
O.J. Simpson defender, F. Lee Bailey, is broke and disbarred - lisper
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/20/o-j-s-last-defender-f-lee-bailey-is-broke-disbarred-and-working-above-a-hair-salon/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_3_na
======
Illniyar
Is that it? if so, what a terrible reporting work.

Apart from a single mention of O.J. being frightened not to talk to him in
prison there is no mention of what kind of retaliation he received. There is
no attempt to get remarks or opinions from those who apparently retaliated.

It makes no mentions of the reasons why he was disbarred, or why, since he was
60 years old during the O.J. trial and implied to have had a lot of money did
he not have enough money left to retire.

~~~
kw71
Saw in the article a mention of mishandling client's funds, a common reason
for disbarment. It is real curious that he is broke tho.

------
fennecfoxen
Read the Town and Country feature. While I'm dubious about the financial
shenanigans that got him disbarred, and it seems they are addressed only in
passing, if it's true that he's being _kept_ disbarred purely for having
fought this case, unlike anyone else who would be in this situation, then
that's a disgusting travesty.

The American compact is that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that
all criminals get defence lawyers. It is because you _cannot trust_ the
justice system to accuse only innocent men; the state cannot be allowed the
power to point at a person and send him to jail for life. It would be one
thing to use your right of free association to avoid this man in one's day to
day life, and eminently defensible, but for him to be subject to _systematic
retaliation_ that destroys his career for doing a good job defending someone
controversial and unpopular?

That's not really something I want the state bar association to do. The
justice system is already over-incentivized to over-prosecute, over-convict
and run roughshod over defendant's rights whenever it can. If they can find an
excuse to deprive you of a job for defending OJ, they can find a similar one
for (say) defending someone from Black Lives Matter in a court in Alabama.

~~~
evgen
It is made quite clear in the Town and Country article that he continues to be
denied entry to the Maine bar because of his complete lack of remorse or
willingness to admit guilt for "mishandling" the client funds. A perfect
example of someone who cannot stand to lose an argument even winning imposes a
higher cost than losing.

Even if he had not been OJ's lawyer he would have remained disbarred and in
fact the only reason anyone knows or cares about him is because of his role in
defending that particular murderer.

------
danso
Maybe the link should be changed to the original article? The WaPo version is
just a recap of this Town and Country feature:
[http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a10284185/f-lee-
bai...](http://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/a10284185/f-lee-bailey-oj-
lawyer-interview/)

------
dragonwriter
Seems to me painfully obvious that he isn't being punished for being on the
Simpson team, but because he refuses to give disciplinary authorities any
reason to believe he recognizes, has learned from, and would not repeat the
errors for which he was disbarred.

Even acknowledging the fairly obvious error (if one accepts his account of
events) of _not having a substantial revision to the documented, signed fee
arrangement itself documented and signed_ would probably go a long way.

If you can't acknowledge that you did the wrong thing (only that you were
found the have done so), at least acknowledge the giant slip-up as a lawyer
that _resulted_ in you being judged to have done the wrong thing and show
you've learned from it, since it's the kind of slip-up that could get your
_client_ nailed for wrongdoing that they are innocent of, were you readmitted
to practice.

------
Overtonwindow
What a shame. An end to a great legal career. I can't pass judgement on his
faults, crimes, real or accused, but he did leave a very interesting life, and
had a fascinating legal career.

~~~
90s-socal-kid
A moment for us to all reflect. He defended someone judged harshly by history,
to the limits of his abilities.

Then again, the recent multi-part documentary on the trial (I watched on
apple's music service) didn't reflect kindly on the defense. They were
presented as willing to do nearly anything to get their client off.

On the gripping hand, is this kind of behavior the extremum moment of the
adversarial judicial system? Even if we disagree, should we respect F Lee and
Johnny because they are the primary exemplars of this adversarial system?

That moment captured in the photo is one of the best captures of that trial
I've ever seen.

~~~
kw71
Looking at that photo with at least two decades more experience dealing with
people than I had back then, I now think he demonstrates a bit too much joy if
one is to assume that he has just been given what is rightfully his - an
acquittal because of actual innocence. If I were just acquitted of anything I
didn't do I would be pissed the fuck off.

------
ryanmarsh
I hope OP is not expecting us to gloat about his misfortune.

------
senectus1
betya anyone that tries to defend Trump acquires the same problem...

