Marc Randazza, tried to make me sit down and shut up in my case, so I FIRED HIM, and went with Eugene Volokh to be the face of this massive human rights and constitutional rights issue.
Scott Greenfield, Marc Randazza, Jordan Rushie, Ken White at PopeHat.com and more of the "gang" Seem to think it is ethical and lawful to treat clients badly and violate their constitutional and human rights along the way. Their theory seems to be We, the LAWYERS control the Clients and they Pay Us To Do It. And the client must sit down and shut up, have no voice and do as we say, then pay us our billable hours on time.
So I agree with this person below, as it is NOT right to Control your client, even if Pro Bono, you work for the clients best interest and the best interest of the Greater Good.
Oh but Marc Randazza's buddy JUDGE Gloria Navarro FORCES those who are Pro BONO to pay Randazza Legal Group anyway, as shown in the link below and J. Malcom DeVoy of Randazza Legal Group.
"The author of this blog post, one Scott Greenfield, seems blissfully unaware that the main takeaway from it isn’t “what the hell is wrong with Eugene Volokh?” but rather “memo: never, ever hire this blogger to be my lawyer.”
What Cox didn’t like was a single sentence in the opinion by Judge Andrew Hurwitz that stated, “Cox apparently has a history of making similar allegations and seeking payoffs in exchange for retraction.”Source of Post
"Tom Freeland (@NMissC)
FEBRUARY 5, 2014 AT FEBRUARY 5, 2014
… “When we are retained on appeal for the purpose of seeking reversal of an adverse judgment, our core representation is to obtain that reversal.”
Miss. R. Prof’l Conduct 1.2(a): “A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.”
MRPC 1.2(c): “A lawyer may limit the objectives of the representation if the client gives informed consent.”
Scott H. Greenfield: “I agree that the motion has some merit, and that the court’s cite to a newspaper article was inadequate.”
SHG wants to argue that the objective is just “get the decision reversed” and that he doesn’t have to do anything that’s not a means to that end. He is free to draft his representation agreements to that effect. However, taken literally, that means that (for instance) the court could rule for the appellant but also, say, issue a show-cause order why the appellant should not be sanctioned on some issue, and the lawyer could shrug and say “good luck with that, you’re on your own.”
SHG concedes that Cox’s motion “has some merit.” So as her lawyer, Volokh is supposed to tell her, sorry lady, even though your motion has merit and might be granted, I don’t feel like doing it?
The only time the “means” question comes up in my practice is that the client can’t instruct me to act unprofessionally (e.g., to refuse reasonable accommodation to opp. counsel who need a resetting or an extension). I’m retained against the other party, not against the other party’s lawyers.
Lawyer’s Creed (as adopted by Miss. Bar): ” I will strive to represent you as I would want to be represented and to be worthy of your trust.” It appears to me that Volokh is living up to that creed. We represent clients: we stand in their shoes: we put their interests above our own. I do not think SHG’s attitude passes the golden-rule test embodied in the creed."
At 14:30 note comment of Marc Randazza Slamming Eugene Volokh. At 12 Minutes you see Marc Randazza claiming that Volokh should CONTROL his client.
More on What Drives Marc Randazza's Rage Against Blogger Crystal Cox