Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    39813
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Well, I guess here's a thing. Lawyers are required to report unethical conduct in violation of the rules, as set forth in the rule above. But only conduct that they KNOW about, as well as a few other nuances expressed and hinted at in the rule, above. That actually tends to require witnessing it in its full context. I think a lot of bystanders and laypeople think they've seen unethical conduct by what is reported as having happened by various sources, but lacking a lot of context, if not being flat-out inaccurate. And I suppose this means that someone somewhere, one of us lawdogs, should have reported that fucker post-haste. But the lawdogs rightly don't trust legal reporting. It's mostly shit. And even if it's not shit, you really do have to have actually witnessed it or been a party to it to make a valid ethics complaint or report. Most Texas lawyers of a certain age, that came along during and for a few years after the S&L crisis are pretty attuned to ethical things, at least as concerns litigation conduct. That era of hideous bullshit produced the famous Dondi opinion https://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Dondi.PDF and the Texas Lawyer's Creed. One feature of that era was both sides to every dispute accusing the other side of litigation misconduct and ethical violations at every turn. So, perhaps unsurprisingly, making an ethics report against another attorney is not something taken lightly. Doing it improvidently or out of pique or to gain an advantage is probably itself an ethical violation.
  2. Also, I forgot to add that the primary remedy at the federal level for removal of corrupt judges is out of the hands of lawyers, it's impeachment. So another one of those instances when politics and electoral politics bounds or dictates aspects of the legal profession.
  3. That the profession is policed by the State Bar of Texas, which is in turn run by a lawyer voted for by lawyers and is funded by lawyer dues and taxes, is not a disputable fact. I said the effectiveness of that may be questionable. There are a variety of reasons for that, some of which I have touched on in this thread.
  4. Who exactly do you think leads the charge for reforms? https://www.aclu.org/ https://www.themarshallproject.org/ One of the issues made stark by the Trump prosecutions was the time/delay involved in securing convictions and exhausting appeals. Most lawyers tend to accept that everything takes a helluva long time and that maybe it's the right balance of cost and experience. But funding is, as much as any other single thing, the determinant of the length of delays. More judges means less work for each judge and more court time to devote to the various matters before them. Might also need a few more courtrooms. There are 46 current federal judicial vacancies. https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judicial-vacancies/current-judicial-vacancies And that is existing judgeships. Almost every district court in the US is or has recently been under consideration for added judgeships, but no one wants to pay for it. 75 most recently. https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2025/03/11/judiciary-seeks-71-judgeships-meet-growing-caseloads
  5. Well, what this presupposes is that there is something these people did, before they became judges, that disqualifies them from being lawyers, and in turn, judges, that their fellow lawyers should have acted upon. Also, Scalia doesn't really belong in that pantheon of shitheads. As a shithead, he was a real piker compared to those other two, and Alito, and a couple dozen others you could name.
  6. No one said anything is just fine. Lawyers do self police, or the bar polices them. The effectiveness of that may be questionable, the fact that it happens is not. The lawyers getting disbarred and disciplined every month reported in the Bar Journal has been posted here before. https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&ContentID=67750&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm
  7. By the same token, it is actually the lawyers who are doing the most, and the most effectively, to at least slow this shit down. It is quite distressing that there are lawyers, but fewer of them, on the other side. And, your post also demonstrates that law is a reflection of the society it serves. What society values, the law protects, what society doesn't value, it does not. In and out groups and whatnot. And that's not inherently a reflection on lawyers, but the framework in which lawyers operate, which is heavily influenced, or bounded by political/legislative/electoral actions.
  8. The other thing is that this is probably what Medicare will pay for that drug, not what you, I, or our insurance company will pay for that drug. And Pharma is gonna sue the shit out of the Administration and this will not take effect, if at all, for years.
  9. Well, the other major thing is the failure to hold Trump to account.in the criminal cases, save one, which is not yet final/subject to appeal. Setting aside for the moment SCOTUS dilatory review and pretty fucked up immunity decision, the biggest problem with the criiminal cases was the delay, which was unfortunately entirely predictable even without Trump's notorious stalling tactics. And yes, you can actually set aside the immunity decision, because I think Smith secures convictions even despite it, had the delay not been such a factor, and of course the supervening fucking 2024 election. Goddamn.
