Public Affairs Department
if the defendant doesn't reply within 24 hours the witnesses will simply be dismissed
we decided that the license should be removed due to a breach of our ethical standards.
I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff, AlexanderLove, alleges that the Redmont Bar Association illegally removed their practicing license
2. The Plaintiff further alleges that the Redmont Bar Association does not have the power to prevent people from continuing ongoing cases
3. Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that Former Bar Association Councilman SumoMC had a conflict of interest in the revocation of the Plaintiff's license, as SumoMC had been allegedly fighting to get the Plaintiff's client for themself
4. The Plaintiff feels that they did not qualify to be disbarred, that SumoMC had plotted to have the plaintiff removed to further their own career, and that the Redmont Bar Association did not have power to stop them from continuing their ongoing case
II. DEFENDANTS POSITION
1. The Defendant believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted in their legal right to revoke the Plaintiff's practicing license, that they were not providing effective council to their clients, and that there was no such conspiracy from SumoMC in order to steal the Plaintiff's clients
2. The Defendant alleges that due to the clients not being happy with how the Plaintiff handled the case they weren't providing effective counsel for their clients
III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Court believes that the Redmont Bar Association acted outside of their legal right to revoke somebody's legal license and had illegally revoked their license, the fact that somebody's client does not agree with how they handled something does not mean they didn't provide an effective service, however with the added note that now it would be legal to revoke t due to an amendment to the Legal Board Act passed by congress, however due to the revocation of the Plaintiff's license and the offense listed happening before the passage of the amendment, it does not apply in this circumstance.
2. The Court does not believe however there was a conspiracy from SumoMC, as the clients in question were clients of SumoMC's law firm they were already his clients, simply represented by an employee of his.
3. The Court believes that the compensation requested is unreasonable because the Redmont Bar Association is an entity outside the government that has no specific budget, and no way to make any money without government aid or donations, the Redmont Bar Association simply cannot cover the compensation requested.
4. The Court believes that should somebody have their ability to file lawsuits on behalf of a client revoked the writer of the Legal Board Act had intended that they would no longer be able to represent a client in court
The court hereby orders:
1: The Plaintiff be granted the ability to file lawsuits on behalf of a client reinstated
2: The Plaintiff be readmitted into the Redmont Bar Association
I would like to thank both parties for their time, this case is hereby adjourned in favor of the plaintiff.