Rule 4-8.4(d) "A Lawyer shall not: …engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice…"

RULE 4-1.7 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CURRENT CLIENTS

(a) Representing Adverse Interests.
Except as provided in subdivision (b), a lawyer must not represent a client if:
  • (1)  the representation of 1 client will be directly adverse to another client;
  • RULE 4-1.11 SPECIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST FOR FORMER AND CURRENT GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
  • (a) Representation of Private Client by Former Public Officer or Employee. A lawyer who has formerly served as a public officer or employee of the government:
  • (1) is subject to rule 4-1.9(b) and (c); and
  • (2) shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation.
  • RULE 4-1.9 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; FORMER CLIENT
  • A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter must not afterwards:
  • (a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent;
  • (b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or
  • (c) reveal information relating to the representation except as these rules would permit or require with respect to a client.
RULE 4-8.4 MISCONDUCT A lawyer shall not:
(a)
violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, except that it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer for a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to advise others about or to supervise another in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule, and it shall not be professional misconduct for a lawyer employed in a capacity other than as a lawyer by a criminal law enforcement agency or regulatory agency to participate in an undercover investigation, unless prohibited by law or rule;
(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law;
(g) fail to respond, in writing, to any official inquiry by bar counsel or a disciplinary agency, as defined elsewhere in these rules, when bar counsel or the agency is conducting an investigation into the lawyer’s conduct. A written response shall be made:

RULE 4-3.5 IMPARTIALITY AND DECORUM OF THE TRIBUNAL
(a) Influencing Decision Maker. A lawyer shall not seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror, or other decision maker except as permitted by law or the rules of court.
(b) Communication with Judge or Official. In an adversary proceeding a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except:
  • (1)  in the course of the official proceeding in the cause;
  • (2)  in writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to the opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer;
(3) orally upon notice to opposing counsel or to the adverse party if not represented by a lawyer; or
(4) as otherwise authorized by law.
(c) Disruption of Tribunal. A lawyer shall not engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.
(d) Communication With Jurors. A lawyer shall not:
(1) before the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with anyone the lawyer knows to be a member of the venire from which the jury will be selected;
(2) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with any member of the jury;
(3) during the trial of a case with which the lawyer is not connected, communicate or cause another to communicate with a juror concerning the case;
(4) after dismissal of the jury in a case with which the lawyer is connected, initiate communication with or cause another to initiate communication with any juror regarding the trial except to determine whether the verdict may be subject to legal challenge; provided, a lawyer may not interview jurors for this purpose unless the lawyer has reason to believe that grounds for such challenge may exist; and provided further, before conducting any such interview the lawyer must file in the cause a notice of intention to interview setting forth the name of the juror or jurors to be interviewed. A copy of the notice must be delivered to the trial judge and opposing counsel a reasonable time before such interview. The provisions of this rule do not prohibit a lawyer from communicating with members of the venire or jurors in the course of official proceedings or as authorized by court rule or written order of the court.
Comment
Many forms of improper influence upon a tribunal are proscribed by criminal law. Others are specified in Florida’s Code of Judicial Conduct, with which an advocate should be familiar. A lawyer is required to avoid contributing to a violation of such provisions.
The advocate’s function is to present evidence and argument so that the cause may be decided according to law. Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of the advocate’s right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge but should avoid reciprocation; the judge’s default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate. An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review, and preserve professional integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.

Florida’s Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions
7.1 Disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer intentionally engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Commentary "Disbarment should be imposed in cases when the lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that violates a duty owed as professional with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and which causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a client, the public or the legal system. For example, disbarment is appropriate when a lawyer intentionally makes false material statements in his application for admission to the bar. For example, in In re W. Jason Mitan, 75 Ill.2d 118, 387 N.E.2d 278 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 916 (1979), the respondent made false statements and deliberately failed to disclose certain information on his application for admission to the bar. These false statements and omissions included his failure to disclose at least four of his previous addresses, the wrong birth date, his change of name, a previous marriage, a subsequent divorce, other law schools attended, application for admission to another state’s bar, previous employers and occupations, prior civil suits and arrests, and conviction of a felony. The court felt that these falsehoods and omissions had a direct effect on the ability to practice law and be a competent member of the profession, and imposed disbarment."
7.2 Suspension is appropriate when a lawyer knowingly engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system.
Commentary "Suspension is appropriate when the lawyer knowingly violates a duty owed as a professional and causes injury or potential injury to a client, the public, or the legal system, even when a lawyer does not intentionally abuse the professional relationship by engaging in deceptive conduct. Suspension is appropriate, for example, when the lawyer did not mislead a client but engages in a pattern of charging excessive or improper fees. A suspension is also appropriate when a lawyer solicits employment knowing that the individual is in a vulnerable state. For example, in In re Teichner, 75 Ill.2d 88, 387 N.E.2d 265 (1979), the court suspended a lawyer for two years who was invited by a minister to speak to victims of a railway disaster, but who then contacted victims whom he knew were still in a vulnerable state as a result of the tragedy."
Florida Statute § 455.225(10), states in pertinent part:

“The complaint and all information obtained pursuant to the investigation by the department are confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) until 10 days after probable cause has been found to exist by the probable cause panel or by the department, or until the regulated professional or subject of the investigation waives his or her privilege of confidentiality, whichever occurs first.”

Any such information that is disclosed which is confidential information that is exempt from public record, is punishable as provided in Chapters 119 and 455 of the Florida Statutes.


Harvey Ayers MUST GO PETITION

Brian Keisacker works for Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. in Sarasota, Florida.

Question: if a lawyer, namely Brian Keisacker in this case who works for the law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. does not know what due process is, ignores the legal doctrine of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, did not giving proper notice to a litigant before issuing a ruling stated notice was given when it wasn’t that was overturned by the Circuit Court and who serves on a local Sarasota County contractor board illegally as a consumer representative in violation of the ordinance then what was the purpose of going to law school at Stetson Law School? Is Brian Keisacker of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. untrained? Is Brian Keisacker that corrupt and one sided? Is Brian Keisacker purposefully ignorant to the law? Or is he corrupt? You decide and ask yourself, would you even dream about hiring Brian Keisacker of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. for any reason after discovering who he is? All the above are supported by the facts!

It is our beliefs from personal experiences with lawyer Brian David Keisacker, who works for the law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. that Brian Keisacker has violated Respondent’s constitution rights where Brian D. Keisacker as chairman of the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board did not accord due process guaranteed under the United States Constitution and served as a consumer representative, Brian Keisacker is in clear violation of Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3), where Brian Keisacker earns income from the construction industry.
Yet Brian Keisacker refuses to follow the law:

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney whose name is Brian D. Keisacker.

Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., and is UNETHICAL.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is a SCHEMER.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who ILLEGALLY serving on a construction board.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is DEFIANT.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is CALLOUS.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian D. Keisacker who is DELIBERATELY INDIFFERENT.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is will continue to WRECK THE LIVES OF THOSE HE JUDGES IN HIS OWN HYPOCRISY.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who has a SMUG ARROGANCE.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who has VIOLATED THIS AUTHOR’S CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS RIGHTS.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is UNQUALIFIED.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian David Keisacker who is WITHOUT A MORAL COMPASS AND HAS TAKEN THE UNETHICAL PATH AS AN ATTORNEY IN PURSUIT OF POWER, INFLUENCE AND GREED.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who' s BEHAVIOR IS UNACCEPTABLE, UNPROFESSIONAL AND BLATANT VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who has displayed PROHIBITED MISCONDUCT EXHIBITED BY BRIAN KEISACKER.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who displays CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who does NOT CARE ABOUT THE LAW.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is NOT THE PROFESSIONAL ONE MIGHT EXPECT.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is VIOLATING THE LAW.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is ARROGANT.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is SELF SERVING.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is UNTRUSTWORTHY.

Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., employs an attorney Brian Keisacker who is again, UNETHICAL!
Brian David Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Immoral.

Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Unprofessional

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Defiant

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has No Integrity

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Arrogant

Brian David Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Not Trustworthy

BRIAN KEISACKER



BRIAN KEISACKER

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Unethical

Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is Adverse

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has No Scruples.

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Lacks Integrity.

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is unworthy adjective dishonest, or morally wrong

Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is sketchy adjective informal dishonest or not reliable

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Is conniving: adjective dishonest in a clever way, especially in order to get something that you want or in order to harm someone

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Has exhibited Illegal Behavior.

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., Is Unqualified to serve on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board

Brian D. Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is DANGEROUS.

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is DISHONEST

Brian David Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is IMMORAL

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is ARROGANT

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., is POMPOUS

Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has violated Rule # 4-8(d) governing the Florida Bar as follows:

(d) engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic;

Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has been instrumental in violating constitutional rights and complicit in committing a due process violations.

Brian David Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has been complicit in injustice.

Brian Keisacker of the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., has violated due process and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in several cases.

Brian Keisacker works for the law firm Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A.: The law is the law and Brian Keisacker has purposefully violated Section 22-127(3) of the Sarasota County Ordinance, Brian Keisacker, Shame on BRIAN KEISACKER!

  • The content of this website is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which are beliefs based on personal experiences with Brian Keisacker as well as the law; and court orders issued by the Circuit Court. Sarasota County Ordinance 22-127(3) which Brian Keisacker has willingly and purposefully violated by serving on the Sarasota County General Contractors Licensing and Examining Board as a consumer representative, which states... “The citizen at large member shall be selected for appointment from Sarasota County resident applicants deriving no income from any source connected with the construction industry. “ Thus Brian Keisacker has, and clearly and willfully violating the law, ethics and his credibility, etc.

  • Florida Statute 489.131(10) “...The consumer representative may be any resident of the local jurisdiction who is not, and has never been, a member or practitioner of a profession regulated by the board or a member of any closely related profession.” Brian Keisacker is a construction attorney who works for the law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A., and represents dozens of clients in matters that are directly related to the construction industry.


  • “Prepare and file pleadings, motions, and responses to all aspects civil litigation in areas including foreclosure, boundary disputes, construction defects…”

  • A lawyer (Brian Keisacker) who has willfully violated ethics and clearly established law is not trustworthy and is in fact unethical and unprofessional. The opinions stated herein are supported by the law, the facts and personal experiences and are protected under free speech per the First Amendment of the United States of America.
  • The law firm of Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. are not the target of these remarks. They are only being pointed out as to where Brian David Keisacker (Florida Bar number 12156) currently works.

  • Brian David Keisacker (attorney, lawyer) works for Ulrich, Scarlett, Wickman & Dean, PA,713 S Orange Ave Ste 201 Sarasota, FL 34236-7755. The phone number for Ulrich, Scarlet, Wickman & Dean, P.A. is 941-955-5100. Brian Keisacker’s phone number is 941-704-6735.
brian-keisacker-unethical-behavior-3
BRIAN KEISACKER

unethical-lawyer-brian-keisacker

BRIAN KEISACKER

brian-keisacker-unethical-3

BRIAN KEISACKER

brian-keisacker-caution-2
BRIAN KEISACKER

brian-keisacker-ethics-
BRIAN KEISACKER
brian-keisacker-ignorance-of-the-law
BRIAN KEISACKER

brian-keisacker-ignorance-of-the-law-666
BRIAN KEISACKER
brian-keisacker-ethics

BRIAN KEISACKER


brian-keisacker-mistake-of-law-copy
BRIAN KEISACKER
brian-keisacker-is-deceitful

BRIAN KEISACKER

brian-keisacker-no-morals

BRIAN KEISACKER



BRIAN KEISACKER