|
On March 12 2015 05:39 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 05:06 GreenHorizons wrote: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? 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.
I'll come back to this.
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?
"raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects"
what situations are you contemplating that make you concerned there is widespread misconduct thats not getting reported?
Specifically in California, one would be the sketchy mortgage stuff cited in the suspensions and such. It's not merely whether it is reported or not, but that there is little-no culpability for other lawyers who knew/could see what they were doing and did/said nothing.
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.
That's you . You should have the same responsibility as anyone in society. As for the mandatory part, it's laudable that you don't think you need a duty to report for you to report what you deem necessary. But on the off chance you would ever be wrong about what you deem a necessary report or that there may be lawyers less astute at assessing what qualifies as "raise[ing] a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects" than you are, one needs some rule (perhaps even a law) to refer to in order to take action against those who help perpetuate a violation by not reporting it.
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.
I presume the focus on lawyers here is self explanatory? As for other professions. I have similar concerns. They are reasonably (imo) primarily aimed at the justice system though. Self policing within a group is especially important for those who make the rules and/or enforce/arbitrate them. It can't be the only mechanism, but it can't be left to linger either.
Ferguson is an example. While not every police officer was likely intentionally policing in a blatantly racist way, some obviously were. Some officers stood by and said/did nothing. Meanwhile civil/Constitutional rights were regularly being violated. A system that doesn't punish or in some cases protects people from punishment who are supposed to uphold the law, but are instead standing idly by, watching the law be trampled by their peers is going to struggle to be trusted.
While I'd like to think that what happened in Ferguson couldn't happen with California lawyers and some issue like mortgage scams, there is not much to support that view. The handling of the related rules in California really suggests the opposite.
As for unrelated professions, I imagine medicine has some rules that cover this stuff but I could be wrong. I don't see why something of a similar standard couldn't/shouldn't be applied elsewhere as appropriate though.
|
if i quote, i'll fuck it up. so i'll try my best.
the standard you quoted is incredibly vague, but i think your question is whether to require reporting, not what to do once reporting is required, so i'll leave it alone.
the example you provided is an example of something i would never know my opposing attorney is doing. most of the misconduct that leads to disbarment is something i as opposing counsel would never know my opposing attorney is doing.
i would agree that if we were required to report, we would need clearly laid out standards. but i dont think we need to report.
i dont see the relevance of ferguson, and i already explained that in my ten year career i have never been faced with a situation where i questioned whether to report another lawyer so you can use that anecdotal evidence to support the view if you were so inclined. i think one thing you have to consider is most conduct of lawyers is in public; at least litigators. if they do something illegal that screws with the other side, the other side will bring it up to the court that handles the case. for the stuff done in private, that is usually between attorney and client, and the other side wont know whats happening. in such circumstances, its incumbent on the client to control their attorney and they have many ways of doing so.
you are right on medication. i just recalled my wife (as a pharmacist) has reporting requirements, but thats because she works with regulated drugs.
|
On March 12 2015 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
if i quote, i'll fuck it up. so i'll try my best.
the standard you quoted is incredibly vague, but i think your question is whether to require reporting, not what to do once reporting is required, so i'll leave it alone.
the example you provided is an example of something i would never know my opposing attorney is doing. most of the misconduct that leads to disbarment is something i as opposing counsel would never know my opposing attorney is doing.
i would agree that if we were required to report, we would need clearly laid out standards. but i dont think we need to report.
i dont see the relevance of ferguson, and i already explained that in my ten year career i have never been faced with a situation where i questioned whether to report another lawyer so you can use that anecdotal evidence to support the view if you were so inclined. i think one thing you have to consider is most conduct of lawyers is in public; at least litigators. if they do something illegal that screws with the other side, the other side will bring it up to the court that handles the case. for the stuff done in private, that is usually between attorney and client, and the other side wont know whats happening. in such circumstances, its incumbent on the client to control their attorney and they have many ways of doing so.
you are right on medication. i just recalled my wife (as a pharmacist) has reporting requirements, but thats because she works with regulated drugs.
I don't have time for the rest at the moment, but you don't see the parallel between police watching the law being trampled by their peers and having no requirement to report it and lawyers having the opportunity to do the same?
