From me and on behalf of my fellow practitioners: fuck you.
Most lawyers are good, honest, hardworking people who care deeply about the truth and speak nothing but that when asked a question.
I have been asked to massage the truth by a client exactly once in my career (I’ve never been asked to explicitly lie). I told the partner, the partner told me he’d take care of it, and he called the client and simply stated that we couldn’t do that and we’d sever our representation if necessary. An embarrassed apology from the client followed (who, to be fair, probably just wasn’t thinking when she made her request).
That is consonant with my experience with other lawyers over the course of my career, and consistent with what others have described to me when talking about their own careers.
A lawyer’s livelihood is dependent on his or her reputation. Popular fictions notwithstanding, a lawyer with a reputation for dishonesty will not be having a long and prosperous legal career. It is a good an honorable profession, one I’m proud to be a part of, and one which is besmirched in anything other than a joking manner only by ignoramuses. I like a good lawyer joke as much as the next guy, but you shouldn’t mistake humor for reality.
No, it’s exactly the point. Lawyers are commonly hired to ensure two parties do not communicate or coordinate in ways that are prohibited by law or by agreement. There is nothing odd or improper about them doing so.
That goes to the appearance question as well: if providing such advice is improper here, then it is improper in other contexts as well. I don’t think it creates the appearance of impropriety when lawyers advise their clients on how to manage chinese walls, or prevent insider trading, or avoid behavior that could run afoul of antitrust laws, and thus I don’t see how it creates such an appearance here.
Really, all you’re left with is a discussion of how poopy Ginsberg’s pants are. There’s nothing of substance here.
Gee, ad hominem much? Care to add anything of substance?
Curious you’d blame me for a hijack when it’s Squink who levied an insult at the entire legal profession.
I also fail to see how I’ve tried to make this “all about me.” I have professional experience germane to the topic at hand. When Qagdop uses examples from his medical practice to illustrate things in discussions about health care, is he making it “all about him”?
Why Dewey I’m shocked that you’d respond with such an emotional outburst to my post. Here we have a lawyer cuddling up to a bunch of lying weasels for the purpose of destroying the good name of decorated war veterans, and you regard my mild criticism of him and his skills as a slur directed at the entire legal profession? You’ve gone way over the top.
It’s well known that the truth is just one tool in the kit used by unethical legal professionals. It is of no greater value to them than bombast or deception. Anything and everything is fair game in achieving their goals, and when they use the truth, there’s usually a reason for it beyond what appears on the face of things.
Perhaps you’ve assumed that I regard Ginsberg as a typically ethical attorney?
I do not.
Unless I am mistaken, MoveOn.org is a PAC. Not a 527. Incompetent, irrelevent, and immaterial. (Do you guys actually say that? Just saw it on Perry Mason…)
“Claim” being, of course, the operative word. Is it necessary that one be aware? Is ignorance an iron-clad defense? When do I get to badger the witness? I’ve always wanted to badger a witness.
Depends, I suppose. If you or I were hired to appear in ad due entirely to our extraordinary good looks, you might plausibly claim an entirely professional appearance, divorced from any political intent. Mr. Cordier, I suspect, was in the ad because he is, in fact, a member of SwiftBoats.ugh, and is entirely in concurrence with their goals. Have you anything to offer to suggest otherwise?
Hence, your interposing Mr. Jones is incompetent, irrelevent, and immaterial. OK, I’ll never say it again. Promise.
(That may be subject to a legal quibble: SwiftBoats seeks to defeat Kerry, while the GOP seeks to elect Bush. IANAL, so such niceties escape my limited abilities…)
But that’s just the point – just because the Swift Boat guys are jerks doesn’t mean that Ginsberg is guilty of unethical behavior here. You are sliming a lawyer for behavior that appears to be entirely above board.
Forgive me if I misunderstood your post. Perhaps you could be a little less cryptic in your support next time.
Your comment was not directed at Ginsberg; it was directed at “the legal profession.” Spare me this pathetic backpedaling.
Of course, the same can be said of “unethical” doctors, accountants, chefs, businessmen, and every other profession. Why focus on lawyers, other than to perpetuate a popular slur? And again I note that you did not add that qualifier “unethical” to your initial remarks.
And, of course, you’re prepared to explain the basis for that belief, right? Surely you can point to some conduct on the part of Ginsberg that is unethical, right?
Or is anyone associated with the Bush campaign automatically “unethical” – guilt by association? Do you similarly impugn their accountants, their caterers, the people who print their yard signs?
Too true. I don’t like it when either party or their supporters gets negative (or misleading or distorting). But it has always been that way, and it will always be that way. The system is broken, but it is the best we have to work with.
I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Don’t you remember? I’m Karl Rove’s puppet, not yours. Keep it straight, man!
First of all, I’m not sure that this matters. The key, as I understand it, under the new campaign finance laws is that an advocacy organization like MoveOn or Swifties can’t coordinate with the candidate’s campaign.
Second of all – and please, please, please forgive me for the website I’m about to link to, as I ordinarily never would, but it’s the first good thing Google gave me and I think the facts it is giving are objectively verifiable by the link it provides to an IRS search page – I think Moveon.org is a 527, as they make 527 tax filings.
(Ugh, I feel dirty now.)
No.
Well, I agree that the claim is self-serving, which is why I went on to the next step in my analysis. I was just pointing out that clients do often ignore their lawyers or fail to provide their lawyers with pertinent information, much to my chagrin (and usually much to their eventual peril, the numbskulls).
Why does the person’s intended goals have anything to do with this? Does it matter if James Earl Jones is appearing in the ad gratis because he favors the election of John Kerry? Why would that impact the degree of “coordination” between the campaigns?
To my mind, “coordination” implies more than simply providing services to a 527 and to the campaign. It implies simultaneous planning, the execution of a preplanned strategy. Simply appearing in a TV spot for a 527 – assuming no evidence of any other management-type activity on their behalf – does not to my mind equal “coordination.”
I can certainly accept your point, but it leaves us pretty much nowhere. If we take your view, the crime of “coordination” is difficult to commit, and child’s play to conceal. Mr. Cordier is simultaneously an adviser to the Bush campaign, and a member of SwiftBoats.ugh. But we may not assume “coordination”? A darkly suspicious mind, like mine own, might be tempted to conclude that the very “interlocking” nature of Mr. Cordier testifies to “coordination”.
Where’s the threshold, Dewey? Whats the frequencey, Kenneth? What further action would Mr. Cordier have to undertake before Dewey slaps the cuffs and hauls him away?
Unless I am permitted to badger him on the witness stand until he blubbers a confession Perry Mason style, its hard to see how anyone could be charged with such a crime, much less convicted.
So why then would a lawyer be required to prevent such a dire prospect? Unless its part of the Republican Party’s full employment plan for attorneys?
No. We don’t just assume away the elements of a crime in this country. We require that they be proven.
I’m no expert on the campaign finance law, but I’d hazard that you’d have to show that he took some kind of strategizing role.
The FEC has subpoena power, you know. They’d investigate this the same way they investigate any other charge.
Because all things considered, you’d rather not find yourself testifying before the FEC, and the campaign would rather not find itself subject to sanction? Do I really need to spell out something so blindingly obvious? Why on earth do you think non-litigator lawyers get hired in the first place? My whole reason for being on this earth is to keep people out of court as best I can.
Wow. Very impressive. Very convincing sleight of hand: mud is flung, so instead of discussing the mud, let’s debate to the point of nauseous obsession the distance and geometry between the flinger and flung-at.
Hello? The geometry is secondary to the actual mud, people.
Particularly when, if Ginsberg were the ethical paragon Dewey is trying to imply, he could have easily had the forsight to see a potential problem here, and pawn the work off on one of his lesser bretheren. Why didn’t he do that? Was he just stupid, or did let his own political leanings color his judgement? If the latter, his credentials as a good servant of the law are open to question.
Maybe because there’s a particular lawyer involved with the SWBFT who’s acted in, at best, a foolish manner?
It’s fascinating how you rush to the defense of your brethren in the face of a little criticism, yet seem to have no problem whatsoever with lawyers who aid and abet in tearing down the reputation of other honorable men.
Good heavens, Dewey, either you aren’t getting it at all, or else you do but can’t make yourself admit it to us.
Ginsberg was already part of the Bush campaign, and remained so. He was then *also * hired by, or volunteered with, the Swiftees. Wouldn’t someone that intimate with campaign laws think there was a conflict of interest there? Of course he would. Why would he do it, then? Confidence it wouldn’t come up - unless you can propose simple incompetence instead.
What was his purpose with the Swiftees? To make sure there *wasn’t * any coordination with the campaign he still worked for. His means of making sure there was no coordination? Becoming a path of coordination. Hell, yes, he was “at the nexus” of it, just as he says - a careful choice of words, wouldn’t you say?
You did totally sideslip the illustrative question I asked earlier. You’re not on the clock here, this isn’t a court case (and won’t be; it’s an FEC administrative matter) you’re not Ginsberg’s counsel, and you can drop the act. It’s okay to be honest with us, really - we prefer it, in fact.
I rise in defense of a Republican attorney…(its ok, was going to take a shower anyway…)
He may be entirely honest here. It is perfectly sensible to presume that this law was, in fact, written so as to be virtually unenforceable, a form of legislative masturbation quite common. We yell “Do something!” and they pass a law. Then they stand there, bat the big brown eyes at us and say “Well, we did something! There it is. I’m against campaign corruption, and I’ve proved it: I helped pass that law against campagin corruption.”
It should not escape our attention that the only persons who could make such a claim must, necessarily, be incumbents.
There have been numerous threads discussing the merits of the Swift Boat guys’ campaign. Frankly, I’m not overly fond of them. But that isn’t the point of this thread – you called a lawyer a slimeball because he drew an analogy to similar representation on the Democratic side of the aisle. The fact that that analogy was 100% valid seems to have escaped your attention.
I implied no such thing. Ginsberg may or may not be an ethical lawyer. I’ll I’ve claimed is that you can’t plausibly make that assertion based on the examples proffered in this thread.
Probably because it would be a less effective means of representing his client. Like I’ve said (again and again and again), lawyers playing this kind of gatekeeping role is not uncommon.
The latter option doesn’t even make sense: if his political biases are conservative, he’d want to do what’s best for the campaign. You’d have to make some other basis for impaired judgment, like wanting more in fees or prestige.
Anyway, I choose option 3, namely that there is nothing here that suggests either stupidity or impaired judgment, and that you’re just to pig-ignorant of what it means to give legal representation to know what the hell you’re talking about.
I haven’t seen Ginsberg front and center making the case for Bush’s re-election. He isn’t out there stumping for Bush, or appearing on TV, or crafting campaign ads. It seems to me he’s just providing a service – the rendering of legal advice. That being the case, he isn’t “aiding and abetting” the Bush campaign any more than their accountants or caterers or the folks who blow up the balloons for the convention.
No, they wouldn’t, no more than a lawyer who represents multiple companies in the same industry or who provides advice on both sides of a “chinese wall.”
There certainly isn’t a conflict of interest, and even if there were, that isn’t really what you’re alleging. A conflict would be between the two clients, and that can be waived. What you’re actually suggesting is that his services create an inference that he’s helping coordinate between the campaign and the 527. Which is total bollocks, unless you believe any party selling services to both parties is by that action creating such an inference.
Or, more likely, because his representation of both parties was both ethically proper and not violative of the campaign finance laws.
No, by becoming a gatekeeper. There is a difference; indeed, it’s quite the opposite role from what you’re suggesting.
Indeed, it’s a role I often play when “chinese walls” are an issue for my clients. They will call and ask “can I do X without violating the agreement/law,” and I will tell them. They must call me because their superiors require my signoff, to keep them out of trouble – to keep them from engaging in violative communications or coordination.
Yes. Gatekeepers are at the nexus of it, by definition.
The FACT that the analogy he drew was an attempt to change the subject of the issue seems to have escaped YOUR attention. Please pay closer attention, Dew.
You have, for example, two people throwing things: one throws, oh I don’t know, flowers, or french fries, or whatever. The other throws mud. Somebody calls the mudslinger. Ginsberg comes along and says, “yeah but the other guy was throwing things too. Let’s call for a moratorium on throwing things!”
If I may interrupt this discussion of the legalities of Mr. Ginsberg’s actions, I’d like to call attention to the moral questions. He was a guest on “Nightline” yesterday, and it was fascinating to watch him dodge all questions about his decision to work for a group that accuses Kerry of lying and cowardice while he also works for a president who at least gives lip service to the idea that Kerry served admirably.
Consider this exchange:
First, no one said anything about “speech police.” The question was why HE chose to work with the Swift Boat vets.
Second, he wants to re-elect the president (and said at one point that serving Bush was the greatest honor of his life). But he also helps a group that contradicts Bush’s public position, which drags Bush into a controversy that, potentially, could blow up in the president’s face.
I can’t imagine him aiding this group without carefully discussing the political ramifications with Karl Rove. I can’t imagine him taking time away from the Bush campaign without making sure that it would ultimately help the campaign. I can’t imagine that anyone would really believe that Bush and his aides didn’t know exactly what the Swift Boat vets were doing and what it would mean.
