Flume arrived at the courthouse at the close of business for the day and was unable to find a district judge to sign the TRO. Her assertions that her due process rights were violated because her trial lawyer told her the complaint had been dismissed contain no references to the record and, more importantly, are irrelevant to any action the court took. When determining a legal sufficiency point, we must consider only the evidence and inferences which tend to support the findings of the fact finder and we must disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. The recipient has come to assume that the motion is properly signed by the attorney of record and that the fiat is properly signed by the presiding judge. This section also permits the trial court to enter any other orders which are necessary to protect the public and the disciplined attorney's clients. She contends that the imposition of a mentor is unconstitutional, but fails to provide supportive authority, and has, therefore, waived this point.
Flume went to the district clerk's office, filed the petition for divorce and the unsigned TRO. Her complaint of error for the trial court's failure to review in camera the videotape of the entire grievance committee hearing fails to establish how any portions not reviewed by the trial court had any bearing on the issues before the court. In such a situation, it clearly is misleading to serve a file-stamped, unsigned order. Ringel's attorney, thus, advised his client to abide by the TRO, thinking it to be valid. The evidence tending to contradict the jury's finding comes principally from Flume's own testimony.
Therefore, the ABCNY ethics committee had to look to other ethics opinions and several other rules in order to reach its result, including NY Rules 3.1(b), 4.1(a) and 8.4(c).
(Likewise, the ABA Model Rules don’t address disciplinary-charge threats directly, although ABA Formal Ethics Op.
On October 11, 1991, following a practice common in Bexar County, her secretary called the non-jury setting clerk to obtain a proposed setting for a hearing on the proposed protective order. When determining a factual sufficiency point, on the other hand, we consider and weigh all the evidence supporting and contrary to the challenged finding. She attached her business card to the divorce papers to be served. Ringel not to enter his house and to either call her or have his lawyer call her. Ringel's attorney to surmise that a district judge had signed the original which was filed with the district clerk. In determining the appropriate sanction for attorney misconduct, a trial court must consider the factors set forth in Texas Rule of Disciplinary Procedure 3.10.
Maybe it’s the Internet and the rising number of courthouse self-help centers where there’s abundant information for folks who believe they can save a bundle by handling legal matters themselves.
(c) Notice of a show cause hearing must be given at least 10 business days before the date of the hearing.
(b) In deciding if a complaint is frivolous, the commission will be guided by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13, and interpretations of that rule, and may also consider: (1) the timing of the complaint with respect to when the facts supporting the alleged violation became known or should have become known to the complainant, and with respect to the date of any pending election in which the respondent is a candidate or is involved with a candidacy, if any; (2) the nature and type of any publicity surrounding the filing of the complaint, and the degree of participation by the complainant in publicizing the fact that a complaint was filed with the commission; (3) the existence and nature of any relationship between the respondent and the complainant before the complaint was filed; (4) if respondent is a candidate for election to office, the existence and nature of any relationship between the complainant and any candidate or group opposing the respondent; (5) any evidence that the complainant knew or reasonably should have known that the allegations in the complaint were groundless; and (6) any evidence of the complainant’s motives in filing the complaint.
Under Model Rule 8.3(a), if you that “another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects,” you “” inform the proper authority.
Jurisdictions with express prohibitions The New York Rules of Professional Conduct actually lack a direct rule on threats to file disciplinary complaints.