Also we never really decided if we were clear on the police thing.
|
On March 12 2015 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2015 07:00 dAPhREAk wrote:
if i quote, i'll fuck it up. so i'll try my best.
the standard you quoted is incredibly vague, but i think your question is whether to require reporting, not what to do once reporting is required, so i'll leave it alone.
the example you provided is an example of something i would never know my opposing attorney is doing. most of the misconduct that leads to disbarment is something i as opposing counsel would never know my opposing attorney is doing.
i would agree that if we were required to report, we would need clearly laid out standards. but i dont think we need to report.
i dont see the relevance of ferguson, and i already explained that in my ten year career i have never been faced with a situation where i questioned whether to report another lawyer so you can use that anecdotal evidence to support the view if you were so inclined. i think one thing you have to consider is most conduct of lawyers is in public; at least litigators. if they do something illegal that screws with the other side, the other side will bring it up to the court that handles the case. for the stuff done in private, that is usually between attorney and client, and the other side wont know whats happening. in such circumstances, its incumbent on the client to control their attorney and they have many ways of doing so.
you are right on medication. i just recalled my wife (as a pharmacist) has reporting requirements, but thats because she works with regulated drugs. I don't have time for the rest at the moment, but you don't see the parallel between police watching the law being trampled by their peers and having no requirement to report it and lawyers having the opportunity to do the same?
lawyers are adversaries; police are the blue wall. it doesn't really work so well. the only parallel really is lawyers in the same firm, but there are specific rules for such attorneys.
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_5_1_responsibilities_of_a_partner_or_supervisory_lawyer.html
|
i dont remember what the police thing is.
|
Lawyers aren't always adversaries? One could learn about violations in other settings. Presumably lawyer's have lawyer friends/acquaintances they don't practically supervise.
Also 5.1 seems to deal with management and doesn't say much about peers?
The police part was having the police crack down on substance abuse in lawyers like they crack down on anything else.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/479836-interview-with-a-lawyer-hopefully-more?page=2#38
|
you want me to snitch on my friends/acquaintances? thats some 1984 level shit there. if that is where this conversation is going, i absolutely do not agree with a reporting requirement. if a friend comes to me to discuss how he/she should handle a tricky ethical or legal issue (we commonly do things like this), and i have a duty to report him/her if i feel they make the wrong choice, thats a batshit insane system.
5.2 addresses what i assume you mean to be peers.
i guess i'll have to say i am not clear on the police thing because i dont know whats left that you want answered. i am fine with police cracking down on lawyers for illegal acts involving substance abuse.
|
On March 12 2015 07:45 dAPhREAk wrote:
you want me to snitch on my friends/acquaintances? thats some 1984 level shit there. if that is where this conversation is going, i absolutely do not agree with a reporting requirement. if a friend comes to me to discuss how he/she should handle a tricky ethical or legal issue (we commonly do things like this), and i have a duty to report him/her if i feel they make the wrong choice, thats a batshit insane system.
5.2 addresses what i assume you mean to be peers.
i guess i'll have to say i am not clear on the police thing because i dont know whats left that you want answered. i am fine with police cracking down on lawyers for illegal acts involving substance abuse.
You realize the vast majority of the drug war is fought using the concept of people snitching out their friends and acquaintances?
|
again, is that a statement or a question? i will only be answering questions about lawyers. i am not discussing the drug war.
|
On March 12 2015 10:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
again, is that a statement or a question? i will only be answering questions about lawyers. i am not discussing the drug war.
The drug war is just an example, the question I'm asking isn't about the drug war. My point is that as a lawyer I presumed you were aware that a large part of the legal system is people snitching on their friends and acquaintances? Whether it's drugs, terrorism, political corruption, etc... snitching is a crucial part of the system.
I don't really see how one could argue snitching isn't a fundamental part of the justice system? So the question was, since you seem to have such strong objections to lawyers snitching on each other, I was wondering if you had realized that snitching is a fundamental part of how the system functions?
EDIT: in italics
|
first, you are referring to the criminal justice system, not the entire justice system. and thats more of a discussion for police officers, not lawyers. i really doubt there are many snitches who go on the stand, but thats not my cup of tea since i am a civil lawyer, and never dealt with snitches when i worked in criminal.
second, i don't see getting paid to snitch or getting lesser charges to snitch as the same as a mandatory requirement to report other lawyers. its not even on the same wavelength.
third, my comment and exasperation was directed at snitching on friends/acquaintances. the whole idea of reporting your inner circle is incredibly 1984ish.
finally, stop asking questions that assume the answer. if you want a discussion, fine. if you want to make points, you dont need me for that purpose.
edit: to be clear, i dont care if lawyers snitch on each other. its a mandatory reporting requirement that i was discussing.
