Jones Bigass Truck Rental & Storage

As I begin to wade into the home purchasing market after the first of the year, I look around at the collected crap at my apartment and say to myself "What am I going to do with all of this?" I think I have found a solution:

Greatest Invention Ever!

Check out this article from today's Post-Dispatch. It appears as if someone has come up with the best vending machine ever! It's been a hard day at the office. You have been working since 7am on a project. The boss has been calling you non-stop, asking questions on cases you just had him review a letter about. On top of it, the senior guy brings in 5 new cases for you to work on, and another case that someone else in the firm has been working on for 3 years, is in a million boxes, but just on a whim, the boss decided to change horses mid stream....... Okay, off of the rant. Anyway, you get hungry at the office. You walk into the lunch room, and what do you find? A hot dog machine!

Halleueah!

The Verdict is In, October 6, Slaten Returns

Ahh, the classic Paul Newman movie, the Verdict..... Yeah, it's an oldie but worth it. I think it is especially worth watching in the middle of a cold St. Louis winter, as the movie has that tone to it.


Unfortunately for us, the verdict is that Kevin Slaten returns to the St. Louis airwaves on October 6th, after his no-compete clause in his old contract with KFNS ends. While Mr. Slaten stated that St. Louis County Circuit Judge Larry L. Kendrick would be more suited to work in Baghdad, Moscow (presumably in pre 1991 Soviet Russia), or somewhere else, it appears that unlike those sent to the Gulags, Slaten gets another chance.

In other news, your humble legal correspondent to Bert Flex just completed a 2 day jury trial in St. Louis County. He also managed to get a jury verdict favorable to his client. While I cannot comment on whether Mr. Slaten has actually tried a case before a jury, I wouldn't want him as my attorney, or as my client. He has such a talent for making an ass of himself.

Serious Journalism Alert-Kevin Slaten May Have Violated Attorney Rules

Anyone want to file a Bar Complaint on Kevin Slaten? We all know of Slaten's ability to make an ass of himself. Sadly this man went to law school and passed the same bar exam I did. He isn't really a credit to the profession, and his recent comments could land him in hot water with the Supreme Court of Missouri.

On Friday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a story on Kevin Slaten’s reaction to a St. Louis County Circuit Judge’s ruling on the enforceability of the non-compete clause in Slaten’s contract with KFNS. The full story is here. Here are three quotes attributed to Slaten which could land him in trouble with the Supreme Court of Missouri:

"Based on a ruling like this, according to this court, we live in Baghdad,''

"In the United States of America, you can be prevented from earning a living because some judge says so,'' Slaten said.”I think that's a disgrace, a total disgrace. In Baghdad you can be prevented from making a living. In Moscow you can be prevented from making a living — and in St. Louis you can be prevented from making a living. That's what these three cities have in common. This judge would serve well in Moscow, he'd be perfect in Baghdad.''

"This judge needs to recuse himself from any other proceedings in this case,'' Slaten said. "He obviously has a dislike for me. None of what he wrote is supported by any of the testimony. I defy him to show me the testimony that supports what he concluded. ... The testimony is 100 percent to the opposite.''

While none of this seems to be too out-of-line for Slaten, one must remember, that sadly Slaten is an attorney himself, Missouri Bar number 36656, and as an active member of the Missouri Bar, subject to the rules of the Supreme Court of Missouri. As such, Slaten’s comments may land him in hot water with the Missouri Bar’s Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel. It appears from the context of the article that Slaten was trying to couch his comments in terms of being a litigant than being an attorney. However, this attempted bit of cleverness may not be enough for Slaten to escape trouble. An attorney is an attorney always, no matter what time of day it is, or what day of the week it is. Whether Slaten was acting as an attorney or as a client doesn’t matter, as he is always subject to the authority of the Supreme Court of Missouri.

You may be asking yourself “what did he do wrong?” Well, for starters, Slaten’s comments, if he actually said them, appear to be a violation of Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4-4.84: Misconduct. That rule, among other things, states:

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; (f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or(g) manifest by words or conduct, in representing a client, bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, or sexual orientation. This Rule 4-8.4(g) does not preclude legitimate advocacy when race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation, or other similar factors, are issues.


