Michael Schweitzer Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 Michael, I’m curious when did you stop practicing law? Len, I'm curious why you have not posted the required profile. Michael, I’m curious: - when did you stop practicing law? - why you have not posted the required profile? Funny that you me about mine, even though 1) my link is exactly where it is supposed to be and 2) you have not yet posted yours. My profile is part of my signature and automatically appears at the bottom of every post. That is true now, but was not the case back in June. Yes and my sig. and the link to my bio have been "at the bottom of every post [of mine]" as well and have been there since well before you join this forum. Despite this you were unable to find them even after being told exactly where to look by Kathy and me and being provided with a photo with the location circled. When I first joined the Forum, I didn't know how the system worked. Colby is quibbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 http://members.calba...r/Detail/107208 Current Status: Inactive This member is inactive, but is eligible to become active. Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Inactive 1/1/1996 Inactive 12/29/1995 Active 7/31/1995 Not Eligible To Practice Law .... Get your facts straight, Tom. I was once suspended briefly because my annual dues payment was received late. I was promptly restored to active status and remained so until I retired and switched to inactive status. I can resume my practice at any time by simply contacting the State Bar and paying the difference between my inactive dues and active dues. I can understand a civilian's difficulty is interpreting State Bar records. But when you post two out-of-content excerpts as an implication of wrongdoing, you exceed misunderstanding and deliberately both personally insult me and attack my integrity. You should either delete your misleading post, or add key portions of my record you omitted: "Suspension lifted," which followed "not eligible" by a month, and "Disciplinary history: None." My ethical record with the State Bar is flawless, which is more than I can say about your post. I have no idea if your suspension was lifted or not, it does NOT say that in the online record, in fact it indicates the opposite Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Inactive 1/1/1996 Inactive 12/29/1995 Active 7/31/1995 Not Eligible To Practice Law 12/3/1982 Admitted to The State Bar of California Explanation of member status Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status Disciplinary and Related Actions Overview of the attorney discipline system. This member has no public record of discipline. Administrative Actions 7/31/1995 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law Here’s the link : http://members.calba...r/Detail/107208 So if the record is correct you were “suspended” and declared “Not Eligible To Practice Law” on 7/31/1995 but were still considered “active” and were declared “inactive” and still “Not Eligible To Practice Law” six months later on 1/1/1996 (or perhaps 12/30 -31/1995) and have never been reinstated. As I stated on the deleted thread “IF you are telling us the truth and your license only became inactive recently when you retired then your beef is with the state bar which indicates on its website that your license became inactive due to nonpayment of fees during the Clinton administration.” Both Tom and I fairly represented the record as it appears online. To be quite frank I doubt the webpage is inaccurate but you can easily settle this. I am sure that if, as you claim, you were reinstated in 1995 or ’96 the State Bar will be more than glad to correct the record. So all you have to is contact them. I think 30 days starting from next Monday is more than enough time for such a correction to be made so let’s see what the page says on Dec. 5. If it indicates you were reinstated as you claim I will apologize. The web page is accurate but limited to notations. The story is in a correspondence file at the State Bar you have never seen. Still, the notations contain a timeline. I was suspended for nonpayment of a fee, then restored to active status a few months later. I can't possibly be on active status and ineligible to practice at the same time. End of issue. Except for you. You overlook the timeline, jump on the fact I was not eligible to practice law during the suspension, then hold me out as never becoming eligible to practice law again. The problem isn't mine or the State Bar's. It's a Colby problem. Inability to assimilate facts, jumping to conclusions, basing charges on misconceptions, and acting out of vindictiveness. You have problems. Which is fine with me, except when you attack my ethics, which are impeccable. Then I have a problem with you. You threaten my untarnished reputation. Knock it off. Cease fire and forget I exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted November 3, 2012 Author Share Posted November 3, 2012 (edited) Go look at any of Len's posts. He has a link at the bottom of his post area which he has preferenced as Autobiography: There you will see a link to his post in the Biography area of the forum. You are the only one I know that has posted a link to the Profile Page, where you have chosen to put yours. As long as you have one, it's fine. The link to the Profile Page was provided by a moderator who asked me use it as the way to comply with the rule that I include my bio with my posts. I immediately added the link to my signature. And I have looked again at Colby's posts. I still see no link, and I'm wearing my reading glasses. Edited November 3, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 (edited) http://members.calba...r/Detail/107208 Current Status: Inactive This member is inactive, but is eligible to become active. Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Inactive 1/1/1996 Inactive 12/29/1995 Active 7/31/1995 Not Eligible To Practice Law .... Get your facts straight, Tom. I was once suspended briefly because my annual dues payment was received late. I was promptly restored to active status and remained so until I retired and switched to inactive status. I can resume my practice at any time by simply contacting the State Bar and paying the difference between my inactive dues and active dues. I can understand a civilian's difficulty is interpreting State Bar records. But when you post two out-of-content excerpts as an implication of wrongdoing, you exceed misunderstanding and deliberately both personally insult me and attack my integrity. You should either delete your misleading post, or add key portions of my record you omitted: "Suspension lifted," which followed "not eligible" by a month, and "Disciplinary history: None." My ethical record with the State Bar is flawless, which is more than I can say about your post. I have no idea if your suspension was lifted or not, it does NOT say that in the online record, in fact it indicates the opposite Status History Effective Date Status Change Present Inactive 1/1/1996 Inactive 12/29/1995 Active 7/31/1995 Not Eligible To Practice Law 12/3/1982 Admitted to The State Bar of California Explanation of member status Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law Effective Date Description Case Number Resulting Status Disciplinary and Related Actions Overview of the attorney discipline system. This member has no public record of discipline. Administrative Actions 7/31/1995 Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees Not Eligible To Practice Law Here’s the link : http://members.calba...r/Detail/107208 So if the record is correct you were “suspended” and declared “Not Eligible To Practice Law” on 7/31/1995 but were still considered “active” and were declared “inactive” and still “Not Eligible To Practice Law” six months later on 1/1/1996 (or perhaps 12/30 -31/1995) and have never been reinstated. As I stated on the deleted thread “IF you are telling us the truth and your license only became inactive recently when you retired then your beef is with the state bar which indicates on its website that your license became inactive due to nonpayment of fees during the Clinton administration.” Both Tom and I fairly represented the record as it appears online. To be quite frank I doubt the webpage is inaccurate but you can easily settle this. I am sure that if, as you claim, you were reinstated in 1995 or ’96 the State Bar will be more than glad to correct the record. So all you have to is contact them. I think 30 days starting from next Monday is more than enough time for such a correction to be made so let’s see what the page says on Dec. 5. If it indicates you were reinstated as you claim I will apologize. The web page is accurate but limited to notations. The story is in a correspondence file at the State Bar you have never seen. Still, the notations contain a timeline. I was suspended for nonpayment of a fee, then restored to active status a few months later. I can't possibly be on active status and ineligible to practice at the same time. End of issue. Except for you. You overlook the timeline, jump on the fact I was not eligible to practice law during the suspension, then hold me out as never becoming eligible to practice law again. The problem isn't mine or the State Bar's. It's a Colby problem. Inability to assimilate facts, jumping to conclusions, basing charges on misconceptions, and acting out of vindictiveness. You have problems. Which is fine with me, except when you attack my ethics, which are impeccable. Then I have a problem with you. You threaten my untarnished reputation. Knock it off. Cease fire and forget I exist. The last date on the page is 1/1/1996 when it indicates you were “inactive”, the same status indicated for the present so either 1) the page is wrong or 2) you are not being honest. In the former case I once again suggest you take it up with the State Bar. I’ll check again Dec. 5 to see if a correction has been made. The error on the page would also presumably be the basis for a liable suit against the bar because it is common for people to check the