[RS]

Why don't you people provide links !
Do I have to do EVERYTHING around here !

http://www.ablelegalforms.com/flalawyerethics.html


"A lawyer shall not make an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication ...."

What statement are you refering to ? Please provide the quote by any lawyer that this could possibly refer to...

... and if I ask pretty please would you provide a link ?

[longtermmemmory]

That would be the leak given to the miami herald lawyer who was able to make the specific request to the SA in order to obtain the settlement letters.

It is also the SA diseminating the documents after the FL Bar Ethics hotline stated they should seek the direction of the judge assigned to the matter.

The release of the letters in addition to providing the leak of the letters' existences is a violation of 4-3.6.

The SA took a deliberate risk in order to ensure release of settlement negotiations. (probably because judges will do everything to protect the settlement negotiation process. They do not want what has happened here to force all cases into trial mode because of fear of negotiation.) The SA took another deliberate risk when they misrepresented what the bar advised them. BIG MISTAKE.

[holdonnow]

Again, RS is simply placing disinformation on this thread, but for the rest of you -- you can see above that Krischer says the Florida Bar says it would be unethical if he did NOT release the letters requested by the Sun-Sentinel. Now, when inquiries are made of the Florida Bar, they keep a formal call record. I will post this tomorrow on Landmark's website as well, assuming we can get into the office. I received this document from the Florida Bar late today. But for tonight, I've transcribed exactly what it says, and you will see that the Bar did NOT say what the SAO put in its memo, and that Krischer lied about what was said. The BAR did not say he had a duty to release the letters. And you will read further that the AG's office did NOT say state law trumps ethics rules in this case but, instead, to seek an ethics opinion from the Bar's ethics dept. Here's what the Florida Bar's Barbara Moore wrote in her contemporaneous records:

(Open quote)

1/22/04 ... 10:42 AM

Barbara Moore
Caller: Barry Cusher (sp - it's Krischer)

INQUIRY: Caller's office received a public records request in Rush Limbaugh case. File includes letters from atty in SAO to Roy Black, defense counsel. Checked with AG's office and AG says files are public records except that there are 2 letters which include plea negotiations which are not normally revealed so may or may not be public record. AG said to call ethics dept.

ANSWER: Can't provide legal advice or interpret public record statute. All info in file is confidential as to his client, the state, under 4-1.6. Once legally compelled to provide info, it becomes a question of law, whether a/c privilege or public records. If client, state, only agrees to reveal what they are required to under public records law, caller must determine what is legally required and what is not. If unsure, may need to ask court to determine it for them. See 92-5 generally on confidentiality vs. privilege. How legal issues of public record statutes factor in is beyond an ethic opinion.

(End quote.)

So, Barry Krischer, the elected Democrat prosecutor of Palm Beach County, has been exposed -- and so, too, has RS. If not tomorrow, then by Wednesday, this document as well as Krischer's false memo to file will be put on Landmark's website (landmarklegal.org)