What Kind of Freaking Lawyer is This Lady?

Everyone seems to know who Gloria Allred is, though I have never heard of her.  Apparently she is opposed to Meg Whitman getting elected (I am not even sure - is Whitman running for Senator or Governor?).  But her approach is weird.  She attacks Whitman for not identifying and firing an illegal immigrant fast enough.  There is no way for this accusation to be true given the timeline Allred outlines unless Ms. Whitman's illegal immigrant maid at some point farbricated or falsified documents.  In specific, Allred is claiming Whitman did not act fast enough when the Feds sent her a letter saying there was a problem with her maid's social security number.  Implicit in all this is that Whitman's maid must have fabricated documentation and as a minimum provided a false or stolen social security number.

OK, all normal team pepsi - team coke political BS, except for this:  Whitman's maid is Allred's legal client.  Allred, in order to publicly score points on Whitman, is hanging her own client out to dry by as much as admitting her client engaged in identity theft.  The maid's lawyer is complaining that her client was not fired fast enough.  Unbelievable.  Is this the true state of legal ethics today?  And not a mention of this obvious ethical issue in the AP story.


  1. Max Lybbert:

    I've seen people point out the line in the letter that says "this letter does not imply that you or your employee intentionally provided incorrect information about the employee's name or SSN"( http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/30/whitmans-husband-that-might-be-my-handwriting-but-the-letter-doesnt-prove-anything/ ). For some reason, people -- including our licensed attorney -- overlook the next lines: "It is not a basis, in and of itself, for you to take any adverse action against the employee such as laying off, suspending, firing, or discriminating against the individual. Any employer that uses the information in this letter to justify taking adverse action against an employee may violate state or federal law and be subject to legal consequences." And, of course, "this letter makes no statement about your employee's immigration status."

  2. Patrick:

    Her "client" is a prop for a political attack. Perhaps that client was lied to about what she could out of these accusations, but she is definitely being used. If she ends up on a bus to Mexico I doubt Allred will be taking her calls.

  3. Andre:

    As Patrick points out in the above post, this is a political game, therefore necessarily NOT a "normal" lawyer-client relationship. In a sense, you could call Ms Allred and the former maid partners. Whether Patrick is correct in presuming that the former maid is being used remains to be seen. It is possible that she has no idea of the potential problems she may have created by going so public with this matter. This would not be the first time the "party of the little guy" used a litte guy to further their own ends, chewed them up and spit them out when no longer needed. But on the other hand, it also is possible that she made some kind of deal prior to taking this "role" (we are in Hollywood's state, after all). If it is the latter, then the real question is who are they working for, who is paying them, and whose money is paying them. Secondarily, it would be curious to see exactly what will be the former maid's "compensation" and to what lengths the media will go to avoid any mention of same. My guess is that we will find out after the election, if anyone actually gets to page 58 of the LA Times, that Allred was paid out of the democrat candidate's election kitty, and the former maid will be on the fast track to citizenship, expedited by friendly politicians.

  4. ColoComment:

    Greta van Susteren takes her apart in this video:


  5. Doug:

    The 14-page INS contract that I saw ( http://tinyurl.com/25behe2 ), dated in the year May 1, 2000 (others have talked about a year 2003 contract), shows:

    Page 1: spells out Nicky's desired salary: $25/hour. "Are you a U.S. Citizen? Checked "no". "Can you legally accept employment?" Checked "yes".

    Page 12: a photocopy of this broad's California drivers license and Social Security card, both presumably fake.

    Pag3 13: federal W-4 withholding form. On the same line as her signature it states "Under penalties of perjury, I certify that I am entitled to the number of withholding allowances claimed on this certificate, or I am entitled to claim exempt status."

    Page 14: directly above Nicky's signature: "I am aware that federal law provides for imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or use of false documents in connection with the completion of this form."

    At a minimum, this illegal should be deported. Worse, imprisonment is not out of the question.

  6. caseyboy:

    Mark Levin (licensed to practice in VA) said that Ms Allred's actions border on malpractice. If her client gets nabbed for perjury (signing the W-4), Ms Allred could be sued civilly as well as be disbarred. She is known as a democrat operative. Candidate Moonbeam Brown's campaign had an ad ready to run the very soon after Ms Allred held her press conference making her allegations. Coincidence??????

  7. joetote:

    It’s really interesting. I would never hold Greta up as a poster child for Conservatism. she is and has been an advocate of liberal causes. Never the less, give credit when it’s due! She has tried to be concise and thorough in her reporting. She has tried to keep her personal feelings out, preferring to let the news take her where it may. In this instance, however, she let her feelings out and good for her! She is first and foremost a lawyer by profession. when she laid into Alred and reminded her that she (Greta) had taken on more liberal causes legally and in effect denounced Allred for putting another bad slant on the profession, i would like to have patted her on the back! Good even reporting combined with being insulted by a out of control loonie. Great work Greta!

  8. Methinks:

    Shortly after immigrating to the United States, I began using a different first name because I didn't like the phonetic translation of my given name into English. Since before the Patriot Act made it impossible, one could legally use whatever name one wanted if one did not do so in order to defraud, I didn't legally change it for decades. So, until a few years ago, I too had a social security card that did not match the name I was using and I sent an explanation to to SS every time they asked. Eventually, I was forced to go through the hassle of legally changing my name. Certainly, this is not a unique circumstance.

    It's possible that Whitman initially gave the maid the benefit of the doubt and assumed similar circumstances. Or, it could have been that on the very notice that alerts the employer to the mismatch, it says that employers cannot use this notice as grounds for punishing or firing employees. So, exactly what is Whitman expected to do? Perhaps the safest thing is to not hire latinos?

    Whitman did nothing wrong and is the victim of fraud and last I checked, being a victim of fraud doesn't disqualify you from public office.