database before hiring a lawyer. And speaking of an “inability to assimilate facts” I told you various times where to find the link to my bio., I even posted the images below and then Kathy told you where to find it and even after all that you still insisted it was not there, and apparently you still can’t find it. To help you I've now made the link as visible as the forum software permits. Edited November 4, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Michael, I’m curious when did you stop practicing law? Len, I'm curious why you have not posted the required profile. Michael, I’m curious: - when did you stop practicing law? - why you have not posted the required profile? Funny that you me about mine, even though 1) my link is exactly where it is supposed to be and 2) you have not yet posted yours. My profile is part of my signature and automatically appears at the bottom of every post. That is true now, but was not the case back in June. Yes and my sig. and the link to my bio have been "at the bottom of every post [of mine]" as well and have been there since well before you join this forum. Despite this you were unable to find them even after being told exactly where to look by Kathy and me and being provided with a photo with the location circled. When I first joined the Forum, I didn't know how the system worked. Colby is quibbling. My statement was true at the time I made it and you knew that at time of your post but implied it was inaccurate; this fits with your willful misrepresentation of what could constitute perjury and your contradictory statements about when you retired 2006 vs. recently. To paraphrase Mark Twain “your claims of your integrity are greatly exaggerated.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 You are being ridiculous Len. It's just a record of administrative actions. (and one only, dated). Iit means nothing in relation to current status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 There's an awful lot of coffee in ................!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 You are being ridiculous Len. It's just a record of administrative actions. (and one only, dated). Iit means nothing in relation to current status. I respectfully disagree, the status for the most recent date is the as for present "inactive". And Michael just contradicted himself. It's no longer a question of whether one believe him or me or Tom but rather if you believe Michael or Michael. “I switched to inactive status when I retired. And I don't answer to you.” AND “Get your facts straight, Tom. I was once suspended briefly because my annual dues payment was received late. I was promptly restored to active status and remained so until I retired and switched to inactive status.” VS. “I had a practical reason for switching my status from "active" to "inactive." Active status is only required when an attorney represents clients, and it carries the baggage of complying with California's burdensome "MCLE" (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) requirements. I represented clients from 1982 to 1996. After that, I only worked for other attorneys as a research and briefing specialist, so I changed my status to inactive to escape the MCLE burden. I retired in 2006 and, to preserve my license, remain an inactive-status member of the State Bar.” “My name is Michael Schweitzer. I recently retired as an attorney.” VS. “My name is Michael Schweitzer. I retired as a research and civil liberties attorney in 2006…” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) To paraphrase Mark Twain “your claims of your integrity are greatly exaggerated.” I have zero tolerance for attacks on my integrity. You do not know how to interpret shorthand State Bar notations and blame me for your ignorance. And my attempt to retire is interrupted by so many "distress calls," I may start my day retired and end it with my hands full. Every day my status is determined by whether the phone rings. P.S. to John and Ian: Thank you for your graciousness. Edited November 5, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 It is a common practice to go on inactive status when one: 1. Retires 2. Changes professions 3. Relocates to a different state. In 1990 after five years of practice in MA. I moved to Austin. I knew that I would not be returning to MA to live or practice law therefore saw no reason to keep my law licence current in that state. (Fees can get very high). For several years it said inactive then even that stopped. I have been a member of the TX bar in good standing since 2/1/91. Never had a problem. Dawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I will save Len the trouble: Ms. Dawn Meredith Bar Card Number:13947620 Work Address:PO Box 150129Austin, TX 78715-0129 Work Phone Number:512-280-7274 Primary Practice Location:AUSTIN , Texas Current Member Status Eligible To Practice In Texas MEMBERSHIPS In cooperation with Justia Overview LICENSE INFORMATION Bar Card Number:13947620 Texas License Date:02/01/1991 PRACTICE INFORMATION Firm:Bovik & Meredith, P.C. Firm