Limbaugh's pill use not extraordinary, lawyer says

Miami Herald ^ | Jan. 26, 2004 | DANIEL de VISE

[AlwaysLurking]

Limbaugh's pill use not extraordinary, lawyer says

BY DANIEL de VISE ddevise@herald.com

Rush Limbaugh's attorney mounted an offensive Monday, accusing Palm Beach County prosecutors of smear tactics and likening his client to any ordinary American with chronic pain.

''This nation is full of people who take medication every day and will do so for the rest of their lives,'' said Roy Black, speaking in a news conference in Miami.

Discussing the prescription-drug abuse allegations in unprecedented detail, Black reasoned that the quantity of medicine Limbaugh is accused of ingesting -- 1,800 pills in 210 days -- works out to roughly 8.5 pills a day, ``certainly not an outrageous amount.''

Black questioned the motives of Palm Beach County State Attorney Barry Krischer in releasing details last week of sensitive plea negotiations between Limbaugh and prosecutors.

The December correspondence, unflattering to Limbaugh, shows the radio talk-show host proposing to settle the case through treatment, potentially averting a permanent criminal record. Prosecutors counter: Plead guilty to a single felony charge of ''doctor shopping'' and avoid prison time. Both offers were rejected.

Black said the plea negotiations shouldn't have been released. He portrayed the incident as part of a politically motivated campaign to discredit his client.

Black said the government's plea offer came with a veiled threat: If Limbaugh did not plead guilty, the state would release his confidential medical records.

''The only conclusion that I can draw is that Mr. Limbaugh ... is being singled out more than anyone else for actions that no one else in this community would be subjected to,'' Black said.

Black and other prominent South Florida attorneys said they couldn't recall another case of plea negotiations released to the public.

''There has to be some thought about the long-term consequence'' of routinely releasing such documents, said Robert Jarvis, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University. ``And the long-term consequence in this case is that no one would begin a negotiation about a plea.''

But Michael Edmondson, spokesman for the Palm Beach County state attorney, said prosecutors were confident they'd done the right thing.

Prosecutors consulted the Attorney General's Office and the Florida Bar in response to the Jan. 15 public records request by the Landmark Legal Foundation, which sought all available documents in the case. They concluded the state public records law required releasing the plea dealings, even though doing so violates ethical rules for lawyers.

''The way the Florida public records law works is, anything that is not specifically exempted under the law is permitted,'' Edmondson said. State law trumps any ethical concerns, he said.

But he offered nothing in writing to back up that account. And Limbaugh's legal team produced documents Monday that seemed to contradict it.

Telephone notes from a Florida Bar attorney, paraphrasing Kirscher himself, state that plea negotiations ``are not normally to be revealed [and] so may or may not be [a] public record.''

Attorney General spokeswoman JoAnn Carrin wouldn't say what legal advice her agency gave the chief Palm Beach County prosecutor, citing the ongoing investigation.

Prosecutors began investigating possible prescription-drug abuses by Limbaugh, 53, last year, based on a report from his former maid. Limbaugh has not been charged with any crime.

Limbaugh's attorney accused Edmondson, the state attorney spokesman, of leaking a false story last month that Limbaugh was poised to plead guilty to doctor-shopping. Edmondson denied the assertion.

Doctor-shopping is duping multiple physicians into dispensing excessive prescription medications.

''I can say categorically now that Mr. Limbaugh would not plead guilty to doctor-shopping, and that's because Mr. Limbaugh did not engage in doctor-shopping of any kind,'' Black said.

[holdonnow]

Think this through carefully. The letters do not harm Rush. They help him. The issue is their illegal release under Florida law. The prosecutor thought he was clever in releasing them. He violated Florida law in doing so. He created a very serious ethics issue, and it will be dealt with. So, before you attack those who are trying to confront this and beat it back, think through your criticisms.

[holdonnow]

Oh, and by the way, as the earlier news stories on this point out, the Sun Sentinel asked for these letters, not Landmark. But it wound up helping.

[holdonnow]

You are a lib who has been attacking Landmark forever. You insist on planting false comments here, so as to continue your smearing. The Sun Sentinel reported the letters story on Thursday because the letters were released in response to its FOIA request. Our request followed their request. In any event, the prosecutor has just been shown to have LIED about receiving authorization from the Florida Bar to release those letters, raising very serious ethical questions on his part, and you -- dummy -- attack Landmark!

[RS]

"Even though its an ethics violation to do so? *BUZZ* not "

You may want to look at the links I provided, perhaps you can find one where Bar Association Ethics Opinions will trump Florida law.

http://www.flabar.org

[holdonnow]

You're a very bright person, and RS is al over this thread, and others, dissembling and confusing people. The prosecutor released information specifically exempt from release under Florida law. He said the Florida bar approved the release, and he lied. The Florida bar released information today, including to Landmark, showing that it did no such thing. The prosecutor has likely committed a very serious breach of ethics -- especially by intentionally mistating what the Florida bar said. RS is clueless and he's been slamming Landmark and Rush constantly.

[holdonnow]

You're right again -- the Sun Sentinel asked for the letters, and received them last Thursday. What this shows it that the prosecutor is, in fact, conducting a political criminal investigation, and RS would have us all sit on our hands and damn Rush. Damn RS.

[solitas]

Thank you for (indirectly) answering one of my questions: was Landmark retained by RL or are they just a 3rd-party?.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064336/posts?page=34#34

[holdonnow]

No, but tampering with public records is an ethics violation, and putting a false memo to the file lying about what the Florida bar said is a problem, Sherlock.

[holdonnow]

Oh, and while you insist that Florida law trumps state ethics laws, the Florida bar wasn't so sure, which is why in this case it suggested that the prosecutor seek judicial review, which he did not. Instead, he leaked the documents to the Sun Sentinel.

[longtermmemmory]

Edmondson said. State law trumps any ethical concerns, he said. """""""


He is wrong. When ethics and the law conflict, (a rare occurance) ethics usually trump the matter. If there is a TRUE conflict, you go to a judge and recieve an order. You also put the bar on notice.

An attorney can comply with the law and still be in ethics violation.

A famous case was where a lawyer knew the name of a hit and run drunk driver, his client. The police did not know. The Bar said the lawyer man NOT disclose the name unless the client consented, the client did not. The police were able to find the ID on their own.

[holdonnow]

Landmark is a 3rd party. Now, I have to leave, but understand where RS is coming from, and how he/she/it has distorted virtually everything that has been done and reported in this case.

[holdonnow]

The Florida bar also recommended that the prosecutor seek court guidance. Instead, he wrote a phony memo to the file lying about what the Florida bar told him, and then leaked the letters to the Sun Sentinel, which specially asked for them, without court guidance.

[Ghengis]

Based on the above figures, I came up with a similar conclusion. While it might make me woozy or knock me out, someone in chronic pain might well be able to tolerate that number of pills and still function.

That's baby stuff to an addicted person in chronic pain. I have seen folks in much, much worse situations with their addictions.

I once saw a truck driver come in for treatment who was so strung out from prescription meds that he did not recall a trip he had completed in a straight run from California to Ohio. Now that's the kind of scary stuff prosecutors should be worried about with addictions and prescription meds.

[longtermmemmory]

The letters were specifically requested by a reporter who had a tip to their existance. It was a time that came for the SA office. The LLF request is a completly seperate issue. I believe it was a miami herald reporter.

[CMAC51]

Attorney General spokeswoman JoAnn Carrin wouldn't say what legal advice her agency gave the chief Palm Beach County prosecutor, citing the ongoing investigation.

I can't say anything because of an ongoing investigation, but I can release to the press anything that might potentially be damaging to my target.

Either you have open record or not. Their actions speak for themselves.

[RS]

"The Sun Sentinel reported the letters story on Thursday because the letters were released in response to its FOIA request. "

Funny... they seem to blame you ...

"Hundreds of impassioned viewpoints from all over the country were among documents prosecutors released Friday in response to a request made by a conservative public-interest law firm for all public records in the case."

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-prush24jan24,0,7121894.story?coll=sfla-news-palm



"...the prosecutor has just been shown to have LIED about receiving authorization from the Florida Bar to... "

You guys have to get your stories straight ...

"State Attorney Barry Krischer said in a telephone call to Florida Bar staff that the State Attorney General's Office told him that the letters "are not normally to be revealed," according to Bar notes of the Thursday call."

This says that he told the bar that the AG said not to reveal them - strange thing to tell them if you are looking for a second opinion that you like better...

... and this is according to Roy ( plea negotiations? what plea negotiations? ) Black.


C'mon guys... slow down so you can at least get your stories consistant....

[RS]

"No, but tampering with public records is an ethics violation, and putting a false memo to the file lying about what the Florida bar said is a problem, Sherlock."

Cool - let's see the memo ... got link ?

[Cubs Fan]

The Florida bar released information today, including to Landmark, showing that it did no such thing.

I found this on Rush's site apapparently they were given no such advice to release the plea agreements (its clear they advised consulting a judge, [the getting permission thing is clearly a lie])--

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/pb_sao.pdf

BTW Don't mind RS, people who hate usually lose their logic to their emotions. The more the facts come out the worse his arguments look.

[longtermmemmory]

This is incredibly dumb on the part of the SA. As a elected official lawyer he knows he is held to a higher standard.

This is a violation of the following ethics rule:

4 RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
4-3 ADVOCATE

RULE 4-3.6 TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements Prohibited. A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication if the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding due to its creation of an imminent and substantial detrimental effect on that proceeding.

(b) Statements of Third Parties. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to make such a statement. Counsel shall exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, employees, or other persons assisting in or associated with a case from making extrajudicial statements that are prohibited under this rule.

Comment

It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public policy

There are additionals specific ethics violations in this case. The FL Bar needs a little prodding to investigate this matter. This act by the SA has caused ALL plea negotiations to be in jeopardy.
the other rules cited are here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1065387/posts?page=44#44