Dear Snotty Bitch: Back Off

Sometimes a routine criminal case captures the imagination of the world. When that happens, the case becomes more complex than necessary. A client can easily become hostage to the interest of folks with agendas all their own.

I am involved in such a case now. My client is a free-lance journalist and law student. He also served as campaign manager for the Green Party's gubnernatorial candidate, Cliff Thornton.

The client was arrested while taking photographs at the inaugural parade of Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell. A police report prepared by the arresting officer noted that the client had been singled out due to his political activism. The prospect of political enemies' lists being kept by law enforcement has drawn national attention to the case.

The attention is not necessarily a good thing.

One of the co-chairmen of Connecticut's legislative Judiciary Committee went so far as to call the State's Attorney to tell him to drop the case. When I heard that, my heart dropped. And for good reason. On my first court appearance, the state refused even to discuss disposition of this simple misdemeanor case. The case had become a political hot potato. Persuading the state to drop the case got a whole lot harder.

Yesterday, the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) entered the fray, calling for the state to drop charges against the client. More political pressure on the prosecutor? That is likely to drive him even further into the arms of the arresting police officer's department. I told a reporter I was concerned this would further complicate a simple case. Read About It Here

The SPJ does not come to this case with clean hands. When my client first approached them to request help with legal fees, the organization published his complete confidential request on line. We had to request that they withdraw it. They did so. We raised funds without the ham-handed help of the SPJ.

So now the SPJ weighs in to request that the charges be dropped. What are they up to? Does the organization really think the state will now cower? The keyboard peckers are coming! The keyboard peckers are coming!

When told that we weren't exactly thrilled to have the SPJ muddy the waters, SPJ president Christine Tatum, an assistant business editor at The Denver Post, had this to say: "His lawyer can say whatever the heck he wants to, but SPJ has spoken," she said. "He might want to talk with his client."

Memo to Christine: I have spoken to my client. I represent him. If I need help spreading confidential information about him, I will ask for it. And as for the Wizardress of Oz-like pronouncement that "SPJ has spoken" all I can say is "Wow." Make that pretense with a capital P.

Here's a suggestion, Christine. The next time you think you want to help someone charged with a crime, whether journalist or not, why don't you give the lawyer a call to check on whether your efforts hurt or help?

Lawyers call people who mean well but have nothing to offer officious intermeddlers. Translated into lay terms suitable to this case that means "pretentious bitch."

Comments

[S. COTUS]

Norm, The story of your life seems to be, “No good deed goes unpunished.”

[Windypundit]

Heh. As soon an I saw that headline in my feed aggregator, I knew it was one of Norm's posts.

[Nate Isaacs]

I don't know how many attorneys worth their salt would be making any Web postings about an ongoing case. It seems to me that what you're doing is a pre-emptive placement of blame with someone else should your case sour. My advice is that your client find legal representation from someone other than you - a hack.

[S.cotus]

Nate, Norm, for better or worse, has earned his stripes. No matter what you think about him, he is not a hack. Heck, some people even blame/credit him for unseating the governor of Connecticut. He has a fairly consistent track record of success. So, to call him a hack is, well, stupid.

Making a webpost about an ongoing case is not necessarily unethical or incompetent. Norm’s words were carefully chosen. They do not convey anything strategic, but rather the behavior of some 3d parties that have interfered with his practice.

Around the blogosphere there are many comments by lawyers regarding ongoing cases. They know what they are doing. Most of their comments are not intended to influence a tribunal, but are observations about the practice of law. The above post is just that, and shows many lawyers something that they probably don’t know: participating in a case with political implications (even if such implications favor the client) cuts various ways, and frequently cuts against their client.

From personal experience, I know that a lot of these advocacy groups have to be told to put a lid on it, or, in more diplomatic terms, “Your help would be more effective if you did something else.” Hopefully, someone from another advocacy group will read Norm’s post and, before making such statements, make a phone call to the defendant’s lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Ahh, the wonders of google:

http://www.blogger.com/profile/14814345

"Nathan Isaacs was elected October 2005 as SPJ's Region 10 director. The region consists of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska and western Montana. It is a two-year position."

