"Nobody has done more damage to peoples perception of civil rights in the last 20 years than the ACLU."
That is because the ACLU actually cares about principles, and not stupid tribalist loyalty. They protect the rights of everyone that they can.
Maybe the blog poster is a nut job, but saying "I think Swift is racist because of X, Y, and Z" is not legally actionable, and Swift has many methods to rebut that conclusion if it's so bothersome to her.
"True but if you hire a lawyer and s/he says "I'm not going to do the best I can to get you out, we both know you are guilty" then would you hire them? Unless you like prison I guess that is a no."
The actions a lawyer can take are, in theory, constrained by law and professional rules of conduct that must be adhered to. A lawyer is not supposed to be just a hired goon, but someone that gives professional advice. "The best that they can do" is not the same as "anything the client wants".
In the case of criminal defense, the lawyer is not allowed to advise the client to lie to try and get aquitted. What they can do is pound on the admissibility of evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or try to get a plea bargain to reduce the client's sentence.
In the case of speech disputes like the one here, Swift's lawyers are blowing smoke. They have no case, and if they have any degree of competence they know that the letter's a bunch of bull shit. In a just world this would be a sanctionable offense either as malfeasance or incompetence.
Right, because it is so difficult to understand the complex and difficult subject of...I hope I'm spelling this right...
something called "acting". Anyone who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality is not fit to be a judge.
If Bloomburg's argument is true (we know it's not, but pretend), and local rules can't make police deviate from the state code of conduct, doesn't that mean Bloomburg's precious "stop 'n' frisk" is illegal too under the very same argument?
It's really more a quibble over labelling. I'm not saying lawyers don't have to do these things; I'm saying it's not a matter of ethics, it's the entire reason the lawyer is being paid in the first place.
Not doing that isn't an ethical violation, it's a "you aren't even doing your fucking job right!" violation.
Just splitting hairs really, no point in arguing it too much.
There is a difference between things that gross some people out and things that harm other people. Learn the difference, and learn which one is bad and which isn't.
I don't think that's an ethical duty, it's more like the entire reason lawyers exist to begin with.
The client is the one that's going to be responsible for their lawyer's actions, so it's their absolute right to know what their lawyers are doing under their name. HDP should have cut and run and filed a bar complaint immediately after they heard that.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mark D..
Re:
"Nobody has done more damage to peoples perception of civil rights in the last 20 years than the ACLU."
That is because the ACLU actually cares about principles, and not stupid tribalist loyalty. They protect the rights of everyone that they can.
Maybe the blog poster is a nut job, but saying "I think Swift is racist because of X, Y, and Z" is not legally actionable, and Swift has many methods to rebut that conclusion if it's so bothersome to her.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lawyers
The actions a lawyer can take are, in theory, constrained by law and professional rules of conduct that must be adhered to. A lawyer is not supposed to be just a hired goon, but someone that gives professional advice. "The best that they can do" is not the same as "anything the client wants".
In the case of criminal defense, the lawyer is not allowed to advise the client to lie to try and get aquitted. What they can do is pound on the admissibility of evidence, cross-examine witnesses, or try to get a plea bargain to reduce the client's sentence.
In the case of speech disputes like the one here, Swift's lawyers are blowing smoke. They have no case, and if they have any degree of competence they know that the letter's a bunch of bull shit. In a just world this would be a sanctionable offense either as malfeasance or incompetence.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Re:
something called "acting". Anyone who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality is not fit to be a judge.
If it's true...
Is this lawsuit basically an own goal?
Re: Re: Re:
Not doing that isn't an ethical violation, it's a "you aren't even doing your fucking job right!" violation.
Just splitting hairs really, no point in arguing it too much.
Re:
Re:
The client is the one that's going to be responsible for their lawyer's actions, so it's their absolute right to know what their lawyers are doing under their name. HDP should have cut and run and filed a bar complaint immediately after they heard that.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Mark D..
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt