Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

helphaiti

Donate to CT Dems
Enable ActBlue
for CT Races
$
John Larson
(1st CD)
$
Joe Courtney
(2nd CD)
$
Rosa DeLauro
(3rd CD)
$
Jim Himes
(4th CD)
$
Chris Murphy
(5th CD)
$
Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

My Left Nutmeg

Adios Merrick Alpert

by: Jon Kantrowitz

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 10:10:22 AM EST


Update: CTBob, who is a much more professional blogger/journalist than I, followed this up with The Alpert campaign - and it's nothing, really - Sorry about that. See comment below.

He's completely lost me now -

Daniela Altimari has the story on The Capitol Watch Courant blog:

According to Judicial Branch records, Alpert is "administratively suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Practice Book Section 2-79(a) for non-payment of the client security fund fee due June 15, 2008," branch spokeswoman Rhonda Stearley-Hebert said in an email.

The order of administrative suspension took effect on June 16, 2009, she added.

Alpert seems to think non-payment is appropriate because he doesn't practice law, but it's not. I don't practice law either, but I'm required to pay:

An attorney is not exempt from the fee because he or she practices out of state, or because he or she does not actively practice law. Only those attorneys who have retired, resigned, who have served on active duty in the armed forces of the United States for a period of more than six months during the calendar year, or who have been disbarred, are exempt from payment of the fee. Attorneys have "retired" only if they have complied with the provisions of Practice Book Section 2-55 and Section 51-81b(g) of the Connecticut General Statutes. (Attorney Retirement Notice - Form  JD-CL-68). A partial, fifty percent exemption is available to attorneys who do not engage in the practice of law as an occupation and have not earned and do not expect to earn more than $450.00 in legal fees or other compensation for services involving the practice of law during the calendar year. Please note that if you engage in the practice of law as an occupation outside of Connecticut, you do not qualify for the partial exemption. If being an attorney is a factor in an individual's employment, such attorney is deemed engaged in the practice of law as an occupation for purposes of the partial exemption and does not qualify for the partial exemption. An attorney claiming a partial exemption must complete an exemption claim form and submit the form with their payment. (Claim of Exemption, Client Security Fund Fee - Form JD-GC-14E)

So what should Mr. Alpert do?

He should pay the fees he owes and retire from practicing law and running for office:

Jon Kantrowitz :: Adios Merrick Alpert
What should I do if my license to practice law has been administratively suspended for non-payment of the annual client security fund fee pursuant to Practice Book Sections 2-70 and 2-79(a)?

Practice Book Sections 2-70 and 2-79(a) provide that the license to practice law of an attorney who fails to pay the annual client security fund fee may be administratively suspended until such time as the fee is paid. If your license to practice law has been administratively suspended for non-payment of the annual client security fund fee, you should contact the office of the Client Security Fund Committee to obtain information about the amount of the past due fee or fees owed. Payment may be made online by attorneys registered with the Judicial Branch for access to E-Services at www.jud.ct.gov, or a check or money order in the amount of the past due fees should be sent to Client Security Fund, P.O. Box 1379, Hartford, Connecticut 06143-1379. Your juris number should be included on the check or money order. Upon receipt of a check or money order in the correct amount, or payment online, you will be reinstated. For additional information, the office of the Client Security Fund Committee may be contacted by e-mail at Security.Fund@jud.ct.gov, or by telephone at (860)-568-3450.

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
quick question (0.00 / 0)
What is the Client Security Fund and what does it do? Who runs it?

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to it."

-Lawrence Summers


It Pays Off Clients Whose Lawyers Cheat Them (0.00 / 0)

The Judicial Branch of the State of CT runs it.

[ Parent ]
Jon... (0.00 / 0)

I think you were looking for a reason to not support Alpert... congratulations... you found one. As for me nothing has changed. He is clearly, head and shoulders the more progressive candidate.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

I Thought John Edwards Was The Most Progressive (0.00 / 0)
viable candidate. I don't support him anymore either. Personal ethics have to accompany progressive ideals IMHO.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm...interesting (0.00 / 0)

So you're equating Edward's utter dishonesty to his family and supporters to allowing one's law license to go into suspension. Hyperbolic, but interesting...over the top, but I guess interesting.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

[ Parent ]
Into Suspension For Failure To Pay (0.00 / 0)
What he is legally required to pay.

[ Parent ]
I understand... (0.00 / 0)

But to compare this with Edwards, is like equating grand larceny with having overdue library books.

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

[ Parent ]
Is this an impeachable offense? (4.00 / 1)
It sounds more like an administrative oversight, or simply an innocent mistake.  

I think it rates about the same as accidentally letting your driver's license expire and getting a ticket. It seems like a very minor issue on the face of it.  

Connecticut Bob


The article makes it clear it was intentional (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Fair enough Jon (0.00 / 0)
Yes, you're right about that. I didn't read the article closely.

My point is, we want Merrick to stay in this race! Not only does Alpert serve as a voice for the more progressive among us, but without his help, Dick Blumenthal would have had no experience in a political debate.  

And judging from his performance last week, I'm sure Blumenthal will work on his skills, and hopefully he'll be more practiced next time around.

Of course, if Alpert somehow manages to WIN the nomination, he'll obviously have been the better candidate; and as such he'll likely have little problem knocking off whichever GOPer they run against him.

