BSB on Marc Dann: Evidence of Incompetence?

  • Posted by Eric
  • April 4, 2006

This post lays out some damaging details about Subodh Chandra’s primary opponent:

1. Ex parte conversations with the judge- Dann discussed with the judge the appropriate sentence for Phillips. Lawyers (and judges) are prohibited by the ethical rules from having direct one-on-one conversations on a matter before the court. Counsel for Keith Phillips should have been notified. This rule protects parties from one-sided conversations and ensures that the defendant gets due process and a fair trial.

2. Competence- Even if the conversation was permitted (which it was not), Dann advised the judge without researching the charges…. And failed to discover that the crime Phillips was charged with did not exist. This is law school 101, and goes to Dann’s competence as an attorney.

3. Conflict of interest - Dann could not take the case because he had advised the judge. Under Ohio’s ethical rules, if an attorney can’t take a case because of a conflict of interest, no one in his/her firm could take the case. Conflicts are imputed to all members of the firm. Referring Phillips to Joltin was a clear violation.

4. Failure to supervise – Dann failed to supervise his associate Joltin

Dann faces a very real danger of having his license suspended because of this case.

Damn…and we thought “fender bender lawyer” was bad…

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
April 4th, 2006
9 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
AG 2006
Elections
State Politics

Other Posts
DeWine Jumps on Brown Travel
WCMH Won’t Run MoveOn Pryce “Red Handed” Video (video)

Say Something!

Because we value your thoughtful opinions, you are encouraged to add a comment to this post. Don't be offended if your comment is edited for clarity or to keep out questionable material. Comments may even be deleted at the discretion of the Plundercrew. You signal your agreement to this by clicking 'Submit Comment' below. Everyone who comments here is responsible for them.

Plunderchat:

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
ratdg1
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 1:05 pm

If you read the actual article, it says that there was already a hearing regarding Dann’s alleged malpractice, and it was dismissed.

Russell conveniently skipped over that part of the article.

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
NAB4SE
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 1:52 pm

This is terrible legal analysis from a non-lawyer. His description of conflicts is completely off base. His description of the ex parte communication is so muddled I can’t figure out what’s going on. Was Dann representing this guy at the time? If so, how could the client be injured by his own lawyer’s ex parte communication, if it was that?

Comment Number:
3
Written by:
Pounder
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 2:07 pm

ahhh - Raty - you’re wrong. 1 case on a different set of charges was dismissed without prejudice. These new charges are in a different jurisdiction and deal with a different set of problems for Dann - you need to get the full facts. - and i didnt skip anything, in fact i provided SUBSTANTIAL links in the extended so people could get as much information as was available. quit trying to distort and misrepresent.

NAB4SE - read the article. Dann had ex parte communications before representing the client, and when he knew he couldnt then represent the client he handed the case of to an employee - an ethical violation.

you guys prefer to attack me based on BS rather than read the article and comment on the substance of the public record.

Comment Number:
4
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 2:47 pm

Why would Dann have communications about this guy if he wasn’t a client? How would Dann even know about him?

Comment Number:
5
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 3:01 pm

Here’s what the article says:

“Boyko dismissed Dann, saying that there was no attorney-client relationship. Dann, also an attorney, employs and supervises Joltin, who represented Phillips. The malpractice claim against Joltin will go forward in state court.”

While some of the charges were no doubt dismissed without prejudice, the articles DO NOT say that the case against Dann was dismissed without prejudice. In fact, because the article specifically states that Dann was dismissed because there was never an attorney-client relationship is a ruling on the merits. Therefore, Dann’s dismissal was most likely WITH PREJUDICE. As such, any state claim against Dann would be barred by res judicata and claim and issue preclusion.

Given the lack of an attorney-client privilege, the likelihood that Dann will face discipline from the Ohio Supreme Court in this matter (which is the only possible state forum that could still hear any claim against Dann in this matter) is very slim.

Having a non-lawyer state, without any authority or qualifying support, that Dann “faces a very real danger of having his license suspended” is reckless based on these facts.

Comment Number:
6
Written by:
Pounder
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 3:02 pm

good question you could ask Marc Dann.

Comment Number:
7
Written by:
Modern Esquire
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 3:41 pm

I could, if he had a campaign website that told me when he’d be in my area…..

http://modern-esquire.blogspot.com/2006/03/update-has-ag-candidate-marc-dann-gone.html

Don’t get me wrong, I still strongly support Subdoh over Dann, but I just want to make sure what’s being such about Dann is accurate.

Comment Number:
8
Written by:
Muffet
Posted on:
April 4, 2006 at 4:44 pm

Without prejudice means that the case can be re-filed, if done within one year of the dismissal. With prejudice means that it’s all over.

Comment Number:
9
Written by:
Plunderbund » Defending Dann or Attacking Subodh?
Posted on:
April 5, 2006 at 12:38 pm

[…] Yesterday amid all the Chandra-Dann fun, I got a comment in this thread that was, well let’s just say LONG! It was a bunch of information related to the IALIF incident. You can view the comment here, a pdf file (although I took it out of the comments because this amount of information is disruptive in that format). […]