Comments for Ricoact.com LLC http://ricoact.com Jeffrey E. Grell, Esq. Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:16:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Post Comments by Scott Andersen http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-25 Scott Andersen Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:16:56 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-25 Mr. Grell, I have been involved in a fraud against me. And litigation that has been going on for near two years. A bank in Minnesota where I live has forged documents. I believe they know that they are forged. And the are burying me with paper to try to bankrupt me. Would this be racketeering by a corporation? Of you would be interested in getting involved,e mail me. Mr. Grell, I have been involved in a fraud against me. And litigation that has been going on for near two years. A bank in Minnesota where I live has forged documents. I believe they know that they are forged. And the are burying me with paper to try to bankrupt me. Would this be racketeering by a corporation? Of you would be interested in getting involved,e mail me.

]]> Comment on Post Comments by jeffgrell http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-19 jeffgrell Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:11:36 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-19 Keith - I am authorized to practice only in the State of Minnesota. As a result, I can represent people in other state and federal courts only if I'm admitted pro hac vice (or for the purposes of that particular case). To be admitted pro hac vice outside the State of Minnesota, I must be affiliated with and supervised by a lawyer who is a member of the bar of the state where the action is venued. As a result, the rules regarding unauthorized practice of law would not allow me to be involved in any pro so case, because pro so means that the party is representing him or herself without the aid of counsel. If the pro so party has no counsel, then there isn't a lawyer to sponsor my admission pro hac vice. These rules would apply regardless of whether the pro se party is willing or able to pay an hourly fee or a contingency fee. If you're not authorized to practice law in a state, you're not authorized. As a result, if a party is not from the State of Minnesota and is representing him or herself pro se, I can't get involved. At the most, such a pro se party could by my book. That's about the only assistance I can offer. Courts do not appoint someone like me. First, I'm not authorized to practice outside the State of Minnesota, so I would be eligible for appointment only in MInnesota. Second, the right to counsel applies only to some (not all) criminal cases. For example, you don't have a right to counsel for a petty misdemeanor charge (e.g., a speeding ticket). There is no right to counsel in a civil case. Finally, although a criminal defendant may have a right to counsel, there is no right to counsel of the criminal defendant's choice. Because I am not a criminal lawyer, I do not seek out court appointments, nor would I take one, even here in Minnesota and even if a criminal defendant wanted me to represent him or her. When I'm engaged in litigation outside the State of Minnesota, it is because I have been hired as a consultant by the client's attorneys in the state where the action is pending or those lawyers have asked me to join the case as co-counsel (and I've been admitted pro hac vice). RICO is usually only one part of a broader litigation strategy. I am usually retained by local / lead counsel to assist with the RICO claim(s) but the broader litigation strategy is managed by the local / lead counsel. Keith -

I am authorized to practice only in the State of Minnesota. As a result, I can represent people in other state and federal courts only if I’m admitted pro hac vice (or for the purposes of that particular case). To be admitted pro hac vice outside the State of Minnesota, I must be affiliated with and supervised by a lawyer who is a member of the bar of the state where the action is venued. As a result, the rules regarding unauthorized practice of law would not allow me to be involved in any pro so case, because pro so means that the party is representing him or herself without the aid of counsel. If the pro so party has no counsel, then there isn’t a lawyer to sponsor my admission pro hac vice. These rules would apply regardless of whether the pro se party is willing or able to pay an hourly fee or a contingency fee. If you’re not authorized to practice law in a state, you’re not authorized.

As a result, if a party is not from the State of Minnesota and is representing him or herself pro se, I can’t get involved. At the most, such a pro se party could by my book. That’s about the only assistance I can offer.

