Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Instead of the legal profession leading the charge for reforms to our justice system, we have attorneys patting themselves on the back and telling us that everything is fine and that they self police themselves so please leave them alone.

Posted
10 minutes ago, royiv said:

Instead of the legal profession leading the charge for reforms to our justice system,

What reforms to our justice system do you want to enact?

Quote

we have attorneys patting themselves on the back and telling us that everything is fine

Who? There are attorneys all over the country in conversations, on message boards, on television, in publications, and most importantly in court filing saying this Administration is violating the rule of law.

Quote

and that they self police themselves so please leave them alone.

Again, who? Where? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, royiv said:

we have attorneys patting themselves on the back and telling us that everything is fine

I don't see either one of those things happening.

I'm an attorney, and I'm pretty sure I have a pretty well-settled reputation around here for reporting that things are very much NOT fine.  And part of my lament, for that entire time, has been that the "not fine" is due in large part to the fact that lawyers, with pens and paper, are ill-equipped to even slow down a society dead-set on ditching the rule of law.  We can file the best cases, motions, and briefs, we can get all the writs and judgments you want....at the end of the day, they are LITERALLY just words and ideas.  When a society has opted OUT of words and ideas, and INTO brute force, then what the fuck?  You think all the lawyers in the world standing in front of the mob, saying "but I have a writ!", will make 1 billionth of a shit?

Lawyers are indeed becoming irrelevant.  Because that's how society wants it.  And if that's what society wants, no amount of lawyering will make a difference.

That is very, very, very bad.  Society shouldn't choose that, because the alternative is horrible, violent, unpredictable, and is inevitably completely coopted by those with the most power at the expense of everyone else.  But that message falls on deaf ears.  It doesn't matter if we follow that message with "Respectfully Submitted, Brisketexan, Bar Card # 12345" or not.

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't see either one of those things happening.

I'm an attorney, and I'm pretty sure I have a pretty well-settled reputation around here for reporting that things are very much NOT fine.  And part of my lament, for that entire time, has been that the "not fine" is due in large part to the fact that lawyers, with pens and paper, are ill-equipped to even slow down a society dead-set on ditching the rule of law.  We can file the best cases, motions, and briefs, we can get all the writs and judgments you want....at the end of the day, they are LITERALLY just words and ideas.  When a society has opted OUT of words and ideas, and INTO brute force, then what the fuck?  You think all the lawyers in the world standing in front of the mob, saying "but I have a writ!", will make 1 billionth of a shit?

Lawyers are indeed becoming irrelevant.  Because that's how society wants it.  And if that's what society wants, no amount of lawyering will make a difference.

That is very, very, very bad.  Society shouldn't choose that, because the alternative is horrible, violent, unpredictable, and is inevitably completely coopted by those with the most power at the expense of everyone else.  But that message falls on deaf ears.  It doesn't matter if we follow that message with "Respectfully Submitted, Brisketexan, Bar Card # 12345" or not.

There you go again just patting yourself on the back and saying everything is fine! That's all you've done the last few years! JUST STOP IT!

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I don't see either one of those things happening.

I'm an attorney, and I'm pretty sure I have a pretty well-settled reputation around here for reporting that things are very much NOT fine.  And part of my lament, for that entire time, has been that the "not fine" is due in large part to the fact that lawyers, with pens and paper, are ill-equipped to even slow down a society dead-set on ditching the rule of law.  We can file the best cases, motions, and briefs, we can get all the writs and judgments you want....at the end of the day, they are LITERALLY just words and ideas.  When a society has opted OUT of words and ideas, and INTO brute force, then what the fuck?  You think all the lawyers in the world standing in front of the mob, saying "but I have a writ!", will make 1 billionth of a shit?

Lawyers are indeed becoming irrelevant.  Because that's how society wants it.  And if that's what society wants, no amount of lawyering will make a difference.

That is very, very, very bad.  Society shouldn't choose that, because the alternative is horrible, violent, unpredictable, and is inevitably completely coopted by those with the most power at the expense of everyone else.  But that message falls on deaf ears.  It doesn't matter if we follow that message with "Respectfully Submitted, Brisketexan, Bar Card # 12345" or not.

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.

doug-kenney-what-the-hell-are-we-suppose

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.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, gernblansten said:

1. Do you think the legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis?

2. If not, cool, I misunderstood your post, my bad, enjoy your day. If so, can you specifically identify the ethical crisis?

3. Please identify a specific unethical act of at least one or two attorneys that have contributed to the legal profession being in midst of an ethical crisis because they would need to be reported by others attorneys who are aware of the unethical behavior. 

IMO:

1.) Yes

2.) The end of accountability for politicians and judicially sanctioned corruption

3.) Are judges still attorneys? If so then Eileen Cannon, Clarence Thomas, and Antoni Scalia. Everyone of those jack wagons have no ethical compass. Just blatant political hacks who seem to be immune from consequences 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
23 minutes ago, royiv said:

Instead of the legal profession leading the charge for reforms to our justice system, we have attorneys patting themselves on the back and telling us that everything is fine and that they self police themselves so please leave them alone.

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

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Just now, TwiceHorn said:

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

It's the only thing I read every month in the Texas Bar Journal:  How not to fuck up your law practice for good.*

*Usually the answer is "don't steal peoples money and lie to them about the work you're doing for them."  

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Haha 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

3.) Are judges still attorneys? If so then Eileen Cannon, Clarence Thomas, and Antoni Scalia. Everyone of those jack wagons have no ethical compass. Just blatant political hacks who seem to be immune from consequences 

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.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

IMO:

1.) Yes

2.) The end of accountability for politicians and judicially sanctioned corruption

3.) Are judges still attorneys? If so then Eileen Cannon, Clarence Thomas, and Antoni Scalia. Everyone of those jack wagons have no ethical compass. Just blatant political hacks who seem to be immune from consequences 

Thank you for your opinion. I appreciate your thoughts.

1. If you'd like to expound on how the legal profession is in the midst of an ethical crisis, I'd listen, but I respect your opinion that you leave it at "yes".

2. I think we can agree politicians have been held accountable in the past. Senator Bob Menendez was sentenced to 11 years in prison within the last few months. So, there is still some accountable somewhere. I would agree Trump is not in prison. I believe he was convicted of 34 felonies and found liable civilly due to the legal system. I can't comment on the judicially sanctioned corruption without some specific identification. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but if we're going to say those things it'd be good to know exactly what we're talking about. 

3. I would tend to agree. At any given time 5 justices can hold opinions based on their political beliefs, but can justify it interpreting laws. A large percentage  of lawyers and the public may not agree. And, it can swing back the other way when the numbers on the Court change. Do we want to throw Justices off the Supreme Court when we disagree, but not let "the other side" throw off Justices off when they disagree? Should Justices be voted on for retention?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

What reforms to our justice system do you want to enact?

Who? There are attorneys all over the country in conversations, on message boards, on television, in publications, and most importantly in court filing saying this Administration is violating the rule of law.

Again, who? Where? 

You, yourself are the one telling us that the legal profession polices itself so things are a-okay.

As far as justice reforms go, here are a few that I would like to see.

1. Get rid of private prisons. 

2. Ensure adequate representation for all. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of people with money. Our system is pay to play. It’s also heavily in favor of white people.

3. Move money from mass incarceration to rehabilitation and reentry programs.

4. Speed shit the fuck up. The wheels of justice move excruciatingly slow.

5. And, this is a big one, I’d like to see the judicial branch uphold the constitution and bring accountability to an unchecked executive branch.

Posted
2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Scalia, for all his flaws, was at least intelligent.

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

If so then Eileen Cannon, Clarence Thomas, and Antoni Scalia. Everyone of those jack wagons have no ethical compass.

Scalia definitely has no ethical compass. He just wants to eat brains and moan

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Haha 4
Posted
18 minutes ago, gernblansten said:

There you go again just patting yourself on the back and saying everything is fine! That's all you've done the last few years! JUST STOP IT!

I don’t include Brisket in that group. He’s a realist and speaks the truth on these matters. You, on the other end of the spectrum, come across as a smug lawyer who is the most back pattingest back patter out there.

Posted
38 minutes ago, royiv said:

Instead of the legal profession leading the charge for reforms to our justice system, we have attorneys patting themselves on the back and telling us that everything is fine and that they self police themselves so please leave them alone.

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

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Who exactly do you think leads the charge for reforms?

Clearly no one is doing it effectively because our system is circling the drain and the lawyers are doing jack shit about it. Instead of kowtowing to Trump, maybe some of those Big Law firms could redirect those resources of time and money into advancing actionable solutions.

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, royiv said:

You, yourself are the one telling us that the legal profession polices itself so things are a-okay.

Not one single time, which is why you didn't quote me.

Quote

As far as justice reforms go, here are a few that I would like to see.

1. Get rid of private prisons. 
 

I've got no objection to it. How do lawyers make that happen? Where does the government get the money to pay for it? 

Quote

2. Ensure adequate representation for all. The deck is stacked heavily in favor of people with money. Our system is pay to play. It’s also heavily in favor of white people.

