TwinPortsWatch wrote:
In my ever expanding research into the field of Bail Bonds I have found myself with another area of concern that I hope the members from this forum can assist me with.
I am currently trying to obtain information on the courtroom procedures for a Bondsman. I am curious on where I can find information on these procedures and/or if anyone can help me out by explaining the process for me. I am guessing that all states may differ in their court procedures but I am also hoping that the procedures are similar in many ways. I have placed a call with the Minnesota State Court Administrators Office in hopes of getting some information out of them. I have not heard back from them as of yet but I am sure I will soon.
I have a general knowledge of courtroom procedures but I have never actually paid attention to the business of a Bondsman in a court room.
Once again, any and all input is much appreciated.
http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=306http://www.mncourts.gov/ruledocs/general/GRtitleVIII.pdfhttp://www.courts.state.mn.us/Documents/0/Public/Rules/GR_titleVIII_01-01-2010.pdf http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/04bbarts/bb0904.htmlRule 702. Bail
In other words in short if your caught Giving out a card or Offering Business in a Court House, without being asked for your Business or card you can not only be fined but Arrested and charged with a Criminal proceeding
We all do it and rarely does a court ever Enforce but do it to much they will usually ban you from the court or proceed with legal charges, be careful if you do do it , most jails have the same policy with clothing no Advertisement of any sort.
I wear mine now and then sometimes I'm asked to take it off not always .
And Just as I was about to call it Quits Here's the full Rules and Laws for your State
http://www.courts.state.mn.us/Documents/0/Public/Bail_Bonds/Bail_Bond_Procedures.2009.pdfV. Standards of Conduct. Bonding agencies, agents and surety companies are expected to behave ethically and professionally while conducting business in the Minnesota Courts. Each has a responsibility not only to the defendants, defendant’s families and the courts, but also to the continuing improvement of bail bond services.
A. Professional and Ethical Conduct.
1. Responsibility to Comply with Court Policies and Procedures. It is imperative to be knowledgeable of and comply with all applicable statutes, court rules, Judicial Branch and State Court Administrator policies and bail bond program standards and notice requirements.
Actions that may be considered a violation of this standard include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Engaging in bail bond business without approval from the SCAO;
b. Failure to promptly provide all necessary information to the court upon receipt of notice of forfeiture, or upon personal knowledge of forfeiture or breach;
c. Failure to promptly notify the SCAO of changes in contact information, criminal status, etc. (see separate notices document);
d. Failure to use proper forms and provide all pertinent and required information to the court; and
e. Soliciting business in the courtroom and court affiliated areas of the courthouse. Bail bond professionals are prohibited from soliciting business in the courtroom and other court affiliated areas of the courthouse.
2. Responsibility to Uphold Professional Behavior. All individuals engaged in bail bond business shall conduct themselves consistent with the dignity of the court while interacting with the court and while present in court premises.
Actions that may be considered a violation of this standard include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Failure to observe local court protocols, rules and procedures;
b. Engaging in behavior that does not comport with the dignity and decorum of the court;
c. Failure to dress professionally and in appropriate courtroom attire;
d. Engaging in any kind of distracting activity in the courtroom, such as having unnecessary conversations, loud whispering, reading newspapers and magazines; and
e. Engaging in activity that calls attention inappropriately to the agent in the courthouse.
3. Responsibility to the Court. Bonding agencies, agents and surety companies shall be honest with the court in all matters and shall always strive to provide complete and accurate information to court administration, judges, attorneys in the court, bailiffs and SCAO.
Actions that may be considered a violation of this standard include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Intentional misrepresentation of a fact to court administration, judges, attorneys in the court, bailiffs or SCAO;
b. Providing information to the court without verifying it with law enforcement or defendants as appropriate; and
c. Engaging in conduct that is not within the best interest of the court and court users.
4. Responsibility to Court Users. Because agents are responsible only for providing bail bond services to defendants and defendant’s families, they should limit themselves to the activities required to provide such services.
