Old debate pops up again

Jay Weaver is reporting that Judge Lenard didn't accept the plea deals in a health-care fraud case in which patient files were sold to personal injury lawyers. Judge Lenard is concerned that the punishment agreed to does not fit the crime:

Ruben E. Rodriguez, the ringleader, would face up to 12 years in prison. His wife, Maria Victoria Suarez, 52, would face up to five years.
``These charges are much too serious -- much too serious for our community,'' Lenard said. ``Violations of the law in the healthcare industry have become too much the norm [in Miami-Dade]. There are real victims here.''
Rodriguez, 62, who attended the hearing in a wheelchair because of poor health, has pleaded guilty to two conspiracy offenses and aggravated identity theft.
He admitted he stole Jackson records of patients' names, addresses, telephone numbers and medical diagnoses and sold them to several attorneys in exchange for kickbacks. He also admitted stealing records from an ambulance company dating back to 1995.
In exchange for the confidential information, lawyers paid Rodriguez hundreds of thousands of dollars after settling injury claims on the patients' behalfs, prosecutors say. One unidentified personal-injury attorney wrote 27 checks totaling $85,250 to a shell company incorporated by Rodriguez between 2006 and 2009.
On Tuesday, Lenard said she could not decide whether to accept Rodriguez's guilty plea until she reviewed sentencing guidelines for his offenses to make sure the penalties were tough enough.

We've discussed before the issue of whether judges should be able to reject plea deals -- the last time it came up was in the Robles case:

Query -- does a federal judge have the power to reject this sort of deal? Because this is a charge bargain deal, can't the government just dismiss the other counts on its own, leaving only the ten year maximum count? I think the real question is whether the government will have the heart to do this after Judge Gold has said he will not approve the deal. If in our adversarial system of justice the prosecution believes that a deal is fair, should a judge step in?

From another post on the subject:

The Louis Robles case has pitted prosecutors against the judiciary. The government and the defense had worked out a deal for Robles -- 10 years in prison plus restitution -- and that deal had the blessing of the receiver and almost all of the victims.Judge Gold, however, won't accept the deal, saying it's too lenient. The government recently filed a 16 page motion for reconsideration explaining why the plea made sense. Judge Gold denied that motion, which now leaves the government with two choices. It can try a case that neither party wants to try. Or it can dismiss the counts that carry more than a 10 year maximum, leaving Judge Gold with no choice but to sentence Robles to 10 years, even after a trial.Oftentimes, defense lawyers complain that sentencing is driven by prosecutors and that it should be left to judges to sentence, not executive officers. In this case, prosecutorial discretion is important in capping the sentence.Any thoughts on what the U.S. Attorney's office should do? Should they defer to the judge or stand up for their position?

What do you all think of this issue?

Louis Robles gets 15 years

This was the obvious result after the judge rejected the agreement of the parties to a 10 year deal. I still don't believe a judge should reject a plea agreement worked out in our adversary system (previously discussed here and here). I wonder if the prosecutors still argued for 10 years at the sentencing hearing as they believed this was the appropriate sentence... I think the feds (or Judge Gold) should release Robles from the appellate waiver so that he can argue to the 11th Circuit that the judge's rejection of the deal was inappropriate. Wouldn't it be nice to get some clarity about this from the appellate court?

SDFLA Blog question of the day -- Why won't the government abandon its appellate waiver so that Robles can litigate (with the government's support) whether district judges should be permitted to reject plea agreements.

One down, one to go...

Even though it looks like the District is about to lose the high-profile Louis Robles trial, we still have one other huge one starting this week -- "the Miami 7" trial. Here's Vanessa Blum's article outlining the start of the case. And here's Jay Weaver's, and the AP.

This is the trial involving seven guys from Liberty City who spoke to undercover officers about blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago and other buildings in Miami. The government has described that group as "more aspirational than operational." Will their words and actions in this case be enough for conviction? How will the Jose Padilla trial sit in jurors' minds? Stay tuned -- same bat time, same bat channel.

Louis Robles to plead?

That's what Julie Kay is reporting. Apparently, a hearing is set for 9am tomorrow. I wonder if he is pleading to the original deal or taking more time. More to follow.

--David Oscar Markus
www.markuslaw.com
305-379-6667

Another high profile trial to start this week

This time it's USA v. Louis Robles. Here's Julie Kay's preview of the trial.

I'm sure both sides (defense -- Hector Flores; government -- Mike Davis and Luis Perez) were working hard this weekend, even though they had settled the case months ago. The problem is that the judge wouldn't accept the 10 year deal agreed on by the parties because he believed that the deal was too sweet for Robles, who turns 60 next year.

We've discussed this issue a number of times and we asked whether the government would simply dismiss the indictment and permit Robles to plead guilty to a 10 year count (or two five year counts). Well, it appears that the answer is no. So if Robles loses this trial, he will certainly appeal on this issue, and it looks like a good one.

So SDFLA readers, is this trial worth it? The government doesn't want it. The victims don't want it. The defense doesn't want it. The receiver doesn't want it. The trial will last about a month, costing the system six figures.

By the way, can you imagine if Robles walks?

Executive branch vs. Judicial branch

The Louis Robles case has pitted prosecutors against the judiciary. The government and the defense had worked out a deal for Robles -- 10 years in prison plus restitution -- and that deal had the blessing of the receiver and almost all of the victims.

Judge Gold, however, won't accept the deal, saying it's too lenient. The government recently filed a 16 page motion for reconsideration explaining why the plea made sense. Judge Gold denied that motion, which now leaves the government with two choices. It can try a case that neither party wants to try. Or it can dismiss the counts that carry more than a 10 year maximum, leaving Judge Gold with no choice but to sentence Robles to 10 years, even after a trial.

Oftentimes, defense lawyers complain that sentencing is driven by prosecutors and that it should be left to judges to sentence, not executive officers. In this case, prosecutorial discretion is important in capping the sentence.

Any thoughts on what the U.S. Attorney's office should do? Should they defer to the judge or stand up for their position?

Here are previous posts on the Robles case. Our initial coverage of the issue is here. The DBR covers the story today but there is no free link yet.

Louis Robles plea deal rejected

Judge Alan Gold refused to accept the deal agreed to by prosecutors and defense lawyers which would have resulted in Louis Robles, the 59 year old asbestos lawyer, serving 10 years in federal prison (previous coverage here). The deal also had the blessing of Tom Tew, the receiver in charge of getting victims paid.

Query -- does a federal judge have the power to reject this sort of deal? Because this is a charge bargain deal, can't the government just dismiss the other counts on its own, leaving only the ten year maximum count? I think the real question is whether the government will have the heart to do this after Judge Gold has said he will not approve the deal. If in our adversarial system of justice the prosecution believes that a deal is fair, should a judge step in? Please give your thoughts in the comments.

This is just another odd turn in this very odd case. Just last week, Judge Gold took Robles into custody because Robles' girlfriend said he was hiring a pilot to flee overseas. The government stated that they did not believe that the girlfriend was being truthful.

Louis Robles taken into custody

Julie Kay breaks this story:

A federal judge has thrown disbarred Miami attorney Louis Robles back in jail after Robles' girlfriend told the court he was planning to flee the country before finalizing a criminal plea deal on charges that he stole millions from his clients. Last Thursday, U.S. District Judge Alan Gold in Miami issued an arrest warrant and ordered Robles’ $1 million bond revoked, calling him a flight risk. Robles, a nationally known Miami mass torts lawyer, was placed in federal prison May 11, days before Gold was set to decide whether to accept a plea deal for a 10-year sentence that was worked out between Robles and prosecutors.

The big question now is whether Judge Gold will accept the 10 year plea...

No thanks

As posted yesterday, Louis Robles was supposed to plead guilty this morning in front of Judge Gold. The parties had agreed to 10 years in prison.

Well, not so fast. Judge Gold did not accept the deal today and rescheduled it in a month. Judge Gold has rejected plea agreements before, notably in the Al Gutman case.

At last week's symposium on ethics at the University of Miami, there was a panel discussion with 5 judges who were asked if they ever rejected agreed to pleas. They all responded that they did not. Should judges reject plea agreements? Comments?

Pretty pleas(e)

Lots of pleas being reported today. Former asbestos lawyer Louis Robles is taking ten years. And the Hollywood cops are pleading to a min/man ten years, with the hope of a cooperation reduction.

Think about where you were *ten years* ago. I think all of us forget how freaking long that is.

News and Notes

1. The New York Times reports on Padilla here. The Government has been taking some hits in the press recently on this case and this is another example.

2. "Compensation: Empty-handed": That's the headline in this DBR article about Tom Tew's lawsuit against the Florida bar being dismissed with prejudice in federal court. "About 4,000 asbestos clients of disbarred attorney Louis Robles will have to find another way to recoup the $13.5 million their former lawyer stole from them after a federal judge threw out their claim against The Florida Bar. In an unusual class action suit filed last January, the plaintiffs claimed a security fund maintained by the Bar to compensate clients victimized by dishonest attorneys applied to them, and their claims should be paid in full. The suit argued that the Bar’s failure to pay a lump sum denied the plaintiffs their due process and equal protection rights under the U.S. Constitution. But U.S. District Judge Willis B. Hunt Jr. of Georgia disagreed in a dismissal order Dec. 22. He denied the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice, barring them from re-filing. The judge, who handled the case after the recusal of Miami judges, concluded the 11th Amendment gives the Bar immunity because it is a regulatory arm of the state Supreme Court."

Robles bond hearing

Louis Robles had his initial appearance and bond hearing today. Magistrate Judge Brown set a $1.25 million bond and appointed the Federal Defender's Office to represent Mr. Robles. Hector Flores accepted the appointment. Here is the AP article.

Louis Robles indicted

Louis Robles, the well-known personal injury lawyer, surrended to federal authorities yesterday. Apparently he did so before they could arrest him, which was supposed to occur early this morning. He's charged with defrauding more than $13 million from some 4,500 aging law clients ailing from asbestos exposure. Here's Jay Weaver's article in the Miami Herald.

Special Assesments...

Criminal lawyers are well familiar with special assesments. For every count of conviction, a defendant must pay a $100 special assesment.

Now, Thomas Tew is asking that all members of the Florida Bar pay a $178 special assesment to help pay back victims of Louis Robles. Julie Kay has all the details in her Justice Watch column today. Here is the intro:

The plaintiff attorney in a federal class action lawsuit against The Florida Bar is calling for a $178 special assessment on each of the Bar’s 77,000 members to reimburse victims of disbarred Miami attorney Louis Robles. In motions filed by Miami lawyer Thomas Tew, who represents about 4,000 former Robles asbestos clients, Tew claims that the Bar is being disingenuous in its arguments for refusing to come up with a $13.5 million lump sum payment to cover the clients for the money they lost to Robles. “The Florida Bar evidently believes that the price tag for administering the [Client Security Fund] legally, $178 per active member, is simply too high,” Tew wrote in a recent response to the Bar’s motion to dismiss. “As a result, the constitutional rights of over 4,000 citizens who were swindled by their [Bar-regulated] attorney… have been trampled.”

Tew's proposal strikes me as odd -- why should an entire profession be required to pay almost $200 per person (approx. $15 million) because someone else committed fraud. Thoughts?

Meth and the Florida Bar

The website has been down all day. Sorry...

I tried to make up for it with a catchy (even if a little misleading) title.

Meth labs have never been big down in South Florida. But apparently this has changed, according to this Herald article.

In unrelated news, the litigation between Louis Robles' former clients and the Florida Bar has been transferred to District Judge William B Hunt, Jr., a senior judge in Atlanta. The case was filed in the Southern District of Florida and initially was assigned to Judge Huck, who recused. Chief Judge Zloch then asked the 11th Circuit to assign a judge outside of Florida to handle the case. The story was in the DBR this morning (password required).