Why thank you.
Either another Patton Boggs attorney or another attorney altogether. Probably someone a little less high-powered this time around, since apparently a high media profile is a bad thing in this case.
They’d each retain counsel for the role. That’s inefficient and a waste of resources, but it is do-able, assuming you can find counsel with the requisite experience in this field.
Actually, the point of that riposte was to note that the accusation you leveled (that I had little credibility) was actually more true of you than it is of me. The mod-imposed limit is a fact, not namecalling, albeit a fact misapplied to you, and having such a limit imposed on oneself is a measure of little credibility IMO.
And again, I apologize for conflating you with Reeder, but in this thread you’ve shared a remarkably similar posting style.
First of all, I’m amazed at your chutzpah in flat out saying, in essence, that you understand my line of work better than I do.
Second of all, you’re flat out wrong.
Certainly in the case of preventing insider trading, the law forbids not just coordination, but particular types of communication as well (namely, material non-public information). Indeed, in that sense, they are actually more stringent than the campaign finance laws.
In the context of a “chinese wall,” the whole fucking point of the wall is to prevent coordination. Party A enters into a contract with Party B that, among other things, requires that Party B refrain from certain activities and communications with Party C.
The campaign finance laws do not forbid all communications, just as chinese walls do not forbid all communications. It only forbids coordination, which demands caution, which makes the use of a gatekeeper prudent.
And upon what basis do you suggest that “coordination” is limited to those things you just listed? This is a new law, so there’s very little interpretive guidance on it specifically. Do you know how “coordination” has been interpreted when present in similar laws? Have courts or regulatory bodies developed tests for what is or isn’t “coordination?” If there are different tests for the term’s use in different laws, which tests are most clearly analagous to campaign finance law?
I don’t know the answer to any of that, and neither do you. What you’re doing is shooting from the hip, which is fine for a message board. But in the real world there are real consequences for guessing wrong. Which is why you don’t guess, or if you must guess, you make the most educated guess possible. Which is why you hire a lawyer to consider the issue on your behalf.
I don’t get paid to shoot from the hip. Neither does Ginsberg. And clients don’t want to take the risks of shooting from the hip themselves. That’s why we get hired as gatekeepers.
First of all, again, the wall isn’t “gateless,” your persistent claims to the contrary notwithstanding – coordination is forbidden, but communications are not.
Second, standard practices arise for a reason, and yes, the fact that this is a commonplace role for a lawyer to play creates a strong presumption that such conduct is both reasonable and ethical.
Lawyers don’t typically work under the glare of 24-hour news networks. In a perfect world, Ginsberg wouldn’t need to resign, but the media doesn’t really care whether his actions were actually proper – they just want a story.
Why thank you.
Perhaps. But a barber selected to cut the President’s hair might also be a stalwart Republican and might also describe the experience as the greatest honor of his life. I don’t doubt that Ginsberg is a solid Republican. That doesn’t man he acted improperly.
I agree with the political assessment – politics is often unfair, and you have to anticipate that unfairness. I disagree with the ethical assessment. What you’re really saying is that the client’s interests were adverse, which would be a conflict of interest. But I’d suggest the two client’s interests are more aligned than not, and in any event such conflicts can be waived by the clients.
I respectfully disagree. Hiring the same lawyer isn’t strong evidence of anything other than Ginsberg’s reputation as an excellent campaign finance lawyer.
I think that’s too cute by half. Entertaining as a zinger, yes, but not serious evidence.
Same here.
Same here.
I suspect hardly anyone is chiming in to support you, Dewey because:[list=A][li]It would be a lot like offering to help Bruce Lee kick the asses of twenty or thirty extras in a bad remake of Enter the Dragon. By the time we can muster a response, they are already being carted off to have their teeth and balls replaced. [*]Because we would miss out on the sheer entertainment of the SDMB’s latest public cyber-wedgie. [/list][/li]
Beautiful stuff, Dewey.
lissener, you’re half a wit. ElvisL1ves, you’re the other half.
Regards,
Shodan
So, since his job is to ask questions and be aware of what is going on his options become incompetence or malice. His entire function is to stay on top of things and make sure people like Cordier and Perry aren’t engaging in illegal activities. That hair is getting mighty thin. The options now are, bad faith on Ginsberg’s part, incompetence on Ginsberg’s part, or a brilliant conspiracy on the part of Cordier, Perry, or some others. Or that there was no coordination at all of course.
I don’t like this analogy. I don’t think it is accurate, although the image of all the politicians and political activists as whores and jons has some resonance. Aside from that point of poetic accuracy I don’t think it realistically models the relationships involved. Maybe some succinct way to explain my objection to it will pop into my head, or perhaps you could give a longer explanation of how you feel the analogy works so I could understand it better.
Oh damn, well there go my delusions(sweet, sweet delusions, I hardly knew ye). I’m not under any delusions, I just prefer to have my particular voice in the court of public opinions come from a strong fact-based position instead of speculation. I’m also in the unenviable position of having to apply my principles(that whole “innocent until proven guilty” thing) to a bunch of people who are probably not worthy of such deference. Still, I’d appreciate the benefit of the doubt being extended to me, so I have to extend it myself. If we’re just letting opinions run amok I’d have gone out in a blaze of glory screaming my personal mantra “No one who seeks power should ever be allowed to wield it.”
Nitpick: I knew about the “Chinese wall” role for lawyers before coming into this thread. I just didn’t know they used them in the political arena. I thought it was mainly for contract negotiations and protection against intellectual property theft/industrial espionage. c.f. the aforementioned card game and the role of lawyers in discussions of new ideas for cards.
Enjoy,
Steven
In highly politicized conditions such as the ones presently prevailing, I’d say a strong argument could be made that effeciency is overrated.
Interesting. How would such an agreement be, uhhh, coordinated? 
Actually, from a pure self-interest point of view, I like the idea of everyone getting their own counsel – more work for the lawyers. However, legal costs are not inconsequential (and not just in fees, but in client time as well), and such practical realities really can’t be ignored.
Not sure if that’s a serious question, but when Client #2 approaches us for representation, we’d say “OK, but we may have a conflict with another (unnamed) client, may we disclose that you are seeking our representation?”
If they say OK, we go to client #1 and say “potential client #2 wishes us to represent them; we believe there is a conflict for the following reasons (and we don’t think it’s worrisome for the following reasons) and would like you to waive it and allow us to disclose your identity.”
If they say OK, we then go back to client #2 and say “the party we were conflicted with was client #1, and they’ve waived the conflict. Now that we’ve disclosed the identity of the client, will you also waive the conflict?”
If they say OK, the representation proceeds accordingly. If at any point one of the parties says “not OK,” we have to decline to represent client #2.
Of course, I’m describing the most paranoid possible scenario in the above case. Usually, it’s no great mystery as to who we represent and why conflicts exist, so the caution over client identities often isn’t there, in which case we just ask each party separately for a waiver. There’s also an element of judgment: if we know a particular client isn’t going to waive a conflict, we’ll just decline the second representation outright rather than waste everyone’s time (and if the client is so paranoid as to be concerned about disclosing his identity, seeking a waiver is most likely a waste of time).
At last we’re getting somewhere - an analogy that might actually come close to applying.
Perhaps you missed the part where I clarified for you that material, relevant communications are obviously barred in the case of campaign law. In business deals, they are obviously necessary. I would plan to repeat that until you acknowledge that I’ve said it, if there was any hope of that.
I did not. Go back and fucking read. You even *quoted * me saying "to name a few of the most obvious. "
A few. *Not * “limited to”. Got it now? I can type more slowly if you’re still having trouble.
So your claim to special expertise is based on what, then? Yes, it’s a new law, but it’s purpose is entirely fucking clear, and cannot be pettifogged away.
Which is also why you use enough caution to make sure that obviously-questionable arrangements are not made in the first place. Which is why you engage a lawyer to cover yourself if you plan to do it anyway.
Nope, guess you never do fucking read. Material, relevant communications would pretty damn obviously be coordination themselves. Hotel recommendations would pretty damn obviously not. This is like talking to the damn wall.
Just a moment ago you were acknowledging that the law is new and untested. Now such a role in it is “commonplace”.
There is no chutzpah in saying you admittedly don’t know the law as well as you claim to elsewhere, or that you’re overlooking the damn obvious in your attempts to interpret it favorably. There is no chutzpah in saying that you haven’t understood or accurately represented what you’ve been told, either; that only takes a command of English. You’re actually contributing no more than Shodan is at this rate.
I see that you managed to pull out the trump card that you said doesn’t exist.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5189461&postcount=51
You are a blithering idiot.
The chutzpah comes in claiming that you, a non-lawyer, know what Dewey does for a living better than he does. And you are a blithering idiot.
The chutzpah comes in being a complete, blind, drooling moron, and either not realizing it, or not admitting it and hoping no one notices. But we did. And you are a blithering idiot.
But, since you have not been able to produce any evidence of material or relevant communications, no coordination has occurred. And you are a blithering idiot.
Since the arrangements are so obviously illegal, please produce evidence that they have occurred. And you are a blithering idiot.
You also engage a lawyer to advise you if you want to be sure not to inadvertently transgress the law. The law, being new, is complex.
Of course, anything more complex than potty training appears to be beyond your grasp. Because you are a blithering idiot.
Regards,
Shodan
Maybe you both could take reading-comprehension classes together. Sorta keep each other honest, you know? Just for starters:
Bzzzt. Click "Edit’, then “Find”, then type “Cordier” and “Perry”. The rest of your posts contain nothing to reply to.
How’re your Tourette’s meds coming? Think you might need some adjustments?
Spare me. There is a difference between discussing the law and discussing the manner in which law is practiced.
Oh, lordy, ain’t that the truth. Works even without the “discussing”.
Curious, then, that that’s all you manage to say on the matter.
And I will continue to explain why you’re wrong until you stop repeating it. A chinese wall is explicitly designed to stop material, relevant communications. That’s what they’re there for. That’s why parties include them in their agreements: as the price of dealing with me over here, I don’t want you to go do deals or share important information with Tom, Dick and Harry over there.
You miss the point. You have a view of what types of things are included in the law. But you don’t have any real basis for that, other than your own instinct. For all you know, the law might apply more broadly, or more narrowly. The only way to have any idea approaching certainty is to be well-versed in the way similar laws have been interpreted in the past
I don’t claim to be an expert on the new campaign finance laws, but I do claim to have professional experience in analagous situations. Which is a helluva lot more than you’ve got going for you.
It isn’t petifoggery to be concerned about how a law will be interpreted. As one of my law profs used to say, a statute is utterly meaningless until a court interprets it. And predicting those interpretations is what lawyers do. Courts and regulatory bodies are often guided as much by precedent from analagous situations as they are by the text of the law in question.
Or, as Shodan ably points out, you hire one to make certain you don’t step over a line inadvertently. As I noted earlier, most of the questions I get from clients are ridiculously obvious, but they call anyway out of an abundance of caution. And sometimes the question they think is obvious turns out not to be. It isn’t the 90% of the time where the answer turns out to be easy that makes them call, it’s the 10% of the time where we save them from some dreadful misstep that would have happened had they done the “obvious” thing.
Why aren’t hotel recommendations material and relevant? Managing funds is a critical component of any political operation. Logistics and travel are relevant to an organization’s ability to accomplish its goals.
And also, where do you get the notion that the test for communications amounting to coordination is their “materiality and relevance”? Has a court applied that test in the past? Is that the barometer the FEC is going to use? How do you know for sure?
A gatekeeping role is commonplace. In the process of complying with a new law, it should be unsurprising and uncontroversial that standard practices from analagous situations are used.
As Shodan ably points out, there is ample chutzpah in suggesting you know the nuts and bolts of law practice better than I do. That’s a little like me suggesting I know more about administering a web server than a professional network engineer because I once read an article on Apache.
Jeez Louise, ElvisL1ves, for somebody whose hopes for regime change in November match up with mine, you sure are coming off as a putz.
The bottom line is that the fundamental question of whether Ginsberg is a slimeball can be answered by noting the fact that he favors a November victory for Bush the Lesses.
Finding a grounds, and making a case for, his disbarment is not absolutely necessary at this time (or ever, if it comes to that), and you are wasting your energy trying to get Dewey to agree that Ginsberg should be (likely) the first lawyer prosecuted under the statute since its enactment.
A slight hint, Elvis old sock - the definition of “evidence” is not “wild accusations based on apparent mental defect or serious dishonesty”. Try again.
We might be making progress here. You have learned that you had best not respond to things that are beyond your mental grasp, at least with me. Now if we could only do the same with your interactions with Dewey.
Did I mention that you are a blithering idiot?
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes:
I know you mean this as an insult, but it also happens to be true. There is more to being a lawyer than just knowing the substance of the law, just as there is more to running a restaurant than knowing how to cook.
I look forward to ElvisL1ves chiming in to inform us that, although technically he has never actually seen the inside of a restaurant, he knows far more about what is involved in running one than Roy Kroc.
Regards,
Shodan