Size:2 to 5 Occupation:Private Law Practice Practice Areas:Criminal, Family, Juvenile Services Provided: Hearing impaired translation:Not Specified ADA-accessible client service:Not Specified Language translation:Not Specified [*]Foreign Language Assistance: None Reported By Attorney LAW SCHOOLS Law School Graduation Date Degree Earned New England School Of Law 05/1983 Doctor of Jurisprudence/Juris Doctor (J.D.) PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY HISTORY State of Texas* Sanction Date of Entry Sanction Date Start - End Probation Date Start - End No Public Disciplinary History - Texas *NOTE: Only Texas disciplinary sanctions within the past 10 years are displayed. For sanction information beyond 10 years, information about a specific disciplinary sanction listed above or to request a copy of a disciplinary judgment, please contact the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel at (877) 953-5535. There is a $15.00 fee for each disciplinary judgment copied. Other States Sanction State Sanction Date Start - End None Reported By Attorney Statutory Profile Last Certified On:01/11/2012The Texas Attorney Profile provides basic information about Attorneys licensed to practice in Texas. Attorney profile information is provided as a public service by the State Bar of Texas as outlined in Section 81.115 of the Texas Government Code. The information contained herein is provided "as is" with no warranty of any kind, express or implied. Neither the State Bar of Texas, nor its Board of Directors, nor any employee thereof may be held responsible for the accuracy of the data. Much of the information has been provided by the attorney and is required to be reviewed and updated by the attorney annually. The information noted with an asterisk (*) is provided by the State Bar of Texas. Texas grievance/disciplinary information will not appear on the profile until a final determination is reached. Access to this site is authorized for public use only. Any unauthorized use of this system is subject to both civil and criminal penalties. This does not constitute a certified lawyer referral service. COURTS OF ADMITTANCE Federal None Reported By Attorney[*] Other Courts None Reported By Attorney OTHER STATES LICENSED Massac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Schweitzer Posted November 5, 2012 Author Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Thanks, Dawn. I was briefly suspended in 1996 because the California Bar received my annual fee one day late and imposed a sanction they didn't notify me about for a couple months. By the time I paid the sanction, I had been suspended. They lifted the suspension when they received my payment. End of story. Except for a lone-nut character assassin who keeps assaulting me on this forum. BTW, I had a unique reason for switching to inactive status. I stopped representing clients and worked exclusively as a briefing specialist for other attorneys. Inactive status was all I needed then, and it meant not only lower dues, but escape from California's ludicrously burdensome continuing legal education requirements. Edited November 5, 2012 by Michael Schweitzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 To paraphrase Mark Twain “your claims of your integrity are greatly exaggerated.” I have zero tolerance for attacks on my integrity. You do not know how to interpret shorthand State Bar notations and blame me for your ignorance. And my attempt to retire is interrupted by so many "distress calls," I may start my day retired and end it with my hands full. Every day my status is determined by whether the phone rings. P.S. to John and Ian: Thank you for your graciousness. Based on what you’re telling us the fungibility of your retirement is plausible so I’m OK with you saying ‘it was in 2006’ or it was a ‘recent’ development in late 2011 or you haven’t really retired yet. And your explanation that you ‘switch[ed] “from "active" to "inactive,"’ in 1996 because you stopped representing clients is not only reasonable but matches the data from the State Bar database, but that was in direct contradiction to your earlier insistence that you were “promptly restored to active status and remained so until [you] retired and switched to inactive status.” Did you switch to inactive in 1996 or 2006? Both can't be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Thanks, Dawn. I was briefly suspended in 1996 because the California Barreceived my annual fee one day late and imposed a sanction they didn't notify me about for a couple months. By the time I paid the sanction, I had been suspended. They lifted the suspension when they received my payment. End of story. Except for a lone-nut character assassin who keeps assaulting me on this forum. The record seems to indicate you were suspended for 6 months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 LOL are you really 60? Immature posts like yours reflect poorly on the poster not the 'target'. But since you have no way to refute me you lash out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now