jose baez abogado

Jose Baez. The Baez Law Firm 1200 Brickell Avenue #620. Miami, FL 33131 Lawyer, Lawyer, Dutton & Drake, L.L.P. 1415 Grand Ave West Des Moines, IA 50265. Ana Quincoces is a Cuban-American lawyer, a chef and reality star. One of the best criminal lawyers of America, Jose Baez. Crowds react as Casey Anthony and her lawyer Jose Baez leave the Orange County Jail in Orlando, Florida July 17, 2011. Anthony was released from a.

Jose baez abogado -

Jose Baez - Relaciones, patrimonio neto, medidas, citas, familia, niños y biografía.

Valor neto $ 5 millones
Fecha de nacimiento 17 de octubre de 1968 (52 años)
Género Masculino
Profesión Abogado
Última actualización 2021
trabajos Abogado

Información general

Jose Baez Net Worth: Jose Baez es un abogado estadounidense que tiene un valor neto de $ 5 millones de dólares. José ganó la prominencia nacional cuando representó con éxito Casey Anthony durante su juicio de asesinato.

Nació el 17 de septiembre de 1970 en Nueva York, Nueva York. Jose Baez creció viajando entre Bronx y Florida. Salió de la escuela antes de graduarse, después de que él y su novia quedaban embarazada. Posteriormente completó su GED, y luego se unió a la Marina de los Estados Unidos a mediados de los 80. Continuó a trabajar como analista de inteligencia, y luego se graduó de la Universidad Estatal de Florida. Luego obtuvo su título de ley de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de St. Thomas en 1997.

Debido a los problemas de bancarrota previos, se le negó la admisión al bar de Florida hasta el 2005. Desde entonces, se ha centrado principalmente en casos de defensa penal, y se ha desempeñado como asesor legal en múltiples casos de alto perfil, incluida la representación de Elvira García, Nilton Díaz, Casey Anthony , y Gary Giordano. Jose Baez es considerado uno de los mejores abogados criminales del país.

Casey Anthony
Источник: https://www.modelworth.com/es-eur/person/jose-baez

Jose Baez is a gifted lawyer; he’s won acquittals for two of the country’s highest-profile defendants: Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez. Baez is active on Instagram, and he’s been posting a lot about the Hernandez case. In fact, he called the Netflix series on Hernandez a “lame ass documentary.”

The Florida attorney is featured in the new Netflix documentary on Hernandez, Killer Inside: The Mind of Aaron Hernandez. The documentary shows him winning an acquittal for Hernandez in the double murder of two men in Boston. However, Hernandez remained in prison because he was previously convicted of another homicide – the shooting death of Odin Lloyd – a case in which he was represented by another lawyer.

The former New England Patriots’ star killed himself in prison in 2017 while the Lloyd conviction was still up on appeal. The Netflix show basically accuses Hernandez of going on a violent crime spree, but he was only convicted of the Lloyd murder. You can see a roundup of murders and shootings linked to Hernandez here. In at least one of the shootings mentioned in the Netflix show, there is strong evidence that Hernandez didn’t do it.

However, what happened to Jose Baez? Where is he today?

Here’s what you need to know:


Baez Believes He Could Have Gotten Hernandez an Acquittal in the Odin Lloyd Case Because of Questions About Who Pulled the Trigger

Baez shared an excerpt from an article from Yahoo Sports in which the author answered this question, “Could Jose Baez have gotten Aaron off in the appeal of the Odin Lloyd murder?” The author responded that the evidence in the Lloyd case was “overwhelming.”

Baez wrote on Instagram, “I get asked this all the time and since this reporter threw it out there I must respectfully disagree. I think there was an outstanding chance he could have won the Odín Lloyd Trial. 4 guys go into a pit and 3 come out and you assume it was the NFL star with everything to lose and not the other two with criminal records? There was zero evidence as to who pulled the trigger. Thanks for the backhanded compliment Dan but I disagree. #aaronhernandez #baezlawfirm #aaronhernandezuncovered #unneccessaryroughness.”

Baez is referring to the two Hernandez friends who were with the NFL star that day when they picked up Lloyd shortly before his shooting death.

Today, Baez is still practicing law in Florida. You can find his law firm website here. “The Baez Law Firm offers clients top legal representation in criminal defense, civil rights, and civil litigation in south and central Florida, from Miami to Orlando to Tampa and all points in between,” it reads.

He briefly represented disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein but withdrew from that case.

His website explains that, in addition to his legal work, he “is on the faculty at Harvard Law School where he teaches trial techniques to second- and third-year law students in what is considered one of Harvard Law School’s most popular courses. Mr. Baez is fluent in Spanish and Portuguese and is extremely active in various charitable endeavors in the Hispanic community. When not in the office fighting for justice, he enjoys traveling and spending time with his family.”


Baez Doesn’t Think the Netflix Documentary Was Accurate

After the Netflix series streamed, Baez took to Instagram with harsh words.

“I don’t give a damn about what some lame ass documentary has to say about Aaron,” he wrote. “I knew him, they did not and while he was far from perfect, they are not even close to the truth. People have no idea how documentaries are made, the truth is usually found on the cutting room floor. These producers lied directly to my face, so I don’t expect their money making scheme to be much better. #ripchico #baezlawfirm #aaronhernandez.”

He didn’t explain further, though. But he shared a collage of photos showing Hernandez with Baez and Hernandez’s daughter and fiancee, Shayanna Jenkins.

Baez wrote a book on the Hernandez case.

He won the acquittal for Hernandez in the double murder case in part by causing doubts about the real triggerman, and questioning the testimony of a convicted drug dealer and former Hernandez friend Alexander Bradley, who claimed he was present when Hernandez shot two men because one of them had spilled a drink on him. Unlike the Lloyd case, there was no forensic evidence linking Hernandez to the double homicide, although authorities said they unearthed the car driven during the murders in the garage of his cousin.

The Lloyd case was built on the testimony of co-actors but also cell phone and surveillance video that established the timeline showing that Lloyd had just been picked up by Hernandez and was killed a short distance from the NFL player’s house.

Last April 2019, Baez also posted about Aaron on Instagram, writing this:

“The day I slipped in court and called him Aaron Rodriguez went like this:
AH: Bro you called me Aaron Rodriguez!
JB: Get the f*ck out of here, no I didn’t.
AH: Yeah you did! (Laughing)
JB: Well if I can convince them all, that they got the wrong guy, maybe we can walk you out of here right now! (AH, JB: ??) #ripchico #aaronhernandez. Today to honor 81 I will post another humorous moment in court. He had the best sense of humor and the most beautiful smile. ?”


Baez Is Friends With Geraldo Rivera & Is an In Demand Speaker

In recent posts, Baez indicated he was boating with TV personality Geraldo Rivera, writing, “Went boating today with my lifelong friend and TV legend, Geraldo Rivera. He always gives me the best advice on life, as he always did things his way. #geraldorivera #goat #josebaez #livinglegend.”

He gives talks at universities around the country.

He sometimes posts photos of himself on his page. One caption in December 2019 read, “I hope to arrive to my death late, In love and a little drunk….Atticus ??”

READ NEXT: How Many People Did Aaron Hernandez Kill?


Источник: https://heavy.com/sports/2020/01/jose-baez-now-today/
Lawyer Limelight: Thomas J. Nolan

Photo by Hugh Williams. 

If you were casting the Cinderella story of lawyers, you’d have to give consideration to Thomas J. Nolan, world-class trial partner at Latham, whose rise from night school at Loyola Los Angeles to the biggest cases on the planet personifies against all odds.

He scaled the ranks of global litigators starting in the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s office, forming his own firm, becoming Chair of West Coast Litigation at Skadden and now a partner in Latham’s Complex Commercial Litigation & Trial Practice. He has represented corporate giants including Litton Industries, International Paper, Toyota Motor Corp., MGA Entertainment, and most recently, CashCall, in their biggest cases helping clients win more than $1B in trial verdicts and defeating claims of more than $15B. He’s also made extraordinary public interest contributions, while always staying so very human.

A Lawdragon Legend for his 10-plus years as a member of the Lawdragon 500, he’s a member of our Hall of Fame alongside many, many other honors. His story is one of incredible accomplishment, inspiring personal narrative and deep reflection on what it takes to rise all the way to the top.

Lawdragon: You are having a trial lawyer’s dream career. What are your takeaways at this point for those who’d like to enjoy the same type of success?

Thomas J. Nolan: I’ve had enormous opportunities that catapulted me into cases where occasionally, while sitting in a boardroom or in a courtroom with millions at stake, I would think, “Boy, for a kid who the nuns had great concerns as to whether or not I would ever make it to college, this is a pretty amazing ride.”

I never lost sight of how fortunate I have been and how lucky I was to have mentors at each stage of my career who pointed me in the right direction. So one of the takeaways would be to create the path you want to take in life, not only as a lawyer but also as a human being. I’d like to think over the course of my career I always focused on the humanity of any situation that I was dealing with.

If you wish to become a successful trial attorney, I would suggest you ask yourself a simple question; a brief test. Are you as comfortable talking with the people in the copy room of whichever law firm you are working at as you are in talking to your most important clients? The answer is relevant as it provides an insight as to how authentic you as an aspiring attorney are in your various relationships. To be a success in the courtroom, you have to be an authentic advocate. You can’t fake authenticity, and if you try to, the jurors will reject the pretense. If you don’t take the time to talk with the copy room personnel and other staff as part of an ordinary day, you can’t possibly relate to jurors. You can best measure a young lawyer’s authenticity by observing how they treat their co-workers, regardless of their status. It’s disturbing how often attorneys can sit in conference rooms preparing for a trial and yet never acknowledge the kitchen help that bring in a fresh pot of coffee or clear away the lunch dishes. The reality is that the kitchen worker has a greater chance of ending up on a jury than any of the attorneys sitting around the conference room table. Show me the attorney who knows the kitchen worker’s name and acknowledges them, and I will show you someone who might be able to relate to jurors.

LD: One of the most remarkable things about you, having known you for 30 years, is that you’ve never lost sight of who you are. How do you teach that to lawyers, as it’s so easy to get swept up in self-importance with the world of law firms and big client matters?

TJN: This career has the potential of altering your values the higher you climb and the more you make.. Unfortunately, you can’t win every trial so the valleys can be pretty deep. It requires that you constantly monitor your humility barometer. I used to meet with Skadden’s first-year lawyers during orientation, and would warn them to stay authentic and remain humble. After welcoming them to Skadden, I pointed out that as First Year Attorneys in Big Law, before they billed a single hour, they were being paid more than 99 percent of the nation. I suggested “If you ever wake up thinking that you are actually worth what we are paying you, please consider going to another law firm.” I explained that it had been my observation that those young associates who came to the firm with a healthy sense of entitlement were destined to fail. I encouraged them to leave their diplomas at home, because, although they all graduated from prestigious law schools, within two years nobody will care where they went to school. Rather, while an associate at Skadden they would be judged by the quality of their work, their work ethic and by how they treated their colleagues and related to the staff.

It’s frustrating to watch attorneys who have no business standing before a jury pretend to be sincere, because you can’t fake authenticity. So another takeaway is remain focused on being an authentic storyteller who the jury will trust not to allow them to do an injustice in the case. Every trial is a “morality play” which requires the trial attorney to remain focused  on persuading the jury that her or his client is more worthy and deserving of a favorable verdict.

LD: And what is it that you need to stay focused on?

TJN: If you want to be a trial lawyer, you need to be passionate about mastering the basics of trial advocacy. I ask associates whether they ever follow trials reported in the press, and whether they were ever curious enough to understand how the jury returned its verdict that they pulled the reporters’ transcripts of the opening and closing statements of a particular trial. Or curious enough to go online and download a video of the cross examination of the key witness?

I confess that I have always been fascinated by trials and enjoy reverse engineering how verdicts came about. A recent example of my fascination was the second first-degree murder trial of the former New England Patriots receiver, Aaron Hernandez. I was driving down to the beach with my family when I heard on the radio that Hernandez was acquitted of first-degree murder after he’d already been convicted of first-degree murder in an unrelated prosecution, in another case of murder. I was intrigued that our justice system could produce twelve impartial jurors, all of them knowing about Hernandez’s prior conviction and yet they acquitted him of all charges in the second trial. Rather than walking to the beach, I stayed behind and downloaded Jose Baez’s opening and closing arguments. It was better than any movie, and Baez’s argument was a masterpiece – both in content and style. The importance of the acquittal that Baez obtained for Hernandez was made all the more poignant with the news a few days later that Hernandez had committed suicide in his cell.

An aspiring trial attorney has to be passionate about mastering the art of persuasion. If you’re going to make it as a trial attorney you need to put in the hours to learn the basics of advocacy.

LD: Can you explain those to us please?

TJN: Study the masters and read accounts of famous trials. At a very early age, I knew I wanted to be a trial attorney. When I was a freshman in high school, my first book report was on Louis Nizer’s, My Life in Court.

In my senior year of high school, our civics teacher, Frank Ward, assigned the class to read the famous case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. I am not certain what the purpose of the assignment was, but at Glendale Law Library, I pulled everything I could find about the case. When we had the discussion in class, it was obvious to Mr. Ward that I had spent a lot of time studying the Palsgraf decision and the concept of duty and foreseeable risk. After listening to my discussion in class, Mr. Ward turned to the class and said, “How many think that Tom Nolan should be a lawyer?”

That was my first validation as an advocate. And, I remember to this day that very moment, the classroom and what row I was sitting in when I talked about the Palsgraf case. I did it without any notes, and, to the dismay of my colleagues, I still deliver opening and closing statements without notes as I find them to be distracting. It’s a weakness I wish I could overcome, but notes distract me. If I was having dinner with a friend and recounting a story, I would hardly pause to refer to a note or two. I feel the same way standing before juries.

LD: Can you tell us about two or three of your favorite cases and what makes them memorable?

TJN: I was very fortunate that after graduating from law school I was hired into the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

One of the early cases I was assigned to was a rare federal murder trial conducted in the Central District. A U.S. Postal Inspector was murdered at the last stop on his collection schedule. In those days, Post Offices often carried substantial amounts of money, which would be collected by designated postal trucks. He was murdered during an armed robbery of his mail truck. We turned an informant, and a stake out was set up as the defendants planned to rob another mail truck. The informant drove the Cadillac get-a-way car, which had been heavily wired by the U.S. Postal Inspectors. Unfortunately, the recording device was concealed under the front seat of the Cadillac, immediately adjacent to the front seat’s electrical motor. As luck would have it, as the monitored mail truck proceeded down the alley the defendant sitting in the front seat started to fiddle with the electric front seat just as he stated, “Let’s get this guy just like we did the other white guy.….”  At the exact moment, the killer made the incriminating statement a train went by only a few yards from where the Cadillac was parked. After the arrest, the Postal Inspectors retrieved the tape recording device only to learn that the incriminating statements, made over 27 seconds, was inaudible because of the audio contamination caused by the electrical motor and the sound of the train roaring by.

In 1978 when the case was tried, neither the U.S. Postal Service nor the FBI had the expertise to filter out the background noise of the electrical motor and train. However, the agents located a sound technician who was developing a method to digitalize analogue tapes, which then would allow any competing audio signals to be separated. He was hired to work on the 27 seconds of our tape recording, for which the cost was approximately, $25,000. That was a huge amount to spend those days; however, it was well worth the expense, as we were able to play the dramatic 27 seconds before the jury, which led to the conviction of the two defendants who are both serving  consecutive life terms.

LD: What a way to start your practice. What other cases come to mind?

TJN: When I left the U.S. Attorney’s office, I joined Stephen Miller who started his own small boutique criminal defense firm. We were hired to represent the son of a well-known tax lawyer, who was also President Ronald Reagan’s alter ago. The son had schizophrenia and had tragically raped and killed his mother. As part of our trial preparation, I met with the incarcerated son on nearly a daily basis. We became quick students of the insidious mental illness of schizophrenia. At trial, I was assigned to cross-examine the coroner with the goal of establishing that at the time of the sexual assault, his mother was dead. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. As I was cross-examining the coroner I thought to myself, “God please do not let my mother walk into this courtroom.” Our client was found not guilty of first-degree murder by reason of insanity. He was acquitted on the charge of rape, as it is not a crime in California to rape a corpse.

The memory of that case is seared in my mind since I had to sit down with the father and tell him that in addition to his son being charged with killing his mother, he was going to be charged with the rape of his mother. I recall that day as my heart broke while delivering that horrific news. Shortly after delivering the news, our office receptionist came into the conference room and announced that the White House switchboard operator was calling, as President Reagan wanted to express his condolences to his long-time counselor.

LD: That’s a tough day.

TJN: Another memorable case was my first civil trial. I was a partner in the Los Angeles office of the D.C. firm, Howrey & Simon when I got a call from one of Howrey’s senior antitrust partners. He explained they had an antitrust case scheduled to be tried in front of L.A. federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer, Litton v. Honeywell. It was a battle that had taken on a life of its own, had endured 10 years of litigation, and they wanted me to meet with the general counsel of Litton Industries, in part because I knew Judge Pfaelzer. The general counsel of Litton, John Preston, was there. I made the presentation, and he asked me, “When was your last trial?” I told him about a case I had  just defended involving criminal charges against a Hassidic rabbi. John left, and my partners glared at me wondering why I talked about a criminal trial; but he had asked me a question, and I answered it.

The next day John said that I would have to try the case. He’s another person who made a great difference in my life. I had never tried a civil case in my life, which I don’t think anybody knew at the time. That led to a huge trial with Gibson Dunn’s antitrust legend, Bob Cooper. I bought the book Antitrust- in-a-Nutshell and started reading it because I had not studied antitrust in law school. The jury came back with the verdict of $234 million. Judge Pfaelzer was clearly disappointed by the verdict and granted Honeywell’s motion for new trial limited to the damages phase. In the damages retrial, Honeywell added to its defense team, another iconic antitrust lawyer, the late Max Blecher. We skirmished on pre-screening jurors and tried it again. The jury came back in an hour-and-a-half and awarded Litton  $250 million. A juror came to me later and apologized that it took so long explaining that the clerk had taken his time bringing the trial exhibits back to the jury room. Another example that I must have been born under a lucky star.

LD: Did that mark your move to handling more civil cases?

TJN: It did, and I don’t think anyone knew it was my first civil trial. So in my first two civil trials we had achieved a $234 million verdict followed by a $250-million verdict. Judge Pfaelzer accepted the second verdict and awarded Litton $40 million in attorney fees. With the verdict trebled plus the attorney-fee award, we had obtained a $790-million judgment which was settled for $400 million while on appeal. We had an incredible trial team with the old-guard antitrust lawyers setting aside their own egos to help an upstart antitrust lawyer.

After I moved to Skadden, I was fortunate to work with Jay Kasner, a well-respected and senior partner at Skadden. Jay was the lead attorney on a team of approximately 40 other Skadden attorneys who were representing J.P. Morgan and a syndicate of other underwriters of bonds issued by WorldCom. Jay and I became fast friends and I moved back to New York for five months as we prepared for trial. I also became fast friends with a jury consultant, Steve Lybrand. Circumstances led to us having to settle the case the evening before jury selection. I will always regret not having had a chance to try that case to verdict, but the case is a good example of how some cases are just too large to try. The underwriters’ exposure was $10 billion. Although we were doing well with focus groups, $10 billion of shareholder equity was too great to risk and the Board voted to settle the case on the eve of jury selection.

