The final decision is usually a written opinion that comes put weeks/months after the videos. You'll have to research it via case number That said, he was disbarred
I wanted to go to law school but after what I have seen with certain lawyers I decided not to. We have honest lawyers out there but only a hand full. I love to see this happen
The biggest flaw in the defense’s argument ( and of course he knows it) is that the corporate veil protects individuals law suits in a civil law suit. However, as an attorney and member of the Barr he is held to a higher standard. When the prosecutor told the judge his decision was wrong and the judge mulls it over (thinks about the logic) you see the brillance of the law working and the judge changes his mind and is convinced because of direct honest conversation and logic. The defense did a great job and the judges asked great questions.
So if I worked for Ford, and I didn't put a bolt in the front suspension on a thousand cars, the company couldn't be held accountable for what an employee did. Then why have a manager in the factory. Why be associated with an attorney group, if they aren't held liable for their employees or partners.
Yes he did answer it $14,000. Substantial is a subjective word. He could have answered no and been truthful. By the stating the amount, he is being truthful without ceding that the amount was substantial. Clever Eh?
What about the decision the court made? Can‘t that be written in the description or if the judges presents the verdict, having that at the end of every video?
I give props to that lawyer. He had a horrible case defending a scum client, and did the best job he could given horrible facts. It’s easy to prosecute a guilty man or defend an innocent man; it’s harder to prosecute/defend someone guilty as sin.
In my order of protection hearing, opposing counsel submitted a false exhibit in the form of texts. I can prove the texts were false and that opposing counsel acted with nonfeasance (he should have asked to see his client's phone) and then malfeasance (he withheld the exhibit for four months) If the judge sides with me, will opposing counsel be sanctioned if not disbarred?
The other lawyers are just mad they didn't get a bigger share. They don't really care about the people he swindled. They just care they didn't get the case instead.
The purpose for this is to clear up any questions the justices have regarding what is written and they've already read. This isn't for them to plead their case, their case has been put forward in writing to the justices in their briefs.
They’ve already states their cases in written complaint and response. This is oral arguments to clear up any issues the justices might have, much like a dissertation.
In case you were wondering, the referee recommended that Darin Lentner be suspended for two
years. However, the Court permanently disbarred him.
Best thing that can happen is having these kinds of hearing on video for the public to see.
I wish we had them in the U.K.
Best thing is for these hearings not to happen at all...
A lawyer overcharged his clients?
Shocking
You need to include the final decision on these videos.
The final decision is usually a written opinion that comes put weeks/months after the videos. You'll have to research it via case number
That said, he was disbarred
I wanted to go to law school but after what I have seen with certain lawyers I decided not to. We have honest lawyers out there but only a hand full. I love to see this happen
"I'm so delighted we are going into this area finally." Yeah, he really looks delighted.
The biggest flaw in the defense’s argument ( and of course he knows it) is that the corporate veil protects individuals law suits in a civil law suit. However, as an attorney and member of the Barr he is held to a higher standard. When the prosecutor told the judge his decision was wrong and the judge mulls it over (thinks about the logic) you see the brillance of the law working and the judge changes his mind and is convinced because of direct honest conversation and logic. The defense did a great job and the judges asked great questions.
I agree the defense did a great job...
Wow, I'm officially bored enough to watch a 6 year old disbarment of a lawyer I've never heard of from a state I've never been to.
You've never been to Florida?? It's great!
@@Gwentheferret Oh, I know. DeSantis is the best governor in the country. Love that guy.
Same,but I can go one better.From a country I’ve never been to.
He got disbarred.
He should’ve got prison!
That great
And as the Judges left the court, they were gleefully thinking "and now it's off to the buffet!"
lol food is important
Justices*
So if I worked for Ford, and I didn't put a bolt in the front suspension on a thousand cars, the company couldn't be held accountable for what an employee did. Then why have a manager in the factory. Why be associated with an attorney group, if they aren't held liable for their employees or partners.
Did they get a substantial amount? I still ain't sure if he answered that question lol
Yes he did answer it $14,000. Substantial is a subjective word. He could have answered no and been truthful. By the stating the amount, he is being truthful without ceding that the amount was substantial. Clever Eh?
@@jpvoodoo5522 or was it $1,400 per claim?
What about the decision the court made? Can‘t that be written in the description or if the judges presents the verdict, having that at the end of every video?
He was disbarred.
Justice Lewis, you may have a future in NFL color commentary.
I don't know if it's the color of my monitor, but does Justice Lewis look like he has a monumental, breath taking sunburn?
It's not your monitor. He does look like a Oompa Loompa
Or a heavy drinking problem
Or really really high blood pressure?
@@katehobbs2008 he cld use some Spa Time to relax, me thinks.😃
The entire industry needs to be reformed. it out of control.
I give props to that lawyer. He had a horrible case defending a scum client, and did the best job he could given horrible facts. It’s easy to prosecute a guilty man or defend an innocent man; it’s harder to prosecute/defend someone guilty as sin.
FRED LEWIS needs sun block!!!
C'mon people! Hate speak?! His father is the Kool-Aid man!
So what he is saying is that his boss isn't liable for the work his patrons have done.
In my order of protection hearing, opposing counsel submitted a false exhibit in the form of texts.
I can prove the texts were false and that opposing counsel acted with nonfeasance (he should have asked to see his client's phone) and then malfeasance (he withheld the exhibit for four months)
If the judge sides with me, will opposing counsel be sanctioned if not disbarred?
What is a "bad faith client" ? Google doesn't give a good answer.
All of them are greedy .............................
What was the result of this hearing? Disbarred? Suspension? Dismissed? Findings for?
Why so many judges? Is the Bar board?
It’s the Florida Supreme Court.
Justice Lewis is proof Oompa Loompas are real (34:30)
EDIT: minus the green hair.
you comment is proof of your immaturity
Someone get that judge some aloe!
So did he get disbarred or not? Didn’t somebody think to provide the resolution?
Your only Internet access is to CZcams, huh?
What is a fetus pewt?
That’s funny, I didn’t get it till I started watching: Thanks for the chuckle!
lol
Fee Dispute? Feet Dispute?
Justice Fred Lewis looks ridiculous. Beat red face and white hair
The other lawyers are just mad they didn't get a bigger share. They don't really care about the people he swindled. They just care they didn't get the case instead.
Correct. Their faux moral outrage is sickening.
No, all the lawyers that were on Lentner's side faced problems.
Seems to meet everyone has dirty hands who has the biggest screw
Isn't "bad faith lawyer" a tautology?
Funny, but no :) Thankfully.
Rothman...future doj
It’s amazing that the attorneys get such a small amount of time to state their cases....unreal.
The purpose for this is to clear up any questions the justices have regarding what is written and they've already read. This isn't for them to plead their case, their case has been put forward in writing to the justices in their briefs.
They’ve already states their cases in written complaint and response. This is oral arguments to clear up any issues the justices might have, much like a dissertation.
By the time they're at this stage, the facts have already been laid out. At this point they're just arguing sanctions.
Good, Lawyers are liars
a cruise that was full of lawyers sank and there were no survivors...it was called a good start in the press😂
Fani, youre next
Looks like someone punched this little lawyer in the face. Hmmm, imagine.
A lot of this is mumbo-jumbo to me, but you can bet your ass I'll be watching as Michael 'Creepy Porn Lawyer' Avenatti has his disbarment hearing.
I just watched a 37 minute video which did NOT include anything about him being disbarred. That was a waste of time.
So wtf was the outcome ? Listened to all that for nothing
He was disbarred.
@@yourhusbandismyboyfriend1714 I m going to sue you for fucking my hubby! /S
@@paulyou4629 Lol just seeing this. 😆
Lawyers are the scummiest of the scum. Imagine stealing from insurance claims to fill their pockets. Despicable!
Amazing defense i fuckn loved u get omg thank u so much i could literally hug u rite now
Y'all make too much money for babbling. Get a real job and see what it's like.
Babbling ? Who else is going to interpret laws? A plumber?