This cite is so new it’s not even here yet. It becomes official April 1, but it brings New York State into line with the Code of Conduct of 47 of the other states. (Warning: Cite is PDF File: New York State Unified Court System Rules of Professional Conduct)
Among other things required of an attorney are at least 20 hours of pro bono service for poor people every year and financial support for those organizations which provide pro bono service.
Attorneys are required to work for their clients with diligence. There is even a separate rule specifying that. As we’ve seen for ourselves, Rover does not have his shoulder to the wheel.
And there are other issues of truthfulness and not intentionally trying to degrade or humiliate others that are dealt with in other rules.
And one that can set him up for the biggest problems would be discrimination based on several things including race, marital status and sex. I don’t think an attorney would have ever made the statements he did earlier in the thread about the woman who lost her rent money. If his real identity were ever revealed, a firm could use that to have him disbarred or an employee could use that as evidence to support a lawsuit for employment discrimination, etc. against the firm.
WRONG. Rule 6.1 is about voluntary, encouraged, pro bono work, and is not enforced through the disciplinary process.
WRONG. Diligence is a specific term that has a specific meaning. Only a truly incompetent interpreter of the rules (you) would declare that diligence requires some sort of 24 hour/day work on a specific matter. Of course, many attorneys are disbarred for sleeping, watching sports, and using the internet. Oh wait. They aren’t. If posting on a message board is a diligence failure… well, you’re just a moron.
Just… W. T. F. Seriously. Those rules pretty much only apply to your actions in legal matters, like in court or a deposition. Not your internet message board posts.
Yes, Rand Rover is discriminating against people. By posting on a message board.
No, a firm couldn’t (and wouldn’t) use that to disbar him.
Secondly, you can hire the entire membership of the local KKK chapter, and as long as your hiring practices are non-discriminatory, you’re fine.
It’s not like you have to join some sort of cult to be a lawyer. For fuck’s sakes, if your interpretation was accurate, no “discriminator” could get a lawyer, no lawyer could have any spare time, and there would be this whole problem with the disciplinary body regulating a person’s private speech, which is sort of not allowed by the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Would you believe that a lawyer could think you are borderline retarded? I would. (And do).
While I agree with you that Zoe has no clue what she’s talking about, the First Amendment applies only to governmental actions. If the disciplinary board chose to make a rule that saying the word “aardvark” is cause for disbarment, they can.
A bar association is not a purely private organization. The state prohibits anyone to practice law without approval of the bar association. That makes it at least quasi-governmental.
If it isn’t effective until Wednesday, he can’t start breaking it until Wednesday. But I don’t read that as he is breaking it for the reasons other posters have also noted. The state cannot require pro bono services without paying for them, it is voluntary. There are also entirely ethical reasons for refusing to do such services, such as small amounts of pro bono are insufficient to alleviate any significant problem and only exacerbate poverty in a legal system that is designed to protect the property rights of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. My argument being that the system we have here is designed to exclude people who cannot afford 1000 hours of lawyer time and other costs associated with litigation and for that reason is oppressive whenever a poor person or entity is drawn into the legal system against a wealthy opponent.
I don’t know how it’s handled in other states, but here at least disbarment proceedings are initially handled by independent referees, who recommend that they be heard, or not. Only the SCOTSF can suspend or disbar an attorney once the Bar has admitted him.
Are you really doing this AGAIN?!? How many people on the Dope have you accused of lying about their occupation based solely on the fact that you don’t like them, with trumped up, bullshit reasoning like this? Me, PRR, Phlospher, and now Rand Rover. There may well be others of which I am unaware. If I gave the slightest shit about you, and if I were not convinced that you are clinically insane and therefore a waste of time, I would Pit you on behalf of all of us, including Rand Rover, on whom you’ve tried to pull this degrading, ad hominem, fact-free attack.
You’ve made me sympathize with Rand Rover. Good job, Zoe!
Oh hey, nice to see you again. Glad to see after your attempt at posting more than a one liner, you’ve realized the only thing for you in that direction is failure.
Don’t you have a menial service industry job to get back to?
“Anal envy”, noun, the condition that arises when an asshole becomes envious of the attention lavished upon another asshole, and raises his/her level of anality in order to gain a portion of that attention, usually by rectal behavior in a thread devoted the the colonistic attitudes of the Prime Asshole.
Are you offering this information as contradictory evidence? If so, I don’t think it is. It seems to me to be similar to political party primaries. The bar association decides who is to be granted a license to practice and the supreme court accepts the bar association’s recommendation essentially without question.
I’m not fan of RR (as should be obvious by now), but this is pretty much wrong from start to finish.
And it is a big fucking deal to accuse a lawyer of violating the Code of Ethics. I would never do it without first hand information of completely egregious conduct; I sure as hell wouldn’t do it based on anything anonymously posted to a message board, especially when nothing said was said in the capacity of a lawyer, or reflects in anyway on the practice of law. To make the accusation on as little information as this – I consider that completely irresponsible.
It is not a “big fucking deal” to accuse an anonymous lawyer of violating the Code of Ethics. And while if RR were using his real name it might amount to libel to accuse him of being unethical, RR the posting character is different than a real lawyer who is making the posts behind a largely fictitious persona loosely based on the author.
The legal and judicial professions have worked very hard to earn the loathsome reputation that the public accords them. Please don’t pretend to false umbarage, the legal profession is scum. The exceptions work hard to be good citizens.
You got it-- RR the posting character is different from the real lawyer and human being behind them. No one in this thread, not you, not Zoe, not anyone else, is qualified to say what kind of lawyer he is based on the crap he posts here. I can’t believe I’m defending him, but you’re crazy if you think you really know him well enough to say he violated the Code of Ethics, nor if he’s a bad lawyer, father, or anything else. I agree with Jodi, it’s going too far in your little SDMB vendetta to drag that stuff into this conversation.
In all fairness, I don’t post the same way as I would if I were posting under my real name. I am a lot more candid with a pseudonym. The Second Stone is a somewhat different character writing different things than I would be if I were posting without anonymity.