In addition, in Rule 4-3.5, states:

A lawyer shall not:(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other official by means prohibited by law;(b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order;(c) communicate with a juror or prospective juror after discharge of the jury if:(1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order;
(2) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to communicate; or
(3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion, duress, or harassment; or(d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

Comment 4 to this rule sums up Slaten’s possible misconduct:

[4] The advocate's function is to present evidence and argument so that the cause may be decided according to law. Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of the advocate's right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge but should avoid reciprocation; the judge's default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate. An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.

So what does one do, knowing that Slaten may have violated his professional obligations as an attorney? Anyone can file a confidential complaint against Slaten through the Missouri Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel, here. As an attorney, I may be obligated to file a complaint, because I know of his misconduct. Of course, if any Bertflex.com reader wants to file their own complaint, and needs help, let me know.

What will happen if Slaten is reported? He would probably get reprimanded. Some of our readers may remember former St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Buzz Westfall ran into similar hot water when he called the Missouri Court of Appeals “dishonest.”

Douchebag Report: Kevin Slaten Edition

It seems that Kevin Slaten is barred from appearing on St. Louis radio in a sports role until October 6, 2008. According to this article from the St. Louis Post Dispatch, a St. Louis County Circuit judge upheld the non-compete clause in Slaten's contract. However, Slaten is barred from only a sports broadcasting role, he can appear in any other facet.

What does this mean? Not much really. Non-compete clauses are used a lot in the business world. Courts have tended to allow enforcement of the provisions, as long as none of the typical contract law defenses exist, such as fraud, you signed it under duress, etc. I checked the leading contract law treatises, and being a major tool is not one of those defenses, so the 6th month "Slaten Vacation" will be allowed to continue. Unfortunately for us, October 6, 2008 is fast approaching.

As a side note, I think there are only two people in St. Louis who actually like Slaten, they are the ones who post favorable comments about him on the Post Dispatch stories. Then again, I'm suspicious that at least one of those posters is Slaten himself, so that really only makes 1.....

Sports and the Law: Chet Pleban and Kevin Slaten-Made for Each Other

As some of you may know, Kevin Slaten, the king of all St. Louis sports radio jerks has hired St. Louis "super lawyer" Chet Pleban to represent him. Pleban, in turn, has filed a wrongful termination suit on behalf of Slaten against KFNS in St. Louis County Circuit Court. At first, this seemed to be pretty standard legal fare, high profile person gets fired, person sues former employer, parties reach undisclosed settlement at some point in future, person appears on another local media outlet.

Instead, Slaten and Pleban have spun conspiracy theory stories about how Slaten was really fired due to an unknown person high up in the Cardinals organization putting pressure on KFNS to fire Slaten. Such stories bring up visions of Tony LaRussa smoking cigarettes endlessly in some office deep within Busch Stadium issuing orders, much like Chain Smoking Man, from the X Files. Until Slaten hired Pleban, I did not think it was possible for Slaten to be seen as any more of a douche bag.

In a legal tactic that is only befitting a person representing Slaten, who is sadly a fellow member of the Missouri Bar himself, Pleban recently announced that Slaten didn't sign just one contract, but TWO! The story is here. Evidently Slaten, and Pleban are now spinning the ridiculous story that Slaten signed two contracts, one with Big League Broadcasting and the other with KFNS, bringing his salary to an ungodly $320,000.00.

I could fill up the rest of this column with some fine legal analysis on whether there is a contract, what that involves, but I won't. My fast and dirty analysis is that Slaten, through his attorney Pleban are making a ridiculous claim. If Slaten signed a second contract in September, but wasn't fired until nearly six months later, didn't he notice that his paychecks were about half of what they can be? In other words, you are allegedly an attorney, and your employer is supposedly screwing you out of half of your salary, and you don't notice until your fancy pants attorney tells you after you were fired? Needless to say, his argument doesn't even pass the "stink test."

What we likely have here is a tactic by Slaten and Pleban to do one of two things, 1) bring more legal pressure on KFNS to reach a settlement with Pleban and Slaten, and make this whole law suit go away, or 2) if this matter ever goes to a jury trial, to start to taint the jury pool by spinning your side of the story. Of course, many parts of contract law involve legal determinations, and juries only decide factual issues, so it is unclear at this stage, if and what role a jury would play in this saga.

Until then, we can be treated to weekly nuggets like this story. Who knows, maybe Pleban will find Slaten's third contract.....