Category: Lawyers

a person appointed to act for another in business or legal matters.

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Chapter 1 Lawyer-Client Relationship Rules 1.1 – 1.18

  By , , , ,

Rule 1.1 Competence (a) A lawyer shall not intentionally, recklessly, with gross negligence, or repeatedly fail to perform legal services with competence. (b) For purposes of this rule, “competence” in any legal service shall mean to apply the (i) learning and skill, and (ii) mental, emotional, and physical ability reasonably* necessary for the performance of such service. (c) If a lawyer does not have sufficient learning and skill when the legal services are undertaken, the lawyer nonetheless may provide competent representation by (i) associating with or, where appropriate, professionally consulting another lawyer whom the lawyer reasonably believes* to be competent, (ii) acquiring sufficient learning and skill before performance is required, or (iii) referring the matter to another lawyer whom the lawyer reasonably believes* to be competent. (d) In an emergency a lawyer may give advice or assistance in a matter in which the lawyer does not have the skill ordinarily required if referral to, or association or consultation with, another lawyer would be impractical. Assistance in an emergency must be limited to that reasonably* necessary in the circumstances. Comment [1] This rule addresses only a lawyer’s responsibility for his or her own professional competence. See rules 5.1 and 5.3 with respect to a lawyer’s disciplinary responsibility for supervising subordinate lawyers and nonlawyers. [2] See rule 1.3 with respect to a lawyer’s duty to act with reasonable* diligence. Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority (a) Subject to rule 1.2.1, a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation and, as required by rule 1.4, shall reasonably* consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. Subject to Business and Professions Code section 6068, subdivision (e)(1) and rule 1.6,… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE

Department of Justice rejected the complaint to investigate the obviously abusive Britney Spears Conservatorship

  By , , , , , , , , , ,

August 18, 2021 US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section – 1425 NYA Washington, D.C. 20530 Re: Case number: 94490-HGN Violation of due process in Conservatorship of Britney Spears Violation of civil rights in Conservatorship of Britney Spears Individuals under conservatorship are adjudicated to lack capacity. Therefore, all conservatees are guaranteed protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In 2008, a California court placed Britney Spears under conservatorship, granting her father James Spears nearly absolute control over Ms. Spears’ person and estate. The initial conservatorship proceedings were characterized by denial of due process. The ensuing thirteen years of conservatorship have been and continue to be plagued by civil rights violations. These matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice in their role of investigating and prosecuting civil rights violations. THE COURT DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW The 14th Amendment states the following: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law… DENIED NOTICE OF CONSERVATORSHIP HEARING Probate Code 2250(e)(2) states, (2) Notice of the hearing shall be personally delivered to the proposed conservatee… Media reported that Ms. Spears was not served notice of her initial conservatorship hearing. DENIED RIGHT TO ATTEND CONSERVATORSHIP HEARINGS Probate Code 2250.4 states: The proposed temporary conservatee shall attend the hearing… Media reported that Ms. Spears was not allowed to attend her initial conservatorship hearings. DENIED RIGHT TO COUNSEL OF CHOICE American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in their 2021 Amici curiae provided extensive legal argument supporting Ms. Spears’ right to counsel of choice. The 2021 court agreed… Read More

QUICK EASY SHARE OPTIONS PRESS + FOR MORE