While I’m on legal topics: Hark! Did I hear that legal ethicist and Slabbed fav Dane Ciolino was DQ’d as an ethics expert after a Daubert hearing…

We’ve done a few layman’s posts on the meaning of a Daubert hearing so I won’t get into the technials and the ruling, which I promise to roll out later in its own post or in comments to this one, is very bad for Team Dane. I hear rumblings that being limined into oblivion once means 10 years bad luck for an expert witness.

sop

47 thoughts on “While I’m on legal topics: Hark! Did I hear that legal ethicist and Slabbed fav Dane Ciolino was DQ’d as an ethics expert after a Daubert hearing…”

  1. SOP: With all due respect, there's something more than meets the eye here, unless Ciolino was NOT, in fact disqualified. I mean the guy has written books on legal ethics. He teaches a course at Loyola on the subject. Perhaps the Judge decided that the topic for which Ciolino was tendered as an expert by a lawyer (for his side) did not lend itself to expert testimony, and therefore testimony on the subject was unnecessary, and could be decided by the Judge or jury without any expert testimony. Or perhaps Ciolino was not timely disclosed to the opposition, or an expert report was not timely delivered to the opponent. Or perhaps the Judge (do we know his or her name?) is just plain CROOKED. Won't be the first time in Louisiana. Ashton O'Dwyer.

  2. Maybe Ciolino should learn how to work for a living, instead of being a paid "expert" (Porteous impeachment) or TV talking head. What a self-righteous, self-important, blow-hard that guy is. Enough with him already.

  3. In ethics, you cannot serve two masters as this douche does repeatedly. Good for him that a judge Dauberted him.

  4. With all due respect Sock Puppet, that is unfair. He is an incredibly hard working professor who always has time for his students. One of the best at Loyola.

    And as Ashton O'Dwyer pointed out, there are plenty of reasons why an expert may be DQ'ed that have nothing to do with the expert himself.

  5. nolalon:

    What is so unfair? Professors really don't work that hard. Why does it matter if he has time for his students (objection, relevance)? Are/were you one of them, and do you look up to this poser like he's a real lawyer? I attended LSL. The only guy there worth a shit is Keith Vetter because Prof. Crowe is dead. Please tell me what he does to work so "incredibly hard." And then tell me why this great "legal ethicist" was not qualified.

    Love,

    Sock Puppet

  6. The great Dane makes a lucrative living offering his services as an "ethics expert" for hire to bolster the cases/causes of those in ethical hot water. You cannot "teach" ethics at Loyola then whore yourself out for the lucre. Plain and simple, Dane is a two bit whore who deserved this ruling, which I have read. So shut the fuck up Nolanon or anyone else who defends this miscreant.

  7. Having dealt with (and thoroughly owning) this turd in actual "big boy" litigation while he was at Stone Pigman, it came as no surprise that he quickly retreated to safer ground in academia. He is exhibit A to the truism that "those who can't do, teach." Even more hilarious than his "ethics expert" schtick is his "federal criminal law expert" one.

  8. Yea, Dane you like those multi-million cases or corruption cases like Whitmer and Porteous don't you so you can demand your big outrageous whore fees.

    You're an expert alright in the delay or obstruction of justice but the Senate Impeachment Committee saw it in a different light about your john Porteous didn't they.

    Why Loyola still employs you is a mystery beyond all ethical reasoning.

  9. Briefly reading over that…

    ….I am struck again by the thought:

    This supposed ethics expert, a professor teaching to young lawyers in training no less, spends a great deal of time defending why attorneys, judges and politicians have absolutely no ethical duty to be, well, ethical.

    So there are no ethics. Well, students, thus endeth the lesson.

