Another attorney for Pete Hendrickson

[Gregg]

Isn't there a special penalty for bringing up claims that have been proven false as if they were actually true?

I think Darwin had a theory about that, but it takes a long time to correct the "defects"

[ProfHenryHiggins]

Minneapolis, MN he gave a zip code.

Funny... the Minnesota Bar Association has no listing for any William Butler or Bill Butler in Minneapolis.

In fact, they don't have a single William Butler, at all.
So just where is this man licensed to practice, pray tell?

[wserra]

Butler is licensed in Minnesota.

I know you're not from the U.S., HH. I surely don't know anything about attorney licensing in Britain. Here, it varies by state. In some states, the licensing authority is the state bar; in those states, every lawyer must be a member. In other states - such as New York (my own) and, apparently, Minnesota - the courts do the licensing, and bar associations are voluntary. For example, I belong to neither the American Bar Association or the NYSBA, because they would not help my practice. I do belong to a couple of smaller, more specialized BAs, such as NYS Trial Lawyers Association, because they do help my practice.

For better of worse, Butler is indeed licensed.

[Judge Roy Bean]

... I belong to neither the American Bar Association or the NYSBA, because they would not help my practice. I do belong to a couple of smaller, more specialized BAs, such as NYS Trial Lawyers Association, because they do help my practice.
...

Ssssshhhhhh . . . you're exposing secret secrets about the secret BAR.

[bmielke]

Butler is licensed in Minnesota.

I know you're not from the U.S., HH. I surely don't know anything about attorney licensing in Britain. Here, it varies by state. In some states, the licensing authority is the state bar; in those states, every lawyer must be a member. In other states - such as New York (my own) and, apparently, Minnesota - the courts do the licensing, and bar associations are voluntary. For example, I belong to neither the American Bar Association or the NYSBA, because they would not help my practice. I do belong to a couple of smaller, more specialized BAs, such as NYS Trial Lawyers Association, because they do help my practice.

For better of worse, Butler is indeed licensed.

FWIW Tennessee is like that too.

[Prof]

Texas, on the other hand has has a "unitary" Bar. The local bar associations are purely "social" or "voluntary." Other groups, like the ABA, ABI, TMA, FBA are voluntary. I belong to the ones which are important for my practive. Note that the ABI and TMA include non-lawyers.

[wserra]

I just ran across probably the most excoriating opinion it has ever been my pleasure to read on the conduct of a lawyer who was not convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude. At considerable length - 54 pages! - the District Judge shows how this guy knowingly advanced frivolous positions, ignored orders, brought suits solely for the purposes of delay and harassment, and much else. In the end, the DJ sanctions the guy $50,000, plus the fees and costs of defending the cases. Yes, as you have probably figured out from my choice of thread, the offending lawyer is one William B. Butler of Minneapolis, Pete's appellate lawyer and the subject of other non-complimentary discussion on this board.

In addition to his, well, unorthodox opinions on tax matters, Mr. Butler appears aggressively ignorant of Minnesota real estate law. Minnesota law does, under the right circumstances, permit the holder of a mortgage to foreclose despite not being the holder of the note as well. The court generically refers to those suits as "show-me-the-note" cases. In the cases in question, Butler represented homeowners subject to foreclosure proceedings, and sought to argue the opposite of that settled point. In fact, as Judge Schiltz put it,

In Minnesota, however, the bulk of the show-me-the-note claims that have recently been
filed have been brought not by desperate homeowners representing themselves, but by attorney William B. Butler of Butler Liberty Law, LLC. In fact, Butler has made a cottage industry out of filing frivolous show-me-the-note actions. Butler attracts clients through a website that blatantly misrepresents Minnesota law and attacks the legal system, the banking system, and other targets. Butler has been quite successful in attracting clients, who either do not know or do not care that he has never actually won a show-me-the-note claim.

Something tells me he's not about to win these either.

Butler's methodology:

Butler takes a group of a dozen or so individuals who are facing foreclosure but otherwise have no connection to one another; he gins up a dozen or so claims against a dozen or so defendants grounded mostly on the show-me-the-note theory; he improperly packages these claims into a single state-court action; and he fraudulently joins a single nondiverse defendant (typically a law firm that represented one of the lenders in foreclosure proceedings) in an attempt to block removal to federal court.

"Gins up"? "Improperly"? "Fraudulently"?

When Butler’s claims are finally challenged on the merits, he makes false representations and spins out contradictory and often absurd arguments in the apparent hope that their sheer weight and number, multiplied by the number of parties and claims, will overwhelm his opponents and the court. Butler makes claims in his briefs that do not appear in his pleadings; he makes claims during hearings that do not appear in either his briefs or his pleadings; and, when ordered to show cause why he should not be sanctioned, he makes claims in his response that he did not make during the hearing or in his briefs or pleadings. Of course, while all of this drags on month after month, Butler collects fees from his clients, and his clients live rent-free in their homes.

If I continued to reproduce the passages of the opinion that show the Court's utter contempt for this guy, I would wind up quoting the entire opinion. I don't think Judge Schiltz likes poor Bill. Read the rest of it yourselves. Bottom line: $50K sanctions, fees and costs.

Moral: you're not dishonest (or wacked) in only one part of your practice (or life).

And it's not over. A few days ago, Judge Schiltz' chambers filed this email, which returned an email the judge had received ex parte from one of Butler's clients. The client's email is quite unfortunately not public. While of course the Court will not act ex parte, it suggests that, if the client does not get satisfaction in the undescribed matter from Butler, he "bring any concerns about Mr. Butler to the attention of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility".

Dum-da-DUM-DUM.

[Pottapaug1938]

One of my favorite quotes comes at the top of page 18:

"The second tendency is shared by many litigants: the propensity to treat judicial opinions as though it [sic] were a statute or regulation whose every word is 'law' that must be given precise effect."

How many times, folks, have we had to deal with idiots who strip-mine quotes from judicial opinions, and then wave them in everyone's faces, saying something like "THE AMALGAMATED SNAKEOIL OPINION SAYS THIS!!!!!!" when, in fact, the holding in that opinion is quite the opposite?

[LPC]

Moral: you're not dishonest (or wacked) in only one part of your practice (or life).

Yes, as a general rule.

And look at this:

One of the first show-me-the-note lawsuits brought by Butler challenged the foreclosure of the mortgage on his own home. Butler v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 11-461 (DWF/TNL), 2011 WL 2728321 (D. Minn. July 13, 2011).

Which suggests wackedness in his personal life and a link between the wackedness in his professional life and the wackedness in his personal life.

[LPC]

While of course the Court will not act ex parte, it suggests that, if the client does not get satisfaction in the undescribed matter from Butler, he "bring any concerns about Mr. Butler to the attention of the Office of Lawyers Professional Responsibility".

Dum-da-DUM-DUM.

From the opinion:

In short, Butler has been abusing, not using, the judicial system, and his conduct appears to violate multiple provisions of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. This Court will forward a copy of this order to the Minnesota Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board.

There is no good way to come to the attention of a disciplinary board, but an opinion by a federal judge citing misconduct in multiple cases has to be one of the worst. (The very worst would be by a copy of an indictment, but it that case professional discipline is probably not your biggest worry.)

And in reading the opinion, I began to wonder if Butler was simply stupid, but the judge flatly rejects that idea:

Butler’s actions are not the result of negligence. Butler is a very smart and very aggressive lawyer. He does not suffer from lack of diligence or disorganization. He does not need a warning to clean up his act or a seminar on how better to manage his case load. Butler knows exactly what he is doing; he has deliberately chosen to bring hundreds of frivolous claims in the most burdensome manner possible, and he has repeatedly used deceptive and misleading tactics to delay their ultimate resolution. Only a significant monetary sanction will deter Butler from further misconduct of this kind.

May I also say that I am impressed by the clarity of both the reasoning and writing of Judge Schiltz.

[The Observer]

Butler makes claims in his briefs...

Well, there is his first problem - never a good idea to appear in court only wearing your Fruit of the Looms.

[LPC]

And I wonder what ever happened to "Libertas Lex"?

[notorial dissent]

Looks like Pete has a fine collection of no longer practicing and soon to be not practicing lawyers to his credit at this point. I don't know if this is some kind of record, but it ought to at least be in the running.

[wserra]

Looks like Pete has a fine collection of no longer practicing and soon to be not practicing lawyers to his credit at this point.

When you insist on a lawyer who is not only willing to defend bullshit, but to advocate it, you shouldn't be surprised that s/he comes with other issues.

[wserra]

And I wonder what ever happened to "Libertas Lex"?

Do you mean http://www.libertaslex.com/? Well, it now consists of "Apache is functioning normally". Which may have something to do with Judge Schiltz' observation that "Butler attracts clients through a website that blatantly misrepresents Minnesota law and attacks the legal system, the banking system, and other targets." And the referral to the Minnesota disciplinary committee.

[LPC]

And I wonder what ever happened to "Libertas Lex"?

Do you mean http://www.libertaslex.com/? Well, it now consists of "Apache is functioning normally". Which may have something to do with Judge Schiltz' observation that "Butler attracts clients through a website that blatantly misrepresents Minnesota law and attacks the legal system, the banking system, and other targets." And the referral to the Minnesota disciplinary committee.

I thought that the judge was referring to http://butlerlibertylaw.com/, which is still functioning, and has an entire page on "Foreclosure Fraud."

My favorite page is the "Payment Page," where you can choose how much of a retainer you want to pay before telling him anything about the scope or purpose of the representation (and before knowing anything about his fee schedule). I think that the very existence of that page would be a violation of Pennsylvania ethics rules, which require that the basis of a lawyer's fees be disclosed in writing "before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation." Accepting a fee before disclosing the basis for the fee would be a no-no, I would think.

The language quoted by the judge appears in a July 2010 posting on another web site, and does refer to the libertaslex url.

[Imalawman]

Wow, you don't such a thorough order ruling on attorney sanctions everyday. Ouch.