The Gottschalk matter helps illuminate the ethical rules that should control professional services offered by nonattorney lawyers. Confidentiality law specifies two kinds of protection: attorney-client privilege and attorney-client confidentiality; the leading case on the distinction is Brennan's Inc. v. Brennan's Restaurants Inc. (5th Cir. 1979) 590 F.2d 168, 172 ["This broad ethical duty protects not only against disclosure of privileged communications but also against the revelation of confidential information that is not privileged."]) The broader duty contrasts with the client-attorney privilege, which must go to the consultation's substance. (X Corp. v. Doe (E.D. Va. 1992) 805 F.Supp. 1298, 1305.)
On privilege-level matter, by policy, I incorporate into my fiduciary duty guarantees stronger than any attorney can offer and broaden their scope to include my authorship of any work product. I treat express personal guarantees as binding as core privilege-level substantial confidences. Privilege-level matter is subject to an absolute privilege that I refuse to breach, even if compelled by order or prosecution or justified by litigation. No attorney can offer this guarantee without accepting disbarment for bad-faith disobedience to court orders. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6103.)
Applying the distinction between levels of confidentiality to my Gottschalk disclosures, I respected the attorney-client privilege absolutely but released matter prima facie confidential under the broader ethical standard: my knowledge of Gottschalk's skulduggery insofar as I was its target. Contrasted with the privilege level, my guarantees on broad confidentiality are only conditional. They won't necessarily survive court order or incontrovertible fraud.
Showing posts with label confidentiality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label confidentiality. Show all posts
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Interlude 8A. Ronald N. Gottschalk Esq. —The Smoking Gun
Report: Ronald N. Gottschalk Esq. denies my accusations of fraud, less opprobrious than his anti-First Amendment threats. To quench readers' lawyerly thirst for proof, I append two e-mails: the first, confirming our agreement; the second, claiming weather conditions delayed Gottschalk's performance, which he didn't intend to deliver. My low rate expressed anti-State Bar solidarity.
BEGIN E-MAILS
END QUOTED E-MAILS
The addressee Randy Potter is Gottschalk's employee.
BEGIN E-MAILS
| hide details Sep 27 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dear Ron,
You retained me today for legal research, analysis, and consultation. We agreed on a fee of $50 per hour, and an initial retainer of $750, which I will apply to the first 15 hours of work.
No fees will be charged for previous telephone consultation time. I will begin work upon receiving the relevant documents by e-mail and a business or trust account check for $750, or notification that you have actually mailed it.
Stephen R. Diamond
Legal Research & Writing Service
Supplier of Legal Theories
srdiamond@gmail.com
760.974.9279
You retained me today for legal research, analysis, and consultation. We agreed on a fee of $50 per hour, and an initial retainer of $750, which I will apply to the first 15 hours of work.
No fees will be charged for previous telephone consultation time. I will begin work upon receiving the relevant documents by e-mail and a business or trust account check for $750, or notification that you have actually mailed it.
Stephen R. Diamond
Legal Research & Writing Service
Supplier of Legal Theories
srdiamond@gmail.com
760.974.9279
| hide details Sep 28 |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
We had a massive power failure in North Mandiville canyon last night for all residents. That included theinternet, and all power. Will try to email the documents tonight. I will mail the retainer check Monday. Ron
END QUOTED E-MAILS
The addressee Randy Potter is Gottschalk's employee.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Interlude 8. Ronald N. Gottschalk, Legal Predator — A Public Warning
Update at Interlude 16.
Some State Bar respondents deserve disbarment. In this category falls Ronald Norton Gottschalk, Esq., a parasite who fraudulently offers to buy research time, even resorts to the check-is-in the-mail subterfuge, and intends never to pay. Gottschalk faces charges and probable disbarment, but he is sufficiently unprincipled to prey on other State Bar respondents, defrauding one after failing with the other. On breach of solidarity, we State Bar opponents and respondents must police ourselves.
Gottschalk's verbose attempt to intimidate and bully reveals the kind of lawyer he is or was. Despite claiming he supports the legal war against the California State Bar in public and lawyers' interest, he plays State Bar stooge by threatening this blog's extinction. He resembles the State Bar in more than practicing with knavish ethics: he also practices idiocy. His threatening e-mail, below, accuses me of violating confidentiality by disclosing his skulduggery. When Gottschalk first telephoned, I was suspended by the State Bar, as he, kanBARoo court reader, knew. As to ethics, distinguished from legality, I instructed Gottschalk before discussing his case that no professional relationship existed until he paid a $750.00 retainer, the "check in the mail"; his intrusive phone calls immediately alerted me Gottschalk's character is amiss.
BEGIN QUOTE OF GOTTSCHALK THREATENING E-MAIL
LAW OFFICES OF
RONALD GOTTSCHALK & ASSOCIATES
1160 South Golden West Ave., Suite 3
Arcadia, California 91007
E-mail: Gov@roadrunner.com
Tel: (626) 755-1688
Fax: (877) 284-3067
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNCATION
December 16, 2008
SENT VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Stephen R. Diamond, J.D.
6424 Mountain View, St #2
Joshua Tree, CA, 92252
Re: Gottschalk v. Diamond et al.
Notice to Cease and Desist for Violation of B&P §6068(e) and B&P §6450-6455
Notice of Intent to seek injunctive relief, OSC re contempt including the removal of your
Blog and website for your continued violation of B&P §6068(e) and B&P §6450-6455 and orders of the California Supreme Court, without limitation
Dear Mr. Diamond:
Your conduct to date reflects that you continue to violate B&P §6068(e) and B&P §6450-6455 against myself and others. Your allegations are specifically denied and constitutes bad faith and actionable conduct including for an award of actual and punitive damages.
Although you have been recently disbarred by the Supreme Court of the State of California, you are still obligated to maintain confidentiality under B&P §6068(e) and B&P §6450-6455 and cannot use your website or blog to obtain collateral advantage over myself and others.
Accordingly, if you breach confidentiality or publish any information about me on your blog and website as you have threatened or reveal confidential information to third parties, I will sue you under the RICO Act and will seek injunctive relief, an OSC re criminal contempt of the California Supreme Court Order for your disbarment and for removal of your website and blog for the unauthorized practice of law by you, without limitation. You have admitted that the blog and websites are owned and maintained by you.
Mr. Stephen Diamond, J.D.
Re: Gottschalk v. Diamond
December 16, 2008
Page 2
Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of my collective rights and remedies against you and those who aid and abet you. Your conduct is actionable and you continued
violation of B&P §6068(e) and B&P §6450-6455 constitutes sufficient grounds for the relief that I will request from the Federal Court. None of your conduct is privileged and is further actionable based upon your disbarment and violation of the orders of the California Supreme Court.
Very truly yours,
GOTTSCHALK & ASSOCIATES
RONALD GOTTSCHALK
END REPRODUCED GOTTSCHALK LETTER
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)