Courts do not appoint someone like me. First, I’m not authorized to practice outside the State of Minnesota, so I would be eligible for appointment only in MInnesota. Second, the right to counsel applies only to some (not all) criminal cases. For example, you don’t have a right to counsel for a petty misdemeanor charge (e.g., a speeding ticket). There is no right to counsel in a civil case. Finally, although a criminal defendant may have a right to counsel, there is no right to counsel of the criminal defendant’s choice. Because I am not a criminal lawyer, I do not seek out court appointments, nor would I take one, even here in Minnesota and even if a criminal defendant wanted me to represent him or her.

When I’m engaged in litigation outside the State of Minnesota, it is because I have been hired as a consultant by the client’s attorneys in the state where the action is pending or those lawyers have asked me to join the case as co-counsel (and I’ve been admitted pro hac vice).

RICO is usually only one part of a broader litigation strategy. I am usually retained by local / lead counsel to assist with the RICO claim(s) but the broader litigation strategy is managed by the local / lead counsel.

]]> Comment on Post Comments by Keith http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-18 Keith Mon, 30 Jan 2012 22:55:43 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-18 Mr Grell, as I see it you don't take RICO cases, just only for consulting? Meaning only if person is able to pay upfront for your help, if another Attorney asks for your consulting? If an Attorney General asks? Or if Court asks? If for a Pro Se case(Plaintiff - person initiating claim), you will take a case if you feel there is a case, there is for the potential of win(to possibly be paid later if able to win), both Criminal and/or Civil damages Trice, Defendant(s) is/are able to pay and serve jail time. Do you/will take a case as Pro Hac Vise/Master Pro Hac Vise(May be considered State{Superior Court} - Federal not sure)? And if a Court should ask/asks to appoint you for plaintiff? Would there be a preference for State or Federal Court? For you to take a case what is needed? Thanks. Mr Grell, as I see it you don’t take RICO cases, just only for consulting? Meaning only if person is able to pay upfront for your help, if another Attorney asks for your consulting? If an Attorney General asks? Or if Court asks?
If for a Pro Se case(Plaintiff – person initiating claim), you will take a case if you feel there is a case, there is for the potential of win(to possibly be paid later if able to win), both Criminal and/or Civil damages Trice, Defendant(s) is/are able to pay and serve jail time.
Do you/will take a case as Pro Hac Vise/Master Pro Hac Vise(May be considered State{Superior Court} – Federal not sure)? And if a Court should ask/asks to appoint you for plaintiff? Would there be a preference for State or Federal Court? For you to take a case what is needed? Thanks.

]]> Comment on Post Comments by jeffgrell http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-17 jeffgrell Mon, 23 Jan 2012 19:06:23 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-17 If a case doesn't make economic sense and if the client isn't able to pay for the lawyer's time, you have to find a lawyer that will gain in some other way from the representation. Many times the "gain" comes in the form of publicity, but (contrary to public opinion) not all lawyers want publicity. For example, in my practice (as opposed to my academic work), something has gone wrong if a case I'm working on is generating a lot of publicity. I have no problems talking to reporters about RICO in general or cases that don't concern my clients. But once a matter becomes of interest to the media, the publicity becomes another complicating factor that may limit a lawyer's ability to represent the client or that may cause decision-makers to be more cautious or reckless (depending on the circumstances). In reality, there are also very few cases that generate significant publicity, and for most attorneys who practice complex litigation, the last thing you want are many people contacting you just because they saw you on a news program. Complex litigation is a high fee, low volume practice. A complex litigator gets no benefit from marketing to the masses. So, you need to find a litigator with a high volume practice (think class action or personal injury) who wants publicity. You should also not underestimate that a number of lawyers "gain" by undertaking issues that are of deep personal, political or philosophical importance to them. There are many lawyers who are simply dedicated to certain topics like protection of vulnerable classes, free speech, and access to justice. If you have a case that may appeal to a lawyer with a deep commitment to a particular issue, then you need to find the lawyers committed to that issue and hope that they aren't already booked up representing other clients. If a case doesn’t make economic sense and if the client isn’t able to pay for the lawyer’s time, you have to find a lawyer that will gain in some other way from the representation. Many times the “gain” comes in the form of publicity, but (contrary to public opinion) not all lawyers want publicity. For example, in my practice (as opposed to my academic work), something has gone wrong if a case I’m working on is generating a lot of publicity. I have no problems talking to reporters about RICO in general or cases that don’t concern my clients. But once a matter becomes of interest to the media, the publicity becomes another complicating factor that may limit a lawyer’s ability to represent the client or that may cause decision-makers to be more cautious or reckless (depending on the circumstances). In reality, there are also very few cases that generate significant publicity, and for most attorneys who practice complex litigation, the last thing you want are many people contacting you just because they saw you on a news program. Complex litigation is a high fee, low volume practice. A complex litigator gets no benefit from marketing to the masses. So, you need to find a litigator with a high volume practice (think class action or personal injury) who wants publicity. You should also not underestimate that a number of lawyers “gain” by undertaking issues that are of deep personal, political or philosophical importance to them. There are many lawyers who are simply dedicated to certain topics like protection of vulnerable classes, free speech, and access to justice. If you have a case that may appeal to a lawyer with a deep commitment to a particular issue, then you need to find the lawyers committed to that issue and hope that they aren’t already booked up representing other clients.

]]> Comment on Post Comments by Bob@CommonSenseConversation http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-13 Bob@CommonSenseConversation Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:53:11 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-13 You (rightly) state repeatedly that lawyering is a business, and attorney's usually must see a financial benefit at the end of the rainbow, either in fees or fame. With that said, what do you suggest is the best way to find one of the few who will take a (political) case strictly on principle, i.e taking on a well known national political figure whose actions, while fitting within the "business as usual" form, is still breaking the law...potentially violating RICO? You (rightly) state repeatedly that lawyering is a business, and attorney’s usually must see a financial benefit at the end of the rainbow, either in fees or fame. With that said, what do you suggest is the best way to find one of the few who will take a (political) case strictly on principle, i.e taking on a well known national political figure whose actions, while fitting within the “business as usual” form, is still breaking the law…potentially violating RICO?

]]> Comment on Post Comments by jeffgrell http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-8 jeffgrell Thu, 03 Nov 2011 19:39:56 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-8 Thank you for your comment. The scenario you describe may or may not constitute extortion. Extortion exists under the Hobbs Act only where the threat is wrongful. In the context of threats of litigation, some courts have held that extortion can arise only where the threat constitutes a sham. Courts are reluctant to find extortion in situations involving threats of litigation because all litigation implies a threat, e.g., settle my claim or I'll take you to court and get a bigger judgment. Under normal circumstances, a threat of litigation is not only lawful but is a constitutional right; the bill of rights states that we all have the right to petition the courts. Courts are reluctant to chill the exercise of constitutional rights, so in order for a threat of litigation to be wrongful, the threat must be so frivolous that it constitutes a sham. Your facts do not set forth why the insurance company believes it has a right to assert a lien against the settlement proceeds, and I'm not sure of the bases supporting your statement that "the insurance company is not entitled to recovery." For example, in a personal injury case, where the injured party receives medical treatment and that treatment is paid by the injured party's insurance company, the insurance company has the right to collect the amount paid for treatment from the wrongdoer or from a judgment against the wrongdoer. Personal injury attorneys are generally very careful to negotiate with the injured party's heath care insurer to make sure the health care insurer gets reimbursed from the proceeds of the litigation. Generally speaking, the party at fault for the injury is responsible to pay for the treatment of an injury. A wrongdoer is not relieved of that payment obligation simply because health care expenses were covered by medical insurance. The devil is in the details, so I advise that you consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your local area. Please exercise diligence in asserting your legal rights. All civil claims are subject to a statute of limitations. Your potential right to recovery will be barred if your claim is not brought within the limitations period. Please consult with and retain an attorney licensed to practice in your area to ensure that your legal rights are not further prejudiced by the passage of time. Thank you for your comment. The scenario you describe may or may not constitute extortion. Extortion exists under the Hobbs Act only where the threat is wrongful. In the context of threats of litigation, some courts have held that extortion can arise only where the threat constitutes a sham. Courts are reluctant to find extortion in situations involving threats of litigation because all litigation implies a threat, e.g., settle my claim or I’ll take you to court and get a bigger judgment. Under normal circumstances, a threat of litigation is not only lawful but is a constitutional right; the bill of rights states that we all have the right to petition the courts. Courts are reluctant to chill the exercise of constitutional rights, so in order for a threat of litigation to be wrongful, the threat must be so frivolous that it constitutes a sham. Your facts do not set forth why the insurance company believes it has a right to assert a lien against the settlement proceeds, and I’m not sure of the bases supporting your statement that “the insurance company is not entitled to recovery.” For example, in a personal injury case, where the injured party receives medical treatment and that treatment is paid by the injured party’s insurance company, the insurance company has the right to collect the amount paid for treatment from the wrongdoer or from a judgment against the wrongdoer. Personal injury attorneys are generally very careful to negotiate with the injured party’s heath care insurer to make sure the health care insurer gets reimbursed from the proceeds of the litigation. Generally speaking, the party at fault for the injury is responsible to pay for the treatment of an injury. A wrongdoer is not relieved of that payment obligation simply because health care expenses were covered by medical insurance. The devil is in the details, so I advise that you consult with an attorney licensed to practice in your local area. Please exercise diligence in asserting your legal rights. All civil claims are subject to a statute of limitations. Your potential right to recovery will be barred if your claim is not brought within the limitations period. Please consult with and retain an attorney licensed to practice in your area to ensure that your legal rights are not further prejudiced by the passage of time.

]]> Comment on Post Comments by Sally Gillette http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-7 Sally Gillette Wed, 19 Oct 2011 21:41:00 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-7 Hi, I'm wondering if the following fact situation could qualify as extortion: Whenever members of an insurance plan obtain settlements or judgments against third parties for personal injury, the insurance company ALWAYS asserts liens for recovery of benefits paid for treatment of these injuries -- even in fact situations where the insurance company is not entitled to recovery. (For example, the case is a wrongful death case, and the plan has no right of recovery from the plan members beneficiaries). The plan members' attorneys, who are used to dealing with subrogation liens (and actually use them to their own advantage), treat the liens are valid and advise their clients to pay or be sued. The clients pay because of the implied threat of a lawsuit. Is this pattern of activity extortion? (conceivably)? Thanks! Hi,
I’m wondering if the following fact situation could qualify as extortion:

Whenever members of an insurance plan obtain settlements or judgments against third parties for personal injury, the insurance company ALWAYS asserts liens for recovery of benefits paid for treatment of these injuries — even in fact situations where the insurance company is not entitled to recovery. (For example, the case is a wrongful death case, and the plan has no right of recovery from the plan members beneficiaries). The plan members’ attorneys, who are used to dealing with subrogation liens (and actually use them to their own advantage), treat the liens are valid and advise their clients to pay or be sued. The clients pay because of the implied threat of a lawsuit. Is this pattern of activity extortion? (conceivably)? Thanks!