Actions that may be considered a violation of this standard include, but are not limited to the following:
a. Engaging in activities that could be construed as legal practice;
b. Personally performing official acts that are the official responsibility of court officials including, but not limited to, court clerks, attorneys and judges; and
c. Making comments and representations which may lead the public to believe that the agent is practicing law or is a member of the court staff.
B. Sanctions. A failure to comply with, or a direct violation of, any provision in the Standards of Conduct may be the basis for removal from the Statewide List of Approved Bail Bond Agents or other sanctions as provided in Section VI, Complaint and Investigation Process.
The laws that Abide to Lawyers abide to US
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Solicitation
Since the Pietsch decision, lawyers have inquired about the applicability of the Court’s decision to the in-person solicitation prohibitions governing lawyers and those associated with lawyers. The short answer to these inquiries is that nothing has changed. In-person as well as telephonic solicitation by lawyers and their agents is not only unethical, but also illegal if the lawyer pays the runner to solicit clients.
A quick comparison of the legal regulations governing solicitation reflects the significant distinctions between the chiropractic and legal professions. As noted in Pietsch, professional conduct standards for chiropractors do not specifically address solicitation of patients. In contrast, Rule 7.3, Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, expressly prohibits in-person or telephonic solicitationFtn 5 by a lawyer unless a prior professional relationship exists with the prospective client or the client is a family member.Ftn 6 Assisting or inducing a nonlawyer (i.e., runner or capper) to violate the solicitation prohibition runs afoul of Rule 8.4(a).Ftn 7 Rule 7.2(c) makes it unethical to give anything of value to a person for recommending the lawyer.Ftn 8 Applying the Court’s Pietsch analysis to lawyer conduct, Rules 7.2(c), 7.3 and 8.4(a) define in-person and telephonic solicitation, as well as paying for the solicitation of clients, as unprofessional conduct per se. These rules may also constitute evidence of the industry standard the Court found lacking for the chiropractic profession in Pietsch.
Beyond legal ethics standards, Minnesota law also criminalizes lawyer payment of a fee or commission to runners and cappers. See Minn. Stat. §§481.03 and 481.05 (providing that payments by lawyers to anyone other than another lawyer for securing or soliciting clients is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine and 90 days in jail). State law does not include an analogous provision applicable to chiropractors’ use of runners or cappers. If such a provision had existed, it is entirely likely that the Pietsch result would have been different. This is especially true since the Court did not find that chiropractor solicitation was constitutionally protected. Rather it determined the Board had failed to provide sufficient evidence that chiropractor solicitation was unprofessional conduct per se or that it was harmful to the public for the reasons advanced by the Board.
The Pietsch chiropractic discipline proceeding is consistent with a larger effort by government agencies on both the state and federal level to curb or thwart healthcare fraud. One factor cited by the Chiropractic Board in its discipline of Pietsch is that payments to runners “can encourage patients to exaggerate or invent injuries.” Similar concerns undoubtedly caused the 2002 Legislature to enact Minn. Stat. §609.612, making it a felony to employ a runner to procure patients for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining benefits under a contract of motor vehicle insurance.
Within the past year, federal investigations focusing upon use of runners and cappers resulted in the indictments of local chiropractors for healthcare fraud. Key to the investigations was the testimony of runners who sought leniency in their own prosecution in exchange for testimony against chiropractors about incidents of healthcare fraud. Unfortunately, the allegations made by these runners were not limited solely to the chiropractic profession. Although no lawyer was implicated in healthcare fraud, allegations of in-person solicitation and lawyer payments to runners surfaced in the federal investigation. Runners from more than one ethnic community claimed to have been paid fees for soliciting legal clients or fees for nonexistent interpretation services to conceal that they were in fact being compensated for soliciting clients.
Although lawyer discipline for in-person solicitation and nonlawyer referral payments is infrequent, complaints of this nature are on the rise. Most of these complaints, like the complaint in Pietsch, stem from alleged abuses within the various ethnic communities in the Twin Cities. One ongoing lawyer discipline investigation involves allegations of payments for interpreter services as pretext for runner solicitation fees. Other alleged abuses include a runner soliciting legal representation at the home of an accident victim within 24 hours of the accident. In nearly all of the ethics complaints alleging runner solicitation, the determinative issue is whether the lawyer directed, assisted, promoted, induced or ratified the improper solicitation by the runner. Other ethics complaints have similarly turned upon the lawyer’s supervision, or lack thereof, of nonlawyer employees or agents.
