Thursday, April 23, 2015

Marc Randazza and Eugene Volokh, clearly discussing and acting as Blogger Crystal Cox's attorney... Yet, Marc Randazza claims he was not her attorney. Well if NOT then how about ''potential''. Marc Randazza is NOT above the LAW, though he thinks he is.

Exhibit 20 proves that Marc Randazza and Eugene Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney. They were ordering documents from the courts, discussing filing motions on Crystal Cox's (the client) behalf , they had phone discussions on the best strategy to proceed in Cox's case and all this allegedly in the best interest of the CLIENT, Crystal Cox.

Marc Randazza acted as Cox's attorney, even if RANDAZZA prevails in court as to his lies / claims that he was not Cox's attorney, then at the absolute, very least blogger Crystal Cox was a potential client is still owed duties under law.

''  Rule 1.18.  Duties to Prospective Client.

      (a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.

      (b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.

      (c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).

      (d) When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if:

             (1) Both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing, or:

             (2) The lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and

                   (i) The disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and
                   (ii) Written notice is promptly given to the prospective client.

      (e) A person who communicates information to a lawyer without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship, or for purposes which do not include a good faith intention to retain the lawyer in the subject matter of the consultation, is not a “prospective client” within the meaning of this Rule.

      (f) A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the person’s informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client may also consent to the lawyer’s subsequent use of information received from the prospective client.

      (g) Whenever a prospective client shall request information regarding a lawyer or law firm for the purpose of making a decision regarding employment of the lawyer or law firm:

             (1) The lawyer or law firm shall promptly furnish (by mail if requested) the written information described in Rule 1.4(c).

             (2) The lawyer or law firm may furnish such additional factual information regarding the lawyer or law firm deemed valuable to assist the client.

             (3) If the information furnished to the client includes a fee contract, the top of each page of the contract shall be marked “SAMPLE” in red ink in a type size one size larger than the largest type used in the contract and the words “DO NOT SIGN” shall appear on the client signature line.''

Below is the Motion in Limine Crystal Cox filed in her counterclaims suing Randazza for Malpractice, as he used partial email threads (private emails) to defame his former client, he boldly embarked on massive defamation claims against Crystal Cox and flat out lied in media and the courts that Cox had extorted him, though he clearly knew Cox was only asking for a job, as Exhibit 17 clearly shows.

Here is the eMails that clearly SHOW Marc Randazza LIED to the WORLD about Crystal Cox when he knew Cox was just asking him for a Job.  He deliberately painted his former client out to be a criminal, in total disregard of her civil rights, rights as his client or potential client and her constitutional rights.

Motion in Limine to Include Exhibit 20 showing that Randazza and Volokh were acting as Cox's attorney or at the VERY least, her potential attorneys.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.