Isn't adequate representation in the Constitution? Is it your position the representation for all isn't "adequate"? How do you intend to define whether every litigant in America has "adequately" been represented? Rich and white get better results than poor and brown. You know who determines that a lot of the time? Juries. You. Your friends and neighbors. 

Quote

3. Move money from mass incarceration to rehabilitation and reentry programs.

You think lawyers don't make this argument? 

Quote

4. Speed shit the fuck up. The wheels of justice move excruciatingly slow.

They do. It sucks. It sucks for lawyers and it sucks for litigants. Criminally charged have the right to a speedy trial and that happens when they want it to. If you're rich you can slow it down with Motions. Unfortunately, Motions have to be heard. If you decide you're not going to hear Motions from the rich, you can't hear them from the poor either.

Quote

5. And, this is a big one, I’d like to see the judicial branch uphold the constitution and bring accountability to an unchecked executive branch.

I don't think anyone could disagree with that position. I think Congress is in the better position to address that in a quick manner. Trump and his cohorts got their asses handed to them time after time after time with the election fraud bullshit while he sat in the Oval Office. The rule of law is the only reason Trump wasn't in office during the Biden years. Courts keep telling Trump he can't do what he's doing or slows down what he's doing so it can be addressed in the Courts. So, what it really comes down to, is you want the Supreme Court to rule in a manner that you prefer and Trump to listen to them. 

Edited by gernblansten
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

I forgot to add Alito. How? Idk. It’s hard to put into words what an utter douche canoe that guy is.

I’mnot smart enough so I asked ChatGPT and it helped me put into words what I could not.

He’s a sententious and sanctimonious snake of a man who’s mendacious explanations for his obviously unethical behavior lends him a spot in the pantheon of judicial shitbags.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, royiv said:

You, yourself are the one telling us that the legal profession polices itself so things are a-okay.

 

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.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, Dnaguy said:

I forgot to add Alito. How? Idk. It’s hard to put into words what an utter douche canoe that guy is.

I’mnot smart enough so I asked ChatGPT and it helped me put into words what I could not.

He’s a sententious and sanctimonious snake of a man who’s mendacious explanations for his obviously unethical behavior lends him a spot in the pantheon of judicial shitbags.

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.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 hours ago, gernblansten said:

No, but what difference would that make? It could be a probate attorney in Stoddard, Wisconsin. Or, a very virtuous personal injury attorney in Phoenix getting ready for a mediation in a tractor trailer collision. Banking compliance attorney in Lexington, Kentucky. The complaint appears to be there is an ethical crisis and lawyers aren't doing anything about it. Lawyers are required to report unethical behavior. So, the same question remains wherever you'd prefer the attorney to live and what type of work the attorney performs.

So am I not to believe that your position is that lawyers are required to report unethical behavior and that this happens with a high degree of certainty? Am I not to believe that your position is that lawyers police themselves and root out bad actors from reading this statement? Am I not to believe that you don’t think the legal profession is in any sort of crisis, ethical or otherwise? If I’ve misunderstood you, apologies, and I would be open to hearing what your actual position is.

Posted
14 minutes ago, royiv said:

So am I not to believe that your position is that lawyers are required to report unethical behavior and that this happens with a high degree of certainty? Am I not to believe that your position is that lawyers police themselves and root out bad actors from reading this statement? Am I not to believe that you don’t think the legal profession is in any sort of crisis, ethical or otherwise? If I’ve misunderstood you, apologies, and I would be open to hearing what your actual position is.

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.

Posted
3 hours ago, royiv said:

So am I not to believe that your position is that lawyers are required to report unethical behavior and that this happens with a high degree of certainty? Am I not to believe that your position is that lawyers police themselves and root out bad actors from reading this statement? Am I not to believe that you don’t think the legal profession is in any sort of crisis, ethical or otherwise? If I’ve misunderstood you, apologies, and I would be open to hearing what your actual position is.

Twice addressed this quite nicely. Further, you can look at my posts above regrading the “ethical crisis” set forth in this thread, which got down to “lawyers don’t police themselves enough.”  I addressed each of the five reforms you think lawyers need to be making to fix the legal system. None of which address the “ethical crisis” of attorneys not policing themselves. None. Finally, lawyers are disciplined across the country every month. That discipline comes about due to reports from other attorneys, and client complaints. Guess who “prosecuted” those complaints? Lawyers. You will likely read that and somehow conclude, “gernblansten said lawyers are perfect and there’s no problems in the profession.” It’d be an odd conclusion, but you seem to paint in broad strokes and misapply logic and reasoning. Somewhat akin to complaining about how our offense can’t run the ball and dammit the secondary coach needs to fix it!

Posted

Can you guys please start a new thread and take this argument elsewhere? It's so tangential to the topic that I keep forgetting that this is the thread where y'all are arguing this shit. When I see the thread has been updated, I click on it thinking there's news about all the poor bastards stuck in a tropical gulag and then find you fuckers going back and forth about bar associations and shit.

STAHP!!!

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 2
Posted

Ok.

Lets refocus.

The US is having masked and unidentified government agents abduct people off the streets and deported to foreign prisons without any due process and for an indiscriminate amount of time.

Sometimes they get it wrong.

Sometimes they apprehend citizens.

Sometimes they deport children.

Sometimes they deport citizen children.

Sometimes they don’t even record the names of the people they disappear.

The US government is sentencing people to life in prison in a 3rd world prison for what is a civil offense and sometimes for nothing more than a traffic violation as they are hear legally.

In 2025.

And most people are oblivious … well most people give not shits really because the people they’re doing it to are some shade of brown.

Oh and we’re accepting the … checks notes…. White Afrikaners from South Africa as refugees due to the … checks notes again…. discrimination against them by their repressive government. 
 

  • Rage+1 5
Posted

oh and they’re using a law from the 1700’s never designed to be used in this fashion …. whilst also lying / fabricating the underlying justification of the improperly used antiquated law from the 1700’s.

 

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Can you guys please start a new thread and take this argument elsewhere? It's so tangential to the topic that I keep forgetting that this is the thread where y'all are arguing this shit. When I see the thread has been updated, I click on it thinking there's news about all the poor bastards stuck in a tropical gulag and then find you fuckers going back and forth about bar associations and shit.

STAHP!!!

Haha sorry, love me a threadjack.

But, there don't seem to be many developments in the AARP and JGG cases of late, so surly minds will wander.

A sidenote.  The notion of deporting immigrants to other than their country of origin is not without precedent, both benign and insidious.  When we have an asylum applicant that doesn't clear the bar for asylum, we could do the cruel and send them back to the country where they are persecuted.  Or, we could send them somewhere else that will take them and where they are willing to go.  That has happened in our history.

The UK, doubtless under Tory leadership (but I didn't check who really originated the idea, Boris, Nigel, Liz or one of the other Hitler Youth), prepped up Rwanda for that purpose, I suppose mostly for African immigrants/asylum seekers.  Or maybe just being dicks.  That's where Trump got that idea.  The UK never actually did it although they had an agreement with Rwanda to do so.

I guess Libya is just a more hideous variant on that notion.  And most of Central America is pretty fucked up so sending a Salvadoran to Honduras or Guatemala isn't really an improvement on anything.  Belize probably isn't taking anyone.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted

@TwiceHorn yeah, I heard about the Tories trying, but never really succeeding, at sending migrants to Rwanda. John Oliver had a while episode devoted to that topic a year or two ago. It was an excellent episode worth looking back up. They made a great mockery out of that attempted cruelty.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
An article about how the federal courts can enforce their orders. https://www.justsecurity.org/113218/federal-courts-enforce-orders-without-marshals/
This might be how the shooting starts.

^^^
This.
And for those of us wondering how we could serve the needs of the constitution and republic (non lawyers), that might end up being the way, if it comes to that.
Especially any of y’all with military experience and a willingness to use it. The executive can co-opt people to be its militia. The judiciary can do the same, and legally. And yes, it may involve an armed confrontation with rogue US govt officials.
That’s absolutely on the table nowadays.
  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
12 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

image.jpeg.89028c3d9b2241ad7930a5c6c5515e2f.jpeg

I know this is funny, and ironic, and all that stuff....but it's also spot-on.  Because in the end, that's all any laws, rules, etc. are.  Because at their foundation, they rely on one thing: good-faith.

The strength of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not really the enforcement mechanisms behind them.  The strength of the Rules is 1) the expectation that most all lawyers will follow them, and 2) the good-faith belief in those rules and the effort attorneys make to actually follow them.  As a result, 99% or some similar percentage of lawyers act within those rules.  And we don't do so because we fear losing our license (I mean, we don't want to lose our license, for sure).  We follow the Rules because they are good, and when we all follow them, they make our profession, the justice system, and our society better.

Our laws are no different.  I expect that most of y'all generally follow the law (let's leave out traffic laws and laws against smoking dope with your mistress and such).  Is the reason that you don't murder or steal because you are afraid of the enforcement mechanism of prison, or is it because you have a moral compass of some sort?  That is, you don't steal because you believe that stealing is wrong, or you at least believe that we have a better society when we all operate under a common code that stealing is wrong.

That's good faith.  That's a reflection of the fact that ALL rules are, at their foundation, simply a "gentlemen's agreement."  Their strength is not in their enforcement mechanism (yes, having such a mechanism emphasizes that the rules are a real thing).  Because once it gets to enforcement, the rule has failed.  And importantly, if enough people (and the critical mass isn't a majority...it's much, much smaller....think 3%) decide that the rules aren't for them, and they are just going to disregard them, then the whole fucking system breaks down.  A society can't have an enforcement mechanism sufficient to handle more than 1-2% of people opting out of the law or rules.  

This is back to what I've been warning about on this board, in my life, at Bar presentations, etc. for a decade now: the Rule of Law is just an agreement.  And if enough people opt out of that agreement, then it is dissolved.  Enforcement won't and can't fix it.  The fix is....don't opt out of the Rule of Law.

That goes for society.  It goes for the legal profession.  It goes for everyone and everything.  So, Bozo can lament that lawyers don't do enough to enforce against bad lawyers.  In doing so, he sounds like a good "tough on crime" Republican, saying that we just need more prisons.  No.  The only thing that will really have any effect is....we need fewer bad lawyers.  We need fewer people who are good with committing crimes.  Sure, enforcement is a thing, it should exist, it should be used, and it can surely be reformed, made more robust, etc. in any number of contexts.  But the reason that we're seeing members of the legal profession behaving badly and against the Republic is because . . . a critical mass of society has chosen to do and support the same.

We had a gentlemen's agreement to operate under objective rules.  A particular segment of society, our political class, our legal profession, etc., have chosen to opt out of that agreement.  They have simply decided that they are no longer going to follow it.  Once that happens....it's over.  No amount of rule-based enforcement will make a shit.  Because opting out of the Rule of Law is necessarily opting into Rule of the Boot and Gun.  Once that's done, then the only curative mechanism is opposing Boots and Guns.  It's a stupid, self-destructive path to follow.  But, it's the path that a critical mass has chosen, so that path is our destiny.  You can try to pretend the old order still exists, matters, and can solve things.  But you're just pretending.  

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

I know this is funny, and ironic, and all that stuff....but it's also spot-on.  Because in the end, that's all any laws, rules, etc. are.  Because at their foundation, they rely on one thing: good-faith.

The strength of the Rules of Professional Conduct is not really the enforcement mechanisms behind them.  The strength of the Rules is 1) the expectation that most all lawyers will follow them, and 2) the good-faith belief in those rules and the effort attorneys make to actually follow them.  As a result, 99% or some similar percentage of lawyers act within those rules.  And we don't do so because we fear losing our license (I mean, we don't want to lose our license, for sure).  We follow the Rules because they are good, and when we all follow them, they make our profession, the justice system, and our society better.

Our laws are no different.  I expect that most of y'all generally follow the law (let's leave out traffic laws and laws against smoking dope with your mistress and such).  Is the reason that you don't murder or steal because you are afraid of the enforcement mechanism of prison, or is it because you have a moral compass of some sort?  That is, you don't steal because you believe that stealing is wrong, or you at least believe that we have a better society when we all operate under a common code that stealing is wrong.

That's good faith.  That's a reflection of the fact that ALL rules are, at their foundation, simply a "gentlemen's agreement."  Their strength is not in their enforcement mechanism (yes, having such a mechanism emphasizes that the rules are a real thing).  Because once it gets to enforcement, the rule has failed.  And importantly, if enough people (and the critical mass isn't a majority...it's much, much smaller....think 3%) decide that the rules aren't for them, and they are just going to disregard them, then the whole fucking system breaks down.  A society can't have an enforcement mechanism sufficient to handle more than 1-2% of people opting out of the law or rules.  

This is back to what I've been warning about on this board, in my life, at Bar presentations, etc. for a decade now: the Rule of Law is just an agreement.  And if enough people opt out of that agreement, then it is dissolved.  Enforcement won't and can't fix it.  The fix is....don't opt out of the Rule of Law.

That goes for society.  It goes for the legal profession.  It goes for everyone and everything.  So, Bozo can lament that lawyers don't do enough to enforce against bad lawyers.  In doing so, he sounds like a good "tough on crime" Republican, saying that we just need more prisons.  No.  The only thing that will really have any effect is....we need fewer bad lawyers.  We need fewer people who are good with committing crimes.  Sure, enforcement is a thing, it should exist, it should be used, and it can surely be reformed, made more robust, etc. in any number of contexts.  But the reason that we're seeing members of the legal profession behaving badly and against the Republic is because . . . a critical mass of society has chosen to do and support the same.

We had a gentlemen's agreement to operate under objective rules.  A particular segment of society, our political class, our legal profession, etc., have chosen to opt out of that agreement.  They have simply decided that they are no longer going to follow it.  Once that happens....it's over.  No amount of rule-based enforcement will make a shit.  Because opting out of the Rule of Law is necessarily opting into Rule of the Boot and Gun.  Once that's done, then the only curative mechanism is opposing Boots and Guns.  It's a stupid, self-destructive path to follow.  But, it's the path that a critical mass has chosen, so that path is our destiny.  You can try to pretend the old order still exists, matters, and can solve things.  But you're just pretending.  

Good-faith has no enforcement mechanism and is abused by those with weak character or bad intent. 

The main issue plaguing us right now is avarice. I forget who, but someone put an excerpt from one of the founding fathers calling out the dangers of it. I honestly didn't know what it meant and looked it up and it clicked. 

Definition of avarice: "The desire for wealth and possessions, sometimes to the point of hoarding or being miserly. It often involves a strong desire to accumulate and keep what one has, rather than sharing or using it." 

Just my opinion this is why you see a breakdown in the fabric of society. Everyone is better off than they have ever been and somehow there is an insatiable need for more. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, immamac said:

Good-faith has no enforcement mechanism and is abused by those with weak character or bad intent. 

The main issue plaguing us right now is avarice. I forget who, but someone put an excerpt from one of the founding fathers calling out the dangers of it. I honestly didn't know what it meant and looked it up and it clicked. 

Definition of avarice: "The desire for wealth and possessions, sometimes to the point of hoarding or being miserly. It often involves a strong desire to accumulate and keep what one has, rather than sharing or using it." 

Just my opinion this is why you see a breakdown in the fabric of society. Everyone is better off than they have ever been and somehow there is an insatiable need for more. 

The irony of me posting a TLDR, but here it is: a functioning society has its selfishness and its empathy in some sort of healthy balance.  When selfishness overwhelms empathy, here we are.

The irony is that empathy - things like not stealing someone else's stuff - actually serves selfish ends.  Because it builds a society where I don't steal your stuff....and you don't steal MY stuff.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The irony of me posting a TLDR, but here it is: a functioning society has its selfishness and its empathy in some sort of healthy balance.  When selfishness overwhelms empathy, here we are.

The irony is that empathy - things like not stealing someone else's stuff - actually serves selfish ends.  Because it builds a society where I don't steal your stuff....and you don't steal MY stuff.

“The fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy”

-Elon Musk

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Good-faith has no enforcement mechanism and is abused by those with weak character or bad intent. 

And to address this separately, it matches with my last point above.  Good-faith has a HUGE enforcement mechanism.  That mechanism is "if I follow the rules, and avoid hurting others, then I contribute to a system and order where others will follow the rules, and avoid hurting me."  What we often think of as altruism can and often does serve a selfish purpose.  It's the "today you, tomorrow me" ethos.

As a lawyer, I see it plainly.  When opposing counsel asks if I will agree to an extension for him to respond to my discovery requests, I almost always quickly agree.  Sure, because "don't be a dick for no reason" is part of our rules.  But also, I act that way because I want other lawyers to treat me the same; when I call and ask for an extension, I want them to say "sure, Brisket, you got it."

I use the term "gentlemen's agreement" for a reason.  Ordered society has rules -- some of them are unwritten, apply in certain classes, etc.  "There are some things a gentleman simply doesn't do."  In the end, that's all any set of rules is: a mutual agreement, that brings mutual benefit.  One person/side opting out of those rules may bring a temporary advantage to that side....but it won't last.  If you decide that stealing needs to be the new order of the day, then you're ahead of the curve, and will probably be able to steal some good shit.  But once your way of thinking prevails....then you best sleep with one eye open, because someone is now coming to steal all YOUR shit, including the shit you stole from someone else.  

These aren't deep thoughts.  They're baseline principles of moral philosophy.  And we have a whole segment of society thinking that they've figured out a loophole or some shit.  They haven't.  They're just breaking everything, and all of us - including them - are going to feel the consequences.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted (edited)

The foregoing illustrates something.  People seem to go along with the Rule of Law because they agree or personally believe that it is in their best interest, whether that be self-interest, or the common good, probably most often the latter.  The latter because at some level, the Rule of Law curtails personal freedom (in many cases things that we aren't inclined to do, but in others, like speeding, seatbelts, public intoxication, sodomy, etc. things we are inclined to do).

People ditch the Rule of Law because they no longer believe it is in their best interest, presumably; again, either self-interest or the common good.

Trump and his ilk are doing it out of self-interest.  But they have the common man believing it's because the Rule of Law no longer serves the common good.  Or at least the Rule of Law as currently conceived.  All men are created equal, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that.

Dictators need a rule of law, too, it's just not a rule of law that works for anyone else.  In groups, out groups, for thee not for me, etc.  Like the law of Boot and Gun, it's pretty much all enforcement and no voluntary compliance because it serves no one's interest except the dictator's.

 

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The foregoing illustrates something.  People seem to go along with the Rule of Law because they agree or personally believe that it is in their best interest, whether that be self-interest, or the common good, probably most often the latter.  The latter because at some level, the Rule of Law curtails personal freedom (in many cases things that we aren't inclined to do, but in others, like speeding, seatbelts, public intoxication, sodomy, etc. things we are inclined to do).

People ditch the Rule of Law because they no longer believe it is in their best interest, presumably; again, either self-interest or the common good.

Trump and his ilk are doing it out of self-interest.  But they have the common man believing it's because the Rule of Law no longer serves the common good.  Or at least the Rule of Law as currently conceived.  All men are created equal, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that.

Dictators need a rule of law, too, it's just not a rule of law that works for anyone else.  In groups, out groups, for thee not for me, etc.  Like the law of Boot and Gun, it's pretty much all enforcement and no voluntary compliance because it serves no one's interest except the dictator's.

 

And to tie this back to "shipping people to a foreign gulag with no due process".....why is it bad?

1)  It's bad because it violates our current laws.  Thus, deploy enforcement mechanisms, and stop it and punish the wrongdoers.

2) It's bad because it hurts people, some of whom turn out to be innocent, and any decent human should care about innocent people being hurt.

3) It's bad because it erodes due process and the rule of law for all, leading to chaos, and "Rule of whatever the dictatory wants or says."

4) It's bad because if the regime can grab and deport one person to a foreign gulag with no due process or formal judicial process, then it can grab ANY person and do that.  And that includes YOU, and ME.

 

So, all the motivations/incentives are in play here.  Oppose this policy because you are a genuinely decent altruistic person.  Oppose it because you are a selfish person (I don't want that to happen to me or mine).  Oppose it because you have a belief in the Rule of Law that may be motivated by selfishness, selflessness, or a combo of both.  All the reasons align.

The only reason the other way is that you think that YOU, and your interests/desires, benefit from this particular departure from the Rule of Law.  But in the end....see point 4. You're wrong about thinking that this will be good for you in the long run.  Suck up to a lawless regime, and it works great....until it doesn't.....

a3dr9cuht4h51.jpg?width=1080&crop=smart&

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted

The social contract has to work from the top down. When the top throws it out it’s simply a matter of time until the masses assume the responsibility of enforcing it

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
18 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

The social contract has to work from the top down. When the top throws it out it’s simply a matter of time until the masses assume the responsibility of enforcing it

And, I think one of the sort of uniquenesses of the US is that the rule of law was more or less established independent of a specific "top,"  That is, by the Constitution, before any leader or ruler was elected.

That's a fairly common thing since, but was fairly unique at the time.  There is, of course, the Magna Carta, but that was negotiated between a ruler and a set of nobles in the context of an existing monarchy and feudal system.

So, I guess the rule of law is almost inevitably going to issue from some form of top.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

Back on the docket today, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 1PM ET. https://apnews.com/article/kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-state-secrets-7a4d39f9a2013003b592efa94aa230ed

This time apparently on the government's assertion of state secrets privilege.

As we left it, the parties had agreed to stay discovery until April 30, which we thought might mean something good for Abrego Garcia.  Apparently not.

Discovery has resumed with a flurry of motions for KAG to take more depositions and the government actually produce a privilege log (listing of documents not produced with applicable privilege).  And that lead us to the state secrets bullshit.

Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2025 at 9:28 AM, Brisketexan said:

So, Bozo can lament that lawyers don't do enough to enforce against bad lawyers.  In doing so, he sounds like a good "tough on crime" Republican, saying that we just need more prisons.  No.  The only thing that will really have any effect is....we need fewer bad lawyers.  We need fewer people who are good with committing crimes. 

Actually we agree on this. The difference is that the general population can’t stop people from turning to crime if that’s what they  want. But the bar chooses who can and can’t practice.

BTW- this is a huge part of why I found the doctor’s support for MedMal caps so offensive. A small number of doctors were generating the most of the large awards. Rather than force butchers out of medicine they changed the system to deny justice and make the injured subsidize bad doctors. 

Edited by Bozo_Casanova
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But the bar chooses who can and can’t practice.

Sounds great.  But it's a bit different than your Dr. example.  I'll cite you to the law -- the law of unintended consequences.

"Make it easier to get rid of bad lawyers."  And "We define 'bad lawyers' as lawyers who act to undermine the rule of law."

Sounds good.

Until the Bar, which absolutely can (and in numerous instances and locations, has been) trumped, usurped, and/or made subject to state law.  As in....Dan Patrick and crew are now going to define what "undermining the rule of law" is.  And that definition will pretty much be "taking any position that opposed Trump/MAGA."

Don't create a nuke that is just going to end up in the hands of the other side.  And it WILL end up in their hands (FFS, they're using the weapons they have -- and even weapons they don't actually legally have -- to go directly after lawyers who have dared piss off the regime).

There are very, very, very good reasons to make it very, very, very hard to disbar an attorney for taking a politically unpopular position (and one would hope "trying to destroy the Republic and the rule of law" is such a position).  That's because opposing politicians can and absolutely will, with 100% certainty, use such a tool to disbar attorneys for taking the unpopular position of "making America more dangerous by representing dirty illegals who are all rapists and criminals," and "undermining the will of the people by opposing the edicts of our King and Savior, His Majesty Donald Trump."

There is no good or easy answer here.  I agree that lawyers who support the admin in undermining the rule of law are betraying at least the spirit, if not the letter of their oath.  But understand that right now, no question about it, the regime and its allies think the opposite: lawyers who have opposed the regime are acting in an "un-American" manner and should be punished and taken out of action.  It is ALREADY weaponized.  My suggestion is....we shouldn't hand them upgraded weaponry so they can finish the job.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Sounds great.  But it's a bit different than your Dr. example.  I'll cite you to the law -- the law of unintended consequences.

"Make it easier to get rid of bad lawyers."  And "We define 'bad lawyers' as lawyers who act to undermine the rule of law."

Sounds good.

Until the Bar, which absolutely can (and in numerous instances and locations, has been) trumped, usurped, and/or made subject to state law.  As in....Dan Patrick and crew are now going to define what "undermining the rule of law" is.  And that definition will pretty much be "taking any position that opposed Trump/MAGA."

Don't create a nuke that is just going to end up in the hands of the other side.  And it WILL end up in their hands (FFS, they're using the weapons they have -- and even weapons they don't actually legally have -- to go directly after lawyers who have dared piss off the regime).

There are very, very, very good reasons to make it very, very, very hard to disbar an attorney for taking a politically unpopular position (and one would hope "trying to destroy the Republic and the rule of law" is such a position).  That's because opposing politicians can and absolutely will, with 100% certainty, use such a tool to disbar attorneys for taking the unpopular position of "making America more dangerous by representing dirty illegals who are all rapists and criminals," and "undermining the will of the people by opposing the edicts of our King and Savior, His Majesty Donald Trump."

There is no good or easy answer here.  I agree that lawyers who support the admin in undermining the rule of law are betraying at least the spirit, if not the letter of their oath.  But understand that right now, no question about it, the regime and its allies think the opposite: lawyers who have opposed the regime are acting in an "un-American" manner and should be punished and taken out of action.  It is ALREADY weaponized.  My suggestion is....we shouldn't hand them upgraded weaponry so they can finish the job.

Thank you.

"Upholding the legal process," as noble as it sounds, is as subjective as it comes.  And when you open up the process of disbarment to subjective criteria, as you note above, you open it up to abuse. To weaponization, as it were.

And while that system, with a little added incompetence, lets some Sidney Powell's retain their licenses, as you note, the Paxtons and Patricks are dangerously close to taking over everything, and a more subjective system would put a lot more good guys in peril than bad.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
39 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Don't create a nuke that is just going to end up in the hands of the other side.  And it WILL end up in their hands (FFS, they're using the weapons they have -- and even weapons they don't actually legally have -- to go directly after lawyers who have dared piss off the regime).

We can probably stop taking this thread off topic, but if the bolded language above doesn’t concisely describe a profession in ethical crisis I don’t know what could. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

We can probably stop taking this thread off topic, but if the bolded language above doesn’t concisely describe a profession in ethical crisis I don’t know what could. 

And...this is where you circle back to the point I made above, and have been making for 10+ years now: THE RULE OF LAW IS MADE UP.  IT IS JUST AN AGREEMENT.  AND WHEN ONE SIDE OPTS OUT, IT'S OVER.  THERE'S NO SAVING IT.

Trying to use "the Rule of Law" to save.....The Rule of Law, which has ALREADY been taken out back and summarily executed....well, it's exactly as pointless as it reads.  Demanding that our profession save something that society already killed is fucking maddening.  We are supposed to fight the death of something using the thing that is already dead.  The thing is, many of us ARE charging into the breach with our cardboard sword and shield.  You should just set your expectations accordingly.

v4-1200px-Make-a-Cardboard-Sword-Step-15

 

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...