|
On March 12 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:
first, you are referring to the criminal justice system, not the entire justice system. and thats more of a discussion for police officers, not lawyers. i really doubt there are many snitches who go on the stand, but thats not my cup of tea since i am a civil lawyer, and never dealt with snitches when i worked in criminal.
second, i don't see getting paid to snitch or getting lesser charges to snitch as the same as a mandatory requirement to report other lawyers. its not even on the same wavelength.
third, my comment and exasperation was directed at snitching on friends/acquaintances. the whole idea of reporting your inner circle is incredibly 1984ish.
finally, stop asking questions that assume the answer. if you want a discussion, fine. if you want to make points, you dont need me for that purpose.
edit: to be clear, i dont care if lawyers snitch on each other. its a mandatory reporting requirement that i was discussing.
Well maybe looking at Ferguson makes it more clear?
Where you had everyone from the street cops all the way up to a judge all in on violating the constitution and no one said/did anything and no one who watched it all happen will have any repercussions.
You might say that only the people doing it knew about it, but that would defy what has become clearer over time.
That attitude of "well if my buddies break the law I wouldn't snitch" (more specifically rules that makes that mindset acceptable) when used by the people which are the human part of the system (lawyers,cops,etc) creates the perfect breading grounds for the outrageous miscarriages of justice that were happening at a town sized level in Ferguson.
|
What was that again about not going for the gotcha moment, GH? Tell us: what virtuous, moral, consistent, prominent career are you involved with currently? If you got paid per superfluous syllable you would out-earn any lawyer I know.
|
On March 12 2015 12:33 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
What was that again about not going for the gotcha moment, GH? Tell us: what virtuous, moral, consistent, prominent career are you involved with currently? If you got paid per superfluous syllable you would out-earn any lawyer I know.
I don't think what I do to live/pay bills is a "virtuous, moral, consistent, prominent career " although I wouldn't mind one. So you need not show me how my jobs no better.
Doctor, lawyer (especially judges), cops, EMS, fire fighters, farmer those are the types of jobs I thought of as "virtuous, moral" jobs Some of them more prominent than others.
To come back to how this is about questions I needed answered. In order to be a rule keeper type (lawyer, judge,cop,etc) I was under the impression one had to be the type that would essentially keep the rules for your friends/acquaintances as well as strangers.
In question form:
Do lawyers (rule keepers when I was a child) have to treat people they like/love with equal deference to the law that they do people they don't particularly care about or despise?
'Upstanding' people always told me more or less yes. (usually with a family exception)
My inability to avoid that type of nepotism was a big factor as to why the 'rule keeper' professions felt out of reach to me. Hence why I referred to it from the start as a deficiency
Some said "NO!" "They said things like "snitches get stitches".
Every effort to 'clean up' the communities I've been a part of have encouraged 'snitching' as the only way it could get done. The 'cleaners/upstanding people' being the 'rule keepers'.
The ones who said no, said that they (the 'rule keepers') did the same shit. I honestly thought that was a bullshit rationalization. I thought lawyers, cops, etc didn't do that. I thought they would speak up if they knew something wasn't right, even if it meant they would catch heat or it might harm someone they cared about.
So you see it's not supposed to be a gotcha moment? It's just daPhreak answered that question without me realizing I had asked it.
Lawyers/Judges were one I was still holding out hope for. That the arbiters of justice still held on to an ideal that put the law above their personal relationships.
I don't know what my conclusion will be, but my first impression is that it's undeniable bullshit that rule keepers expect the rest of us to snitch on each other but find the idea of doing it to their friendly peers repugnant.
And when the rule keepers assure us that they are following the rules themselves I don't believe it one bit.
|
You're in a tiny minority if you consider being a lawyer is a virtuous or moral job. Some lawyers certainly are upstanding citizens, but the profession in general is rarely perceived that way...
I just do patent prosecution, which has very few opportunities for ethical misconduct beyond insider trading-type actions. I doubt I'd report a coworker for something like that either.
|
On March 12 2015 15:20 ShadowDrgn wrote:
You're in a tiny minority if you consider being a lawyer is a virtuous or moral job. Some lawyers certainly are upstanding citizens, but the profession in general is rarely perceived that way...
I just do patent prosecution, which has very few opportunities for ethical misconduct beyond insider trading-type actions. I doubt I'd report a coworker for something like that either.