As I was walking out of the JP Morgan Board Room. I was feeling pretty low as we had worked so hard to get the case prepared for trial. However, I had a flashback and reflected on how far I was from my civics class in Burbank, but it was also another example where so many talented colleagues set aside their own egos to ensure that I was as prepared as much as possible to master the defense of the WorldCom underwriters. I am sure many felt they were more qualified and deserving to be sitting next to Jay at counsel table; however, that was one of the qualities of being a Skadden partner. Jay was generous with his time, and he was instrumental in my integration as a Skadden partner. I was fortunate to work closely with Jay on several other major securities cases filed in the Southern District of New York Amazing things happened for me while at Skadden as I had amazing cases, including the defense of Wells Fargo in a rare trial involving violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the defense of Toyota against allegations of unintended acceleration in their vehicles equipped with fuel injection systems, the defense of UBS in a billion-dollar mortgage-backed securities trial and of course the Barbie v Bratz doll wars jury trial.
I referenced earlier Steven Lybrand, a jury consultant I met during the WorldCom. I was fortunate to recruit Steven to accept an in- house position at Skadden. Steven joined forces with Aaron Shorr, a court room technician I brought over with me from Howrey. Every client I worked with and every juror I interviewed after a verdict, described Aaron a as a magician with technology. Aaron was with me for seventeen years and became so close that he would anticipate a point I was about to make, before I made it. He clearly had the hardest job as I notoriously never follow a prepared script or outline. After Steven joined Skadden, he and Aaron formed a powerful in- house machine that distinguished Skadden’s Trial capability from their competitors. I was was so fortunate to have spent the last ten years of my time at Skadden teaming up with Steven and Aaron as there was never an occasion where I didn’t have them at my side. Although we would also use outside jury consultants, Steven and Aaron would be the last I would listen to before walking into court. When it comes to picking a jury, Steven has a special genius of identifying how jurors think. Steven and Aaron also servered as great mentors to younger attorneys who wished to master the art of persuasion. I am fortunate to consider Steven and Aaron as close personal friends who would also be brutally honest when they thought I needed to step up my game. So another piece of advice for anyone wanting to become a trial attorney, surround yourself with colleagues who are independent thinkers who resist “group think” and will not hesitate to offer constructive feedback.
LD: Can you tell us a bit more about the epic “doll wars trial” which pitted Mattel against MGA? How did that come about?

TJN: I have two daughters but neither played with dolls, so I had no idea what a Bratz doll was when I got a call from MGA’s General Counsel. Nor had I ever tried a trademark or copyright case. I met with Isaac Larian, the CEO of MGA, and he pressed me on whether we could be trial ready within four months. Apparently, the other law firms Isaac was considering had said they wanted a continuance of at least three months just to evaluate the case before they could decide if they would accept the engagement. I had the advantage of having a number of Skadden colleagues with whom I had tried cases. I told Isaac that if he wanted us as his trial counsel, we were prepared to jump in the deep-end with him and we would learn how to swim. We were hired and lined up against a team from Quinn Emanuel, led by John Quinn. It was like drinking from a water hydrant. We were facing approximately 90 open discovery issues as the trial date was fast advancing. In the end, the trial court granted us a thirty-day continuance but we were constantly under siege.

In addition to learning trademark and copyright principles, I had to learn everything I could about a Bratz doll. Our girls never collected dolls when they were young, but - as they always did during other trials - they were supportive. Whenever they had friends sleep over, I would use them as my early focus groups helping me prepare to explain to a jury how Bratz dolls differed from Barbie dolls. They taught me the intricacies of the Bratz unique fashions. I would show them Bratz dolls and their various fashions. My daughter’s high school friends became my first jury focus group for the Bratz trial.

For Bratz, I learned everything I could about copyright and trademark, and the rest is history. We tried the case and lost the first phase of the trial. The jury found that the Bratz dolls were designed by a Mattel designer working on his own time at night. We were devastated by the verdict, but we had to prepare for the damages phase. There was no time to lick our wounds. We had to keep pushing. I remember it was during the Summer 2008 Olympics, and while sitting in my hotel room, I watched Michael Phelps win one of his gold medals by his sheer force of will.  Phelps lunged for the wall at the very last minute and outreached the other swimmer. He won the Gold even though 5 yards from the finish he was destined to finish in second place. I asked our trial team to watch a rerun of the race on a TV in our hotel conference room and asked them to commit to continue to out-work the Mattel team. In the end, we had to exceed Mattel’s reach for a $ 2-billion prize. I asked them to do what Phelps did – never give up. That became our mantra. It also reminded me of the importance of staying in touch with the humanity of a stinging loss.

In the second phase of trial, Bill Price of Quinn asked the jury to award Mattel $2 billion in damages. The jury came back and awarded $100 million, which was a lot of money. However, it was less than what industry consultants had predicted. The Wall Street Journal reported the outcome with the headline, “Barbie Wears Black: Mattel’s Damages Come in Way Low.” Losing the first phase of Bratz was probably the lowest point in my career.

LD: You’re not a trial lawyer if you haven’t lost a case. Can you tell us a bit more about your first trial, which you lost? The defendant had been a prison inmate who did not return from furlough, and the jury acquitted him because he claimed he was abused by prison gangs.

TJN: Oh man, the memory of that loss still stings. I was pretty full of myself, as I had just been hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney straight out of night school at Loyola Law School. I thought I had reached the top of the mountain I had started to climb early in high school. However, I soon then realized there were many more mountains I would need to climb. That first loss framed how I had to prepare for a trial. That was my first encounter with not only the fear of losing, but the reality of a loss. The reality of losing. I felt like I was against all odds.

For me, the fear of losing had become a reality in my first trial. Personal. Was I doomed to be a failure? All of my hopes and dreams were in jeopardy. My personal challenge was that I feared I would always be marked as a loser. Upon reflection, losing my first trial was the best thing to have happened to my career. I hated to lose, and I willed that I would do everything necessary to avoid that experience. I would not simply walk away just because I was hit in the face.

And, if you talk to any of the great trial lawyers, I bet you in their souls they would say the same thing. At the end of the day, it’s not as much about winning or losing, but rather how did you prepare for the case. In the end, you need to reflect on how you performed before the jury. Did you give every ounce of your being to the cause? I submit that another hallmark of a trial attorney is the power of self-reflection. You can fool some people but you can’t fool yourself. It is critical for trial attorneys to be prepared to embrace people along the way who will make you a better lawyer, and more importantly a better person. Count on family, friends and colleagues to keep you authentic.

LD: You’ve been at a small firm, a big firm that collapsed and two of the world’s greatest law firms. Do you think firms are a great thing or a necessary evil?

TJN: Big law firms are often described as “necessary evils”. However, the connotation is unfair as they bring power to circumstances where access to social justice is under siege.

In the WorldCom case, I was fortunate to work alongside a brilliant lawyer who had been battling for several years the AIDS virus.  We became close friends and during the long lead up to the WorldCom trial date we would often talk about a myriad of subjects, from trial evidence rules to discrimination, and everything in between. On a Saturday morning several months after the WorldCom settlement, I received a call from David. After ”hello” he said, “Tom, I’m going to die and I need a favor."

And he told me he had a case that he wanted me to take over in the event he died. The case involved a high school girl who was gay and outed and harassed by her classmates. The school district did nothing to stop the harassment, so David took on the case and sued the school district. Six months later, David died. I went to New York and got ready to try the case and we went to a court-mandated mediation. The mediator advised us what he thought the case was worth as he doubted Skadden would front the expense of a trial when a reasonable settlement was in the offering. I explained that he was grossly underestimating both Skadden’s and my resolve to see the case through trial and an appeal if necessary. I explained that I wanted to meet with the school district’s General Counsel and his trial counsel. At the meeting, I relayed my last conversation with David and my promise to him, which was fully endorsed by Skadden’s Chairman. I told them that we were prepared to take the case to trial and would fight them with every ounce of my being and the power of Skadden Arps.

So the case settles. And as I’m leaving the conference room, the lawyer from the agency asked, “Are you happy with the result?” Someone else mentioned it was the second-highest settlement for that type of case. I couldn’t suppress my Irish heritage nor my competitive spirit, so a bit peeved, I turned and asked, “Who had the highest?” And they advised that it had been achieved by David. That’s the power of Big Law. I am proud to be now at Latham where the same commitment to ensuring access to justice for the most needy exists. So for those that view Big Law as a “necessary evil”, my response is “hog wash.”

LD: Do you have superstitions as a trial lawyer?

TJN:  After my win in the Litton case, my older sister gave me a memento, my father’s college ring. I carried the ring in my suit pocket in every case that I tried after Litton.

Unfortunately, a few years ago our home was burglarized and the SOBs stole my wife’s jewelry along with a couple of my watches and my father’s college ring. Two years later, they arrested the person, and I went to the arraignment and talked to the defense lawyer. I told her that I’d do everything I could to help her client if she just helped me get my father’s ring back. I never got it back. That ripped me up.

LD: Tell me about your Dad, who passed away when you were six. He and your Mom are a touchpoint of almost everything you say and do.

TJN: My father went to Fordham Law School and after graduation became an FBI agent. After that, he became the head of security for a liquor distillery and then died of a heart attack - he was only 39-years old. A burning question for me as I grew up was why my father didn’t practice law.

Fast forward some 49 years later when I was interviewing with Skadden Arps, my last interview was with the legendary Joe Flom, and he asked me, “Why are you hesitating?” I said, “I don’t know, this is the Big Leagues, Joe. I’m a kid from night school.” And he looked at me and said, “Tom, do you know why we formed this firm? Because in 1948, if you were a Catholic or a Jew, you could not be hired in a law firm.”

I was born in 1948, so that gave me the answer I had been searching for. My dad was an Irish Catholic and the many doors that were held open for me, were closed shut to him and so many other Catholics and Jews.

LD: It must mean so much to you knowing how you carried on from your father.

TJN: I hope so, but I always feel I am on an endless journey hoping to earn his approval. My last trial as a Skadden partner was for UBS in New York, involving mortgage-backed securities, and several billion dollars were at stake. I was dizzy with the opportunity to try a case in the Southern District of New York, situated in the heart of Foley Square, where my father was an FBI agent, where my mother worked at the FBI and met my father.

