 |
| IS MIKE LAUX REALLY A MONEY-GRUBBING, CARPETBAGGING ROAMING SHYSTER? |
This was another bad week for swamped Little Rock City Attorney Tom Carpenter, troubled City Manager Bruce Moore and befouled LRPD Chief Kenton Tremar Buckner.
The roaming State of Chicago licensed attorney Mike Laux - yes Laux has no license to practice law in Arkansas, except in federal courts- something he never told potential clients that sought him out for representation that reached out to us - filed a lawsuit Monday morning and held a press conference to lay out all the details.
We say that Laux is a roamer because we can't pin down where he actually has a real office (we will delve deeper into this in a future post). The information on his webpage is out of date. His LinkedIn page work experience does not match what you can find using a Google search to see what he has posted himself about his own work experience. We assume he omits firms that he has been associated with in an "of counsel" position when he wears out his welcome or they have finished using him for a particular case in which they needed an smart-ass, over-confident shyster to take a deposition.
According to city attorney Tom Carpenter, Laux is good at taking depositions (we suspect because he like to badger folks) and has used Laux to speak to classes when he taught courses at the Bowen School of Law. This is ironic as Laux rips Carpenter just about every chance he can.
The complaint was filed in federal court Monday morning on behalf of LRPD
officers Sgt. Willie Davis, Lt. Earnest Whitten, Sgt. Derrick
Threadgill, and former LRPD officer Jackie Parker. Laux said Lt. Johnny
Gilbert Jr. and Capt. Tonya Washington will join the complaint as soon
as they receive letters saying they have the right to sue from EEOC.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages to make up for lost wages, Laux
said, but also seeks to enjoin the city from continuing what Laux and
the plaintiffs call racist and "uneven" practices in hiring, discipline
and promotions. Laux said the LRPD has a clear hierarchy, with older
white male officers at the top and black female officers at the bottom.
You can watch an edited version of the press conference.
Or the raw footage we shot of the entire press conference.
Laux was extremely confrontational with fellow blogger, Chef Ean Lee Bordeaux. Laux did not want Bordeaux to cover the press conference for his blog, Corruption Sucks and went so far as to try and snatch Bordeaux's camera.
Laux was butt-hurt about a post Bordeaux made on Facebook back in August 2017, in which Bordeaux referred to Laux in a specific descriptive manner.
Laux then went after the publisher of this blog threatening him with the same banishment as he did Bordeaux, until he found out that one of his clients had personally invited him to attend. Laux tucked tail and went to the corner.
After the press conference Laux made a weak attempt at an apology for his extremely unprofessional behavior before the press conference. Our publisher told him to forget about it and move on. Shit happens, especially when you are dealing with shysters.
We thought that Laux had settled down and were surprised and confused when he demanded that we remove a video we posted on our YouTube channel about the press conference. He did that in a strange, unprofessional series of emails.
Laux Email Chain by Russ Racop on Scribd
In the emails, Laux flat out lied.
He claims that he told the publisher that the videos he made of the press conference, the one attended by reporters from the Arkansas Times, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, KARK, FOX16, and KATV and made video or audio recordings, if shown would be damaging to his clients.
At no time did Laux ever utter that to our publisher.
You can read his emails above and see that for yourself.
You can also listen to the only voicemail message he left. He called the publisher twice, but only left a message on the second call.
If a "man" will lie about the little things, like details, he will lie about anything.
To quote Laux, "the truth is the truth."
The truth is Laux is a liar.
We suspect that the reason Laux did not want anyone to see the videos is because of what he said. Perhaps he made a misstatement of facts. Perhaps his rambling diatribe might make him look like an idiot. Perhaps the story he told about a childhood event was evidence of some deep rooted bias he wants to keep hidden. We have no idea why he wanted the video record of what he said taken down as once Laux was pressed by the publisher he resorted to name calling and refused to answer questions. Typical shyster move.
We hope that the officers made the right choice in selecting Laux to represent them. Laux might get the city to settle and write out a check, the city seems to do that an awful lot to make real and frivolous lawsuits go away.
But this lawsuit will not change the way the Little Rock Police Department operates. That is also the unfortunate truth.
The publisher of this blog has been a staunch supporter of the right of Little Rock Black Police Officers Association to exist and has stood up for its members time and time again as a founding member of Citizens for Truth & Credibility in Little Rock Leadership, in this blog and before the Little Rock Board of Directors as a citizen and candidate for the board.
That will not change and that is also the truth.
#TimeForChange #CleanOutLRCItyHall
***UPDATE***
We obtained an email that Laux sent Bordeux in which he admits that he "procrastinated" when representing him. That admission can get Laux in trouble here in Arkansas even thought he holds no Arkansas license to practice law.
The Arkansas Office of the Committee on Professional Conduct, that agency that keeps an eye on attorneys, takes a dim view of lawyers that break our rules and laws.
Maybe Laux should brush up on our rules and laws if he is going to be operating in our state.
Stay tuned, there is a lot more to come of this story.
***UPDATE - 03/19/18***
A reader sent us a screenshot from Laux's Twitter account that explains why he did not want footage of his press conference to be circulating.
Laux said that he was inarticulate.
We guess that an inarticulate attorney would be damaging to your case and you would be ill-advised to have an inarticulate attorney represent you.