]]> Comment on Post Comments by jeffgrell http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-5 jeffgrell Mon, 08 Aug 2011 15:51:29 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-5 As I've said in response to other comments, I cannot give any advice with regard to particular fact patterns or cases. I will do my best to respond to general concerns raised in your email. First, you must have an "in-state" lawyer. The only persons authorized to practice before the courts of any state are lawyers who are members of the bar of the state. There is no such thing as simply getting a California lawyer (or a lawyer in any other state) to litigate a claim in New York (or any other state). If you have a claim in New York, you need a New York lawyer. An out of state attorney can only represent a client in a New York case if the out of state lawyer is admitted pro hac vice. To be admitted pro hac vice, the out of state lawyer must be sponsored and supervised by an in-state lawyer. In short, without an in-state lawyer, you can't use an out-of-state lawyer. Second, the comment that no lawyer will sue judges or officials is patently false. If a lawyer believes he or she can make money off of a case, a lawyer will sue anyone. People often tell me that they can't find local counsel because the defendants are too "politically connected" or because the defendants have too much money and all the attorneys are afraid of them. After 20 years of being an attorney, I can say without hesitation that there is no such thing as a defendant that is "too big to sue." In fact, the worst defendant is a defendant who has no money (you can't get blood from a turnip). The more money the better. Also, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If an attorney can successfully sue a powerful family or individual, that attorney will make a name for him or herself, they will be in all the media, they'll be known as a giant killer, etc. That kind of reputation goes a long way in bringing more clients and more money through an attorneys' front door. Lawyers are always looking to land a big fish. If you can't find a lawyer, keep looking. The practice of law is a business, so when you seek to obtain representation from an attorney, be prepared to explain how the case will make money for the lawyer. Will the lawyer get paid hourly? Are you looking for contingency fee representation? If you're looking for contingency fee representation, the lawyer has to be confident that the merits of the case are strong AND that the defendant has money to pay a judgment. If one of those elements is missing, you probably don't have a good contingency fee case. Third, do you have a RICO claim or a RICO pattern? You very well may have a RICO claim but having a RICO claim in theory and having a viable RICO claim are two different things. The latter depends upon the details. A lawyer would have to spend a great deal of time analyzing the evidence and the related law to determine whether a theoretical RICO claim would have a good chance of surviving. Generally, when people are trying to retain counsel, I tell them to forget any particular legal theory. The lawyer's job is to know the law. As a potential client, you simply need to explain the facts to the lawyer. The lawyer will develop the theory(ies) of recovery (if any can be developed). In the context of civil RICO claims, very seldom (if ever) do facts give rise to ONLY a RICO claim. Almost always, a RICO claim is one of several avenues of recovery. Your best chances of recovery may be under state law. Moreover, RICO claims are very complicated and expensive to bring. I often point out to people that if they can get from point A to point B by riding a bike, why do they want to buy a jet plane? If a state cause of action is more economically efficient, and gets you to the same place, then it may not be wise to bring a RICO claim. A good lawyer can help you make these strategic decisions and will be your partner in figuring out the best way to resolve your dispute. At the initial level, nobody needs a "RICO expert," you simply need a competent attorney who you're comfortable working with and who is comfortable working for you. If your local attorney believes that a RICO claim should be included in your arsenal, then I'd be happy to further discuss the particulars of that potential claim with your local attorney. Fourth, people often ask me to refer them to local counsel. I do not make blind referrals. When one lawyer refers a potential client to another lawyer, the first lawyer is (in a way) vouching for the merits of the client's claim and indicating that the claim may make economic sense. Finally, please keep in mind that all claims are subject to a statute of limitations. If you fail to file your claim within the limitations period, your right to relief will be barred. Time is of the essence so exercise diligence in retaining counsel and pursing your possible right to relief. As I’ve said in response to other comments, I cannot give any advice with regard to particular fact patterns or cases. I will do my best to respond to general concerns raised in your email. First, you must have an “in-state” lawyer. The only persons authorized to practice before the courts of any state are lawyers who are members of the bar of the state. There is no such thing as simply getting a California lawyer (or a lawyer in any other state) to litigate a claim in New York (or any other state). If you have a claim in New York, you need a New York lawyer. An out of state attorney can only represent a client in a New York case if the out of state lawyer is admitted pro hac vice. To be admitted pro hac vice, the out of state lawyer must be sponsored and supervised by an in-state lawyer. In short, without an in-state lawyer, you can’t use an out-of-state lawyer. Second, the comment that no lawyer will sue judges or officials is patently false. If a lawyer believes he or she can make money off of a case, a lawyer will sue anyone. People often tell me that they can’t find local counsel because the defendants are too “politically connected” or because the defendants have too much money and all the attorneys are afraid of them. After 20 years of being an attorney, I can say without hesitation that there is no such thing as a defendant that is “too big to sue.” In fact, the worst defendant is a defendant who has no money (you can’t get blood from a turnip). The more money the better. Also, the bigger they are, the harder they fall. If an attorney can successfully sue a powerful family or individual, that attorney will make a name for him or herself, they will be in all the media, they’ll be known as a giant killer, etc. That kind of reputation goes a long way in bringing more clients and more money through an attorneys’ front door. Lawyers are always looking to land a big fish. If you can’t find a lawyer, keep looking. The practice of law is a business, so when you seek to obtain representation from an attorney, be prepared to explain how the case will make money for the lawyer. Will the lawyer get paid hourly? Are you looking for contingency fee representation? If you’re looking for contingency fee representation, the lawyer has to be confident that the merits of the case are strong AND that the defendant has money to pay a judgment. If one of those elements is missing, you probably don’t have a good contingency fee case. Third, do you have a RICO claim or a RICO pattern? You very well may have a RICO claim but having a RICO claim in theory and having a viable RICO claim are two different things. The latter depends upon the details. A lawyer would have to spend a great deal of time analyzing the evidence and the related law to determine whether a theoretical RICO claim would have a good chance of surviving. Generally, when people are trying to retain counsel, I tell them to forget any particular legal theory. The lawyer’s job is to know the law. As a potential client, you simply need to explain the facts to the lawyer. The lawyer will develop the theory(ies) of recovery (if any can be developed). In the context of civil RICO claims, very seldom (if ever) do facts give rise to ONLY a RICO claim. Almost always, a RICO claim is one of several avenues of recovery. Your best chances of recovery may be under state law. Moreover, RICO claims are very complicated and expensive to bring. I often point out to people that if they can get from point A to point B by riding a bike, why do they want to buy a jet plane? If a state cause of action is more economically efficient, and gets you to the same place, then it may not be wise to bring a RICO claim. A good lawyer can help you make these strategic decisions and will be your partner in figuring out the best way to resolve your dispute. At the initial level, nobody needs a “RICO expert,” you simply need a competent attorney who you’re comfortable working with and who is comfortable working for you. If your local attorney believes that a RICO claim should be included in your arsenal, then I’d be happy to further discuss the particulars of that potential claim with your local attorney. Fourth, people often ask me to refer them to local counsel. I do not make blind referrals. When one lawyer refers a potential client to another lawyer, the first lawyer is (in a way) vouching for the merits of the client’s claim and indicating that the claim may make economic sense. Finally, please keep in mind that all claims are subject to a statute of limitations. If you fail to file your claim within the limitations period, your right to relief will be barred. Time is of the essence so exercise diligence in retaining counsel and pursing your possible right to relief.

]]> Comment on Post Comments by tiger boy http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-4 tiger boy Sun, 07 Aug 2011 08:02:08 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-4 Jeff, A forged power of attorney was used to transfer ownership from ownership of me and my brother's two family home during a pending mortgage into my fathers name and mine. [Edited] . . . Though I was taken off the deed, her real estate broker employer sued me in a partition action! . . . I counter sued for fraud, etc. but it was thrown out at the end and the judge stated that she believed his version. . . . I lost everything. . . . I was told that I need an attorney out of state because no lawyer will go against judges and officials. I hate to ask but do you know of any lawyers that love our country and believe in its laws that would take on this case? . . . This is RICO right? I have no one to go to. This is in NY. . . . Is that the pattern? . . . Jeff, A forged power of attorney was used to transfer ownership from ownership of me and my brother’s two family home during a pending mortgage into my fathers name and mine. [Edited] . . . Though I was taken off the deed, her real estate broker employer sued me in a partition action! . . . I counter sued for fraud, etc. but it was thrown out at the end and the judge stated that she believed his version. . . . I lost everything. . . . I was told that I need an attorney out of state because no lawyer will go against judges and officials. I hate to ask but do you know of any lawyers that love our country and believe in its laws that would take on this case? . . . This is RICO right? I have no one to go to. This is in NY. . . . Is that the pattern? . . .

