Note: I recently had the great luck of having a professional writer volunteer to help me with my campaign. He has taken the original version of this blog, edited it, added to it, made it easier to read, more informative and yes, humorous. I invite those of you who have already read the blog to read this new and improved version.
Each and every year, the State Bar of Texas requires licensed attorneys to complete at least 15 hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE). If they do not adhere to this injunction, the Bar may revoke their licenses.
For each and every attorney, at least three of these hours, or 20% of the total, must be in ethics. The State Bar increases the ethics requirement every now and then. Why? I presume, to assuage their guilt over their otherwise do-nothing attitude toward widespread government lawyer corruption.
Be advised: these CLE courses are also big business. In my own experience, these courses cost a minimum of $300 per year. The American Bar Association's most recent data as of 2004 lists 65,983 active and resident Texas lawyers. If my own fees reflect the average, that means the Texas Bar alone reaps close to $20 million per year in gross CLE revenue (nineteen million seven hundred ninety four thousand nine hundred dollars to be exact). And if you don't complete your CLE by the Bar-mandated deadline (the last day of one's birth month), the Bar also imposes astronomical fines. In short, $20 million is probably a low ball figure. Every year I pay the State Bar to take CLE ethics for the esteemed privilege of listening to another lawyer tell me what is right from wrong. Apparently, ethics doesn't come cheap. Or does it?
I discovered recently that none other than Jaime Esparza has taught CLE ethics to his own employees. This would be the same Jaime Esparza who testified under oath that he is not setting bonds though his own written office policies say that he is. The same Jaime Esparza who had Nancy Hollebeke thrown in jail and viciously tried to prosecute her for the crime of reporting that she had been raped (her mistake was that the "alleged" rapist is a cop and his father works for Esparza). The same Jaime Esparza who unsuccessfully prosecuted one member of commissioner's court-members of the court vote on Esparza's budget-and then turned around and refused to prosecute another member of the court citing a conflict of interest because he couldn't prosecute someone who voted on his budget. I wonder which member happened to be Esparza's friend? The same Jaime Esparza who recently dismissed charges against two UTEP football players accused of felony assault on a peace officer. The same Esparza who relentlessly and ruthlessly prosecutes others who happen to be INNOCENT but charged with exactly the same offense. Of course to my knowledge, none of those Esparza has prosecuted and is prosecuting played football for UTEP. It's called selective prosecution and favoritism. The Bar actually offers ethics courses on this very issue. Who knows? Maybe this one's Esparza's specialty. You'd have to ask his staff. They ought to know. He's not just their boss. He's their ethics teacher.
If Jaime Esparza of all people is teaching ethics, I wondered, by what possible criteria does the State Bar assess those they select to teach. I called the Bar to ask. The woman on the phone seemed surprised, "What do you mean?" she asked me. "How do you know that the person you are admitting to teach CLE ethics is in fact ETHICAL?" I wondered. "Good question," she said, "I don't know." And that was that.
As for Esparza's ethics course, a friend of mine actually attended. He tells me Esparza's version of ethics consists of recounting his own favorite trials and telling his own glorious war stories. Some solace though. At least he does encourage student participation. For example (and the name is fictitious to protect the innocent): Esparza calls on one of his flock. "Jennifer (office employee), do you have a question?" "Yes. Jaime. Tell us about your favorite case." Is this ethics?
Keep your eyes open. US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today. Let's see what position George Smith, the Bar;s gatekeeper of Texas lawyer ethics, takes on Mr. Gonzales' conduct. With Esparza teaching ethics with the State Bar stamp of approval, apparently anything is possible. Maybe Mr. Smith can nominate Alberto Gonzales to be prosecutor of the year. In the meantime, I better get started on next year's CLE.
Each and every year, the State Bar of Texas requires licensed attorneys to complete at least 15 hours of Continuing Legal Education (CLE). If they do not adhere to this injunction, the Bar may revoke their licenses.
For each and every attorney, at least three of these hours, or 20% of the total, must be in ethics. The State Bar increases the ethics requirement every now and then. Why? I presume, to assuage their guilt over their otherwise do-nothing attitude toward widespread government lawyer corruption.
Be advised: these CLE courses are also big business. In my own experience, these courses cost a minimum of $300 per year. The American Bar Association's most recent data as of 2004 lists 65,983 active and resident Texas lawyers. If my own fees reflect the average, that means the Texas Bar alone reaps close to $20 million per year in gross CLE revenue (nineteen million seven hundred ninety four thousand nine hundred dollars to be exact). And if you don't complete your CLE by the Bar-mandated deadline (the last day of one's birth month), the Bar also imposes astronomical fines. In short, $20 million is probably a low ball figure. Every year I pay the State Bar to take CLE ethics for the esteemed privilege of listening to another lawyer tell me what is right from wrong. Apparently, ethics doesn't come cheap. Or does it?
I discovered recently that none other than Jaime Esparza has taught CLE ethics to his own employees. This would be the same Jaime Esparza who testified under oath that he is not setting bonds though his own written office policies say that he is. The same Jaime Esparza who had Nancy Hollebeke thrown in jail and viciously tried to prosecute her for the crime of reporting that she had been raped (her mistake was that the "alleged" rapist is a cop and his father works for Esparza). The same Jaime Esparza who unsuccessfully prosecuted one member of commissioner's court-members of the court vote on Esparza's budget-and then turned around and refused to prosecute another member of the court citing a conflict of interest because he couldn't prosecute someone who voted on his budget. I wonder which member happened to be Esparza's friend? The same Jaime Esparza who recently dismissed charges against two UTEP football players accused of felony assault on a peace officer. The same Esparza who relentlessly and ruthlessly prosecutes others who happen to be INNOCENT but charged with exactly the same offense. Of course to my knowledge, none of those Esparza has prosecuted and is prosecuting played football for UTEP. It's called selective prosecution and favoritism. The Bar actually offers ethics courses on this very issue. Who knows? Maybe this one's Esparza's specialty. You'd have to ask his staff. They ought to know. He's not just their boss. He's their ethics teacher.
If Jaime Esparza of all people is teaching ethics, I wondered, by what possible criteria does the State Bar assess those they select to teach. I called the Bar to ask. The woman on the phone seemed surprised, "What do you mean?" she asked me. "How do you know that the person you are admitting to teach CLE ethics is in fact ETHICAL?" I wondered. "Good question," she said, "I don't know." And that was that.
As for Esparza's ethics course, a friend of mine actually attended. He tells me Esparza's version of ethics consists of recounting his own favorite trials and telling his own glorious war stories. Some solace though. At least he does encourage student participation. For example (and the name is fictitious to protect the innocent): Esparza calls on one of his flock. "Jennifer (office employee), do you have a question?" "Yes. Jaime. Tell us about your favorite case." Is this ethics?
Keep your eyes open. US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned today. Let's see what position George Smith, the Bar;s gatekeeper of Texas lawyer ethics, takes on Mr. Gonzales' conduct. With Esparza teaching ethics with the State Bar stamp of approval, apparently anything is possible. Maybe Mr. Smith can nominate Alberto Gonzales to be prosecutor of the year. In the meantime, I better get started on next year's CLE.