  10. In my opening Comment to this POST, I stated: "Perhaps the Judge decided that the topic for which Ciolino was tendered as an expert by a lawyer (for his side) did not lend itself to expert testimony, and therefore testimony on the subject was unnecessary, and could be decided by the Judge or jury without any expert testimony." The written opinion of Africk (SPIT!) – more about this cocksucker later – reflects: "CEF seeks to exclude the proposed testimony of Ciolino on the ground that Ciolino's testimony would not assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue as required by Rule 702…" Africk also wrote: "Ciolino's proposed testimony would not assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Accordingly, Ciolino's testimony is excluded." This is PRECISELY what I postulated in my opening Comment, and does not reflect on Ciolino's integrity or his competency as an expert. Africk just said: I can decide this case without him; I don't really need him. And now to Africk: This son-of-a-bitch presided over the negotiations for the settlement with the Levee Boards for over a year, "annointed" by another "crooked-as-a-snake" Federal Judge Stanwood Duval. I TOLD Africk that these negotiations were CORRUPT. I reported the CORRUPTION to the FBI. Africk didn't listen; the FBI didn't listen; and the settlement went through. Fortunately, it was upset by the Fifth Circuit, although I don't know the current status. Lance: You're as big a counterfeit, hypocrite and phoney as Jim Letten and David Welker. and I can't wait to dedicate several pages of "the book" to each of you. Ashton O'Dwyer.

  11. AOD, I'm a fan, and I get the point about reliability vs relevance, but I have a question….

    If the court has already ruled that there is an interest under Rule 1.15(d)…

    ….and if you would personally take a look at Rule 1.15(d) and see what it clearly says…

    ….and then a supposed self-styled ethics expert comes out and basically comes out and not only contradicts the judge's recent ruling of fact but the clear wording of the rule, all while using nothing more than his own prior report and nothing else, would you call that "reliable" for any purposes (i.e. even beyond this case)?

    I'd call that a guy who will say anything for anyone for the right amout of $$$$.

  12. The ruling is premised on the finding that Dean Dipshit's conclusion was based on his earlier conclusion that Sheer Churner had no duty to comply with Rule 1.15(d), a conclusion that flies in the face of the Rule. In other words, the basis for Dean Dipshit's opinion had already been (correctly) rejected as a matter of law – a clear repudiation of this bought and paid-for joke's "expertise."

    1. 100% agree Atticus, Roche et al. If you take Ciolino's opinions on their face there really is no such thing as ethics in the law. Of course that also implies there is no such thing as a legal expert in ethics, which Ciolino clearly is not.

      Slabbed's lawyer friends tell me this case will represent an albatross of sorts for Ciolino as well it should.

      sop

  13. To Rocheblave: The reality is that this is all done "behind the scenes", and in secret, with NO input or knowledge from or of the Court whatsoever. The "expert" works at an hourly rate, and he does whatever the lawyers (for his side) tell him to do, for which he gets paid his hourly rate, "win, lose or draw". In this instance, Ciolino didn't get out of the starting gate, but that is not necessarily his fault. Perhaps the BIGGER story is how much CEF was billed by its lawyers for all of this BULLSHIT over the preparation of an expert report and expert testimony that was disallowed in its entirety by Africk (SPIT!). Now THAT's a REAL ethical question. Ashton O'Dwyer.

  14. Ashton, I disagree with your reading of the opinion. It absolutely reflects on the substance and character of the proposed expert. Why defend the defenseless? He may hold himself out as an expert, but he is not and to some degree right and wrong are within the common juror's knowledge. Hence, Daubert. Plus, ethics cannot be "peer tested or reviewed." One man's ethics are another's vices.

  15. I'm sorry, but I agree with AOD. Africk is basically saying that his ruling on the previous MSJ, in effect, mooted any question as to whether the CEF was a person with interest in the proceeds. It seems he is stating that it is a matter of contractual interpretation that he has already passed upon, so Ciolino would be of no help. Key paragraph:

    "In its order denying defendant's motion for summary
    judgment, the Court previously found, as matters of law,
    that the striking of the provision in the Second Loan
    Modification and Forbearance Agreement did not strip CEF
    of its entitlement to the settlement proceeds and that CEF had
    an “interest” as defined in Rule 1.15(d). Therefore, since the
    Court has already resolved these issues, Ciolino's proposed
    testimony would not assist the trier of fact to understand
    the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. Accordingly,
    Ciolino's proposed testimony is excluded."

    Just because you may not like Ciolino's clients, doesn't mean he is the boogy man.

    1. But it is also a fact that Ciolino took a position opposite the wording in rule 1.15(d). The law firm knew about the security interest but according to Ciolono because the firm had no specific written agreement they didn't have to honor it. In my world, where it is against the code of ethics to advocate a meritless tax position or posit a meritless expert opinion, the fact pattern makes Ciolino look like a rent an opinion whore.

      Tell me where I am wrong?

      sop

  16. I think you are confused as to the role of an expert. As I look at the facts of the case, Ciolino was not advising the law firm before before it distributed the proceeds–they presumably made their own independent judgment when they did that. After the law firm was sued, it apparently hired him as an expert to help the trier of fact resolve an issue as to whether it should be held liable. We would have to assume that the other side hired their own expert.

    Your comment about a "rent an opinion whore" reveals a bias against the whole practice using experts in litigation. But that is a much broader issue than what is presented here.

    1. You're right he was not involved on the front end but he did conform his opinion to fit his client and not the cause of legal ethics on the back end.

      Sometimes a person will bring you a turd (tax position gone bad in the case of a CPA) and ask for you to shine it up. I've always found honesty (hey man, you brought me a turd and a turd is a turd is a turd) is far better than advocating a meritless position for a fee. In fact I'd submit calling things for what they are is the ethical thing to do, even if it means no fee which is the likely outcome.

      Ol' Dane should do well enough with the day job and his moonlighting to be selective in the cases and clients he takes on and he can avoid being limined out of a case like this one.

      sop

  17. For the sake of clarity, Africk's (SPIT!) opinion reflects in footnote no. 11: "In its opposition, CEF does not disagree that should Ciolino be excluded, its expert, Leslie Schiff, should also be excluded." Ashton O'Dwyer.

  18. Ashton was spot on—- Daubert wasn't really the issue; the Quafick (a terrible civil judge by the way) ruled his testimony wouldn't assist the trier of fact.

    Ciolino sucks, pure and simple. I had him in law school and he was condescending as they come. And before anyone asks, I got a good grade from him.

  19. I suggest the bigger “ETHICAL” question is: Should a Law Professor of ‘ETHICS”, hold that position and contemporaneously be permitted to practice law … holding himself out to the public as an expert in issues concerning “ETHICAL VIOLATIONS”…

    I think not… the very stature of being a ‘teacher’ of “ETHICS” is diametrically opposed to that of being an ‘adversary’ to rationalize a client’s “UN-ETHICAL” conduct …

    DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE IS NOT ETHICAL…PERIOD !!!

  20. Gate, I think you have it.

    So did Nolanon btw when he/she said: "…but that is a much broader issue than what is presented here." Well, yeah, exactly. Lawyers (sorry) become inurred to the idea that experts say whatever their clients or hiring lawyer asks them to say – the judges see that, the juries see it, and the public sees it.

    And just where do people get the idea that lawyers are a lying, __________ bunch of _________? Gee, I don't know, can't figure that one out, must be the ambulance chasers, right?

    In much the same way Aaron Broussard & Co. felt they could claim they had an "expert" who said the Parish would save x dollars and they literally – literally – filled in a number.

    Because what is the lesson plan for the Prof when he and his students get to this rule in the MRPC, which is practically the same in every state (probably because it is indeed ethically – and morally – intuitive)?
    http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_re

    The name of the rule is "Safekeeping Property".

    Not, "let`er Rip If You Can Find A Way."

    The Prof one day tells his client and the court under oath (yes, that's what it is) that safeguarding property isn't really necessary if – as The Prof has it – "no promise in writing" is obtained. Wow, really? Gosh with all that small print and what with lawyers and bank employees having so much to do that must be real doable.