I tried to convince myself that it was just criminals trying to justify breaking the law or not telling on people who did. Obviously as I got older I got more disillusioned with the 'rule keepers'. Lawyers and judges were just basically the last group of 'rule keepers' who I thought, at least the ones who were considered decent, wouldn't ignore the law being broken just because it was a friend or acquaintance that did it. Finally I didn't know California went a step further and explicitly made it clear that turning a blind eye toward corruption of fellow lawyers was not an actionable offense.
Just to carry it full circle. The police want the community to come out and snitch on who shot the cops in Ferguson, but practically no one was/is calling for the police/lawyers to snitch on bad cops/lawyers. This is after the police chief (who was given 1 year of his nearly $96,000 salary before resigning yesterday) was caught telling bold face lies about why he released the tape of Brown in the convenience store and running a department that habitually disregarded the constitution.
|
Lawyers and judges were just basically the last group of 'rule keepers' who I thought, at least the ones who were considered decent, wouldn't ignore the law being broken just because it was a friend or acquaintance that did it. Finally I didn't know California went a step further and explicitly made it clear that turning a blind eye toward corruption of fellow lawyers was not an actionable offense.
what exactly do you think is happening? rampant corruption and misconduct that lawyers are just turning a blind eye to? I already told you that in my ten year career, I have never seen anything that I would considering reporting. Just because we don't have to report something doesn't mean stuff is happening. whether we have a mandatory duty to report or not, it wouldnt change a single thing in my life.
i am beginning to question whether you are actually reading my responses or just hearing what you want to hear.
|
On March 13 2015 01:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +Lawyers and judges were just basically the last group of 'rule keepers' who I thought, at least the ones who were considered decent, wouldn't ignore the law being broken just because it was a friend or acquaintance that did it. Finally I didn't know California went a step further and explicitly made it clear that turning a blind eye toward corruption of fellow lawyers was not an actionable offense. what exactly do you think is happening? rampant corruption and misconduct that lawyers are just turning a blind eye to? I already told you that in my ten year career, I have never seen anything that I would considering reporting. Just because we don't have to report something doesn't mean stuff is happening. whether we have a mandatory duty to report or not, it wouldnt change a single thing in my life. i am beginning to question whether you are actually reading my responses or just hearing what you want to hear.
I don't know how rampant it is, but Ferguson is a good example of what it looks like when it gets out of hand. I know you haven't seen anything like that, but you know it was/is happening.
|
On March 13 2015 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 01:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Lawyers and judges were just basically the last group of 'rule keepers' who I thought, at least the ones who were considered decent, wouldn't ignore the law being broken just because it was a friend or acquaintance that did it. Finally I didn't know California went a step further and explicitly made it clear that turning a blind eye toward corruption of fellow lawyers was not an actionable offense. what exactly do you think is happening? rampant corruption and misconduct that lawyers are just turning a blind eye to? I already told you that in my ten year career, I have never seen anything that I would considering reporting. Just because we don't have to report something doesn't mean stuff is happening. whether we have a mandatory duty to report or not, it wouldnt change a single thing in my life. i am beginning to question whether you are actually reading my responses or just hearing what you want to hear. I don't know how rampant it is, but Ferguson is a good example of what it looks like when it gets out of hand. I know you haven't seen anything like that, but you know it was/is happening.
missouri has a report requirement.
http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/4f930e097a3384ea86256ca60052123e?OpenDocument
|
On March 13 2015 02:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2015 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 13 2015 01:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Lawyers and judges were just basically the last group of 'rule keepers' who I thought, at least the ones who were considered decent, wouldn't ignore the law being broken just because it was a friend or acquaintance that did it. Finally I didn't know California went a step further and explicitly made it clear that turning a blind eye toward corruption of fellow lawyers was not an actionable offense. what exactly do you think is happening? rampant corruption and misconduct that lawyers are just turning a blind eye to? I already told you that in my ten year career, I have never seen anything that I would considering reporting. Just because we don't have to report something doesn't mean stuff is happening. whether we have a mandatory duty to report or not, it wouldnt change a single thing in my life. i am beginning to question whether you are actually reading my responses or just hearing what you want to hear. I don't know how rampant it is, but Ferguson is a good example of what it looks like when it gets out of hand. I know you haven't seen anything like that, but you know it was/is happening. missouri has a report requirement. http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/4f930e097a3384ea86256ca60052123e?OpenDocument
I'm aware that after you create the rule you have to enforce it. The lack of enforcement where the rule exists is troubling as well as not wanting/having the rule in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