The night before I was to deliver the opening statement, I went out and had an Uber driver take me to Pelham, New York, just outside of Westchester, to my father’s grave. It was a beautiful evening and I just sat down next to his gravestone appreciating the fact that my father couldn’t have gotten a job in a New York law firm and now his son was about to deliver the Opening Statement in a trial with a couple of billion dollars on the line. I didn’t need any closure, I just wanted to share the moment with him out of respect. So I just said a silent prayer in gratitude and ended with, “Hey Dad, this is pretty cool.”

Maybe the life lesson is to never forget who you are and never pretend you are something you’re not. Just be authentic and be prepared to work your tail off. In the end, buckle up as the ride is going to be amazing.

About the Author: Katrina Dewey ([email protected]) is the founder and CEO of Lawdragon, which she and her partners created as the new media company for the world’s lawyers. She has written about lawyers and legal affairs for 30 years, and is a noted legal editor, creator of numerous lawyer recognition guides and expert on lawyer branding. She is based in Venice, Calif., and New York. She is also the founder of Lawdragon Campus, which covers law students and law schools. View our staff page. 

Источник: https://www.lawdragon.com/lawyer-limelights/2018-09-03-lawyer-limelight-thomas-j-nolan

Brian Laundrie Family Will Not Be Repped by Casey Anthony Lawyer, Jose Baez

The family of Brian Laundrie -- the main person of interest in the death of Gabby Petito -- has not retained the lawyer known for representing other notorious defendants like Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez ... despite swirling rumors.

Attorney Jose Baez tells TMZ ... he has not spoken to the Laundrie family or Brian himself. He says, "Therefore, I do not represent him or anyone else related to the case" and tells us his current caseload makes it very unlikely he'd be available for this case "given its current complexities."

Earlier Thursday, Laundrie's parents made a 2-hour trip to Orlando and people online noticed they were close to Baez's office ... which sparked speculation they were looking to hire him. But, we're told that's not the case, and the Laundries' lawyer says they were simply there for business.

As you know ... Baez was responsible for getting Casey Anthony acquitted in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Baez was also the lawyer for NFL star Aaron Hernandez's in both his 2012 double murder case and his 2013 murder appeal ... until Hernandez killed himself in prison.

As we've reported ... Laundrie is still missing roughly a week after his parents first told authorities he took his backpack and went on a hike. Before that, he was named a person of interest in the disappearance of Gabby, his fiancee, after returning home from a cross-country trip on Sept. 1 without her.

Weeks before that, the couple were involved in a domestic dispute in Utah, in which a 911 caller said he saw Brian slapped and hit Gabby.

Her body was found Sunday in a Wyoming state park near a site where the van the couple was traveling in was spotted by a witness in mid-August. The coroner ruled Gabby's death a homicide, and as of now ... all signs point to Brian -- the last person to see her alive.

Related Articles

Источник: https://www.tmz.com/2021/09/23/brian-laundrie-gabby-petito-family-not-represented-casey-anthony-lawyer-jose-baez/
Luis N. Saldaña - Román
Shareholder

Born in Seville, Spain, December 17, 1967; admitted to bar, 1992, Puerto Rico; 1993, U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico and U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Mr. Saldaña is the Honorary Consul for the Kingdom of Denmark, San Juan, Puerto Rico since March 2011. Since May 2019 he is also the Honorary Consul for the Kingdom of Sweden (Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands). Her Majesty Margrethe II of Denmark bestowed upon him the Order of the Dannebrog on May 2019. Co-Author ABA's Book on Obtaining Evidence Abroad, Discovery Across the Globe (Puerto Rico Chapter). [see info]
  
Ian P. Carvajal
Shareholder

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 26, 1968; admitted to bar, 1994, Puerto Rico, 1995, State of Louisiana, U.S. District Court, Eastern, Middle, Western Districts of Louisiana; U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; 1997, U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico; 1998, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit. [see info]
  
Lizette Vélez-Rivé
Shareholder

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 5, 1968; admitted to bar, 1994, Puerto Rico; 1995, U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico and U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit. [see info]
  
Frances R. Colón-Rivera
Partner

Born in Fajardo, Puerto Rico, June 7, 1970; admitted to bar, 1996, Puerto Rico, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit and U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico. Ms. Colón has been a speaker on National Business Institute, Fundamentals on Employment Discrimination Law Seminars and on the Council on Education in Management Puerto Rico Employment Law Update Seminars. [see info]
  
Manuel Sosa-Báez
Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 6, 1974; admitted to bar, 2002, Puerto Rico; U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; and, U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico. Admited to bar, 2013, United States Court for International Trade. Lecturer on Federal Jurisdiction, 2013- present; Adjunct Professor of Maritime Law, University of Puerto Rico, School of Law, 2005-10; Visiting Professor of Maritime Law, Interamerican University of Puerto Rico, School of Law, Summer 2005; Speaker on Maritime Law and Legislation at Ship Operations Cooperative Program’s Meeting, June 22-24, 2004;Author of Puerto Rico Clings to the Uniformity of General Maritime Law, 2 Benedict’s Mar. Bull. 257 (3d Quarter 2004). [see info]
  
Bayoán Muñiz-Calderón
Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, September 24, 1979; admitted to bar, 2005, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Court of Appeals [see info]
  
Vanessa Blanco-Méndez
Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, January 16, 1984; admitted to bar, 2010, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico, 2012; U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2015. [see info]
  
Fernando Sabater-Clavell
Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, February 21, 1981; admitted to bar, 2007, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [see info]
  
Lourdes M. Santos-Gutiérrez
Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, June 25, 1979; admitted to bar, 2005, Puerto Rico, U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [see info]
  
Carolene Fontanet-Smith
Junior Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 18, 1989; admitted to bar, 2015, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, 2015. [see info]
  
Alicia P. Pérez-Caballero
Junior Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, September 18, 1987; admitted to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. [see info]
  
José A. Sánchez-Girona
Associate

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 1, 1967; admitted to Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico; First Circuit Court. [see info]
  
Xaymara Colón-González
Junior Partner

Born in Aibonito, Puerto Rico, September 16, 1986; admitted to bar, 2013, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico (2013). [see info]
  
Luis J. Clas-Wiscovitch
Associate

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, September 19, 1989; admitted to bar 2016, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. Admitted to the Florida Bar, 2018. [see info]
  
Angel Rotger-Sabat
Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, October 25, 1967; admitted to bar, 1993, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 1994, U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico, and 2016, District of Columbia, and 2019, Colorado; former Attorney General (2000), and Deputy Attorney General (1997-1999) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. [see info]
  
Johanna Smith-Miró
Associate

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico August 14, 1984 Admitted to Bar 2013, Puerto Rico; USDC 2017 [see info]
  
Manuel E. Mazo-Nido
Associate

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 3, 1991; admitted to the Puerto Rico Bar, 2017; U.S District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, awaiting induction ceremony, 2019. [see info]
  
Gretchen L. Alvarado-González
Associate

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, September 3, 1988; admitted to bar, 2014, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court, District of Puerto Rico, 2014. [see info]
  
Jose R. Feliciano-Boada
Associate

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, August 3, 1992, admitted to the Puerto Rico Bar 2017; District of Columbia Bar 2019 and a registered USPTO Patent Attorney. [see info]
  
Fernando J. Collazo Valle
Special Counsel

Born in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, July 15, 1977. Bar admissions: Puerto Rico (2003), U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (2003), U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2003), U.S. Supreme Court (2006). [see info]
  
Gladys M. Míguez-Corujo
Junior Partner

Born in San Juan, Puerto Rico, March 2, 1983; admitted to bar, 2011, Puerto Rico; U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, 2011. [see info]
  

© Copyright 2016. Saldaña, Carvajal & Vélez-Rivé, P.S.C. All rights reserved.

Источник: http://www.scvrlaw.com/attorney_list.php

Brian Laundrie Family Will Not Be Repped by Casey Anthony Lawyer, Jose Baez

The family td bank routing number ma Brian Laundrie -- the main person of interest in the death of Gabby Petito -- has not retained the lawyer known for representing other notorious defendants like Casey Anthony and Aaron Hernandez . despite swirling rumors.

Attorney Jose Baez tells TMZ . he has not spoken to the Laundrie family or Brian himself. He says, "Therefore, I do not represent him or anyone else related to the case" and tells us his current caseload makes it very unlikely he'd be available for this case "given its current complexities."

Earlier Thursday, Laundrie's parents made a 2-hour trip to Orlando and people online noticed they were close to Baez's office . which sparked speculation they were looking to hire him. But, we're told that's not the case, and the Laundries' lawyer says they were simply there for business.

As you know . Baez was responsible for getting Casey Anthony acquitted in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Baez was also the lawyer for NFL star Aaron Hernandez's in both his 2012 double murder case and his 2013 murder appeal . until Fort columbia historical state park killed himself in prison.

As we've reported . Laundrie is still missing roughly a week after his parents first told authorities he took his backpack and went on a hike. Before that, he was named a person of interest in the disappearance of Gabby, his fiancee, after returning home from a cross-country trip on Sept. 1 without her.

Weeks before that, the couple were involved in a domestic dispute in Utah, in which a 911 caller said he saw Brian slapped and hit Gabby.

Her body was found Sunday in a Wyoming state park near a site where the van the couple was traveling in was spotted by a witness in mid-August. The coroner ruled Gabby's death a homicide, and as of now . all signs point to Brian -- the last person to see her alive.

Related Articles walmart edmond ok i 35

Источник: https://www.tmz.com/2021/09/23/brian-laundrie-gabby-petito-family-not-represented-casey-anthony-lawyer-jose-baez/

Jose Baez - Relaciones, patrimonio neto, medidas, citas, familia, niños y biografía.