As the healthcare fraud prosecutions have shown, changes in the criminal laws have provided significant incentive for runners and cappers to bite the hands that feed them. Lawyers wishing to avoid disciplinary exposure to solicitation violations need only keep a few simple precepts in mind.
Written solicitation letters targeted to prospective clients are permissible, in-person or telephonic contact is not.Ftn 9 Accepting referrals from nonlawyers is allowable whereas compensating nonlawyers for those referrals is not. Payments for interpreter or other client-related services must be bona fide. Invoices reflecting the time expended by the interpreter in rendering the services should be documented in client files. Undocumented cash payments for interpreter or other client-related services will likely garner increased scrutiny in any disciplinary investigation.
Retainer agreements signed by clients who have never consulted or even talked with a firm’s lawyer invite disciplinary inquiry. Lawyers who entrust investigators and other nonlawyers with retainer forms and the authority to sign up clients must appreciate the peril of this practice if the client later contends he or she was improperly solicited.
Other measures include precautions that may appear obvious to most lawyers. Investigators, interpreters, or other nonlawyer associates should not be allowed the autonomy to supplant or circumvent the lawyer’s involvement at crucial stages of the representation. Such stages include, but are not limited to retention of the lawyer’s services, advising the client about settlement offers, and distributing settlement proceeds. Language or cultural barriers between the lawyer and the client do not justify wholesale entrustment of the representation to a nonlawyer agent, assistant, or employee. Lawyers who do so risk professional discipline as they can be held accountable for the errant or dishonest acts committed by nonlawyers so entrusted. See e.g., In re Krueger, A04-303 (Minn. 07/12/04) in which a 30-day suspension resulted from inter alia the lawyer’s failure to supervise a nonlawyer investigator who settled the injury claim of a deceased client, secured a forged endorsement on the settlement check and releases, and caused the lawyer to distribute settlement proceeds to the deceased client’s wife.
The Pietsch decision makes it likely that for now in-person solicitation of chiropractic patients will continue. Lawyers who work closely with the chiropractic community need to appreciate the significant distinctions between chiropractic and lawyer regulations when it comes to soliciting clients.
________________________________________________________
Rule 702. Bail
(a) Approval of Bond Procurers Required. No person shall engage in the business of procuring bail bonds, either cash or surety, for persons under detention until an application is approved by the State Court Administrator’s Office. Approval shall permit the applicant to issue bail bonds throughout the State of Minnesota. Nothing in this section shall infringe upon a judge’s discretion in approving a bond. The application form shall be obtained from the State Court Administrator’s Office. The completed application shall then be filed with the State Court Administrator’s Office stating the information requested and shall be accompanied by verification that the applicant is licensed as an insurance agent by the Minnesota Department of Commerce. The approval granted under this rule may be revoked or suspended by State Court Administrator’s Office and such revocation or suspension shall apply throughout the State of Minnesota. Approved applicants are required to apply for renewal of approval within a time period (not less than one year) established by the State Court Administrator’s Office.
(b) Corporate Sureties. Any corporate surety on a bond submitted to the judge shall be one approved by the State Court Administrator’s Office and authorized to do business in the State of Minnesota.
(c) Surety Insolvency. Whenever a corporate surety becomes insolvent, the local agent shall notify the State Court Adminstrator’s Office and the court in
every county in which it has issued or applied to issue bonds, in writing immediately. Within fourteen (14) days after such notice to the court, the agent shall file with the court administrator a security bond to cover outstanding obligations of insolvent surety, which may be reduced automatically as the obligations are reduced. In the absence of such surety or security bond, a summons shall be sent to all principals on the bonds of the surety.
