South Coast Today issues a retraction on the Broussard saga: Slabbed compares and contrasts (Updated)

Retraction & apology

February 26, 2013 – 09:01 — Timothy Gillespie

In a story published on February 25, 2013, SCT stated that New Orleans lawyer Danny Abel was once a law partner of former Jefferson Parish president Aaron Broussard. Court records forwarded to SCT show that Mr. Abel has stated under oath in an affidavit filed in a Mississippi Court that he has never been a law partner of Aaron Broussard. We regret the error and apologize to both Mr. Abel and Mr. Broussard for any embarassment caused by the error..

This fact I will verify, Danny Abel has submitted a very curious affidavit in my SPEECH Act case that says exactly that. Now what does the official court record in Louisiana say?

Carr v Abel

What I will find out is whether or not I was shot a line of bullshit last May in Slidell.

Update: Following is Danny Abel’s affidavit:

Affidavit of Danny Abel

25 thoughts on “South Coast Today issues a retraction on the Broussard saga: Slabbed compares and contrasts (Updated)”

    1. Has being sanctioned for unethical behavior deterred Abel from engaging in more unethical, at best, behavior in the courts. I think not.

  1. Am I confused? It looks like an official document filed in a court case in Louisiana. So what exactly is Timothy Gillespie apologizing for?

      1. Imho coercion is the mirror image of intimidation; Timothy Gillespie lives in the wonderful world of Nova Scotia, ergo subject to the jurisdiction of a demonstrably capricious court unwilling to be influenced by fact, truth, or reason.

  2. It is not about precise language though, it is about public perception. The public has to be able to look at these two attorneys sharing the same office and easily identify their relationship.

    In this document, they are partners and co-counsel, because my understanding is that partners share office space and resources whereas co-counsels do not.

    So I am totally confused!

    1. My lawyer Bobby Truitt had co council in my SPEECH Act case but they did not sign their pleadings Bobby Truitt, Gerald Cruthird, Attorneys at law because that is not the name of their respective law firms.

      Like I said there is no mistaking their relationship. One wonders how Judge Guirola will react when he compares Abel’s unequivocal sworn statement in the SPEECH Act case against the very public record from which I based my reporting.

    2. I would not suppose “incroyable” is totally confused, though apparently is totally committed to sharing confusing verbal “red herrings”.

  3. It’s a Who’s on first, What’s on second, I Don’t Know’s on third discussion. They don’t necessarily need to share office space to be Law Partners but they do.

  4. The fact that Broussard and Abel shared office space does not make them law partners. Lots of lawyers share office space but are not law partners. Those lawyers may sometimes engage as co-counsel and still that does not make them law partners. A law partnership is a formal agreement that incurs specific consequences such as malpractice insurance and the like. That said, the identification on the Carr Judgment is misleading. If they only shared office space, the identification of “Attorney at Law” and the address should have been listed twice; once under Broussard’s name and once under Abel’s name. To list both names first, followed by “Attorneys at Law” and one address is does give the impression that they are law partners. But the listing is just sloppy.

    1. Is there such a thing as a partnership without a written agreement? I have seen cases where that concept is applicable. This is more than a sloppy brief and it is not styled with Broussard as Abel’s co council. Surely the man reads and proofs his briefs before submission to the courts.

        1. That’s what I thought Pres.

          The bigger question is why Leary and Perret are so worried about whom Danny Abel is teaming up with down here to coerce Gillespie into that retraction. I thought they barely knew BrousStar and according to Abel he still owns Trout Point Lodge but he is no longer an officer there.

  5. RFP’s brief is confusing too because Wheeler and Miester don’t identify their lawfirm as Taggart Morton, and Broussard and Abel offer no identities for their practices either.

  6. Actually, both of these documents that suggest a law partnership are opinions issued by the court. As such, they were drafted by the court (more likely by law clerks) and not the lawyers. Sure, the opinions’ drafters pulled this info from somewhere, and it may well be that they lawyers styles their pleadings/briefs the same way. But one cannot fairly draw the conclusion that Broussard and Abel were law partners based on these documents alone. If they were straightforward district court judgments, maybe, as lawyers frequently draft such judgments for the court’s signature.

    1. Well heck Rocky, the product of BrousStar’s loin works there as a clerk so you’d think ol’ Troy knows who his Dad is partnering up with.

      And of course there is Pappy Kershenstine too. 😉

  7. Danny Abel’s affidavit is clear as mud. He worked without job title from 1972-1984, became a licensed attorney, continued working without job title until 2001 at which time he became sole practitioner of anybody’s guess.

    1. Exactly, that is the way it is now done. NO RESPONSIBILITY for anything.
      In the famous words of Sgt. Schultz “I know nothing”.

  8. Worked in the lawfirm in several capacities 2001 but became an attorney in 1984. If you say so, cap. Judging from some of the talent, makes no difference if you get the JD union card or not, and of course, there’s the old freudian slip-up on timing in that affidavit/statement.

  9. Worked in the lawfirm in several capacities 2001 but became an attorney in 1984. If you say so, cap. Judging from some of the talent, makes no difference if you get the JD union card or not, and of course, there’s the old freudian slip-up on timing in that affidavit/statement.

    Indeed, the slip-up continues, see the second sentence where stated was not a partner or attorney in any other firm. So was our boy a partner in a lawfirm before getting the JD union card, or was practicing law before hand? Hmm (not ruling out the usual affliction “at that firm” of sloppy writing and sloppy thinking.

Leave a Reply

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