Yachts again.

I posted a note, George Wallace posted a note and Ted Frank posted a note. Then we got a note! I think this was primarily addressed to Mr. Frank, but George Wallace and I were copied because we noted. In the interest of fairness, I thought I'd pass along a letter I received about the collective postings.

You should make sure all the facts are correct and accurate before writing them in this particular article. The first sentence ...."infamous (and now suspended) attorney Rex DeGeorge,"...in check the State Bar of Calif, his status has been changed to "not entitled," not "suspended." [I checked and this is true see here , but his status was "interim suspension after conviction" ...mfg] Re: "But DeGeorge continues to sue insurance companies; after the conviction, as we mentioned Feb. 17, 2003, a civil jury awarded him $391,000 (plus $4700/month) in a suit against Equitable Life Assurance over a supposed "brain condition", despite testimony that DeGeorge rehearsed and researched his symptoms, and even though DeGeorge was forced to appear in court in chains and shackles with armed guards." The facts: DeGeorge had been receiving disability payments for years prior to the fourth yacht incident. The only reason the insurance companies discontinued payment was because of their own decision and ridiculous thinking that he was not disabled. Unfortunately, the insurance companies' own doctors concurred that DeGeorge was, in fact, disabled and did suffer a stroke and brain damage as a result of a car accident. They testified to these facts in court, in front of the jury. How do you answer that? When the insurance companies' own doctors confirm what DeGeorge's doctors were saying, it's pretty hard for a jury not to award in DeGeorge's favor. Wouldn't you agree? This is one time when the right award was rendered. Plus, your statement that he appeared "in court in chains and shackles with armed guards" is COMPLETELY WRONG. The reason I know this is because I was there, in the courtroom. He was dressed in a business suit every day. You need to correct this as well.

Comments

[George Wallace]

As you mention in your post, I received a copy of the e-mail message you've quoted, though all of the quotations in that message come from Ted Frank's write-up at Overlawyered. I hadn't come to a decision on whether it needed a response or not, but you've saved me the trouble. I'll link this post through an update to my original note.

In my report, which for its facts relied principally on quotations from the Insurance Journal story and the 9th Circuit's opinion, I characterized Mr. DeGeorge as "not currently licensed to practice," which strikes me then and now as accurate. For what it's worth, the California State Bar's website defines "Not Entitled" as follows: "Those listed as not entitled may not practice law in California. There are several reasons that may result in this status, including suspension and involuntary transfer to inactive." (Italics added.)

[Ted]

Funny, I didn't receive the e-mail. All my facts came from the linked articles and the court opinions.

The California Bar Journal reports that DeGeorge was suspended. Neil Lerner reports that he saw DeGeorge in shackles at his criminal trial.