    And what does the Prof tell his students the next day?

    "Ok, kids, here's this rule about 'Safeguarding Property'…. but here's what it really says. …. Right, now off you go then, have fun stormin' the castle!"

    Students trained, the courts replenished yet again, and off they go.

    Please see SOP's posts on our current financial condition.

    Please see every news story about the ethical condition of the politics of Jefferson Parish, Plaquemines Parish, New Orleans, Louisiana, Mississippi, the federal government, the banking industry, the financial industry and the insurance industry. Please take note of our levees, or where they once were. And in nearly every one of those instances see if somewhere therein an attorney made hay of what he was required to do… ethically ((MRPC or not and just as a matter of ethics, which actually existed long before the MRPC (no, it's true, the concept of ethics existed thousands of years ago when our civilization was founded, which is no coincidence)). Overboard? Yeah, maybe, but try it and see – look for the unethical conduct by a lawyer in every post and see where it leads socially, politically, and in terms of financial and more importantly human cost.

  21. Hysterics aside, I'll just point out that lawyers represent people. So to the extent that a lawyer may do something you find sleazy, there is usually someone behind him telling him to jump. None of this excuses anything but its obvious rocheblave has some nihilistic discontent about where we find ourselves. But its overly simplistic to just blame lawyers for everything that is wrong in society. In other words, lawyers don't have a monopoly on greed.

    Also, I wouldn't be too quick to judge the lawyers in the case at issue in this thread. There really isn't much to be gleaned from a three page opinion. People make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes involve millions of dollars. But everyone is entitled to a defense in court. The most important thing a lawyer learns is not to take this stuff personally.

    1. Rocheblave eloquently stated the underlying theme of Slabbed across professions. Some insurers do a far better jobs of adjusting their claims than others. Some lawyers take the code of ethics far more seriously than others. The pursuit of profit as the only stated goal aka greed blinds people to the harm they cause others but should tha surprise us since around half of each year's crop of MBA students admitted to cheating in their classes. The examples are too endlss to list in a short comment.

      I could give a shit less about Dane Ciolino. Rent an opinion types are a dime a dozen. Back in the day Alan Greenspan told Brooksley Borne he did not think there was such a thing as fraud since the market would punish companies that predated on their customers as people would go elsewhere for their goods or services. It is such a rationalization that fostered the pillaging of the US Treasury. Human Beings are good at making shades of grey but the bottom line is it really is that simple. And if Ciolino was actually an ethicist instead of a lawyer willing to do anything to make a buck he'd tell us the same thing.

      I appreciate the discussion and point-counterpoint. We'll revisit this topic again when the gods of randomness favor it.

      sop

  22. nolalon:

    You are blinded by your loyalty to Prof Poser. Roche's well-made point soared way over your head. Have you ever tried a case with dueling experts? Having an "ethics expert" is so stupid. That was demonstrated very well in the Porteous impeachment trial. Gate could not have nailed it better than he did in his last comment. I've had so many "buy an opinion" experts under oath. It's really sickening.