Valor neto $ 5 millones
Fecha de nacimiento 17 de octubre de 1968 (52 años)
Género Masculino
Profesión Abogado
Última actualización 2021
trabajos Abogado

Información general jose baez abogado Jose Baez Net Worth: Jose Baez es un abogado estadounidense que tiene un valor neto de $ 5 millones de dólares. José ganó la prominencia nacional cuando representó con éxito Casey Anthony durante su juicio de asesinato.

Nació el 17 de septiembre de 1970 en Nueva York, Nueva York. Jose Baez creció viajando entre Bronx y Florida. Salió de la escuela antes de graduarse, después de que él y su novia quedaban embarazada. Posteriormente completó su GED, y luego se unió a la Marina de los Estados Unidos a mediados de los 80. Continuó a trabajar como analista de inteligencia, y luego se graduó de la Universidad Estatal de Florida. Luego obtuvo su título de ley de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de St. Thomas en 1997.

Debido a los problemas de bancarrota previos, se le negó la admisión al bar de Florida hasta el 2005. Desde entonces, se ha centrado principalmente en casos de defensa penal, y se ha desempeñado como asesor legal en múltiples casos de alto perfil, incluida la representación de Elvira García, Nilton Díaz, Casey Anthony y Gary Giordano. Jose Baez es considerado uno de los mejores abogados criminales del país.

Casey Anthony

Источник: https://www.modelworth.com/es-eur/person/jose-baez

STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSE R. BAEZ

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1525-19 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSE R. BAEZ a/k/a JOSE R. BAEZ-DE LA CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant. Argued December 2, 2020 – Decided February 19, 2021 Before Judges Alvarez and Geiger. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Bergen County, Indictment No. 17-10-1383. Kevin G. Roe argued the cause for appellant. Craig A. Becker, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause jose baez abogado for respondent (Mark Musella, Bergen County Prosecutor, attorney; Craig A. Becker, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM Defendant Jose R. Baez jose baez abogado the June 10, 2019 Law Division denial of his motion to suppress evidence, as well as the November 1, 2019 sentence. We affirm. At the suppression hearing, Bergen County Prosecutor's Office Narcotics Task Force Detective Timothy Cullen testified that on February 22, 2017, a Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) agent1 passed on a tip from a confidential informant (CI). The CI notified the DEA agent, based on the CI's "personal knowledge," that defendant was moving laundered money in exchange for drugs. The CI said defendant was known to travel in a vehicle containing hidden compartments. Cullen further testified he was advised the CI had been "responsible for the seizure of 100 kilograms of narcotics, over a million dollars in currency and about two dozen criminal arrests." As a result, on that date, officers monitored defendant's quick round trip from New Jersey to New York through license plate readers located at the George Washington Bridge. Cullen had previously surveilled defendant's home address and knew defendant drove a black 2008 Saturn Vue. The officers monitored defendant's travel on Route 1 southbound, while Cullen stationed himself on a side street. When defendant's vehicle came into 1 The agent was a Fort Lee officer on loan to the DEA. A-1525-19 2 Cullen's view, defendant was traveling in the far-left lane. Cullen pulled out and followed defendant in the left lane for approximately a quarter mile. Defendant crossed over the right lane and turned right onto an exit ramp. Once off the highway, Cullen pulled him over, intending to cite defendant for a violation of failure to keep right, N.J.S.A. 39:4-88(a). Because the car had tinted windows, Cullen knocked on a rear window so defendant would roll it down. The officer wanted to confirm that defendant was the only occupant. Cullen recognized defendant immediately as the person he had seen getting in and out of the Saturn Vue in front of the Palisades Park address he had surveilled a month or two earlier. As Cullen spoke to defendant through the open car window, he noticed a strong smell of air freshener, and saw a single key with an after-market alarm fob in the ignition. The judge watched the video recording of the stop, and it corroborated Cullen's account. Cullen explained car air freshener was frequently used by persons involved in illegal drug trafficking because it was rumored to mask the scent of contraband, thus throwing off any police dogs used to search a vehicle. The after-market fob was commonplace in cars used in the transport of illegal drugs. During the stop, defendant told Cullen that the car belonged to his sister. He first claimed that he never drove it, then said he drove it "sometimes." Cullen A-1525-19 3 said it is not unusual that when a vehicle is "trapped out," in other words, fitted with hidden compartments for the transport of contraband, that it is registered to a third party. Defendant told Cullen that he lived in Manhattan and was on his way to an Auto Zone store in New Jersey to buy brake parts. Cullen knew this statement was false, having seen defendant at his home address. When asked if he had ever been in trouble, defendant denied it—a statement Cullen also knew was false, as defendant had a 2007 conviction for money laundering. At that juncture, Cullen asked defendant to sign a consent to search. Defendant agreed. $63,500 was found in a secret compartment, along with $1000 and two cell phones in a man's satchel on the front seat. Approximately $1600 was taken from defendant's person. Based on the discovery of the bundled cash in defendant's vehicle, together with the other circumstances spelled out in an affidavit, Cullen obtained a search warrant for defendant's home. The execution of the warrant led to the discovery of $316,000 in bundled currency inside hidden compartments, along with four kilograms of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the results of the search of the vehicle and his residence. The judge's denial of defendant's motion to suppress was A-1525-19 4 anchored in his conclusion that Cullen was a credible witness and the motor vehicle stop constitutionally reasonable. He found the distance Cullen witnessed defendant driving in the left lane of an otherwise empty roadway sufficient to establish a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was violating the motor vehicle laws. Based on the initial seizures of cash, and the vehicle's hidden compartment, he also found the search warrant application passed constitutional muster. After the motion was denied, defendant entered a plea of guilty to count one of a multi-count indictment—first-degree possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(a)(1) and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-5(b)(1).2 The judge imposed the recommended sentence of twelve years imprisonment with four years of parole ineligibility based on his weighing of the aggravating and mitigating factors, including consideration of defendant's personal and health status. Now on appeal, defendant argues the following: I. DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE WAS STOPPED IN THE ABSENCE OF A REASONABLE OR ARTICULABLE SUSPICION TO BELIEVE A CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND WAS Jose baez abogado PRETEXT TO SEARCH DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE. 2 The dismissed charges included third-degree possession of cocaine, N.J.S.A. 2C:35-10(a)(1), and second-degree money laundering, N.J.S.A. 2C:21-25. A-1525-19 5 II. THE POLICE LACKED A REASONABLE BASIS TO REQUEST CONSENT TO SEARCH DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE. III. THE ISSUANCE OF THE SEARCH WARRANT FOR DEFENDANT'S RESIDENCE WAS BASED UPON INFORMATION LEARNED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ILLEGAL STOP AND SEARCH OF DEFENDANT'S VEHICLE REQUIRING SUPPRESSION OF SAME. IV. THE CUSTODIAL TERM IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT WAS EXCESSIVE. I. We "uphold the factual findings underlying the trial court's decision, so long as those findings are 'supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record.'" State v. Evans, 235 N.J. 125, 133 (2018) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 243 (2007)). We further defer to credibility findings because of the trial judge's exclusive opportunity to view a witness's demeanor. State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999). "When the reviewing court is satisfied that the findings and result meet this criterion, its task is complete and it should not disturb the result, even though it has the feeling it might have reached a different conclusion were it the trial tribunal." Id. at 471. However, the appellate court "need not defer 'to a trial. . court's interpretation of the law' because '[l]egal A-1525-19 6 issues are reviewed de novo.'" State v. Watts, 223 N.J. 503, 516 (2015) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Vargas, 213 N.J. 301, 327 (2013)). It is well-established that a reasonable and articulable suspicion to conduct a motor vehicle stop is a "lower standard than probable cause[.]" State v. Alessi, 240 N.J. 501, 518 (2020). We assess the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the officer had such a reasonable and articulable suspicion, as opposed to a mere hunch, or subjective good faith. Ibid. Cullen testified unequivocally that when defendant's vehicle came into view, defendant was traveling in the left lane, where he continued for at least a quarter of a mile before crossing the right lane to exit to the right. Cullen also testified that there were no other vehicles on the roadway. Although defendant may be correct that the stop might never have occurred but for Cullen's suspicion that defendant was involved in nefarious activity, the driving he witnessed for that quarter of a mile sufficed to make his decision to stop the car and investigate the motor vehicle infraction lawful. The State is not required "to prove that the suspected motor-vehicle violation occurred" and that it could have obtained a conviction in order for the stop to be lawful. Locurto, 157 N.J. at 470. Thus, defendant's failure to keep to the right demonstrated reasonable and articulable suspicion for the stop. Indeed, A-1525-19 7 "the State need prove only that the police lawfully stopped the car, not that it could convict the driver of the motor-vehicle offense." State v. Williamson, 138 N.J. 302, 304 (1994). Defendant suggests that traveling in the left lane was reasonable given the presence of numerous businesses including gas stations on the right-hand side of the roadway, and the presence of potential other drivers creating a driving hazard. This speculation is not supported by evidence in the record. Therefore, nothing refutes Cullen's statement, which the judge found credible, that at the time defendant was traveling in the left lane, he did so on an empty highway. Cullen's testimony established reasonable and articulable suspicion for the motor vehicle stop. II. Defendant also contends that the officer had no reasonable basis to request the consent to search. This argument lacks merit. At the time of the stop, as Cullen explained, he had more than enough information to make the request. He had been provided information by the DEA suggesting that defendant's quick trip to New York had a criminal purpose. The motor vehicle was registered to a third party, and Cullen saw a single key with an after-market alarm fob in the ignition, often found in cars used to transport contraband. The odor of air Coldwell banker bain university place wa 8 freshener, defendant's untruth about his criminal history and how often he used the vehicle, and his unconvincing story regarding a trip to an auto parts store, add up to a substantial basis for a request for consent to search. Defendant relies on State v. Carty, 170 N.J. 632 (2002), to support his position. But, in Carty, the officer who conducted the traffic stop had no expressed reasons for requesting the consent to search, nor did he have any objective basis for assuming that the defendant in that case was involved in criminal activity. In this case, however, Cullen had ample information. III. Defendant further contends that the evidence seized from his home should be suppressed as the affidavit in support of the search warrant relied upon facts gathered during the initial stop of his vehicle and evidence seized after his consent to the vehicle's search. Since the officer's conduct was lawful, this argument has no merit and need not be addressed. R. 2:11-3(e)(2). IV. Defendant underwent successful treatment for throat cancer sometime before the sentence. During the sentence hearing, the judge referred to the condition, the fact defendant appeared to be in remission, and that medical treatment is available within the prison system. He further found defendant had A-1525-19 9 a minor child for whom he was financially responsible. On the other hand, the quantity of cash and drugs found in defendant's apartment was substantial, indicating in the judge's words "a significant profit motive." Accordingly, the judge found aggravating factors three, the risk of reoffense, six, the extent of defendant's prior criminal history (in this case, a prior money laundering), and nine, the need to deter him and others from violating the law. See N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(a)(3), (6), and (9). The court found in mitigation the hardship defendant's child will suffer as a result of defendant's incarceration. See N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(b)(11). The judge adequately analyzed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and properly weighed them in imposing the sentence. Our "review of sentencing decisions is relatively narrow and is governed by an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Blackmon, 202 N.J. 283, 297 (2010). We find no such abuse of discretion occurred here. The sentence does not shock our conscience. Ibid. Affirmed. A-1525-19 10
Источник: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2021/a1525-19.html

