For years I've had a page listing some personal-injury lawyers with experience representing cyclists. Next to one of them (Lenore Shefman), I added, "Personally, I'm a little put off that she also defends drunk drivers." Shefman wrote to me a few months ago and said I should take that down, because (she said) the DUI defense was done by someone else in her office, a long time ago. So I checked but I found that *her own* multiple websites still identified her as a DUI lawyer, under her own name. So updating her listing on my site wasn't a big priority for me, especially as it would simply change from "I'm put off that she defends drunk drivers" to "I'm put off that she aggressively courted drunk-driving clients", which is barely any different. (She apparently expected I would just excise all reference to her DUI practice completely, which of course is not what I would do. I actually might have, had approached me with something like, "I used to have a DUI practice but I was never really comfortable with it and so now I'm trying to help those who really deserve it. But she didn't say that, instead she tried to get me to blame somebody else for her own decision to operate a DUI practice.)
Well, it turns out that Shefman is a donor to a certain bike advocacy group, so she complained to their director, to get him to put pressure on me to edit my site. She tried to mislead him, referring to "... the improper info about me defending drunk drivers. It is not true and he [Bluejay] should really take it down." The director asked me to either edit the listing or show him my evidence about Shefman defending DUI clients.
So I replied to him with a laundry list of websites, most of them her own, which listed Shefman's DUI practice even at the same time wrote in to complain. (Three of her own sites continue to trumpet her DUI practice, even as I write this right now.) I cc'd Shefman on my reply, saying that if she really thinks I'm posting "improper and untrue" things about her she could try to sue me, but I expected any such effort to be laughed out of court.
Shefman replied, saying that she would be happy to "oblige" my "request" for her to sue me (groan), and that I didn't understand how Internet caches work and I was looking at cached copies of her websites. (I wasn't, they were live, direct from the server, but even had they been cached copies, that ignores the fact that Shefman does indeed have a *history* of having a DUI practice, which is the whole point.)
Here's the whole sordid story, including tons of screenshots of the websites in question.
I don't have a problem with her defending against DUI or any other crime. The accused are innocent until proven guilty. By defending DUI cases she is helping to ensure due process. Of course you shouldn't be compelled to remove your opinion of her though.
I can see the argument that everybody deserves representation if accused of a crime. Of course, in practice, what this means is "drive drunk and we can get you off," not so much "we are here to protect the falsely accused."
But, regardless, there is something very wrong with her denial that she is eager to defend drunk drivers in light of all her explicit promotion to that effect.
Don in Austin
One thing I've learnt about our famous "trial by one's peers" joke is that if one has enough money to hire a mercenary, an advocate or a lawyer s/he will be more peer than one that does not have a large enough wallet.
ChuckThomas, I didn't post all this because Shefman simply had a DUI practice. That's not the point. The point is that she's trying to whitewash her history of having a DUI practice. To wit:
(1) Shefman is trying to deny her involvement with her firm's DUI defense by saying that someone else in her office handled those cases, when the truth is that she aggressively marketed her firm's DUI defense, under her own personal name, including on her own websites.
(2) At the same time she's complaining that I'm harming her reputation by identifying her as having been a DUI lawyer, *her own websites* identify her as one. (And if it truly harms her reputation for people to think she was a DUI lawyer, then why did she, you know, advertise herself as a DUI lawyer?)
(3) She's claiming that her live websites are actually cached copies, which is absolutely not true. In fact, some of the pages are *still* up right now. (Though again, whether they're cached or not is irrelevant to the point that Shefman did indeed market herself as a DUI lawyer, under her own name.)
(4) After she marketed herself as a DUI lawyer, she's threatening to sue me for pointing out that she did so.
She wrote to me again today and essentially repeated her legal threat. I added her message to the end of the article.
Her responses to you tell me that she is:
**Not very bright
**Not very literate
**Mental processes impaired by anger and frustration
**Some combination of the above.
Don in Austin