|
|
|
I apologize. I don't mean for it to be personal but I don't know anyone who thinks police officers only 'get involved' after a crime was committed. That seems absurd and contrary to piles of evidence as well as anecdotally to me?
Do you really think that's the reality or just how it 'should' be?
What motivation is there for not requiring reporting misconduct?
|
read my answers in context, not generally. you asked whether the police should be the regulatory body for lawyers with substance abuse issues. my answer is that there is no reason for them to get involved until a crime is committed.
the motivation behind California not adopting rules reporting misconduct is in the link i sent you.
|
On March 11 2015 10:05 dAPhREAk wrote:
read my answers in context, not generally. you asked whether the police should be the regulatory body for lawyers with substance abuse issues. my answer is that there is no reason for them to get involved until a crime is committed.
the motivation behind California not adopting rules reporting misconduct is in the link i sent you.
Ok, I see what happened. I didn't mean some regulatory body like the NFL has. I just meant police do what they do when they are cracking down on anything else.
On the rule...
California lawyers do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other lawyers or judges.
How has that not come up in the last decade? That has to stand out as a glaring problem, no?
|
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently.
|
On March 11 2015 11:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently.
You mentioned being surprised, do you consider it a problem? Do any of the law minded still following the conversation?
|
OP where are you going with this? While I do enjoy when daphreak puts on his big-boy pants and stops attempting to bribe me for a night with my wife, I can't help but feel you're going for some gotcha tactics, attempting to pit inherit "justice" against a person whose job is to allegedly defend it.
|
On March 11 2015 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently. You mentioned being surprised, do you consider it a problem? Do any of the law minded still following the conversation?
i was surprised because i recall it from law school; maybe we studied the model rules. its not a problem for me personally, i have never been put in a situation where i even considered reporting someone.
|
On March 11 2015 11:47 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
OP where are you going with this? While I do enjoy when daphreak puts on his big-boy pants and stops attempting to bribe me for a night with my wife, I can't help but feel you're going for some gotcha tactics, attempting to pit inherit "justice" against a person whose job is to allegedly defend it.
Not going for some gotcha moment, I said up front that I had morality questions among others that prevented me from pursuing a legal career and I said I view them as deficiencies. I was getting better responses here than I had from anyone I knew to ask growing up so I wanted to explore that.
Admittedly this last little bit about lawyers not having a duty to report their peers for misconduct is unsettling though. My nerves would be further unsettled to find out that lawyers in general don't see a problem with that.
Frankly I think a better argument could be made than the one CalBar made but not much better and probably not any more legally minded.
|
what morality issues do you have with becoming a lawyer? i have never had a moral crisis in my ten year career.
|
On March 11 2015 11:57 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently. You mentioned being surprised, do you consider it a problem? Do any of the law minded still following the conversation? i was surprised because i recall it from law school; maybe we studied the model rules. its not a problem for me personally, i have never been put in a situation where i even considered reporting someone.
Have you not witnessed misconduct?
|
On March 11 2015 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently. You mentioned being surprised, do you consider it a problem? Do any of the law minded still following the conversation? i was surprised because i recall it from law school; maybe we studied the model rules. its not a problem for me personally, i have never been put in a situation where i even considered reporting someone. Have you not witnessed misconduct?
yes. and i have filed motions to address it with the court, including requests for sanctions, with mixed results. i have not witnessed misconduct at my firm. there was an attorney who i felt was incompetent and was fired for it, but there was oversight to prevent her incompetence from harming our clients.
|
On March 11 2015 12:04 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:57 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently. You mentioned being surprised, do you consider it a problem? Do any of the law minded still following the conversation? i was surprised because i recall it from law school; maybe we studied the model rules. its not a problem for me personally, i have never been put in a situation where i even considered reporting someone. Have you not witnessed misconduct? yes. and i have filed motions to address it with the court, including requests for sanctions, with mixed results. i have not witnessed misconduct at my firm. there was an attorney who i felt was incompetent and was fired for it, but there was oversight to prevent her incompetence from harming our clients.
Did we clear up the police thing?
Just clarifying you're saying you basically reported it to the court as opposed to the bar? In cases within your own firm you relied on/thought the oversight was sufficient to prevent clients from being harmed?
What I meant by "do you (or anyone) think it's a problem" is; Do you (or any other legal minds) think it is a problem that CalBar has an opinion that would allow one lawyer to know about gross misconduct of another lawyer jeopardizing their client or their general integrity and would have no duty to report it?
|
the misconduct was by way of "discovery" and i filed appropriate motions to compel with the court. i have also had a breach of a preliminary injunction, which i handled by way of a contempt motion. these are mixed attorney/client misconduct.
with respect to my own firm, yes. internal oversight was sufficient. nobody cares more about pleasing our clients than us. we handle business accounts. the loss of a fortune 100 company would greatly harm our firm, and is not taken lightly.
philosophically speaking, yes, i think its odd that i dont have to report misconduct that would harm someone. realistically speaking, i have never been in a situation where i even considered reporting something to the bar (other than the sanctions i discussed above, but that was more because the guy was an ass). practically speaking, it is very difficult to determine whether someone has committed reportable misconduct. couple that with the animosity that would accompany a false report to the bar, which would greatly disadvantage informal resolution in the cases (to the disadvantage of both clients), and you have a recipe for disaster.
|
"Odd" and "problem" aren't really synonymous? So are you saying "Yes, it is a problem" or "No, it is odd though" or something else?
|
i do not think its a problem.
|
On March 12 2015 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:
i do not think its a problem.
You don't see a problem with a lawyer being able to watch another lawyer violate their responsibilities and having no duty to turn them in for it? Or that California is the only state where that is true?
Although a rules revision commission was appointed to bring California’s rules in line with the ABA Model Rules, the state — in fact the only state whose rules are not patterned after the Model Rules — will continue to differ in 12 key areas, four involving fees. The rules were last revised in 1987
The rules can be divided into two categories: those that were changed to mirror more closely the ABA Model Rules, and those that remain distinctly Californian.
Source
|
i do not think its a problem.
|
On March 12 2015 04:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
i do not think its a problem.
You do realize then why people on the outside might not have as much faith in lawyers that have gone out of their way to avoid being responsible for the bad apples among them?
|
On March 12 2015 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote:You do realize then why people on the outside might not have as much faith in lawyers that have gone out of their way to avoid being responsible for the bad apples among them?
is that a question or a statement? we have already discussed being responsible for your own law firms' attorneys. the question is whether you should be required to report adverse counsel's misconduct of which you have very limited knowledge at best.
also, what would you report? every time a lawyer fails to meet and confer before setting a deposition date (frequent occurrence), which violates Los Angeles Professional rules, I need to tattle to the bar? or, every time a lawyer fails to show up to a hearing on time or at all, i need to tattle to the bar? both of which are minor occurrences routinely dealt with informally by counsel and the courts, but now i am violating the rules of professional conduct by not reporting it?
what situations are you contemplating that make you concerned there is widespread misconduct thats not getting reported?
also, why should I be responsible for "the bad apples" among the California bar? if i saw something that needed reporting, i don't need a mandatory duty to report, i would just report it. however, i have never been faced with such a situation.
if this is a concern of the public (i doubt this greatly), why focus on lawyers? its not like there are such mandatory practices for other professions that i know of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
