"Interview With a Lawyer" (hopefully more)

On March 07 2015 09:47 dAPhREAk wrote:
not sure how many lawyers there are on tl; i only know a couple, but there are a couple of law students and then there is plansix. if you have a question, i wont be shy.

On March 07 2015 09:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll play nice in this thread.

On March 07 2015 09:33 GreenHorizons wrote: considered pursuing it as a profession. While the 'busy/paperwork' part of the job/educational path was never something that appealed to me (I doubt I'm alone on that in any professional path), the argumentative/life changing side appealed to me.

On March 07 2015 09:01 dAPhREAk wrote:

CalBar applies a generous slap to the wrist to drunk drivers and people who steal their own clients' money. i am sure they don't care about my traffic infractions.

On March 08 2015 16:04 Chill wrote:
You wrote a lot about "curious" and "questioning" but didn't ask any questions...

On March 09 2015 01:26 Pino wrote:


Being concise is considered a great quality among lawyers, unless you want to troll the opposing party or just gain time.
You should go straight to the point

I want to have a discussion about morals/ethics in the field of law with people who have a background in the subject, please don't get mad at me when I ask questions.

The question that started the discussion is "When a lawyer is aware of the factual guilt of their client but is victorious in the assertion of the absence of their clients legal guilt, do they view that as a victory, loss, or tie for 'justice' itself?"

Here's a Link to where the discussion started.

On March 09 2015 05:37 Parametric wrote:
After looking through the ask/answer thread, I think Thieving Magpie summarized your question (his post) and why people are having a difficult time answering you. It would've been more concise, and in my opinion better, to have replaced your entire OP with a direct question (the first ~4 lines of Thieving Magpie's post) and a link to where the discussion started. Your blog post reads like you're beating around the bush because you don't want to step on anyone's toes.

I could literally replace everything you wrote in the first post of this thread with



That quote is 86 words, your blog post is 437. Expanding on points is great but a person shouldn't be able replace 437 words with basically "I want to have a discussion please don't get mad at me" + + Show Spoiler +

On March 09 2015 08:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
its frequently not career ending because the people being abused tend not to be sophisticated or financially well off enough to do anything about it. think of the poor and elderly for teh most part. one prime area for abuse is people taking money, promising to help sort out mortgages so that people who can no longer afford it can stay in their homes, and then coming back and saying the mortgagor refuses to budge although the attorney really didnt do anything. this is a prime area of abuse in the last decade and a focus of CalBar.

i feel attorneys who steal their clients fund should be treated like any other person who commits theft plus extra since they are considered fiduciaries. CalBar tends to be more lenient and forgiving than I.

funny story though, i got $7500 in sanctions against an attorney last year. he was supposed to self report, but i doubt he ever did. we debated reporting it to CalBar just because he is an ass, but elected not to get involved. he has extensive history so may have received more than a slap on the wrist.

One single lawyer has of late years found means to
live here, but his best fortune proceeds more from
having married one of the wealthiest heiresses of the
island, than from the emoluments of his practice : how-
ever he is sometimes employed in recovering money
lent on the main, or in preventing those accidents to
which the contentious propensity of its inhabitants
may sometimes expose them. He is seldom employed
as the means of self-defence, and much seldomer as the
channel of attack; to which they are strangers, except
the fraud is manifest, and the danger imminent. Law-
yers are so numerous in all our populous towns, that
I am surprised they never thought before of establishing
themselves here: they are plants that will grow in any
soil that is cultivated by the hands of others ; and when
once they have taken root they will extinguish every
other vegetable that grows around them. The fortunes
they daily acquire in every province, from the mis-
fortunes of their fellow-citizens, are surprising! The
most ignorant, the most bungling member of that pro-
fession, will, if placed in the most obscure part of the
country, promote litigiousness, and amass more wealth
without labour, than the most opulent farmer, with all
his toils. They have so dexterously interwoven their
doctrines and quirks with the laws of the land, or rather
they are become so necessary an evil in our present
constitutions, that it seems unavoidable and past all
remedy. What a pity that our forefathers, who happily
extinguished so many fatal customs, and expunged
from their new government so many errors and abuses,
both religious and civil, did not also prevent the intro-
duction of a set of men so dangerous ! In some provinces,
where every inhabitant is constantly employed in tilling
and cultivating the earth, they are the only members
of society who have any knowledge ; let these provinces
attest what iniquitous use they have made of that knowledge.
They are here what the clergy were in past
centuries with you; the reformation which clipped the
clerical wings, is the boast of that age, and the happiest
event that could possibly happen ; a reformation equally
useful is now wanted, to relieve us from the shameful
shackles and the oppressive burthen under which we
groan; this perhaps is impossible; but if mankind
would not become too happy, it were an event most
devoutly to be wished.