[S.cotus]

What about SPJ is "Professional" ?

[Ross]

Norm - I think you are making a false assumption that SPJ wants to help your client at all. Seems to me they want to raise the profile of SPJ, whatever their cause is, and probably don't care a whit about your client or his needs. SPJ doesn't bother calling you because they don't care what you have to say unless it helps THEM, not your client.

From my experience, groups tends to follow and pursue their agenda regardless of the effect it has on others. Witness the P.C. blathering in the post below about the "rape" story. They don't care about the education of a budding journalist. They care about their own agendas.

[Joel Campbell]

Ross's comments could be farther from the truth. I was among those who considered the whole case and never was it about SPJ it was about helping a journalist as his request. Just look at the too recent cases where we've helped journalists -- Sarah Olson and Josh Wolf. The requestors and their lawyers were most grateful for SPJ's assistance. I find Mr. Pattis tact about this whole thing totally unprofessional. Since when does SPJ or any other organization when asked for help have to second guess the requestor and ask permission from the person's lawyer. (You would think a good lawyer would have counseled with his client about this). What's next? Do we have to ask a note from mommy before we make a state in support. I sure you don't know Christine Tatum, but to start the name calling and personal assualts speaks more about the lack of integrity and personality of Mr. Pattis than it does about the integrity of Ms. Tatum.

You won't have to Google me, I'm happy to put my name to my comments.

Joel Campbell
Freedom of Information Committee Chair
Society of Professional Journalists
Assistant Professor
Brigham Young University

[Joel Campbell]

Ross's comments could be farther from the truth. I was among those who considered the whole case and never was it about SPJ it was about helping a journalist as his request. Just look at the too recent cases where we've helped journalists -- Sarah Olson and Josh Wolf. The requestors and their lawyers were most grateful for SPJ's assistance. I find Mr. Pattis tact about this whole thing totally unprofessional. Since when does SPJ or any other organization when asked for help have to second guess the requestor and ask permission from the person's lawyer. (You would think a good lawyer would have counseled with his client about this). What's next? Do we have to ask a note from mommy before we make a statement in support. I sure you don't know Christine Tatum, but to start the name calling and personal assualts speaks more about the lack of integrity and personality of Mr. Pattis than it does about the integrity of Ms. Tatum.

You won't have to Google me, I'm happy to put my name to my comments.

Joel Campbell
Freedom of Information Committee Chair
Society of Professional Journalists
Assistant Professor
Brigham Young University

[Christine Tatum]

For the record, Mr. Pattis: I'm anything but snotty -- except when I have a cold. Had I been your editor, I would have changed that word to "bossy," "stubborn," "demanding," or "impatient." Maybe even to the phrase "precise-to-the-point-of-being-royally-annoying." I know my character flaws. Snotty? Pretentious? Nope. Not me.

http://spj.org/blog/blogs/president/archive/2007/02/15/5767.aspx

[Kenn Venit]

Norm:

SPJ National President Christine Tatum
responds to your blog in her blog:

Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:49 PM
No good deed goes unpunished ...
Oh, the e-mail flying around my inbox this morning.

First came the link to Connecticut lawyer Norm Pattis' blog item headlined, "Dear Snotty Bitch: Back off." (He would be referring to me.)

Whatever. I've been called far worse. (And for the record, Mr. Pattis: I'm anything but snotty -- except when I have a cold. Had I been your editor, I would have changed that word to "bossy," "stubborn," "demanding," or "impatient." Maybe even to the phrase "precise-to-the-point-of-being-royally-annoying." I know my character flaws. Snotty? Pretentious? Nope. Not me.)

But for Mr. Pattis to insult SPJ and some of its tireless volunteers while mangling the details of events leading up to a statement the Society released yesterday in defense of his client, Ken Krayeske?

Allow me to be precise to the point of being royally annoying.

