paul m. makes me want to dive right into autumn:
autumn footpath;
on the familiar elm
new initials
falling leaves
the rusty wheelbarrow
heavy with stones
by paul m., from A New Resonance 2: Emerging Voices in English-
Language Haiku (Jim Kacian & Dee Evetts, eds., Red Moon Press, 2001)
credits: “autumn footpath” – Frogpond XX:3;falling leaves” – Modern Haiku XXIX: 1
by dagosan:
supine at noon
sunshine spotlights
one big toe
[Sept. 14, 2004]
Update (4 PM): Dennis W. Driscoll, the “Silent Associate” involved in the April 7th
Daniels v. Alander case, left an extensive Comment today explaining his position, and
opining that the decision “puts all attorneys at risk”. For all the reasons stated in my
posts and comments on this topic, and without the benefit of the transcript, I believe
the principle applied was sound and that lawyers have been catastrophizing over it.
Lawyers seeking advice: (1) Carolyn wonders if she should delete old posts that put
individual lawyers in a bad light and (2) Evan ponders alcohol at lunch.
And, one from me: Do you agree with this advice from the Flint, MI, firm of Rizik & Rizik
on how to find a lawyer: “Judges are the best examples of secular trust in the community.
Give one a call for an opinion about your attorney or for a referral. He or she may be able
to direct you to the appropriate resource to find an attorney. You’ll be surprised how
approachable a judge will be.” Yeah, I would be surprised.
This case is a good example of the notion that reasonable people can disagree on the outcome of a legal analysis. David and I certainly disagree, as did at least one dissenter in the case itself as I recall.
I agree with Mr. Driscoll that the Connecticut ruling at least exposes lawyers in Connecticut, and their clients, to a potentially dangerous situation. The court essentially punished this associate for refusing to make a snap judgment, a snap judgment that could have jeopardized the lives and well-being of two small children had he chosen to speak up. I’m struck by the irony of how low a priority this court assigned to the clients’ interests in making their decision, while simultaneously lecturing to the associate the importance of legal ethics.
It is not “catastrophizing” to point attack this opinion. Had the ruling gone the other way, we know for a fact that 2 small children would have been wrongfully in the hands of a violent, convicted drug dealer instead of their mother. Considering that outcome to be a correct one because of the rules of ethics is elevating form over substance, i.e., the form of our ethical rules over the substantive goals of our system of justice. If legal ethics require attorneys to endanger innocent and helpless clients who have done no wrong, ethics advocates need to take a step back and revisit their goals in interpreting those rules.
Comment by UCL — September 14, 2004 @ 10:21 pm
This case is a good example of the notion that reasonable people can disagree on the outcome of a legal analysis. David and I certainly disagree, as did at least one dissenter in the case itself as I recall.
I agree with Mr. Driscoll that the Connecticut ruling at least exposes lawyers in Connecticut, and their clients, to a potentially dangerous situation. The court essentially punished this associate for refusing to make a snap judgment, a snap judgment that could have jeopardized the lives and well-being of two small children had he chosen to speak up. I’m struck by the irony of how low a priority this court assigned to the clients’ interests in making their decision, while simultaneously lecturing to the associate the importance of legal ethics.
It is not “catastrophizing” to point attack this opinion. Had the ruling gone the other way, we know for a fact that 2 small children would have been wrongfully in the hands of a violent, convicted drug dealer instead of their mother. Considering that outcome to be a correct one because of the rules of ethics is elevating form over substance, i.e., the form of our ethical rules over the substantive goals of our system of justice. If legal ethics require attorneys to endanger innocent and helpless clients who have done no wrong, ethics advocates need to take a step back and revisit their goals in interpreting those rules.
Comment by UCL — September 14, 2004 @ 10:21 pm