On March 10 2015 02:28 Pino wrote:
Deontological problems for members of the bar in France feel to me like they are handled well better.

No self reporting bullshit. Clear rules regarding lawyer's responsibility. And also several obligations regarding my work ethic. I dunno the exact rules but felony (not necessarily through my work and against my client) seems like a clear cause of disbarment.

Client privilege prevents me from reporting any crime or fact I hear from a client, unless he allows me to do so. And I live perfectly fine with that, even when it deals with ugly things, which has already happened to me. The thing is you've got to consider that you defend a man, not the crime. And your line of defense will depend from the facts. You will not fight for acquittal if you can't.
If the case happens that you know your client committed something ugly, and you can still hope for acquittal, it only means investigators sucked balls. So that's not really your fault. Such a case never happened to me in such a way, so I don't really know how I would feel.
2 weeks ago I had a case where 2 guys were declared not guilty of rape charges. Everyone in the court knew something weird/unclear happened, but there were not enough evidences. Since it's kind of a very high principle that doubt must benefits to the accused, I was kinda fine with it.

One exception regarding money laundering, I have to tell it to the chairman of the bar who then will have to deal with it (the lucky guy)

However, if I happen to violate my deontological rules (lack of respect of client privilege ; over billing undone work etc.) I will be first judged by my peers. In case of appeal by a judge.

I hope I cleared some questions regarding lawyers mentality and how we deal with everyday ethical matters.

On March 10 2015 04:35 Pino wrote:


Rules differ vastly across countries, even across bars.

Even the conception of justice is different between anglo-saxon and romano-germanic systems.

Bar rules are related to a whole concept of the profession that dates back to several centuries. Thus you definitely can't compare what Phreak and I are saying since we have very different jobs.

On March 10 2015 04:17 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar journal is our local rag where we can see all suspensions, disbarments, etc. you can see here the kind of stuff that is necessary for you to be removed from the profession (i.e., disbarment). i especially like the only interim suspension for the dude who was caught with child pornography.

http://www.calbarjournal.com/March2015/AttorneyDiscipline/Disbarments.aspx

On March 11 2015 05:30 GreenHorizons wrote:


Is it possible to see if any of those criminals/lawyers went to jail/prison?

On March 11 2015 05:47 dAPhREAk wrote:

i am sure it is possible, but i dont know an easy way of doing it.

On March 11 2015 06:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
California has over 200,000 active (I think) members. These "bad apples" account for a very small proportion of the total. That being said, these are the ones who got caught and were punished. Many more get away without punishments.

I have been unpleasantly surprised that even in one of the states where bar passage rate is relatively low (~50-60%), we still have such shitty lawyers though.

Psychopathy is a personality disorder that has been variously described as characterized by shallow emotions (in particular reduced fear), stress tolerance, lacking empathy, coldheartedness, lacking guilt, egocentricity, superficial char, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity and antisocial behaviors such as parasitic lifestyle and criminality.”

So which professions (other than axe murderer) do they disproportionately gravitate towards — or away from?

On March 11 2015 08:23 dAPhREAk wrote:
i dont have any statistics on the rate of offending for lawyers vs. other professions, so i don't know. given that substance abuse is so prevalent in the profession, i would not be surprised if there was a significant percentage of offenders.

i am not sure how Mr. Dutton came up with those lists so have no comment about them, but my gut reaction is it sounds like bullshit. i also find his groupings odd. so, civil rights lawyers are grouped with business lawyers as +psychopath? pro bono death row lawyers are grouped with oil lawyers? i also find the distinction between surgeons and doctors amusing.

i would be curious to see an actual list of known psychopaths and their professions.

On March 11 2015 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:


You have mentioned substance/client abuse a few times now so I am curious whether you (or other lawyers) think that there should be increased policing of lawyers to try to root out abuse both of substance and client? As it seems you agree with the inclination that they are not much less likely to commit these violations than the people who are currently more frequently and thoroughly policed (and they often end up helping to punish)?

If anyone can come up with the statistics being discussed it would be greatly appreciated.

Found something from the Smithsonian on his work

Psychopath info

It appears that one part of the general issue is a misconception that all psychopaths are criminals (or would be if convicted).

On that, a quick question. Is someone only a criminal if they get legally proven so or is someone a criminal when they break the law regardless if they get caught? I am asking in the legal sense and the personal sense if they are different.

On March 11 2015 08:58 dAPhREAk wrote:

the incidence of substance abuse (mostly alcohol) is higher in the legal profession than any other profession supposedly. the ABA and state bars have been trying to get help for substance abusers with varied level of success. substance abuse courses are required for cal attorneys every three years (along with other continuing legal education). as for policing, every lawyer has a responsibility to "police" attorneys under their purview, and partners are responsible for other partners. however, that doesnt really help much with solo practitioners, nor is it likely that a responsible attorney is going to turn their associates or partners into the authorities since it will harm their own practice. the likely result is just terminating the associate or disassociating the partner from the law firm. also, what do you do about functioning substance abusers, which is a real thing. if you are talking about more oversight from outside agencies, i cant think of any functioning regulatory body that would be able to do that until the lawyer fucks up (i.e., DUI/DWI).

you are only a criminal if you are convicted or plead out in the legal sense. thats why people standing trial are referred to as the accused. common parlance rarely has anything to do with the law since people watch too many cop shows.

On March 11 2015 09:06 GreenHorizons wrote:


Would the police not work?

Should law firms not be punished for covering for people committing criminal acts, even if it is to prevent harming their firm?

Functioning users get put in jail/prison all the time? Why would/should it be different for lawyers?

On March 11 2015 09:41 dAPhREAk wrote:
i thought we were going to leave the personal comments at the door in this thread. you don't know me, or where i grew up or lived. you would likely be surprised.

whether you are required to report a crime is determined by law; its unrelated to lawyers. whether you are required to report misconduct is determined by the bar of each state. model rules require it.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_3_reporting_professional_misconduct.html

it appears calbar does not have such a requirement, which surprised me. they did not adopt the model rule.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ca/narr/CA_NARR_8.HTM#8.3

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.

California lawyers do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other lawyers or judges.

On March 11 2015 11:16 dAPhREAk wrote:
calbar doesnt consider it a glaring problem apparently.

On March 11 2015 11:42 GreenHorizons wrote:



You mentioned being surprised, do you consider it a problem? Do any of the law minded still following the conversation?

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.

On March 11 2015 11:57 dAPhREAk wrote:

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 12:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


Have you not witnessed misconduct?

On March 11 2015 12:04 dAPhREAk wrote:

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 12 2015 04:46 dAPhREAk wrote:
i do not think its a problem.

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.

On March 12 2015 04:58 dAPhREAk wrote:
i do not think its a problem.

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?

On March 12 2015 05:39 dAPhREAk wrote:

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.

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.

On March 12 2015 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:


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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

On March 13 2015 01:53 dAPhREAk wrote:

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 02:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


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 02:43 dAPhREAk wrote:

missouri has a report requirement.

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/ClerkHandbooksP2RulesOnly.nsf/c0c6ffa99df4993f86256ba50057dcb8/4f930e097a3384ea86256ca60052123e?OpenDocument

On March 13 2015 10:34 Cam Connor wrote:
The reason that's not quite accurate is that daphreak is intelligently answering any and all psuedo-questions, doing a remarkable job of interpreting statements with no actual, legitimate content, and not taking the bait that is not as subtle as the baiter thinks it is

you're a better man than me, daphreak

On March 13 2015 10:58 farvacola wrote:
dAPHREAk is one of the worst people on the Internet ever. Don't be fooled!

On March 13 2015 11:23 GreenHorizons wrote:


I can't help but laugh at the whiners. Really nothing better to do?

On March 13 2015 13:39 MountainDewJunkie wrote:

​Damn, he's running out of words. It's a festivus miracle.

On March 16 2015 01:10 QuanticHawk wrote:
This whole thread is one giant piece of gotcha bullshit orchestrated by a person who clearly has no idea what he is talking about... at least it was a fun read!

the most funny part is that you actually expect to do more of these after people can clearly see what a baiting asshole you are after this

On March 13 2015 10:58 farvacola wrote:
dAPHREAk is one of the worst people on the Internet ever. Don't be fooled!

On March 16 2015 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:


lol besides the clear personal attack I have no idea what you are talking about. Any "gotcha" moments were from genuine reflection and arose naturally in the line of questioning.

I didn't even know it about California's distinct legal arena until Phreak linked it to me. But I'm glad you enjoyed the read nonetheless.

On March 16 2015 12:49 QuanticHawk wrote:

You literally have a gotcha quote from your conversation as your signature. What is the purpose of that if not to celebrate your 'victory'. Everyone picked up on your intentions from the get go, but that just confirmed what everyone already suspected.

That kind of stupid childish shit is lame no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. It's shitty political trolling.

On March 16 2015 13:56 GreenHorizons wrote:


It's not a "gotcha".

On March 16 2015 14:19 QuanticHawk wrote:

What's the purpose of the quote in your sig? lol

On March 16 2015 14:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
the quote does not bother me in the least bit. what does bother me though is that this was supposed to be a Q&A session without turning into personal animosity and now you are attacking me personally. i took time out of my life to answer questions. i guess i was the fool by actually thinking this could be an informative Q&A session.

On March 16 2015 14:27 GreenHorizons wrote:


Read the rest of the post?



How in the world am I attacking you personally?

On March 16 2015 14:31 QuanticHawk wrote:

So rather than have people read his quote in context, you cherry picked something that may put him in a negative light. And rather than just leave it in the thread, you put it in your sig so that when you two bicker in the political threads, everyone can see how you owned him..??

Are you seriously trying to argue that this isn't textbook gotcha stuff hahahahha good lord

On March 16 2015 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:
daphreak this, daphreak that. thats making it personal.

On March 16 2015 14:31 QuanticHawk wrote:



Anyone giving a damn would have read the thread, and if you were actually interested in a real impartial conversation and not showing up someone as stated (lol) your sig would be a link to the thread.

The reason for my questioning of daphreak was inspired by a sincere curiosity, about what I perceive as a personal (meaning my own) deficiency, that doesn't allow me to see things the way I needed to in order to pursue said path. Plainly speaking, I'm asking questions that no one I had access to during my educational path could answer even remotely as well as daphreak has so far (forgiving that I might not have been able to articulate my questions as well back then).

On March 16 2015 21:00 QuanticHawk wrote:
This must be what it feels like to be interviewed by Bill OReilly.

Best of luck in finding more people to interview in such a manner, Daniel.

On March 16 2015 21:25 GreenHorizons wrote:
I imagine people have done a sufficient job of scaring them into thinking that it's a trap and not just a reasonable question though, so my optimism is tempered.

On March 16 2015 21:58 zf wrote:

You've done a good job of that yourself. I'd be happy to comment if I had any confidence that you wouldn't pluck six words out of several thousand for your signature line.

Police officers do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other police officers or their superiors

IRS Auditors do not have the duty to report the misconduct of other IRS auditors or their superiors

On March 17 2015 01:09 JieXian wrote:
I thought it was bad enough when this thread was only at page 1.

Mr GreenHorizon, I'm telling you sincerely that people aren't "hating" on you for whatever reason. You are being disrespectful.

It's not a "gotcha". I had no idea daPhreak felt that way. I disagree with that perspective and gave the Ferguson example as to why there needs to be punishment for people who don't speak up about corruption. (should have something to protect them from reprisal too). daPhreak didn't think there needed to be a rule let alone punishment for those who break it.

daPhreak also thought that Ferguson should have resolved it's issues through normal reporting mechanisms ignoring that people tried (because he didn't see it), and that those efforts were stonewalled by the very people charged with protecting the people making the complaints.

He left saying that Missouri had the reporting requirement as a "see it didn't help" to which I replied that was my point. The mere rule doesn't mean much if it's not enforced. He doesn't see the lack enforcement (or even the lac of the rule) as a problem. I can't see how Ferguson isn't an example of why he's wrong.

Rather than drag the whole thread through why his argument (that I had no idea he was going to make) was wrong on Ferguson I summed it up in my signature.

If you think all this was a plan you guys need to lay off the tinfoil. The "gotcha" claims are from stuff he brought up unprovoked and that I never intended or planned.

I honestly thought phreak would agree that it was a problem, his response (captured in my sig) was a surprise to me. Moreover, if it's a reasonable position, there is no "gotcha" anyways...?

It would be like saying "hah gotcha saying you believe the earth is round".

You (and others) coming into a blog (you easily could of ignored) just to deride me, is the thing that comes off as childish lame shit...But hey, different strokes for different folks.

I truly appreciate his honesty, and respect it. I strongly disagree with the position, but I respect not just saying he thought it was a problem (or leaving it at "odd" because he realized saying "i dont think it's a problem" made him "look stupid" if he really believed it) because it clearly would of been the easier route imo.

On March 17 2015 06:38 dAPhREAk wrote:
i'll respond to your points so that you dont feel unfulfilled.


this is a misrepresentation of what i said. i dont think there needs to be a rule in the legal profession to snitch. this has absolutely nothing to do with ferguson in my mind. also, i never said such a rule shouldnt be punished, i absolutely do think if there was a such a rule that there should be punishment.


i said this in another thread, and you started this thread by saying you didnt want to bring politics into this thread, and then turned around and did it. also, way to completely ignore what i said in the other thread. selective reading is strong.


this is a misrepresentation. i just said they have a reporting requirement, i added no commentary. when did i ever make a comment about lack of enforcement? also, why are you trying to prove i am wrong in a thread dedicated to me trying to give you an attorney's perspective only? wtf.


again, wtf? this was supposed to be a q&a session. why are you trying to prove anything?


i think they are saying its a gotcha thread because you came in with preconceived notions and then ignored everything i said unless it fit your preconceived notions.


why even mention me? calbar doesnt consider it a problem so why does my opinion matter one way or another? you single me out when you can make the same point by saying calbar doesnt think its a problem. also, your quote makes you look stupid. you take one sentence out of the discussion and ignore the context. why dont you explain why i dont think its a problem? its like you want me to look unreasonable despite the numerous points as to why i dont think its a problem.


kind of misses the points being made.


i was uninvolved so have no comment.

i see you edited this in to another comment.


so now i am stupid for an opinion? also, if just saying "i dont think its a problem" makes me look stupid why is that all that you put in your signature? perhaps you want to make me look stupid?

On March 17 2015 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:


Would of been better to address it as it came up instead of building up toward a rant. I don't think it makes you "look stupid" that was Hawk, hence the quotes.

Otherwise there is so much parsing it's ridiculous. Despite my lengthy explanation the point of this was clearly not made. I could present the best explanation possible and it wouldn't change anyone's mind at this point anyway.

I don't really see a point to respond to most of that stuff. It's not worth the time. Sorry you all think you wasted your time. I learned a lot. Better luck next time.

If a lawyer were obliged to report every violation of the Rules, the failure to report any violation would itself be a professional offense. Such a requirement existed in many jurisdictions but proved to be unenforceable. This Rule limits the reporting obligation to those offenses that a self-regulating profession must vigorously endeavor to prevent. A measure of judgment is, therefore, required in complying with the provisions of this Rule. The term "substantial" refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware. A report should be made to the bar disciplinary agency unless some other agency, such as a peer review agency, is more appropriate in the circumstances. Similar considerations apply to the reporting of judicial misconduct.

So I wanted to open with a good faith effort to show I don't come into this looking to score points or anything. I am sincerely curious and am only seeking to better understand. If I appear to be attempting to score some political points here it is not intentional and I will not fight being called out on it.