# Mr. Krayeske, a freelance journalist with a history of political activism that has gotten him in trouble with the law, was arrested in January during the inaugural parade of Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

# Mr. Krayeske sought financial support from SPJ's Legal Defense Fund and sent an application to LDF committee members for consideration. Someone on the committee unfamiliar with the Society's practices posted that application, which contained personal information, on the Society's Web site. SPJ national leaders and Mr. Krayeske asked committee members to remove that information from the Web site immediately. The committee did so, and the Society apologized to Mr. Krayeske.

# Mr. Krayeske still wanted to be considered for an LDF grant. The LDF committee conducted a standard investigation of his background and claims. While the committee was doing that work, Mr. Krayeske called the committee's chairman to say he'd raised enough money to cover his legal expenses and that he wouldn't need an LDF grant after all. However, he asked that SPJ reconsider his request should his legal expenses rise above current levels. SPJ officials agreed to do so.

# The Society dropped the matter -- until Mr. Krayeske contacted me in late January, asking that SPJ please issue a statement supporting him.

# The Society takes such requests seriously. And when there are questions about a person's claims, there is thoughtful review and debate. I'm not going to apologize for what might appear to be sluggishness when it comes to stewarding SPJ's valuable (and limited) resources and lending SPJ's good name to public debates.

# I tasked members of SPJ's national LDF, freedom of information and journalism ethics committees with considering Mr. Krayeske's request. These volunteers -- nearly a dozen journalists who live outside Connecticut -- graciously gave up several hours they could have spent on other things. They took less than a week to make recommendations that resulted in the statement SPJ released yesterday.

Shortly after that statement's distribution, I received this note from Mr. Krayeske:

Subject : Thank You

I just saw the press release, and I am deeply appreciative of the statement.

I have sent it out to my press contacts here in CT, and hopefully it gets some attention.

Thanks you again for your support.

Peace, Ken Krayeske

SPJ's statement got attention all right. Clearly, Mr. Pattis' blog suggests he didn't see it coming -- an indication that he and Mr. Krayeske have some communication issues they need to work out.

Or maybe Mr. Pattis' rant is part of some brilliant legal strategy! Mr. Krayeske sent another e-mail to an SPJ official today. It states, in part:

"While I am grateful for SPJ's support, as I have expressed, I think my lawyer is working in my best interests. I think his reaction was to the timing of this, more than anything else. I am sorry if it confused people in SPJ."

We're not the ones who are confused. We're just the ones who, regardless of childish insults posted about us on blogs, believe that people who stand peacefully in public places to take photos of public events don't deserve to be arrested.
posted by christinetatum |

[Windypundit]

Even assuming all players are acting with integrity, SPJ and Norm will probably have conflicting goals.

Norm is presumably trying to help his client and only his client; looking out for anyone else would be unethical. SPJ, on the other hand, is presumably trying to help all journalists in similar situations now and in the future.

Their strategy probably includes the threat to shine a bright light and lots of heat on anyone who tries similar persecution of journalists. I'll take Norm's word that this is hurting his chances of a quick disposition, but I'll bet the State's Attorney doesn't like it either.

[markm]

If I understand what Norm is saying, the State's Attorney thinks he can prosecute journalists for taking news photographs, and responds to having this violation of constitutional rights pointed out in public by trying to make things even more difficult for Norm's client. I never heard of the SPJ before, but if they're serious at all, they need to think about the next journalist, too - and that means they have to drag this into the light.

[Ivan]

Assuming every factual statement made here is true (so excluding the insults and cross-talk), Norm has two people to be pissed off at: His client and SPJ.

The client, being a media member, appears to have attempted to help in his own defense in the way he knows, by going through the media. Clients rarely, if ever, are savvy as to what will actually help their case get resolved, as amply demonstrated here (ever wonder why almost no lawyer represents herself, even when the suit involves her area of expertise?). But Norm clearly cannot complain about his own client's actions, nor even note or acknowledge that his client contacted SPJ, because it would violate his professional duties. For this reason, SPJ defending itself by saying "his client asked for it" is unilluminating and unconvincing, though it does sound solid until thought through. It sounds even more solid because Norm is forbidden to really respond.

So does it matter that the client contacted SPJ? It matters some, I think. It opens up the possibility that they were more negligent than officious. If they were trying to help and simply didn't think to contact the guy's lawyer, or assumed that he was working with the lawyer's approval/knowledge, then it's not so bad as Norm paints it. If they simply didn't care and the motivation was to spread their media tentacles into a new area, then it's as bad as Norm says.

So SPJ folks, instead of telling us that Norm's client contacted you, why don't you explain why you still didn't contact Norm? Mr. Campbell asks "[1] Since when does SPJ or any other organization when asked for help have to second guess the requestor and ask permission from the person's lawyer. ([2]You would think a good lawyer would have counseled with his client about this). [3]What's next? Do we have to ask a note from mommy before we make a statement in support." The responses: 1) Since always, if they actually want to help the person in their legal predicament; 2) even the best lawyer can't stay on top of everything, and proactive clients are worse than inactive ones; 3) yes, please, if by mommy you mean the attorney doing his level best to see the client doesn't end up in jail.

[Mike]

Ivan: Aren't you still in law school? Your post shows wisdom beyond your years. Whether or not to involve the media and turn a case into a cause celebre is a very complicated one.

The reason you hire Norm Pattis is because he knows better than anyone whether a case should be treated as low or high profile. These are very complicated judgments that someone sitting on a desk in Colorado is not qualified to make.

[Christine Tatum]

And when and how the Society of Professional Journalists decides to conduct its business involves complicated judgments that Mike in Connecticut is not quaified to make.

Ivan: Your post is, indeed, thoughtful. I appreciate your perspective. Reasonable people will have to agree to disagree about many of the aspects of this case and how its subsequent publicity has been handled.

SPJ officials, including me, received a call from someone who asked for a show of support. Those officials did not rush to issue a statement. They gathered their own information, came to their own conclusions and released the statement that has prompted this debate. The journalists involved dealt directly with the person who came to them for help, and they thoughtfully weighed his request against information they gathered from plenty of other sources. This group was confident of its findings, and it did not feel the need to seek Mr. Pattis' input or permission to speak up.

I also have appreciated the comments from Windypundit and MarkM, who rightly have pointed out that SPJ wants to drag this matter into the light with hopes of protecting other journalists who may find themselves in a similar predicament. Such altercationsw are more common than you may think. Take note of this mess brewing in Galveston, Texas:

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=2f9a4a9d6c3fc308

http://news.galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=18fab555b7c9c024

[Mike]

Lawyers care about clients, not causes. The "rallying for the cause" has done nothing but harm the journalist's legal interests.

The problem with martys is that they always die. Yet a death is good for "cause" people because it encourages supporters.

Lawyers save lives. Causes kill.

[Jim]

After getting screwed by the SPJ on my request through my attorney Norm Pattis to investigate Enfield P.D. and the way they harassed me while working as a photographer and reporter, I am not surprised to see that Professor? Joel Campbell FOI Chair is illiterate:

For example he writes:
"Just look at the too recent cases where we've helped journalists -- Sarah Olson and Josh Wolf."..."I sure you don't know Christine Tatum..."..."Ross's comments could be farther from the truth."

We all make mistakes but this dope doesn't know the difference between the number spelled "two" and the synonym for also "too." Joel perhaps you and the snotty bitch can gossip about that "hack" lawyer over cocktails at the next SPJ conference with Steve Kalb.

The SPJ Connecticut Chapter is lead by a group of lame suck ups including Steve Kalb. To these people only "real" journalists, as they define them, deserve assistance. They are pompous, arrogant and if one where to make the term bitch asexual "snotty bitches." The SPJ doesn't give a hoot about journalists.

Calling one of the best civil rights and criminal lawyers in the state a hack is an example of snotty. Does Christine Tatum and her minions have such thin skins they can't take being called names. Spend some time away from your desks, get out on the street and listen. Bitches is easy going term to some people. I don't like it, but wow, what an over-reaction. Face it SPJ, you screwed up.

I feel a cold coming on!