O.J. Simpson had no problem getting tough while addressing Nevada’s Parole Board Commissioners … but he was also overcome with emotion.
The NFL Hall of Famer was granted parole by unanimous decision Thursday but not before an intense hearing that also included some chuckles from the board.
The 70-year-old NFL Hall of Famer addressed Nevada’s Board of Parole Commissioners via video conference. The earliest he can be released from Lovelock Correctional Center is October 1.
He’s served 9 years of his 33 year prison sentence.
He was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman — and many legal experts feel his 33 year sentence was payback for the controversial murder trial verdict. That event, the board said, did not factor in its decision to grant parole.
Suge Knight talked up a storm in court Thursday, begging a judge to let him talk to ALL his lawyers but the judge made it clear — his hands are tied.
The former rap mogul went on a diatribe, the likes of which we haven’t seen since he was arrested on murder charges in January 2015.
Suge was complaining he was not given access to his full team of lawyers and therefore couldn’t adequately prepare for trial. We won’t bore you with the legal mumbo jumbo, but this judge said he didn’t have the power to unleash Suge’s full legal team … another judge has to do that.
It’s interesting to hear Suge … he’s super engaged in the legal process.
Sourced From – http://www.tmz.com/2017/07/06/suge-knight-courtroom-lawyers-murder-robbery-case/
Avvo has argued that the fee-splitting prohibition could be a violation of the First Amendment.
A few days ago, three committees appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court jointly ruled that its lawyers cannot participate in Avvo’s Legal Services program because it engages in unethical fee splitting with non-lawyers.
Avvo’s Legal Services program works like this: A lawyer who signs up for the program will have a chance to be connected to a client seeking a 15-minute consultation. The client pays $39.95 to Avvo which is deposited to the attorney’s bank account. Soon after, in a separate transaction, Avvo debits $10 from the attorney’s bank account as an “marketing fee” for that client.
Does the above make Avvo’s Legal Services program a fee-splitting scheme? Yes. You can call it a “marketing fee” or some other name that doesn’t include the words “fee split with non-lawyers.” But it does not change the fact that a lawyer is getting paid and a non-lawyer is getting a cut of that pay. And it’s not just New Jersey that thinks this way. The state bar ethics committees of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina also ruled that this was impermissible fee splitting. I am very confident that other states will rule the same way.
Some argued that this system is no different than a credit card processing company charging a fee based on a percentage of the money received from a credit card transaction. There is a big distinction. The credit card processing company is not providing the clients. The processing company does not care whether the client is happy with the lawyer’s service. Avvo sets up a caller with an attorney. I do not know how Avvo matches up callers with attorneys, but I think it’s safe to assume that if callers are consistently unhappy with a particular attorney, that attorney will stop getting connections.
Full Article – http://abovethelaw.com/2017/06/should-avvos-legal-services-be-considered-an-ethical-form-of-fee-splitting/?rf=1