Casey Anthony’s Lawyer Jose Baez Hires an Agent

Jose Baez, the attorney who successfully defended Casey Anthony, has signed with Paradigm.

The agency will represent the lawyer in broadcasting and publishing opportunities, and motion picture and television rights. Paradigm’s Jim Griffin will be the lead agent. 

The South Florida attorney quickly rose to national prominence during the Anthony trial. On Tuesday a jury found Baez’s client not guilt of murdering her daughter Caylee in 2008. best drugstore bb cream for dry skin is slated to be released from prison July 13. She was sentenced today to four years in prison for her conviction on four counts of providing false information to law enforcement, but will be released because of credit for good behavior and time served.

Rumors circulated Thursday that both Anthony and her 42-year-old attorney had recently signed with WME, but THR has confirmed those reports are false.

Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @DanielNMiller

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

Subscribe Sign Up
Источник: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/casey-anthonys-lawyer-jose-baez-208926/
Lawyer Limelight: Thomas J. Nolan

Photo by Hugh Williams. 

If you were casting the Cinderella story of lawyers, you’d have to give consideration to Thomas J. Nolan, world-class trial partner at Latham, whose rise from night school at Loyola Los Angeles to the biggest cases on the planet personifies against all odds.

He scaled the ranks of global litigators starting in the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s office, forming his own firm, becoming Chair of West Coast Litigation at Skadden and now a partner in Latham’s Complex Commercial Litigation & Trial Practice. He has represented corporate giants including Litton Industries, International Paper, Toyota Motor Corp., MGA Entertainment, and most recently, CashCall, in their biggest cases helping clients win more than $1B in trial verdicts and defeating claims of more than $15B. He’s also made extraordinary public interest contributions, while always staying so very human.

A Lawdragon Legend for his 10-plus years as a member of the Lawdragon 500, he’s a member of our Hall of Fame alongside many, many other honors. His story is one of incredible accomplishment, inspiring personal narrative and deep reflection on what it takes to rise all the way to the top.

Lawdragon: You are having a trial lawyer’s dream career. What are your takeaways at this point for those who’d like to enjoy the same type of success?

Thomas J. Nolan: I’ve had enormous opportunities that catapulted me into cases where occasionally, while sitting in a boardroom or in a courtroom with millions at stake, I would think, “Boy, for a kid who the nuns had great concerns as to whether or not I would ever make it to college, this is a pretty amazing ride.”

I never lost sight of how fortunate I have been and how lucky I was to have mentors at each stage of my career who pointed me in the right direction. So one of the takeaways would be to create the path you want to take in life, not only as a lawyer but also as a human being. I’d like to think over the course of my career I always focused on the humanity of any situation that I was dealing with.

If you wish to become a successful trial attorney, I would suggest you ask yourself a simple question; a brief test. Are you as comfortable talking with the people in the copy room of whichever law firm you are working at as you are in talking to your most important clients? The answer is relevant as it provides an insight as to how authentic you as an aspiring attorney are in your various relationships. To be a success in the courtroom, you have to be an authentic advocate. You can’t fake authenticity, and if you try to, the jurors will reject the pretense. If you don’t take the time to talk with the copy room personnel and other staff as part of an ordinary day, you can’t possibly relate to jurors. You can best measure a young lawyer’s authenticity by observing how they treat their co-workers, regardless of their status. It’s disturbing how often attorneys can sit in conference rooms preparing for a trial and yet never acknowledge the kitchen help that bring in a fresh pot of coffee or clear away the lunch dishes. The reality is that the kitchen worker has a greater chance of ending up on a jury than any of the attorneys sitting around the conference room table. Show me the attorney who knows the kitchen worker’s name and acknowledges them, and I will show you someone who might be able to relate to jurors.

LD: One of the most remarkable things about you, having known you for 30 years, is that you’ve never lost sight of who you are. How do you teach that to lawyers, as it’s so easy to get swept up in self-importance with the world of law firms and big client matters?

TJN: This career has the potential of altering your values the higher you climb and the more you make. Unfortunately, you can’t win every trial so the valleys can be pretty deep. It requires that you constantly monitor your humility barometer. I used to meet with Skadden’s first-year lawyers during orientation, and would warn them to stay authentic and remain humble. After welcoming them to Skadden, I pointed out that as First Year Attorneys in Big Law, before they billed a single hour, they were being paid more than 99 percent of the nation. I suggested “If you ever wake up thinking that you are actually worth what we are paying you, please consider going to another law firm.” I explained that it had been my observation that those young associates who came to the firm with a healthy sense of entitlement were destined to fail. I encouraged them to leave their diplomas at home, because, although they all graduated from prestigious law schools, within two years nobody will care where they went to school. Rather, while an associate at Skadden they would be judged by the quality of their work, their work ethic and by how they treated their colleagues and related to the staff.

It’s frustrating to watch attorneys who have no business standing before a jury pretend to be sincere, because you can’t fake authenticity. So another takeaway is remain focused on being an authentic storyteller who the jury will trust not to allow them to do an injustice in the case. Every trial is a “morality play” which requires the trial attorney to remain focused  on persuading the jury that her or his client is more worthy and deserving of a favorable verdict.

LD: And what is it that you need to stay focused on?

TJN: If you want to be a trial lawyer, you need to be passionate about mastering the basics of trial advocacy. I ask associates whether they ever follow trials reported in the press, and whether they were ever curious enough to understand how the jury returned its verdict that they pulled the reporters’ transcripts of the opening and closing statements of a particular trial. Or curious enough to go online and download a video of the cross examination of the key witness?

I confess that I have always been fascinated by trials and enjoy reverse engineering how verdicts came about. A recent example of my fascination was the second first-degree murder trial of the former New England Patriots receiver, Aaron Hernandez. I was driving down to the beach with my family when I heard on the radio that Hernandez was acquitted of first-degree murder after he’d already been convicted of first-degree murder in an unrelated prosecution, in another case of murder. I was intrigued that our justice system could produce twelve impartial jurors, all of them knowing about Hernandez’s prior conviction and yet they acquitted him of all charges in the second trial. Rather than walking to the beach, I stayed behind and downloaded Jose Baez’s opening and closing arguments. It was better than any movie, and Baez’s argument was a masterpiece – both in content and style. The importance of the acquittal that Baez obtained for Hernandez was made all the more poignant with the news a few days later that Hernandez had committed suicide in his cell.

An aspiring trial attorney has to be passionate about mastering the art of persuasion. If you’re going to make it as a trial attorney you need to put in the hours to learn the basics of advocacy.

LD: Can you explain those to us please?

TJN: Study the masters and read accounts of famous trials. At a very early age, I knew I wanted to be a trial attorney. When I was a freshman in high school, my first book report was on Louis Nizer’s, My Life in Court.

In my senior year of high school, our civics teacher, Frank Ward, assigned the class to read the famous case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. I am not certain what the purpose of the assignment was, but at Glendale Law Library, I pulled everything I could find about the case. When we had the discussion in class, it was obvious to Mr. Ward that I had spent a lot of time studying the Palsgraf decision and the concept of duty and foreseeable risk. After listening to my discussion in class, Mr. Ward turned to the class and said, “How many think that Tom Nolan should be a lawyer?”

That was my first validation as an advocate. And, I remember to this day that very moment, the classroom and what row I was sitting in when I talked about the Palsgraf case. I did it without any notes, and, to the dismay of my colleagues, I still deliver opening and closing statements without notes as I find them to be distracting. It’s a weakness I wish I could overcome, but notes distract me. If I was having dinner with a friend and recounting a story, I would hardly pause to refer to a note or two. I feel the same way standing before juries.

LD: Can you tell us about two or three of your favorite cases and what makes them memorable?

TJN: I was very fortunate that after graduating from law school I was hired into the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles.

One of the early cases I was assigned to was a rare federal murder trial conducted in the Central District. A U.S. Postal Inspector was murdered at the last stop on his collection schedule. In those days, Post Offices often carried substantial amounts of money, which would be collected by designated postal trucks. He was murdered during an armed robbery of his mail truck. We turned an informant, and a stake out was set up as the defendants planned to rob another mail truck. The informant drove the Cadillac get-a-way car, which had been heavily wired by the U.S. Postal Inspectors. Unfortunately, the recording device was concealed under the front seat of the Cadillac, immediately adjacent to the front seat’s electrical motor. As luck would have it, as the monitored mail truck proceeded down the alley the defendant sitting in the front seat started to fiddle with the electric front seat just as he stated, “Let’s get this guy just like we did the other white guy.….”  At the exact moment, the killer made the incriminating statement a train went by only a few yards from where the Cadillac was parked. After the arrest, the Postal Inspectors retrieved the tape recording device only to learn that the incriminating statements, made over 27 seconds, was inaudible because of the audio contamination caused by the electrical motor and the sound of the train roaring by.