(d) Posting Bonds. Before any person is released on bond, the bond must be approved by a judge after submission to the prosecuting lawyer for approval of form and execution and filed with the court administrator during business hours or thereafter with the custodian of the jail. In cases where bail has been set by the court and the defendant has provided a bail bond with corporate surety, approval by a judge is unnecessary if the bond conforms to Form 702 as published by the state court administrator.
(e) Forfeiture of Bonds. Whenever a bail bond is forfeited by a judge, the surety and bondsman shall be notified by the court administrator in writing, and be directed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the bond within ninety (90) days from the date of the order of forfeiture. A copy of the order of forfeiture shall be forwarded with the notice.
(f) Reinstatement. Any motion for reinstatement of a forfeited bond or cash bail shall be supported by a petition and affidavit and shall be filed with the court administrator. A copy of said petition and affidavit shall be served upon the prosecuting attorney and the principal of the bond in the manner required by Minn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(e)(1). A petition for reinstatement filed within ninety (90) days of the date of the order of forfeiture shall be heard and determined by the judge who ordered the forfeiture, or the chief judge. Reinstatement may be ordered on such terms and conditions as the court may require. A petition for reinstatement filed between ninety (90) days and one hundred eighty (180) days from date of forfeiture shall be heard and determined by the judge who ordered forfeiture or the judge's successor and reinstatement may be ordered on such terms and conditions as the court may require, but only with the concurrence of the chief judge and upon the condition that a minimum penalty of not less than ten per cent (10%) of the forfeited bail be imposed. No reinstatement of a forfeited bond or cash bail shall be allowed unless the petition and affidavit are filed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the order of forfeiture.
(g) Forfeited Bail Money. All forfeited bail money shall be deposited in the state treasury in the manner provided by law.
(h) Bonding Privilege Suspension. A failure to make payment on a forfeited bail within ninety (90) days as above provided shall automatically suspend the
surety and its agent from writing further bonds. Such suspension shall apply throughout the State of Minnesota and shall continue for a period of thirty (30) days from the date the principal amount of the bond is deposited in cash with the court administrator.
(Amended effective March 1, 2009.)
Advisory Committee Comment--1997 Amendments
This Rule is derived from 4th Dist. R. 8.02. Pretrial release is governed by Minn. R. Crim. P. 6, and this rule supplements the provisions of that rule. The Task Force believes that specific, written standards relating to the issuance and forfeiture of bail bonds would be useful to practitioners, courts, and to those issuing bonds.
The Minnesota Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure recommended that this local rule be incorporated in the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts for uniform statewide application and the Task Force concurs in that recommendation. The 1997 amendment continuesthe practice of statewide uniformity, established an uniform bail bond application procedure and making the posting of bonds easier by using a standard form. The rule conforms the rule to the practice in use prior to 1997.
Rule 702(h) was amended in 1993, effective January 1, 1994, to establish statewide suspension of bonding privileges for a surety and a surety's agent in the event of failure to make payment on a forfeited bond. This rule is necessary to ensure that irresponsible sureties not be allowed to move from district to district.
The power to revoke bail bonding privileges must be exercised sparingly. Courts considering this action should give consideration to the appropriate procedure and the giving of notice and an opportunity to be heard if such process is due the bond person. See, e.g., In re Cross, 617 A.2d 97, 100-02 (R.I. 1992) (show cause hearing procedure based on probable cause, with clearly defined burden of proof, not inherently unconstitutional); American Druggists Ins. Co. v. Bogart, 707 F.2d 1229, 1234-36 (11th Cir. 1983) (corporate surety authorized by Secretary of Treasury has right under U.S. Constitution to present bonds to court for approval).
Advisory Committee Comment – 2004 Amendments
Rule 702 is amended in 2004 to allow it to operate appropriately under the system of statewide approval of bond procurers. Under the revised rule, the State Court Administrator’s Office reviews and approves bond procurers, and that approval is then applicable in all district courts. The changes in the rule are not intended to change the rule other than to effect this centralization of the agent approval process.
Advisory Committee Comment—2008 Amendment
Rule 702(d) is amended to remove Form 702 from the rules, and to permit the maintenance and publication of the form by the state court administrator. The form, together with other court forms, can be found at
http://www.mncourts.gov/.