]]> Comment on Post Comments by jeffgrell http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-3 jeffgrell Mon, 01 Aug 2011 20:38:49 +0000 http://ricoact.com/?page_id=364#comment-3 Access to legal counsel has unfortunately become a privilege reserved for the wealthy. As a lawyer, I tell people point-blank that the practice of law is a business, and if you're looking to retain counsel, you usually need to convince the lawyer that your case makes economic sense (either because you can afford to pay by the hour or because your case makes sense on a contingency fee basis). That being said, a multitude of lawyers donate countless hours on a pro bono basis. I get contacted by many pro se litigants who are looking for help. Although economic considerations are always an issue, the biggest hurdle is the limitations on my license to practice law. I am actively licensed only in the State of Minnesota (although I am the member of several federal bars). As a consequence, I can't offer legal advice to anyone outside of Minnesota or whose claim arises outside of Minnesota. For me to be involved in litigation in another state, I have to affiliate with attorneys who are licensed to practice in that state. Thus, almost all of my clients are other attorneys or business clients who hire a team of attorneys to work on a matter. When people ask me what I do, I generally say I serve as a consultant to other lawyers who are trying to prosecute or defend against RICO claims. That being said, I offer this website and my textbook to pro se litigants as a source of information. Other lawyers ask me why I have so much information on my website, aren't I afraid that I'll lose business by educating potential clients? That may be true to a certain extent, but I know many people who can't afford attorneys benefit from the information I publish. Please also keep in mind that the courts are well aware that "normal" people can't afford lawyers. Judges and courts are developing more and more programs that assist pro se litigants in obtaining access to the justice system. If you're considering litigation, but can't afford a lawyer, check with your local county court to see what resources are available to pro se litigants. It is also a good idea to check with your state or local bar association. Access to legal counsel has unfortunately become a privilege reserved for the wealthy. As a lawyer, I tell people point-blank that the practice of law is a business, and if you’re looking to retain counsel, you usually need to convince the lawyer that your case makes economic sense (either because you can afford to pay by the hour or because your case makes sense on a contingency fee basis). That being said, a multitude of lawyers donate countless hours on a pro bono basis. I get contacted by many pro se litigants who are looking for help. Although economic considerations are always an issue, the biggest hurdle is the limitations on my license to practice law. I am actively licensed only in the State of Minnesota (although I am the member of several federal bars). As a consequence, I can’t offer legal advice to anyone outside of Minnesota or whose claim arises outside of Minnesota. For me to be involved in litigation in another state, I have to affiliate with attorneys who are licensed to practice in that state. Thus, almost all of my clients are other attorneys or business clients who hire a team of attorneys to work on a matter. When people ask me what I do, I generally say I serve as a consultant to other lawyers who are trying to prosecute or defend against RICO claims. That being said, I offer this website and my textbook to pro se litigants as a source of information. Other lawyers ask me why I have so much information on my website, aren’t I afraid that I’ll lose business by educating potential clients? That may be true to a certain extent, but I know many people who can’t afford attorneys benefit from the information I publish. Please also keep in mind that the courts are well aware that “normal” people can’t afford lawyers. Judges and courts are developing more and more programs that assist pro se litigants in obtaining access to the justice system. If you’re considering litigation, but can’t afford a lawyer, check with your local county court to see what resources are available to pro se litigants. It is also a good idea to check with your state or local bar association.

]]>