Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Redmont Bar Association [2021] FCR 86

Status
Not open for further replies.
if the defendant doesn't reply within 24 hours the witnesses will simply be dismissed
 
if the defense doesn't have a response within 24 hours the court will simply dismiss the witnesses
 
Question to the witnesses.
1. Why did you vote to disbar Alexander Love?
2. Did the RBA have the legal right to disbar Alexander Love?
2. Did you vote in favor of Alexander Love's disbarment?
4. What compelled you to vote that way?
5. Where you forced to vote that way?
6. Was there an internal plot to take down Alexander Love?
 
Your honor I have decided to use the fifth amendment and not answer any of the questions.
 
While the court respects this answer for the latter three questions, the former three I do not see any issue with you answering
 
I do not feel comfortable answering questions 1, 2 and 3 and thats why I request to be dismissed
 
Does either party have any objection to this witness?
 
Your honor, I believe the questions are prejudicial over probative. I, therefore, object to all six questions and side with the witness not wishing to answer the questions, as it is the ethical and constitutional thing to do.
 
I concur with the plaintiff, the witness is now dismissed
 
I would also like to ask that the second witness is given different questions
 
Questions for pugbandit:
1) Was there an internal plot to take down Alexander Love?
2) Did the RBA feel threatened at all by Alexander Love?
3) Was anyone forced or pressured to vote in favor of disbarment?
 
1) A "plot"- definitely not. There was a procedure and debate at the end of which we decided that the license should be removed due to a breach of our ethical standards.
2) No there was no reason for us to feel "threatened".
3) I can speak for myself in saying- no I was not pressured into voting a certain way.
 
Thank you, the plaintiff may now cross witness the defense's witness
 
Should the plaintiff not have any cross examination ready within 48 hours we will move on without it, I would also like to let both parties know that tomorrow I am moving house and may absent for most of the day
 
Mr. Pugbandit, I have many questions for you. It would be convenient for you and the Court if you could keep your answers to a yes or a no, when possible.


pugbandit said:
we decided that the license should be removed due to a breach of our ethical standards.
Click to expand...

1) Isn't it true that there are no published ethics documents for the RBA anywhere?

2) If there are, please attach them here and cite my specific ethical infraction, please.

3) Isn't it true that, at the time, I was still a fairly new lawyer and have never had any warnings from the RBA prior?

4) Do you believe that people should be made aware of rules before being punished for said rules, especially if said rules are not documented anywhere?

5) Did any member of the RBA recuse themselves from the vote of disbarment due to any sort of conflicts of interest?

6) Don't you think, if an RBA councilor has a conflict of interest in a matter, that it would be ethical that they recuse themselves?

7) Isn't it true another attorney did a similar thing I did and was excused by the RBA? (See exhibits 4 and 5)
https://imgur.com/a/243Ndqs

8) Wouldn't this lead a reasonable person to believe this course of action is acceptable, legal, and ethical due to precedent?


Thank you.
 
Last edited:
1) At the time no, I believe that there is one now, however. By standards, I believe that the elected RBA council members (at the time I presided over) were entitled to a basic view of where standards should be.
2) From the time there were none.
3) I do not recollect any warnings- and have no knowledge of whether you were new or not at the time.
4) As a general rule- yes. However, the fact that those elected councilors thought something was wrong does hold weight too, I believe.
5) I cannot recall (sorry don't have best memory of it all)
6) If there was a major conflict of interest- yes.
7/8) I do recall that some things were brought forward regarding an incident- however, I cannot recall the discussion around it. I believe that the RBA, in general, does things on a per-case basis (noticed when I used to preside) however I do believe that people should be treated equally.

I would like to say however that without the chat logs- I am struggling to recall a lot of these situations.
 
I'd like to thank the witnesses, both parties may now proceed with their closing statements starting with the plaintiff, I would like to request both parties have their closing statement in within 72 hours
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, today, I, along with the facts, have demonstrated that the Redmont Bar Association's decision to disbar me was wrongful, unfair, and extreme. The investigation was full of conflicts of interest, unfair standards, and enforcement of rules that do not exist. Everyone's definition of ethics is different, and I was abiding by the ethical standards I learned from my legal studies thus far. At the time, I was a fairly new player and attorney, and was given no warnings or rule guidelines of any kind by the RBA. Their decision to disbar me was unfair.

The former RBA Chairman testified there was no rules or regulations document, and that there was no way for me to know I was breaking a rule. The rules simply did not exist due to the negligence of the RBA.

I have established earlier with prior witnesses that SumoMC had a conflict of interest. I am sure he meant no malintent in his actions however the fight between two firms over a client could have impacted his judgment.

