Lakin's Lawyer

Jill Christie · **Joined:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:18 am **Posts:** 192

Not defending Lakin here - though he's a dope - but I think the ABA ought to have a sit down with his lawyer. I know the atty. is not that stupid - well, if he's Orly's son....maybe. Any thoughts?

MaineSkeptic · **Joined:** Thu Mar 19, 2009 2:48 pm **Posts:** 5295

Jill Christie wrote:

Not defending Lakin here - though he's a dope - but I think the ABA ought to have a sit down with his lawyer. I know the atty. is not that stupid - well, if he's Orly's son....maybe. Any thoughts?

Which of his lawyers are you speaking of? And what's the issue the ABA should be pursuing?

Mikedunford · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:54 am

I would assume that the first post refers to Digbite.

As far as the ABA goes, I'd be curious to know if there are any potential issues. From what we saw, it looks to me like Jensen was using his client to pursue a political agenda, even though that was not in his client's best interests.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23570

What issues exactly are you speaking of that there's actual knowledge of any ethical or legal violations, and just exactly what is it you think the ABA would do, cancel his membership?

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

Jill, what Realist is saying is that the ABA has no function or authority to sanction lawyers for anything. It is basically a voluntary trade organization. The individual state bars are responsible for attorney licensing and enforcing ethical rules. I too have to assume you are referring to Rofl Jensen. Quite frankly, I do not know enough of the facts about his relationship with Lakin to even form an opinion about whether or not he violated any ethical rules. I think he's a pretty despicable person, from what I have observed, but that is not enough at this point for any outsider to run to any state bar IMHO.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23570

TexasFilly wrote:

Jill, what Realist is saying is that the ABA has no function or authority to sanction lawyers for anything. It is basically a voluntary trade organization. The individual state bars are responsible for attorney licensing and enforcing ethical rules. I too have to assume you are referring to Rofl Jensen. Quite frankly, I do not know enough of the facts about his relationship with Lakin to even form an opinion about whether or not he violated any ethical rules. I think he's a pretty despicable person, from what I have observed, but that is not enough at this point for any outsider to run to any state bar IMHO.

Yes, I apologize. My quip was not very neighborly... nor informative.

I could qualify for the grumpy group this morning.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23570

mari wrote...

Quote:

Thanks for the warning

TexasFilly · **Joined:** Mon Sep 28, 2009 12:52 pm **Posts:** 10651

realist wrote:

TexasFilly wrote:

Jill, what Realist is saying is that the ABA has no function or authority to sanction lawyers for anything. It is basically a voluntary trade organization. The individual state bars are responsible for attorney licensing and enforcing ethical rules. I too have to assume you are referring to Rofl Jensen. Quite frankly, I do not know enough of the facts about his relationship with Lakin to even form an opinion about whether or not he violated any ethical rules. I think he's a pretty despicable person, from what I have observed, but that is not enough at this point for any outsider to run to any state bar IMHO.

Yes, I apologize. My quip was not very neighborly... nor informative.

I could qualify for the grumpy group this morning.

That's what I'm here for!

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23570

TexasFilly wrote...

Quote:

That's what I'm here for!

And I'm so glad you are... and you do it so well.

raicha · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 2:27 pm

Jensen's incompetence in representing Lakin is for Lakin to bring before the appropriate state bar disciplinary board, as he is the client. I don't see where anyone else has the standing or access to the facts.

These boards generally do not go looking for new cases but wait for a complaint to come to them.

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:00 pm

raicha wrote:

Jensen's incompetence in representing Lakin is for Lakin to bring before the appropriate state bar disciplinary board, as he is the client. I don't see where anyone else has the standing or access to the facts.

These boards generally do not go looking for new cases but wait for a complaint to come to them.

Here's the relevant rule in Calfornia that Jensen may be accused of violating:

Quote:

Rule 3-110. Failing to Act Competently.
(A) A member shall not intentionally, recklessly, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence.

(B) For purposes of this rule, "competence" in any legal service shall mean to apply the

1) diligence,

2) learning and skill, and

3) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably necessary for the performance of such service.

(C) If a member does not have sufficient learning and skill when the legal service is undertaken, the member may nonetheless perform such services competently by

1) associating with or, where appropriate, professionally consulting another lawyer reasonably believed to be competent, or

2) by acquiring sufficient learning and skill before performance is required.

He did have MAJGEN Kemkes helping him (isn't that the new rank given to detailed defense counsel by the birfoons?). But I'm sure it was all Dogbite Jensen's idea to waive the Article 32. To disastrous effect. For that reason the safe harbor of (C)(1) wouldn't save Dogbite. I'm sure Kemkes wrote a CYA (sterngard) letter.

I don't think Jensen knew what he was doing and that the waiver was done for show. I doubt Dogbite has any criminal law background. It is beyond foolish to waive one's right to free discovery and to cross-examine witnesses where you can later use the testimony of a witness to impeach that witness. But it would have been more work for Dogbite.

Any claim of malpractice or a violation of the above rule belongs primarily to Lakin. If he fails to complain the state bar will never act.

Jill Christie · **Joined:** Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:18 am **Posts:** 192

Thanks everyone for their replies - I'm learning - please feel free to set me straight anytime, no problemo.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23570

Jill Christie wrote:

Thanks everyone for their replies - I'm learning - please feel free to set me straight anytime, no problemo.

No problem, Jill.

And again I apologize for my snippy reply. Sorry.

:oops:

Sterngard Friegen · **Posted:** Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:52 pm

Well, I'm not apologizing for my grumping reply.

realist · **Joined:** Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:33 pm **Posts:** 23570

Sterngard Friegen wrote:

Well, I'm not apologizing for my grumping reply.

If you did, it might disqualify you as a grumpy... nay, the King of Grumpies.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2010 2:11 am

Regarding the waiver of the Article 32 hearing - once Jensen had waived it, when the new atty came in, I take it there was no way for him to "unwaive" it? Is that to prevent people from being able to restart the process just by switching lawyers? And in the appeal process, will whomever is representing Lakin at that time have the ability to argue that Jensen's waiver of the Article 32 hearing was so detrimental to Lakin's case that he should be given a new trial or somesuch nonsense like that?

Thanks!

Reality Check · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:46 am

I am sure there was no way to turn back the clock on this. Puckett didn't replace Jensen until almost three months after the Article 32 hearing was supposed to have taken place. Had the Army given him a "do over" because Lakin had willingly hired a dogbite law specialist to try to salvage his military career would have delayed the trial for several months. Jensen was always more interested in trying to score political points than in protecting his client from a bad outcome. I suspect Lakin got different advice from MAJ Kemkes but chose to ignore it. Lakin made his bed and now he is forced to sleep in it - fleas and all.

lyssandri · **Posted:** Sat Dec 25, 2010 9:49 am

Reality Check wrote:

Lakin made his bed and now he is forced to sleep in it - fleas and all.

Oh, shucky-darns!

Joseph Robidoux III · **Posted:** Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:33 pm

Reality Check wrote:

I suspect Lakin got different advice from MAJ Kemkes but chose to ignore it. Lakin made his bed and now he is forced to sleep in it - fleas and all.

LTC Lakin stated that when MAJ Kemkes was not present, Jensen's advice was different from that given when in the presence of Kemkes.

Falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow.

Lakin's Lawyer

Who is online