« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Bar to Investigate Pentagon Big Mouth
The San Francisco Chronicle reports:
The Bar Association of San Francisco said Thursday that it wants state attorney discipline investigators to decide whether a Bush administration official, who is also a California lawyer, violated ethical standards by calling for a business boycott of law firms representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay....The San Francisco lawyers' group said its directors voted Wednesday to authorize the filing of a request for investigation with the State Bar of California. If the bar found that Stimson broke rules governing attorney conduct, it could impose penalties ranging from a reprimand to disbarment.
Apparently deputy defense secretary for detainee affairs Charles Stimson's apology just wasn't enough.
Advertisement
Can they look into former Bush official and current Berkeley Law professor John Yoo while they are at it?
He advocated illegal actions to his client, the government. That's a no-no.
January 26, 2007 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could they look into the US Attorneys that threw the snowmobile case in Wyoming? I know it is old news, circa 2000-2001 but it was despicable.
Clinton set rules to reduce or bar snowmobiles from Yellowstone because of pollution, noise, and disruption. A snowmobile association sued to stop the implementation of the rules. BushCo, notwithstanding undoing many other Clinton era environmental executive orders did not reverse this one. So the official US Govt policy was to ban snowmobiles.
In law, requesting an injunction is a tough business. You have to prove irreparable harm, i.e. something that money alone could not repair. 99 out of 100 complaints for injuctive relief fail because they cannot show irreparable harm. But the lawyers for the U.S. Govt CONCEDED to the court that the ban would cause irreparable harm! They rolled over and took the side of their client's adversary when their client (the US Govt) had not officially changed its mind. That is cause for disbarrment.
It would be one thing for BushCo to overturn the Clinton executive order, but it did not because it did not want to take the heat for making Yellowstone dirtier. So they tanked their own defense. But an attorney cannot tank his client's defense unless his client authorized it. These attorneys could get off the hook if they produced the memo telling them to do this. Otherwise, they violated their duty to zealously advocate for their clients.
January 26, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
SWEEEEET!
Considering the large number right-wingnut type folk with JD's after their names, who regularly (like breathing) perform and advocate malcious, evil and almost always illegal acts - It will good to see the lowly trial lawyers deliver a little justice to the plethora of toadies related to the Administration. Disbarring this inbreed idiot would be a grand start.
Now, if there just someone with a few teeth who address Ann Coulter/Wee-Willy O'Reily ilk in the media . . .
January 26, 2007 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Michael Scanlon originally a rep for the American Bar Association? Then you've got Adam Kidan & Alberto Gonzales. They're on a roll.
January 26, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Stimson's remarks are antithetical to the Constitution and the best aspirations of the Bar. They violate one of the law's most basic premises: a lawyer's zealous representation of his or her client cannot be taken as support for the client's behavior. The most famous example of this is John Adams' - an American revolutionary firebrand - representation of the British soldiers who killed Crispus Attucks at the Boston Massacre in 1770.
Mr. Stimson's views advocate violating the ethical obligation to provide legal services to those who cannot afford them, an obligation that mitigates against a whole class of Americans losing their rights because they cannot defend them against an overzealous government.
Mr. Stimson is precluded from contending that he is merely representing his client's views. His government has officially denied them. Whether that denial is credible or bad theater, it leaves Mr. Stimson individually responsible for his comments.
Alan Dershowitz's contention that Mr. Stimson could only be disciplined for not accurately representing his clients views has been made moot by his government's denial of them. His contention that Mr. Stimson is merely exercising his free speech ignores his ethical obligations. His contention that disciplining Mr. Stimson would revive McCarthy era witch hunts is equivalent to defending McCarthy's actions as an exercise of free speech. That argument turns history on its head. Mr. Stimson practices the ruthless political intimidation for which the McCarthy era is so rightly castigated.
The California Bar ought to call on Mr. Stimson to defend his actions, and would be correct in disciplining him for them.
January 26, 2007 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful news! That is just what I was hoping to see come from the legal profession. I am rooting for disbarment.
January 27, 2007 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an attorney myself, I considered looking into filing a grievance against Stimson when I posted on his audacious comments. Nice to know I don't have to.
January 29, 2007 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
hi cool site. awesome3
April 26, 2007 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 1, 2007 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
hello
May 1, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very nice site!
May 13, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
buy cialis
May 23, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink