Loan Modifications
There have been many recent stories in legal papers, the Daily Business Review, and on the news about lawyers taking money to represent people in the process of seeking loan modifications and the client complaints resulting therefrom.

I am not specializing in this area, but I do have clients that I have represented in other matters who have come to me regarding this service, and I have tried to assist in short sales, deeds in lieu, and modifications, and I have to say it is almost an impossible task.

With one successful modification with Bank of America, the bank came back after the deal was fully executed as if it never happened. I have had Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase “lose” submissions on a number of occasions. I have had them not respond for many weeks, only to e-mail and state that they needed additional documentation in 24 or 48 hours or they would close the file. I have had lenders close the file and then want everything resubmitted by fax in order to start over.

These are just a few examples of the frustrations in dealing with these situations. It has not happened to me, but I can see that if a lawyer were to see this area of the law as providing an opportunity and naively thought that the lenders who took TARP money would act in good faith, they most likely would end up facing clients’ complaints for “doing nothing,” when, in fact, they have an inordinate amount of time in each file.

Each case stands on its own, but when a person says “my attorney did nothing for his or her up-front fee,” don’t be too sure there isn’t much more to the story.

Michael J. Ryan
North Palm Beach

Innocence Commission
In response to Mr. Arrojo’s letter in the July 15 News, as a citizen of Florida and a member of The Florida Bar, I greatly appreciate all our ethical prosecutors and law enforcement officers in their pursuit of justice.

However, that principled behavior is not the conduct of all law enforcement. If there was a Camelot, there would be no need for discussion related to a codification of the identification process. Mr. Arrojo’s position neglects the fact that the underlying reason for erroneous convictions continues to be that of eyewitness misidentifications. One need only review the evidence established by the Innocence Project to recognize this fact.

Though Mr. Arrojo walks the high ground in this matter, there are others in law enforcement who do not care to attain this standard. Whatever the reason may be — lack of education, negligence, trying to close out a case, vindictiveness, statistics, etc. — bad police practices exist, and to say otherwise is, to put it mildly, tunnel vision.

I have both prosecuted and defended in Florida for over 30 years. I can fill this page with war stories of disgusting identification proceedings employed by the police. I am sure volumes would not serve to relate what others might contribute. We have all heard the adage about the rotten apple spoiling the rest of the barrel. Sadly, the best of our law enforcement must come to realize that a fix in the overall eyewitness identification process is necessary in order to overcome the negligent and unethical activities of the worst of their associates.

Misidentification is a known fact. Poor police work is a known fact. Together they spell danger to each and every Floridian.

Craig S. Dyer
Chief Assistant Public Defender
Daytona Beach

Lawyer Behavior
Our new president is to be commended for forming a commission to study the Bar’s regulation of lawyer conduct. Mr. Hawkins states that the Bar’s “primary job is to regulate lawyer behavior.”

I would add that lawyer discipline is interwoven into other Bar purposes, such as the advancement of lawyer competence through CLE, certification, and the excellent Florida Bar Journal.

Another purpose is the taboo subject of lawyer profitability. The new commission should study how lack of prosperity impacts ethics. While there is no excuse for stealing, we should not pretend financial pressure isn’t a problem.

Are the number of Florida law schools and the subsidizing of public law schools producing too many lawyers? Is there a better use of tax monies in these tight budgetary times?

Finally, if the commission is going to review the ethics of “robosigning” of mortgage foreclosures, to be fair, shouldn’t we also look at unethical foreclosure defenses, such as those set forth in Korte v. US Bank Nat’l Ass’n. (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) and JP Morgan Chase v. Hernandez. (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)?

Kerry H. Brown
St. Petersburg

Confidentiality Rules
Our Supreme Court suffers from the same mass hysteria that has affected our society generally. In adopting the recent rules changes (2.425 et al.), it tries to put out the house fire by hiding the house.

Redacting email addresses? Telephone numbers? What is next? Redacting surnames?

A Social Security number is merely a way to identify a person, like a name, albeit with more precision. It is only a tool for identity thieves, because banks and others allow it to be used for that purpose.

Hiding information that is already in the public domain is not logical and is not a solution.

The solution to identity theft is to adopt a statute that places the loss solely on the party that deals with the thief, or who otherwise allows an identity to be used by an unauthorized person, and requires indemnification of the victim.

Banks and other institutions will quickly adopt appropriate security measures to prevent identity theft.

It is time for our government to adopt a rational approach to this problem.

David B. Jones
Orlando

Casey Anthony Trial
Like many, I followed the events in the Casey Anthony trial. But as a lawyer, I was drawn more to the actions, antics, and arguments of the attorneys battling their sides of the case. One moment stands out that compels comment, and yet it occurred almost 24 hours after the verdict was announced, when prosecutor Jeff Ashton appeared on “The Today Show.” During his interview with Matt Lauer, Mr. Ashton responded to a question that I do not now recall with — and I paraphrase — I respect that the jury reached a verdict based on the evidence as they saw it.

Watching this seasoned attorney complete his career with a verdict other than the one he fought three years trying to achieve, then to go on national television and so calmly and gracefully make the above comment, had a profound effect on this young attorney. Too many times after a criminal jury trial, we watch as attorneys, media, and the public attack the jurors, discredit their service, and call them names. We find it inconceivable that a group of our peers could reach such decisions based on the laws and evidence. This happens regardless of which side you’re “rooting” for.

Mr. Ashton brought back that respect a jury deserves, regardless of the outcome achieved. It is vital to our profession. And I hope the audience appreciated his words. I did.

Brian Redar
Long Beach, CA

Media and Public Frenzy
The guilt or innocence of the defendant is, of course, of paramount importance to the defendant and to the alleged victim.

Also of paramount importance is the presumption of innocence of the defendant. It is undermined by media and public frenzy made possible because each party in the case takes every opportunity to present or “leak” its side of the case in public before the jury has handed down a verdict! And to present its case in public, whether or not what is presented would be admissible at the trial.

Freedom of speech and of the press have become rights without the responsibility to protect the presumption of innocence. How can impartial jurors be found when the details of the case and the defendant and the alleged victim are spread widely by the media?

Restrictions on publicity about an on-going criminal case must be put in place to stop criminal cases (and civil cases, as well) from becoming nothing more than publicity circuses. No party to the case should be permitted to discuss the case in public at any time before, during, or even after the trial. The media should only be permitted to report the case after the jury has handed down its verdict. Trials should not be televised so that, among other concerns, the alleged victim need not fear the publicity which television coverage produces. And no more “perp walks”! And no more making defendants wear handcuffs in public!

Nor should the trial judge ever be permitted to discuss any aspect of the case, even after the trial has concluded, or how the sentence was determined.

Nor should the jurors ever be permitted to discuss the case after the trial.

Prosecutors and judges should be appointed in order to insulate them from political motivation and influence and professional ambition.

A criminal trial (or a civil trial) should be an effort to find the truth of the matter, rather than a jousting match in which each party attempts through pretrial publicity to win over the media and the public and thus, hopefully, the minds of the prospective jurors.

The rush to judgment by the media and the public about the defendant before the jury decides the case threatens the integrity and fairness of the justice system.

Stephen Schoeman
Westfied, NJ

Diversity
I had to re-read the above-the-fold article in the June 15 News: “Voluntary associations use Bar grants to promote diversity at the local level.” The first paragraph says:
“[w]hile the legal community in Miami-Dade County is likely the most diverse in the state, it can — at times — seem quite segregated as there are so many specialty bar options catering to different racial, gender, and practice age groups.”

The irony was just too great to pass up comment. All of the separate bar associations (made up exclusively of lawyers) are joining together to launch a Diversity Inclusion and Consortium Project. In the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education, 387 U.S. 483 (1954), I would like to suggest an alternative: Shutter the doors of all these diversity groups made up of segregated lawyers and everyone join the Dade County Bar Association. What a simple way to end the segregation of Dade County’s legal community.

After all, we all practice before the same judges. We all pick our juries from the same venire. The last wills I drafted were for a Puerto Rican couple (man and woman). The last power of attorney — a Hispanic. I sue Jews. I defend Muslims. Earlier today, I drafted a motion to dismiss for an albino — apparently a group so small there is no association in Dade County to look out for his unique interests.

I call on the presidents of the Miami-Dade Chapter of the Florida Association for Women Lawyers, the Cuban American Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Gwen S. Cherry Black Women Lawyers Bar Association, the Wilkie D. Ferguson Bar Association, and the Muslim Bar Association, together with other segregated bar associations not mentioned in the article, to disband. Everyone can then meet at the DCBA like one big happy family.

One more suggestion — set up the tables in one big circle. That way, no-one will feel slighted if asked to sit on the back row.

Evan B. Plotka
Hollywood