I'm pretty sure that being or not being in good standing doesn't allow a former attorney who is prohibited from practicing law by court order from claiming to be practicing law in a legal filing.
Absolutely. But those
general 481.06 duties do become even more on-point if he's actually in good standing (in the sense that "but I'm not authorized, so my general duties as an attorney are n/a" might be lamely advanced as a defense to general duty failures under 481.06 (vs the specific prohibitions in 481.02, which 100% apply to a non-authorized person, and most specifically to a lawyer not authorized to practice)).
I think they all apply to him, which is why I included both sections. But I'm fairly well versed in the Weasel Word language, and I would not put it past him to try to blunt a 481.06 charge on the basis of his dereliction.
Randazza claimed that on behalf of the prohibited from practicing law by court order fail lawyer Nick Rekieta. According to Randazza, despite the fact that Nick is legally prohibited, by court order, from practicing law, Nick actually is practicing law.
Exactly, and reading that motion this morning, along with Josh's questions around Rekieta's use of references to the law LLC vs the media LLC, are what re-inspired my interest in revisiting that drum I (and you, and others) have been banging for +/- a year or more about his holding himself out as a lawyer at all the various points at which he has not been authorized to practice. Pretty sure at some point I laid out the various places (primarily on YT) he'd still been referencing the law LLC/ being a lawyer, even though I'd seen he'd swapped in the media LLC in some places (50-50; I know I did the research and found quite a bit; possible I didn't bother posting each item).
He has multiple layers of professional rules and criminal statutes violations based even solely on his conduct and his overt and implied representations that he is a lawyer and owner of a law firm, despite not lawfully being either.
I think I may have mentioned before that a thing the MN professional responsibility has done is send a stern warning letter to people awaiting/applying for admission, after passing the Bar and already employed by a Minnesota firm, who correspond with the OLPR on their firm letterhead about their pending admission without including an explicit disclaimer that they are not yet admitted in the state (and, if applicable, where they are admitted and in good standing). In those scenarios, the prospective admittees did not say or imply they were "Minnesota lawyers" at all, in any way; they merely failed to explicitly state that they are not (yet). The OLPR do not like bullshitting over technicalities.
Randazza even attaches an exhibit to prove that Nick illegally owns a law firm, despite not being authorized to practice law, and is practicing law, despite being prohibited by court order from practicing law.
Yes, the articles of organization I mentioned? Like I said, didn't go pull the exhibits, but as the text in the motion didn't note the LLC has a status of administrative termination, I (apparently correctly) guessed he just happened not to include that.
Randazza/ his firm appear to have a low standard or diligence. OR they are just as deceptive as Nick. Everything about his status should have been independently verified and disclosed in that filing.
...and gosh, do you suppose Nick reviewed and approved that filing? Either he did and didn't disclose (see, again, 481.06 (4) and 481.07), or Randazza potentially failed his client by neither performing diligence (of fully publicly available and free information) nor confirming accuracy with his client.