  10. You're a lawdog IIRC? The Bar has some decent stuff on tech, including some trial and demo software. Can google around for it. https://sbot.org/techbytes/ https://www.texasbarpractice.com/law-practice-management/practice-technology/
  11. But the rule is as follows. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_3_reporting_professional_misconduct/ No duty to root out corruption, just report it. No duty to follow through after reporting.
  12. Well, you know, it's actually Bozo that's trying to engraft some extra nobility onto lawyers by constantly citing the barriers to entry and the lofty goal of "upholding legal process." On the other hand, I am explaining the nuts and bolts of lawyering. And how the more dramatic some scenario appears to be, it might not actually be so dramatic. I am not one that has a particularly rosy view of lawyers. A lot of us are utter greedy shitheads. Some are ethically compromised. Our system works reasonably well in much of the workaday legal world, but has the problems noted continuously here and elsewhere. Many of those problems are foisted on the system by politicians and voters. Some, notably the pay to play, is inherent.
  13. I really don't mind it. Thought I would, but don't. Of course, I am only start/stopping a 2L fourbanger. Might be more intrusive with a bigger engine. Somewhat surprisingly, in start/stop city driving, it saves about 10% on gas consumption. https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/do-stop-start-systems-really-save-fuel.html But this is red meat for idiots.
  14. Well, yeah, that's why I said it. In response to the allegation that the legal profession, in particular, is in some sort of crisis, implicitly one that didn't exist at some other time.
  15. Which wrong is that? Yes, they're hiding behind strained interpretations of Supreme Court emergency orders, but when pressed on whether those orders, or their own interpretation of foreign policy or national security powers gives them the ability to ignore court orders or outright defy them; they flinch.
  16. I mean, doesn't he have some obligation to root out corruption and incompetence in the profession and stay after the Bar to make sure the defendant is adequately sanctioned? That's another practical problem with lawyer discipline. One of the first levels of discipline is not the Bar, but the trial courts where misconduct occurs. All too often, opposing counsel move for sanctions from the court not for a real professional ethics violation, but for an overblown allegation made to secure a tactical or strategic advantage. Courts get sick of it and become even less inclined to sanction lawyers on their own, or on motion of an opponent. I made the mistake of thinking your "crisis" allegation had more current applicability than your general gripe that lawyers don't police themselves adequately. I thought it extended to some conception that if that were the case, the Sidney Powell s of the world wouldn't exist. And maybe the Uncle Ruckuses and Guido Alitos.
  17. Well, there will be some sort of pimpadelic gold-plated monument thing called a library and filled with Trumpian gimcracks and bullshit. NFTs, memecoins, trading cards, sneakers, guitars, etc.
  18. Yeah, this is it. For all the grousing of us "true fans," the fact is that the fans are the ones paying for all this shit by paying for tickets, purchasing merch, and watching games on networks (and paying the networks, too, now). No other aspect of fandom matters.
  19. I can't prove it, obviously, but Trump I's USTR, Robert Lighthizer, had been a GOP trade guy for a long time. Although he is by reputation a trade hawk, it seems he kept Navarro and some of Trump's worst instincts tamped down, like a lot of people in Trump I. This guy was Lighthizer's number 2, which I guess means isn't the same guy but maybe close. Fairly obviously, he didn't have Navarro and Trump tamped down. He looks pretty young/junior to me. Although I'm pretty sure I hate Bessent, the fact that he and this guy seem to be dominating the discussion these days may be a positive sign for the rationals. That's one of the best posts I've ever seen from Empty wheel, though. The clips of the legal briefs show that review of a president's declaration of emergency for tariff purposes may be unreviewable. Congress needs to get off its ass and take back tariff power ASAP.
  20. He's a savant at the above. Generally speaking, he's a moron.
  21. Of course the major driver of this is that asshole has to have the newest toys. Probably pimped out in gold leaf.
  22. Well that is certainly a more pointed statement than "the legal profession is in crisis," which implies that at one time it was not in crisis and doesn't really give a clue as to what the crisis might be. I didn't intend to make you defend a straw man. Your premise, in keeping with your more pointed statement immediately above, was that rich and powerful law firms, or more accurately their constituent lawyers are rarely disciplined for acts like "defrauding the courts." I submit that rather than being a result of their being rich and powerful, it's because they don't regularly defraud courts or commit other professional violations. Sure, they do unto others, but well within the letter of the law the vast majority of the time. One other factor relating to my practical considerations post above. Rich clients (eg corporations) tend not to file malpractice suits, or grievances on lawyers, they just fire them. Despite its presence in the Model Rules (and preambles are typically regarded as surplusage anyway), it's still a near- or completely meaningless phrase, aspirational rather than enforceable. See, e.g. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" and scads of other gobbledygook in legal prose from the Constitution on down.
  23. That's not the issue. The issue is disciplining lawyers for filing unpopular lawsuits, no matter how justifiable is that lack of popularity, is highly problematic, because it is often unpopular or sketchy-looking cases that are the vehicle by which the law is improved. Or, take away discipline entirely, curtailing the ability of lawyers to file unpopular lawsuit and proceedings is similarly problematic. Take tort reform. Although the narrative was a) largely false and b) highly promoted by moneyed interests, it was a popular narrative because everyone knows someone that was sued in a "bullshit lawsuit." We curtailed the ability of lawyers to file injury lawsuits, medical malpractice in particular, on the basis of a popularity contest. Bad business. But just because the un/popularity is based on true or accurate facts, or is justifiable, doesn't make this good business. A real example. It is, indeed, very difficult to find medical experts to testify against their brethren in civil medical malpractice suits. A friend of mine, now an orthopedic surgeon, reviewed malpractice cases for a plaintiff's law firm (but did not and could not testify, as he wasn't actually a doctor yet). But he was super hush-hush on the QT about that whole thing lest it affect him professionally. You will find no shortage of lawyers willing to testify against their brethren in malpractice cases or any other kind of professional discipline thing. The reason bars and medical associations have problems with discipline is two-fold, or three-fold. First, unlike a CPA license or many other professional credentials, it is absolutely necessary to practice (an accountant can still count beans quite lucratively without a CPA license, for example). For many docs and lawyers, their license is a ticket to wealth and personal self-regard and they're not going to let it go without a helluva fight. This is related to the second, or 1(a): many lawyers and doctors will fight like hell, are reasonably or unreasonably wealthy, and willing and able to fund a stout defense. The third, or second independent reason, is State Bars and Medical Associations aren't particularly wealthy or well-funded and they cannot attract or retain (ie pay) top flight lawyers to oppose these stout defenses, and they are also spread too thin and overworked in most cases.
  24. Taken on it's face, it's price controls. That thing they were so made at Kamala about. And, at some point, he was all hot and bothered about tariffing imported drugs, which is a whole lot of them.
  25. As to the first point, I don't believe the richest and most powerful law firms often defraud courts. Do they do other possibly unsavory things within the letter of the law, sure they do. So do the poorest and dumbest lawyers. Is Susman Godfrey a rich and powerful law firm? What about Perkins Coie? Williams & Connolly? I don't know what "uphold legal process" means. Obey the rules of Civil Procedure? Criminal Procedure? Someone's interpretation of the Constitution? Never try to change the laws? Never make an argument that goes against or is unsupported by existing precedent? Never file a lawsuit that is skimpy on facts and relies on discovery to establish the facts to support it? Only file lawsuits that someone determines "support democracy" or some other halcyon notion of righteousness? The most glaring recent example of a lawyer that tried to "defraud" a court was Sidney Powell and her Kraken bullshit. She was sanctioned in one court where the opponent asked for sanctions, she was not in other courts because the opponent didn't ask for it. The State Bar of Texas acted on one or more grievances, and brought disciplinary "charges" that failed basically because the Bar lawyers were incompetent. So, the legal profession then, temporally, has always been in crisis. Marbury v. Madison is now considered a foundational principle of this country, but there were actually people arguing against the judiciary's power and duty to declare what is the law. So, I guess those opponents were so unamerican, or undemocratic, or anti-judicial-review, combined with the fact that their dispute made it to the Supreme Court that the legal profession has been in crisis in this country basically from the outset. Worth noting that Marbury is Calvinball. And John Marshall, as Adams' Secretary of State, should have recused himself. I think what you and many are trying to argue is a more sophisticated version of "criminal lawyers are scum because they represent criminals." There's a lot of actual scum running around these days and they're getting representation, as tends to be their right. But, they're also being opposed and the opposition is winning at a handy rate. The composition and decisions of the current Supreme Court, and some of the Courts of Appeals are worrisome to a crisis extent, but that's a product of political processes, not the legal profession or system itself.
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...