  23. I would like "The SLABBED Nation" to know that the "judicial confirmation process" is even more FLAWED today than it was when "G.T. Ortous" was confirmed in 1994. In May, I filed a Formal Complaint with the Senate Judiciaty Committee in opposition to the confirmation of "Stephen Higginson" (one of "Lettenemgo's" lackeys) to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (I haven't won ANYTHING in that Court since 8/29/05 – not even: "What is your name?" – What are the odds of THAT?). SOP has not publiched my Complaint against Higginson, but he may yet do so, or I may publish it on "The Open Thread". In any event, the Senate Judiciary Committee in a unanimous "voice vote" recommended Higginson's nomination WITHOUT ASKING HIM ONE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION UNDER OATH ADDRESSING MY ALLEGATIONS, which included: (1) His being at Camp Amtrak on 9/20/05 and being complicit in my abduction, brutalization, torture and false imprisonment, along with a number of other Federally-employed CRIMINALS, including a colleague Michael Magner, who also workd for "Lettenemgo", and who is the supervisor of the AUSA who is prosecuting m criminally for "threatening" unnamed and unidentifiable "victims"; (2) Failing to prosecute the CRIMINALS who violated my civil rights, which is an abuse of power and malevolently motivated to provide "cover" to himself and his CRIMINAL colleagues; and (3) Engaging in "obstruction of justice" and "cover-up" (which continues to this day) to shield his own CRIMINAL conduct and the CRIMINAL conduct of other Federal employees at Camp Amtrak who brutalized. tortured and falsely imprisoned me on 9/20/05 (for your information, Camp Amtrak was a Federal Law Enforcement Coordination Center, which was established in early September 2005 by the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, The U.S. Department of Justice, Lettenemgo's Office and David Dugas' Office (his counterpart in Baton Rouge), the FBI, the DEA, ATF&E, Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Marshall's Service, and OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES. If we were to have a REAL investigation of "Stephen Higginson", instead of some BULLSHIT SHAM "NO INVESTIGATION", he could be asked under oath: Where were you between the hours of midnight and 5:00 P.M. on 9/20/05? Did you hear a total of 10 shots from a 12-gauge shotgun being fired at Ashton O'Dwyer INDOORS, in the same building you were allegedly working in, and trying to sleep in, and what did you do to assist or help Ashton O'Dwyer? And what about the additional shots which were fired at Ashton O'Dwyer outdoors? I wonder what Dane Ciolino would say about all of this. Ashton O'Dwyer.

  24. RATIONALIZATIONS IN GRAY ARE THE ADVOCACY OF THE DEVIL… AND DOGMATIC PROCLAMATIONS OF OPINIONS AS FACT ARE REALLY GRAY !!!

    And I quote:

    nolalon PERMALINK
    August 11, 2011 9:48 am

    “…But everyone is entitled to a defense in court…

    ” THAT MAY BE YOUR UNDERSTANDING, HOWEVER THAT DOES IMPORT THAT A LAWYER ‘MUST’ REPRESENT SOMEONE WHO IS A DEFENDANT…ANY LAWYER MAY DECLINE TO REPRESENT ANYONE …A CONFLICT OF INTEREST MAY VERY WELL CHALLENGE ETHICAL STANDARDS AS TO BAR SUCH REPRESENTATION …THE FACT IS, INDIVIDUALS MAY ‘DEFEND’ THEMSELVES WITHOUT LEGAL ASSISTANCE…

    And,

    “…The most important thing a lawyer learns is not to take this stuff personally…”

    OBVIOUSLY YOU AND I HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT OPINION AS TO WHAT IS DEMANDED OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS SWORN TO THE BAR…REALLY !… IS THAT WHAT YOU BELIEVE ? OR DID YOU MEAN TO WRITE: AN IMPORTANT THING ANY LAWYER SHOULD LEARN IS ‘NOT’ TO TAKE ON THE PERSONALITY OF HIS CLIENT…

    nolalon PERMALINK
    August 11, 2011 9:55 am

    “…and whitmergate, legal ethics, like life in general, is chock full of gray areas.”

    SO YOU ADVOCATE…HOWEVER I AM NOT CONVINCED ‘ALL IS GRAY’ AS YOUR STATEMENT IMPLIES…

    Behavioral Science is just that…a science…and as in any other field of science, there are truths that form a structural foundation for study and examination…

    Following, I have cited a couple of definitions of ‘Legal Ethics’ which may help you, or anyone for that matter, who may have lost their ‘moral compass’ along the way:

    The branch of philosophy that defines what is good for the individual and for society and establishes the nature of obligations, or duties, that people owe themselves and one another. In modern society, ethics define how individuals, professionals, and corporations choose to interact with one another. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Eth… …

    THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE I BELIEVE IS “DEFINES”

    AND,

    Legal ethics is the minimum standards of appropriate conduct within the legal profession. It is the behavioral norms and morals which govern judges and lawyers. It involves duties that the members owe one another, their clients, and the courts. Respect of client confidences, candor toward the tribunal, truthfulness in statements to others, and professional independence are some of the defining features of legal ethics. Legal ethics can also refer to the study or observance of those duties or the written regulations governing those duties. http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/legal-ethics/

    THE OPERATIVE WORD HERE I BELIEVE IS “DUTIES”

    Bonne nuit…demain est un autre jour à ragoût…

  25. Where did I purport to be a "badass"? I've gotten knocked around just like any lawyer who actually tries cases, instead of pontificating to law students or being a paid expert.

  26. Nolalon : Obviously Nolalon is of the mind set that believes that Casey Anthony's attorneys did a great job and Casey was entitled to the right to the absolute best defense. Including having her attorneys dream up a drowning, family incest and to cast doubt that the freezer tape was never around Caylee's mouth , or if it was it was put there after her death.

    Gate's key words in defining legal ethics of 'duties' and 'morals' have sadly been replaced in the minds of some attorneys today ,including the infamous Professor Dane, with key words like MONEY and WINNING AT ALL COSTS

    Casey Anthony's attorneys I am sure are now the hottest defense team in the criminal world just as Johnny Cochran was in the 90's. However, i'm also sure that they have also received their share of death threats from the outraged public and rightly so..

  27. Lockem, well said and like the comparison. Nolanon, you defend the indefensible, AND knowing Sockpuppet, modesty aside, he is a badass.

  28. What I find interesting in this blog is that only Ashton O'Dwyer has the courage to use his real name when posting. The ones who are critical of Professor Ciolino (I did not have him in law school and have never used him as an expert) should be man/woman enough to sign thier names if they are going to make such harsh allegations.

    Leo from Metairie

    1. Hi Leo. So you'll know the Professor knows my name and contact information so he knows right where to find me if he has a comment, question or complaint.

      Tell me, do you condone an ethics professor bullshitting his way through the court system?

      sop

  29. Harsh—— Allegations——— Leo————–as Cochran should have said—-If the ( Brunomagli ) shoe fits he's gotta wear it. And so must infamous Dane "The Turd Polisher".

  30. Hi Leo … my name is Tim … so now we know each other's FIRST name … isn't that special … come back at us when you decide to write your FULL name like Ashton O'Dwyer !!!

    Quel idiot putain …

  31. Good Morning Tim, Good Morning Leo – my name is Jose' Jimenez and although I'm dead I am a Ghostwriter writing for civic mindfulness and ,as Sop puts it so succinctly, ' for shit and laughs' .

    Would you guys like to come out and play. We could watch Leo carry some shit up the hill for his crony friends.. See Leo run. Leo strong. By Leo, I have to run and play.

    1. Shits and Giggles Lockem.

      I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point out Leo needed a cup of his own coffee. One of the perks of being moderator is the ability to figure out who is posting with us, which is only fair given that I am a known public persona. Leo's law firm is a friend to this blog. That said it is also clear that the post and comments impacted those that personally like the Professor and I am sensitive to that. It does not change my opinion of the subject matter though. I mean what kind of blog would we be if I didn't call Ciolino on the same sort of crap that caused us to label <a href="http://slabbed.wordpress.com/?s=Tim+Marshall&quot; rel="nofollow">HAAG Engineering's Tim Marhsall a rent an opinion whore for the certain insurers. And that doesn't count this area's own <a href="http://slabbed.wordpress.com/?s=aiken&quot; rel="nofollow">Dr Aiken who was hosed over by USAA despite the fact he is a rent an opinion prostitute for same.

      Some of this certainly causes certain assh*les to pucker up and twitch. I'm just being consistent.

      sop

  32. Ah yes, puckered up and twitching assh*les. How do we at the SlabbedNation constantly create this originality. And how about Patricia 's 10 most lists by Hubbard's Cell Mate on The Thread.

    Yep, its all for "shits and giggles". The Nation is red hot today.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *