Jump to content

Jon Eardley Letter to Britney BEFORE CONSERVATORSHIP


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, breaktheice91 said:

I think he was disbarred but I don’t know the details about why. This is crazy 

I think this letter is the exhibit to his disbarment - the documents stating why he was disbarred said he solicited Britney Spears as a client; I think they are referencing this letter.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
  • Super Mods
2 minutes ago, nthenwkiss said:

I think this letter is the exhibit to his disbarment - the documents stating why he was disbarred said he solicited Britney Spears as a client; I think they are referencing this letter.

Yeah, from my understanding lawyers cannot solicit clients. It’s the client (Britney) that would’ve needed to reach out first.

I think there were also some other reasons that led to his disbarment, but can’t recollect what they are… I’ll look around.

  • Love 2
  • Like 4
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, SlayOut said:

Yeah, from my understanding lawyers cannot solicit clients. It’s the client (Britney) that would’ve needed to reach out first.

I think there were also some other reasons that led to his disbarment, but can’t recollect what they are… I’ll look around.

One of the reasons for his disbarment reads:

Case No. 08-0-10879 (Spears)
On February 1, 2008, the Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a temporary conservatorship over Britney Spears (Spears). The court appointed James Spears and Andrew Wallet to act as co-conservators. Spears was represented by counsel.
-3-

 On February 4, 2008, the same court issued an order stating that Spears was
incapacitated. On February 6, 2008, the court ordered that the co-conservators had exclusive authority in relation to Spears’ care, as well as decisions regarding her legal representation. The court continued the conservatorship until February 14, 2008.
On or about February 14, 2008, Respondent filed a notice of removal to federal court of the Spears conservatorship action. In the notice, Respondent stated that he was the attorney for
Spears. Respondent, however, was not then the attorney for Spears and never had been. Respondent knew, was grossly negligent in not knowing, that he had not obtained consent to
represent Spears. Spears incurred fees to defend against Respondent’s action.
Count 2 - Section 6104 [Appearing for Party without Authority]
Section 6104 states, "Corruptly or willfully and without authority appearing as attorney for a party to an action or proceeding constitutes a cause for disbarment or suspension."
Respondent’s actions in appearing as counsel for Spears without any authority to do so, constituted a willful violation by him of section 6104.
Count 3 - Section 6106 [Moral Turpitude - Misrepresentation]
By falsely representing in the above removal papers that he was the attorney for Spears, when he knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, that this representation was not true, Respondent committed an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty and corruption in willful violation of section 6106.3

You can read the whole document here:

https://members.calbar.ca.gov/courtDocs/08-O-10075-2.pdf

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

We noticed you're using an ad blocker  :ehum_britney_um_unsure_confused_what:

Thanks for visiting Exhale! Your support is greatly appreciated 💜  

Exhale survives through advertising revenue. Please, disable your ad block extension to help us and continue browsing Exhale. 🙏

I've disabled ad block