gruffteddybear wrote on June 23, 2008 02:24 PM: Glenn Lerner is the most annoying attorney on TV. I wouldn't patronize his law firm if he were the last bottom feeder on the planet. He is an ambulance chaser plain and simple. He doesn't practice real law and probably couldn't plead a misdemeanor much less try a murder case. Here's hoping he gets disbarred.

someone wrote on February 26, 2008 10:02 PM: let's let everyone know the truth shall we. Glen and Mario used to be room mates back in the day.This was before Glen took the bar. He felt an obligation to Mario as an "old friend"when mario called him from jail. Glen is nothing but a joke, a joke with alot of money. Showing up to a plea hearing 35 minutes late and wearing some stupid ass sunglasses. He agreed to take this case and when he relized he was over his head he bailed! The life of a rock star? Glen, you did the world a favor when you got a vasectomy

curious wrote on February 20, 2008 03:27 PM: oldlawdog=glen lerner?

perhaps

James Townsend wrote on February 07, 2008 04:23 PM: I BET GLEN LERNER COULD BEAT GOD'S DUMB A$$.

GOD wrote on February 06, 2008 10:27 PM: Glen Lerner is only owed a slap upside the ugly head for being a dumba$$ ambulance chasing scum attorney!!!

Robert wrote on February 06, 2008 08:34 PM: Of course Carl E.G. Arnold is an Associate of the law firm of "Glen J. Lerner & Associates". Mr. Arnold entered an appearance on behalf of the Lerner firm. Mr. Lerner has acknowledged that he was counsel for Mr. Lino and took the case (whether individually or through his firm) pro bono. It is admirable that Mr. Lerner and his firm took a case pro bono. However the partner has a duty of candor to the tribunal and a duty to supervise his staff (including associates). If your argument is that a complaint should be filed against Mr. Arnold also, so noted. However the headline is accurate: A Complaint was filed. It was filed in connection conduct in a murder case. Which statement in the article is not true?

douglas wrote on February 06, 2008 08:06 PM: either the reptile agreed to represent his pool cleaner or he didn't. it's a matter of honor not semantics or spin.

if he did agree and made the defendant and family under that impression, he's honor bound. if the entire concept, id est, that the reptile lerner was not in any way connected with the case, did not in any way lead the defendant to believe that he was being represented, then the author of that story/rumor deserves exposure.

the apologists/stooges/bootlickers of lerner will of course split hairs and spin the issue. thus they are of the same ilk.

oldlawdawg wrote on February 06, 2008 03:39 PM: P.S. The caption for the Lerner story is incorrect and misleading. The complaint filed with the State Bar of Nevada (there is no such thing as the "Nevada Bar Association") was NOT "in connection with a murder case," and the RJ clearly used that terminology to cast Glen Lerner in the most horrible light possible,i.e.,that he was connected to a murder case in a manner that some sort of proceedings were brought against him. In fact, however(and God forbid the RJ ever lets the facts get in the way of a good story),the complaint with the State Bar was "in connection" with the scope of Mr. Lerner's representaion of a client accused of murder,rather than "in connection with" the nurder case itself. While the RJ may call this mere semantics on my part,the difference is enormous to Mr. Lerner as the juxtaposition was clearly intentional. The RJ was in such a rush to do a hatchet job on Lerner that it just skipped the record entirely,dispensed with proper source identification,and slapped a smear right accross a man's professional reputation under a headline that tries make the story seem as close to a sensational murder case as possible.

While the RJ is usually sloppy,its reporting on this matter is downright despicable. And while I often post here but seldom if ever get truly outraged, as a lawyer I can readily see what the record reveals,and the record is 180 degrees from the RJ's telling of the tale. If the RJ wants to write a piece claiming that Glen Lerner is an incompetent lawyer or a lawyer who has done something wrong,it should do so and cite the evidence to support such allegations. But to insinuate such things without any factual basis is a cowardly use of the RJ's constitutional protections. SHAME!

oldlawdawg wrote on February 06, 2008 02:56 PM: THE RECORD RE: GLEN LERNER, CONCLUSION:

Nevada law provides the manner in which a lawyer becomes "counsel of record" and/or "trial counsel," and there are rules of evidence to be followed when making such a determination. As the title implies,IN ORDER TO BE COUNSEL “OF RECORD” rather than just counsel for a client,THE ATTORNEY MUST,AT A MINIMUM,ENTER HIS/HER APPEARANCE AS COUNSEL INTO THE RECORD THROUGH A FILING OR A PERSONAL APPEARANCE AT SOME STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THE RECORD IN THIS CASE MAKES IT CLEAR GLEN LERNER DID NOT TAKE THE STEPS NECESSARY TO BECOME COUNSEL OF RECORD for Lino even if he was one of the lawyers representing Lino in plea negotiations. Lerner certainly never took any steps on the record suggesting he was assuming the role and responsibilities of lead "trial counsel," a responsibility which is usually imposed upon the attorney who appears on the record at the pre-trial conference which,by rule,is to be handled by trial counsel,and by custom in such important matters as a murder trial,by lead trial counsel.

Attorneys can be “involved” in a given case in many different ways and on many different levels. Lerner could easily have been advising Arnold on plea negotiations,and even be directly involved in plea negotiations with the state,without ever becoming counsel” of record,” let alone lead trial counsel,as Lerner never entered an appearance “on the record.” Moreover,a lawyer may not be forced to represent a client as that would violate the Twelfth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude.

SO WHY DOES THE RJ IGNORE THE AVILABLE RECORD? BERCAUSE THE TRUTH DOES NOT SERVE THE RJ'S PURPOSE OF TARRING A LAWYER BECAUSE IT AND THE STATE BAR DO NOT LIKE HIS ADVERTISEMENTS.

THE RJ'S REPORTING IN THIS MATTER IS APPALLING, AND GLEN LERNER IS OWED A PUBLIC APOLOGY.

oldlawdawg wrote on February 06, 2008 01:52 PM: THE RECORD RE: GLEN LERNER, PART II:

The court minutes reveal that,ON JANUARY 22,2008,TWELVE DAYS AFTER ARNOLD’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW WAS DENIED, ARNOLD FAILED TO APPEAR FOR CALENDAR CALL ON THE FIRST SCHEDULED DAY OF TRIAL. INSTEAD,ARNOLD ATTENDED A DEPOSITION IN ARIZONA,AND CALLED ANOTHER LAWYER,MR.INGRASSIA,FROM ARIZONA ASKING HIM TO APPEAR ON HIS BEHALF AND MAKE AN ORAL REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE AS ARNOLD WAS TRYING TO GET BACK TO LAS VEGAS THAT SAME DAY. When Judge Leavitt advised that no motion for a continuance had been filed since she denied Arnold’s motion to withdraw,Ingrassia stated that while he knew Arnold’s motion had been denied,it was his “understanding” that Lerner would try the case but that he was in Pennsylvania on family business,and the prosecutor,Mr. Nelson,added that was his “understanding” as well. During the course of that day’s proceedings,JUDGE LEAVITT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ARNOLD HAD REPRESENTED HIMSELF TO THE COURT AS LINO’S COUNSEL OF RECORD,AND CHASTISED ARNOLD,NOT LERNER,FOR FAILING TO APPEAR ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL. In an apparent attempt to clarify the situation,PROSECUTORS CALLED ARNOLD FROM THE COURTHOUSE AND WERE TOLD BY ARNOLD THAT HE AND MR.LERNER WERE READY TO TRY THE CASE.

ABSENT AN APPEARANCE ON THE RECORD OR A FILING IN THE RECORD,A LAWYER CANNOT BE CHARGED WITH THE ROLE OF COUNSEL "OF RECORD" FOR A CLIENT,LET ALONE LEAD TRIAL COUNSEL,ESPECIALLY WHEN ANOTHER LAWYER HAS ALREADY APPEARED FOR THAT CLIENT AND,WHEN MOVING TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD,THAT LAWYER NECESSARILY ADMITTED TO BEING COUNSEL OF RECORD for that client. Indeed, Arnold never even mentioned Lerner until after the court denied Arnold's motion to withdraw,leaving Arnold stuck as counsel of record and desperate to find any possible way of getting out of his obligation to try a murder case or continue the trial until a plea is entered.

See Part III

Read All Comments