Connecticut Bob


[ Parent ]
financial incentive (0.00 / 0)
Alpert also does for Blumenthal what he did for Dodd -- provide an additional fundraising cycle so Blumenthal can raise 1.5X the maximum amount from his biggest donors.  

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

[ Parent ]
Perhaps I'm Overreacting (0.00 / 0)
Because I have to pay this damn fee every year to help protect people from lying, cheating, thieving fellow members of the bar, even though I haven't practiced law in almost 30 years. It just offends me personally that he can blithely ignore his obligations.

Maybe this isn't grossly unethical conduct, but IMHO it is a serious lapse of judgment.


I'm a bit confused here.... (4.00 / 1)
I'm not a lawyer (nor do I play one on TV), but this strikes me as a tempest in a teapot.

As Jon pointed out above, the fee is to help clients who have been cheated by their lawyer.  But if you don't practice law, why should you have to pay this fee?  Isn't that akin to asking doctors who don't practice medicine to pay malpractice insurance?


[ Parent ]
Because It's The Law (0.00 / 0)
No good reason for it to be there other than to raise more money, but it's there, it's the law, and we have to pay it.

[ Parent ]
Thanks, that helps clarify it, but... (0.00 / 0)
what if you plan on never practicing law again?  Why would you keep paying this fee?

You say it's the law, so does that mean there is a penalty for not paying?  If so, what is it?


[ Parent ]
I Prefer To Remain A Member of The Bar In Good Standing (0.00 / 0)
even though I don't practice. If I choose not to remain so, I will officially retire, having paid all fees due as established by the "rules of the Superior Court."

The only reason it is an administrative rule, as opposed to a law, is the separation of powers - the Legislature writes laws, the Judicial Department, administrative rules.


[ Parent ]
Jon... (0.00 / 0)

  The information that you provided in your post says..." The Client Security Fund is a fund established by the rules of the Connecticut Superior Court." It is a rule. In fact nowhere in the information provided is the fund referred to as a law. Please stop saying that Alpert broke the law...it is just not the case. The rule says that one's license to practice law in the state may be administratively suspended if the fee is not paid. The rule has been satisfied. Alpert chose to not pay the fee, therefore he cannot practice law in Connecticut at the present time. If he ever decides to practice again, he simply has to make himself current with the fund. You make him sound like a scofflaw and it is unfair and untrue.  

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

[ Parent ]
Jake (0.00 / 0)
I'd recommend to you that it might be worth writing some diaries covering the Senate race from your perspective. I don't think any of the FP writers has any respect for Alpert (myself included, to be honest), but your outlook would probably be pretty interesting if it weren't always being expressed from a defensive position.

I know I'd be interested in reading an Alpert supporter making a positive case for the guy beyond defending his campaign from whatever's being leveled at it.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...


[ Parent ]
Matt... (0.00 / 0)

I accept the assignment and will try to have something up in a day or two. Thanks for the encouragement; I hope that I am up to it and can do okay by Alpert.  

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

[ Parent ]
Alpert Campaign Explains (0.00 / 0)
Hello, Bob.

Regarding your question from yesterday, Merrick wrote the following to Daniela of The Courant:

"Dear Daniela,

I read your blog yesterday and then contacted the Judicial Branch to make sure that I did not owe any fees.  I was informed that I had paid the fees in full for 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009.  (The 2010 invoices have not been sent out yet.)  They did not receive the payment from me for 2008, so I hand delivered that payment to their office this morning.  When I spoke with you earlier in the week, I was incorrect when I stated that I had claimed the partial exemption since I do not practice law.  In fact, as the Judicial Branch records reflect, I have paid the full fees although legally I could have taken either the full exemption (by filing the 'Retirement' form they provided me) or the partial exemption since I don't practice law.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention."
Hope this helps clarify things.

Cordially,
Lev

--
Mr. Lev St.King
Director of Communications
Merrick Alpert for U.S. Senate
215 Bank Street
New London, CT 06320
Office: 860.447.3255

So I appear to have gotten my pants in a twist over nothing but a misunderstanding compounded by a misstatement - and I'm glad because I want his voice to remain in the campaign.


Jon... (0.00 / 0)

 Peace Brother...Jake

But let justice roll down like waters...Amos 5:24a

[ Parent ]
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Spotlight

Use the Spotlight tool to send a diary to offline journalists, with your feedback or suggestions.
(What is Spotlight?)


Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links
Connecticut's War Dead

MLN Facebook Group

Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT

CT Candidates
- Dan Malloy (CT GOV)
- Kevin Lembo (Comptroller).
- Richard Blumenthal (US SEN)
- George Jepsen (CT A.G)
- Denise Merrill (CT Sec. of State)
- Joe Courtney (CD2)
- Jim Himes (CD4)
- Chris Murphy (CD5)
- Tim O'Brien (HD24)
- Matt Lesser (HD100)
- Deb Heinrich (HD101)
- Lonnie Reed (HD102)
- Kim Fawcett (HD133)
- Michele Mount (HD112)

Other State Blogs
-
Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin

More blogs about connecticut+politics.
Technorati Blog Finder


 
Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Return to front page

Powered by: SoapBlox