We have also seen that other attorneys were indeed investigated for the same offenses and were not punished. This shows that the actions were ok due to precedent, despite being investigated on a case-by-case basis. If there is not a rules document, then surely precedent should apply when judging in these matters. Alas, there was no logic or reason ground in any philosophy or reasoning of law in my disbarment. Due to this, my license to practice law and RBA membership should be restored. For all this time not being able to practice law, loss to my legal and professional reputation, and loss of being the legal counsel to the Galavance case I previously had, I should be granted the $25,000 in damages. I would also like a public written apology from the RBA as well as $500 in legal fees for putting all this effort into this case.

The Legal Board Act was written with the intention of disbarring lawyers in extreme cases. It specifies in section V the reasons an attorney can be stripped of their practicing license. I am an attorney who tries my best for my clients and studies law in real life. My former client Hong_Kong testified I did try my best.

I would also like to ask the Court to interpret the Legal Board Act in the matter of Section IV. Does the removal of someone's license to file a lawsuit also remove their ability to represent clients in ongoing cases or in defenses?

Back to the original matter at hand, I made a single mistake and I did apologize to the offended party for my actions and will ensure this does not happen again. However, a warning or some kind of rule should have existed. I ask you to restore my license and not set the precedent that the RBA can disbar attorneys under loose and vague reasons without any warning or documented policies/rules.

Thank you.
 
The defense may proceed with their closing statement, the court would like to request it be in within 72 hours
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Redmont Bar Association
Defendant


Your honor,

As this case comes to a close, we must inspect the role of the Redmont Bar Association very carefully. As listed, to be disbarred and have your practicing license revoked, the council must vote at least a two thirds majority vote, meaning three councilmen must vote in favor of both disbarment and of removal of a practicing license. Throughout this case, Alexander Love has expressed what he feels is wrong with the Redmont Bar Association, and expressed what he feels the policies of the RBA should be, however, the plaintiff fails to show any actual wrongdoings.

In the Legal Board Act, it states in section five Terms for Removal, subsection three it states “Lawyers must ensure they are providing effective counsel in representing their clients in court.” As both of the plaintiffs stated, they were displeased with reaching out to the plaintiff’s attorney Coolegals. The bylaws of the RBA clearly state that removal must be a two thirds majority vote. As far as the process of disbarment and revoking Mr. Love’s practicing license, the council had every right to disbar.

As pugbandit stated, there was no conspiracy to remove Mr. Love, and no foul play was involved in the vote. The vote was the council doing their job, conducting a fair vote on a serious matter. The RBA is to make sure that the legal profession remains a professional profession, and to make sure that Redmont’s lawyers remain to the high standards they take up when becoming a lawyer; a standard that Mr. Love did not follow.

With that, the defense rests.
 

Verdict

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, AlexanderLove, alleges that the Redmont Bar Association illegally removed their practicing license
2. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Redmont Bar Association does not have the power to prevent people from continuing ongoing cases
3. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that Former Bar Association Councilman SumoMC had a conflict of interest in the revocation of the Plaintiff's license, as SumoMC had been allegedly fighting to get the Plaintiff's client for themself
4. The Plaintiff feels that they did not qualify to be disbarred, that SumoMC had plotted to have the plaintiff removed to further their own career, and that the Redmont Bar Association did not have power to stop them from continuing their ongoing case

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted in their legal right to revoke the Plaintiff's practicing license, that they were not providing effective council to their clients, and that there was no such conspiracy from SumoMC in order to steal the Plaintiff's clients
2. The Defendant alleges that due to the clients not being happy with how the Plaintiff handled the case they weren't providing effective counsel for their clients

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Court believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted outside of their legal right to revoke somebody's legal license and had illegally revoked their license, the fact that somebody's client does not agree with how they handled something does not mean they didn't provide an effective service, however with the added note that now it would be legal to revoke t due to an amendment to the Legal Board Act passed by congress, however due to the revocation of the Plaintiff's license and the offense listed happening before the passage of the amendment, it does not apply in this circumstance.
2. The Court does not believe however there was a conspiracy from SumoMC, as the clients in question were clients of SumoMC's law firm they were already his clients, simply represented by an employee of his.
3. The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations, the Redmont Bar Association simply cannot cover the compensation requested.
4. The Court believes that should somebody have their ability to file lawsuits on behalf of a client revoked the writer of the Legal Board Act had intended that they would no longer be able to represent a client in court

IV. DECISION
The court hereby orders:
1: The Plaintiff be granted the ability to file lawsuits on behalf of a client reinstated
2: The Plaintiff be readmitted into the Redmont Bar Association

I would like to thank both parties for their time, this case is hereby adjourned in favor of the plaintiff.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top