In 1978 when the case was tried, neither the U.S. Postal Service nor the FBI had the expertise to filter out the background noise of the electrical motor and train. However, the agents located a sound technician who was developing a method to digitalize analogue tapes, which then would allow any competing audio signals to be separated. He was hired to work on the 27 seconds of our tape recording, for which the cost was approximately, $25,000. That was a huge amount to spend those days; however, it was well worth the expense, as we were able to play the dramatic 27 seconds before the jury, which led to the conviction of the two defendants who are both serving  consecutive life terms.

LD: What a way to start your practice. What other cases come to mind?

TJN: When I left the U.S. Attorney’s office, I joined Stephen Miller who started his own small boutique criminal defense firm. We were hired to represent the son of a well-known tax lawyer, who was also President Ronald Reagan’s alter ago. The son had schizophrenia and had tragically raped and killed his mother. As part of our trial preparation, I met with the incarcerated son on nearly a daily basis. We became quick students of the insidious mental illness of schizophrenia. At trial, I was assigned to cross-examine the coroner with the goal of establishing that at the time of the sexual assault, his mother was dead. He was found not guilty by reason of insanity. As I was cross-examining the coroner I thought to myself, “God please do not let my mother walk into this courtroom.” Our client was found not guilty of first-degree murder by reason of insanity. He was acquitted on the charge of rape, as it is not a crime in California to rape a corpse.

The memory of that case is seared in my mind since I had to sit down with the father and tell him that in addition to his son being charged with killing his mother, he was going to be charged with the rape of his mother. I recall that day as my heart broke while delivering that horrific news. Shortly after delivering the news, our office receptionist came into the conference room and announced that the White House switchboard operator was calling, as President Reagan wanted to express his condolences to his long-time counselor.

LD: That’s a tough day.

TJN: Another memorable case was my first civil trial. I was a partner in the Los Angeles office of the D.C. firm, Howrey & Simon when I got a call from one of Howrey’s senior antitrust partners. He explained they had an antitrust case scheduled to be tried in front of L.A. federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer, Litton v. Honeywell. It was a battle that had taken on a life of its own, had endured 10 years of litigation, and they wanted me to meet with the general counsel of Litton Industries, in part because I knew Judge Pfaelzer. The general counsel of Litton, John Preston, was there. I made the presentation, and he asked me, “When was your last trial?” I told him what does capias mean a case I had  just defended involving criminal charges against a Hassidic rabbi. John left, and my partners glared at me wondering why I talked about a criminal trial; but he had asked me a question, and I answered it.

The next day John said that I would have to try the case. He’s another person who made a great difference in my life. I had never tried a civil case in my life, which I don’t think anybody knew at the time. That led to a huge trial with Gibson Dunn’s antitrust legend, Bob Cooper. I bought the book Antitrust- in-a-Nutshell and started reading it because I had not studied antitrust in law school. The jury came back with the verdict of $234 million. Judge Pfaelzer was clearly disappointed by the verdict and granted Honeywell’s motion for new trial limited to the damages phase. In the damages retrial, Honeywell added to its defense team, another iconic antitrust lawyer, the late Max Blecher. We skirmished on pre-screening jurors and tried it again. The jury came back in an hour-and-a-half and awarded Litton  $250 million. A juror came to me later and apologized that it took so long explaining that the clerk had taken his time bringing the trial exhibits back to the jury room. Another example that I must have been born under a lucky star.

LD: Did that mark your move to handling more civil cases?

TJN: It did, and I don’t think anyone knew it was my first civil trial. So in my first two civil trials we had achieved a $234 million verdict followed by a $250-million verdict. Judge Pfaelzer accepted the second verdict and awarded Litton $40 million in attorney fees. With the verdict trebled plus the attorney-fee award, we had obtained a $790-million judgment which was settled for $400 million while on appeal. We had an incredible trial team with the old-guard antitrust lawyers setting aside their own egos to help an upstart antitrust lawyer.

After I moved to Skadden, I was fortunate to work with Jay Kasner, a well-respected and senior partner at Skadden. Jay was the lead attorney on a team of approximately 40 other Skadden attorneys who were representing J.P. Morgan and a syndicate of other underwriters of bonds issued by WorldCom. Jay and I became fast friends and I moved back to New York for five months as we prepared for trial. I also became fast friends with a jury consultant, Steve Lybrand. Circumstances led to us having jose baez abogado settle the case the evening before jury selection. I will always regret not having had a chance to try that case to verdict, but the case is a good example of how some cases are just too large to try. The underwriters’ exposure was $10 billion. Although we were doing well with focus groups, $10 billion of shareholder equity was too great to risk and the Board voted to settle the case on the eve of jury selection.

As I was walking out of the JP Morgan Board Room. I was feeling pretty low as we had worked so hard to get the case prepared for trial. However, I had a flashback and reflected on how far I was from my civics class in Burbank, but it was also another example where so many talented colleagues set aside their own egos to ensure that I was as prepared as much as possible to master the defense of the WorldCom underwriters. I am sure many felt they were more qualified and deserving to be sitting next to Jay at counsel table; however, that was one of the qualities of being a Skadden partner. Jay was generous with his time, and he was instrumental in my integration as a Skadden partner. I was fortunate to work closely with Jay on several other major securities cases filed in the Southern District of New York Amazing things happened for me while at Skadden as I had amazing cases, including the defense of Wells Fargo in a rare trial involving violations of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, the defense of Toyota against allegations of unintended acceleration in their vehicles equipped with fuel injection systems, the defense of UBS in a billion-dollar mortgage-backed securities trial and of course the Barbie v Bratz doll wars jury trial.
I referenced earlier Steven Lybrand, a jury consultant I met during the WorldCom. I was fortunate to recruit Steven to accept an in- house position at Skadden. Steven joined forces with Aaron Shorr, a court room technician I brought over with me from Howrey. Every client I worked with and every juror I interviewed after a verdict, described Aaron a as a magician with technology. Aaron was with me for seventeen years and became so close that he would anticipate a point I was about to make, before I made it. He clearly had the hardest job as I notoriously never follow a prepared script or outline. After Steven joined Skadden, he and Aaron formed a powerful in- house machine that distinguished Skadden’s Trial capability from their competitors. I was was so fortunate to have spent the last ten years of my time at Skadden teaming up with Steven and Aaron as there was never an occasion where I didn’t have them at my side. Although we would also use outside jury consultants, Steven and Aaron would be the last I would listen to before walking into court. When it comes to picking a jury, Steven has a special genius of identifying how jurors think. Steven and Aaron also servered as great mentors to younger attorneys who wished to master the art of persuasion. I am fortunate to consider Steven and Aaron as close personal friends who would also be brutally honest when they thought I needed to step up my game. So another piece of advice for anyone wanting to become a trial attorney, surround yourself with colleagues who are independent thinkers who resist “group apple pencil 1st gen charger and will not hesitate to offer constructive feedback.
LD: Can you tell us a bit more about the epic “doll wars trial” which pitted Mattel against MGA? How did that come about?

TJN: I have two daughters but neither played with dolls, so I had no idea what a Bratz doll was when I got a call from MGA’s General Counsel. Nor had I ever tried a trademark or copyright case. I met with Isaac Larian, the CEO of MGA, and he pressed me on whether we could be trial ready within four months. Apparently, the other law firms Isaac was considering had said they wanted a continuance of at least three months just to evaluate the case before they could decide if they would accept the engagement. I had the advantage of having a number of Skadden colleagues with whom I had tried cases. I told Isaac that if he wanted us as his trial counsel, we were prepared to jump in the deep-end with him and we would learn how to swim. We were hired and lined up against a team from Quinn Emanuel, led by John Quinn. It was like drinking from a water hydrant. We were facing approximately 90 open discovery issues as the trial date was fast advancing. In the end, the trial court granted us a thirty-day continuance but we were constantly under siege.

In addition to learning trademark and copyright principles, I had to learn everything I could about a Bratz doll. Our girls never collected dolls when they were young, but - as they always did during other trials - they were supportive. Whenever they had friends sleep over, I would use them as my early focus groups helping me prepare to explain to a jury how Bratz dolls differed from Barbie dolls. They taught me the intricacies of the Bratz unique fashions. I would show them Bratz dolls and their various fashions. My daughter’s high school friends became my first jury focus group for the Bratz trial.

For Bratz, I learned everything I could about copyright and trademark, and the rest is history. We tried the case and lost the first phase of the trial. The jury found that the Bratz dolls were designed by a Mattel designer working on his own time at night. We were devastated by the verdict, but we had to prepare for the damages phase. There was no time to lick our wounds. We had to keep pushing. I remember it was during the Summer 2008 Olympics, and while sitting in my hotel room, I watched Michael Phelps win one of his gold medals by his sheer force of will.  Phelps lunged for the wall at the very last minute and outreached the other swimmer. He won the Gold even though 5 yards from the finish he was destined to finish in second place. I asked our trial team to watch a rerun of the race on a TV in our hotel conference room and asked them to commit to continue to out-work the Mattel team. In the end, we had to exceed Mattel’s reach for a $ 2-billion prize. I asked them to do what Phelps did – never give up. That became our mantra. It also reminded me of the importance of staying in touch with the humanity of a stinging loss.

In the second phase of trial, Bill Price of Quinn asked the jury to award Mattel $2 billion in damages. The jury came back and awarded $100 million, which was a lot of money. However, it was less than what industry consultants had predicted. The Wall Street Journal reported the outcome with the headline, “Barbie Wears Black: Mattel’s Damages Come in Way Low.” Losing the first phase of Bratz was probably the lowest point in my career.

LD: You’re not a trial lawyer if you haven’t lost a case. Can you tell us a bit more about your first trial, which you lost? The defendant had been a prison inmate who did not return from furlough, and the jury acquitted him because he claimed he was abused by prison walmart promo code march 2020 Oh man, the memory of that loss still stings. I was pretty full of myself, as I had just been hired as an Assistant U.S. Attorney straight out of night school at Loyola Law School. I thought I had reached the top of the mountain I had started to climb early in high school. However, I soon then realized there were many more mountains I would need to climb. That first loss framed how I had to prepare for a trial. That was my first encounter with not only the fear of losing, but the reality of a loss. The reality of losing. I felt like I was against all odds.

For me, the fear of losing had become a reality in my first trial. Personal. Was I doomed to be a failure? All of my hopes and dreams were in jeopardy. My personal challenge was that I feared I would always be marked as a loser. Upon reflection, losing my first trial was the best thing to have happened to my career. I hated to lose, and I willed that I would do everything necessary to avoid that experience. I would not simply walk away just because I was hit in the face.

And, if you talk to any of the great trial lawyers, I bet you in their souls they would say the same thing. At the end of the day, it’s not as much about winning or losing, but rather how did you prepare for the case. In the end, you need to reflect on how you performed before the jury. Did you give every ounce of your being to the cause? I submit that another hallmark of a trial attorney is the power of self-reflection. You can fool some people but you can’t fool yourself. It is critical for trial attorneys to be prepared to embrace people along the way who will make you a better lawyer, and more importantly a better person. Count on family, friends and colleagues to keep you authentic.

LD: You’ve been at a small firm, a big firm that collapsed and two of the world’s greatest law firms. Do you think firms are a great thing or a necessary evil?

TJN: Big law firms are often described as “necessary evils”. However, the connotation is unfair as they bring power to circumstances where access to social justice is under siege.

In the WorldCom case, I was fortunate to work alongside a brilliant lawyer who had been battling for several years the AIDS virus.  We became close friends and during the long lead up to the WorldCom trial date we would often talk about a myriad of subjects, from trial evidence rules to discrimination, and everything in between. On a Saturday morning several months after the WorldCom settlement, I received a call from David. After ”hello” he said, “Tom, I’m going to die and I need a favor."

And he told me he had a case that he wanted me to take over in the event he died. The case involved a high school girl who was gay and outed and harassed by her classmates. The school district did nothing to stop the harassment, so David took on the case and sued the school district. Six months later, David died. I went to New York and got ready to try the case and we went to a court-mandated mediation. The mediator advised us what he thought the case was worth as he doubted Skadden would front the expense of a trial when a reasonable settlement was in the offering. I explained that he was grossly underestimating both Skadden’s and my resolve to see the case through trial and an appeal if necessary. I explained that I wanted to meet with the school district’s General Counsel and his trial counsel. At the meeting, I relayed my last conversation with David and my promise to him, which was fully endorsed by Skadden’s Chairman. I told them that we were prepared to take the case to trial and would fight them with every ounce of my being and the power of Skadden Arps.

So the case settles. And as I’m leaving the conference room, the lawyer from the agency asked, “Are you happy with the result?” Someone jose baez abogado mentioned it was the second-highest settlement for that type of case. I couldn’t suppress my Irish heritage nor my competitive spirit, so a bit peeved, I turned and asked, “Who had the highest?” And they advised that it had been achieved by David. That’s the power of Big Law. I am proud to be now at Latham where the same commitment to ensuring access to justice for the most needy exists. So for those that view Big Law as a “necessary evil”, my response is “hog wash.”

LD: Do you have superstitions as a trial lawyer?

TJN:  After my win in the Litton case, my older sister gave me a memento, my father’s college ring. I carried the ring in my suit pocket in every case that I tried after Litton.

Unfortunately, a few years ago our home was burglarized and the SOBs stole my wife’s jewelry along with a couple of my watches and my father’s college ring. Two years later, they arrested the person, and I went to the arraignment and talked to the defense lawyer. I told her that I’d do everything I could to help her client if she just helped me get my father’s ring back. I never got it back. That ripped me up.

LD: Tell me about your Dad, who passed away when you were six. He and your Mom are a touchpoint of almost everything you say and do.

TJN: My father went to Fordham Law School and after graduation became an FBI agent. After that, he became the head of security for a liquor distillery and then died of a heart attack - he was only 39-years old. A burning question for me as I grew up was why my father didn’t practice law.

Fast forward some 49 years later when I was interviewing with Skadden Arps, my last interview was with the legendary Joe Flom, and he asked me, “Why are you hesitating?” I said, “I don’t know, this is the Big Leagues, Joe. I’m a kid from night school.” And he looked at me and said, “Tom, do you know why we formed this firm? Because in 1948, if you were a Catholic or a Jew, you could not be hired in a law firm.”

I was born in 1948, so that gave me the answer I had been searching for. My dad was an Irish Catholic and the many doors that were held open for me, were closed shut to him and so many other Catholics and Jews.

LD: It must mean so much to you knowing how you carried on from your father.

TJN: I hope so, but I always feel I am on an endless journey hoping to earn his approval. My last trial as a Skadden partner was for UBS in New York, involving mortgage-backed securities, and several billion dollars were at stake. I was dizzy with the opportunity to try a case in the Southern District of New York, situated in the heart of Foley Square, where my father was an FBI agent, where my mother worked at the FBI and met my father.

The night before I was to deliver the opening statement, I went out and had an Uber driver take me to Pelham, New York, just outside of Westchester, to my father’s grave. It was a beautiful evening and I just sat down next to his gravestone appreciating the fact that my father couldn’t have gotten a job in a New York law firm and now his son was about to deliver the Opening Statement in a trial with a couple of billion dollars on the line. I didn’t need any closure, I just wanted to share the moment with him out of respect. So I just said a silent prayer in gratitude and ended with, “Hey Dad, this is pretty cool.”

Maybe the life lesson is to never forget who you are and never pretend you are something you’re not. Just be authentic and be prepared to work your tail off. In the end, buckle up as the ride is going to be amazing.

About the Author: Katrina Dewey ([email protected]) is the founder and CEO of Lawdragon, which she and her partners created as the new media company for the world’s lawyers. She has written about lawyers and legal affairs for 30 years, and is a noted legal editor, creator of numerous lawyer recognition guides and expert on lawyer branding. She is based in Venice, Calif., and New York. She is also the founder of Lawdragon Campus, which covers law students and law schools. View our staff page. 

Источник: https://www.lawdragon.com/lawyer-limelights/2018-09-03-lawyer-limelight-thomas-j-nolan

Casey Anthony Trial – Lessons jose baez abogado Courtroom Civility & Ethics

by Stephan Mihalovits

The Casey Anthony trial has drawn public interest on an international scale. A horrible tragedy resulted in a young life lost. The defendant mother is widely perceived as guilty. But despite global public interest and the seriousness of Caylee Anthony’s death, the trial and verdict in Florida provide more proof that attorneys oftentimes act unprofessionally to opposing counsel and against ethical guidelines, even when stakes are highest.

As trial commenced, Florida Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. astutely ordered both sides to refrain from disparaging remarks throughout the contentious proceedings. But despite the order and public scrutiny, the lawyers abandoned their professional duty.

During the defense’s closing statements, attorney Jose Baez delivered his final remarks to the jury before they decided his client’s fate. As Baez spoke, prosecutor Jeff Ashton was seen smiling and laughing. Mr. Baez lashed back at “this laughing guy over here,” Mr. Ashton objected, and Judge Perry eventually reprimanded both sides.

It was just one more delay in the Casey Anthony trial happening just days after Judge Perry sentenced one spectator to jail time, fines and court costs for “flipping a bird” at an attorney.

Encouraging & Enforcing Legal Ethics & Civility

The California State Bar set ethical standards in writing in 2007 with California Attorney Guidelines of Civility and Jose baez abogado. Though guidelines are not laws and are non-binding, attorneys who act in violation of the guidelines may find themselves subject to liability:

Leko v. Cornerstone Bldg. Inspection Service (2001): Attorneys who fail to confer with opposing counsel to resolve discovery issues may be fined, as was one of the attorneys in this case.

When opposing counsel failed to calendar a deposition and then tried twice to reschedule, the fined attorney responded with an insulting letter and then moved to compel depositions. The court fined this attorney for disregarding an obligation to informally resolve the matter; though it cited the insulting letter as relevant to the Court’s decision.

In the Matter of an Anonymous Member of the South Carolina Bar (2011): The U.S. Supreme Court got involved here, though christmas in the park ice skating downtown san jose with a letter of caution. The Hearing Panel decided an attorney could be disciplined for activities that “pollute the administration of justice” or “bring the legal profession into disrepute.”

Perhaps the lines in this e-mail from the respondent, sent to opposing counsel in a family law matter, triggered the decision:

“I have a client who is a drug dealer on. . Street down town [sic]. He informed me that your daughter, [redacted] was detained for buying cocaine and heroine [sic]. She is, or was, a teenager, right? This happened at night in a known high crime/drug area, where alos [sic] many shootings take place. Lucky for her and the two other teens, they weren’t charged. Does this make you and [redacted] bad parents? This incident is far worse than the allegations your client is making. I just thought it was ironic….”

Respondent tried to explain, pointing to “daily obnoxious, condescending, and harassing e-mails, faxes and hand-delivered letters” from opposing counsel.

The Lessons From Uncivil Discourse

So what have we learned from the Casey Anthony trial, Leko, and Anonymous? Whether handling matters in public or in private, attorneys who fail to act professionally risk facing real consequences.

Disclaimer:
This Blog/Web Site is made available by the lawyer or law firm publisher for educational purposes only, to provide general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you understand there is no attorney client relationship between you and the Blog/Web Site publisher. The Chase southwest customer service phone number Site should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.
Источник: https://www.lewitthackman.com/casey-anthony-trial-lessons-in-courtroom-civility-ethics/
jose baez abogado

2 Replies to “Jose baez abogado”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *