pitch when the feds have the nerve to prosecute a lawyer!
My thoughts about the QandA, his recent rants against defense lawyers who report suspected wrongdoing by lawyers, rants against the white collar defense bar, etc.,:
I am not one to disagree that federal prosecutors can create criminals on a whim, I know they can, and do. And everyone knows what grand juries are, puppets of prosecutors. It is not a mistake that it is both a cliche and a very old one at that, that grand juries will indict a ham sandwich if prosecutors tell them to. We all know the wire fraud code, false statements code and so on give prosecutors carte blanche to create criminals out of thin air.
Lets separate that from the OTHER point Pattis has been driving hard on for weeks now: Pattis has maintained, repeatedly and unequivocally, that it is totally improper for law enforcement and prosecutors to investigate suspected wrongdoing by attorneys.
He maintains that they must not interview lawyers' clients. This is not only absurd, it is obviously absurd, yet media does not probe it, so far.
I also would like to mention that Pattis has published that lawyers lie to and manipulate the press, and includes himself in that, yet publications continue to interview him without making any disclaimer about the reliability of what he says. The Hartford Business Journal says nothing. The Law Tribune, well, he's their security blanket that makes it feel it is hard hitting, because Pattis has ticked people off, who cares whether he ticks them off with the truth or his own ranting obnoxiousness, the Law Tribune will take what it can get and doesn't know the difference.
The Connecticut press has given Pattis an unchallenged and unquestioned platform time and again. It's not the job of the press to fail to probe and question at all and it makes the press look foolish.
Pattis is a media hound and almost sociopathic marketer of himself. The least the press could do is try not to look so darn sycophantic and sophmoric around him. I mean, you look foolish.
Cont.
Post a Comment