f/k/a archives . . . real opinions & real haiku

August 5, 2005

stoolies and eagles

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 6:34 pm

In “Our Honor: Policing Ourselves in the Legal Profession, ” (NYSBA Gov., Law & Policy

Journal | Summer 2005) David L. Edmunds, Jr., Chief Counsel for the NYS Attorney Grievance

Committees, App. Div., 4th Jud. Dept., discusses at some length the ethical obligation to 

report non-privileged violations of the ethical rules by our fellow attorneys. See NY Rule

1-103(A); Model Rule 8.3; D.C. Bar Rule 8.3.  Edmunds says:


“The integrity of the legal profession can only be maintained when violations of

the disciplinary rules are brought to the attention of the proper officials. . . . The

profession is indeed privileged to have the responsibility of policing itself.”

We part company when he says “The legal community, both bench and bar, has met the challenge

and exceeded the responsibility placed upon it to regulate the profession.”   (see our prior post)  It

is ironic that Edmunds should be making this claim, since it was his 4th Dept. Grievance Committee

staffer who told me a few years ago — as described in blame bar counsel for the Capoccia Scandal 

— that they pay very little attention to complaints by lawyers about other lawyers, because (he

asserted) they almost always come from competitors trying to stifle the competition (e.g., complaints

about ads).

 


YAW: Yabut Analogy Watch:  Quoting Cain from the Bible, Edmunds uses a strange   prof yabut small flip

analogy in his article, pointing to the story of Cain and Abel, and stating that “We are

indeed the keeper of our brother and sister attorneys.”  As Answers.com has noted,

“Cain’s words have come to symbolize people’s unwillingness to accept responsibility

for the welfare of their fellows — their “brothers” in the extended sense of the term.

The tradition of Judaism and Christianity is that people do have this responsibility.”   

 

 

WmBlakeC&An  The Body of Abel, Found by Adam, by William Blake; larger

 

 

Observers such as I would say that our profession has indeed acted too much

like the keeper of other lawyers — covering their colleagues’ behinds and winking at

their bad conduct — rather than vigilant police who are looking out for the welfare of

clients and the public. 

 










roly-poly pigeons
growing fatter…
a long day


 

      Kobayashi ISSA

 

hailstones falling–
the pigeons hear
their fate


 


      translated by David G. Lanoue

 

 

hawk gray small   How about ending our workweek with Peggy Lyles?

Sounds very good to me:




 

 

 

a sea breeze

through the oleanders–

long afterglow

 

 

 

 






shrimp glisten

in the cast net

summer moon

 

 

 

 

 

history lesson

slowly the caged eagle

turns our way

 

 

Peggy Lyles from Snapshots Haiku Magazine #10 (2001)

 

 

                                                                                       WmBlakeC&A larger


 






  • by dagosan                                               












the grocery bag

spills —  blueberries . . . r  o  l  l

bananas don’t

 

[Aug. 6, 2005]

 

 

 

 

 

just “worried” about getting to the truth

Filed under: pre-06-2006 — David Giacalone @ 2:47 pm

Pointing to yesterday’s post on Role Differentiation, Prof. Bainbridge tells his readers today

that I am “still worried John Roberts might be a serious Catholic.”  Steve has misunderstood my

reasons for discussing what it means for a judge to be a Serious Catholic.  I added this update

on Aug. 3rd, to my first reply to Prof. B, and it is also relevant here:  


update:  Paul at Power Line is concerned that people such as your Editor 

are suggesting a Loyalty-to-the Constitution Test.   I can’t speak for others,

but that was not my intent.   What I’m looking for is an honest discussion. I

broached this topic yesterday because so many supporters of John Roberts

have so strongly stated that there is nothing about Roberts’ Catholicism that

would require him to take stands based on his faith, as opposed to his legal

philosophy and analysis.  I think they’re wrong (and most know it).  

Prof. B. should not assume he knows whether I would be pleased to have a Justice Roberts

acting like a Serious Catholic on the Supreme Court.  Frankly, it depends on the issue.  I’ve

brought the topic to this weblog to fill a void in the debate.  I hope it will keep all sides honest. 

 

p.s.  By the way, Prof. Bainbridge is the only weblogger I’ve  “BainbridgePix”

discovered who agrees with me, as he said, that there will  

likely be cases where serious Catholic judges like John Roberts

“would be religiously obligated to put one’s faith-based beliefs

ahead of, say, one’s views of precedent or socially accepted

moral norms.”  He’s also noted that “[I]t’s worth remembering

that Catholic judges are bound by both [judical ethics] rules

and the dictates of their faith. The latter bars formal cooperation

with evil . .” 

 

p.p.s   Prof. B. has posted an interesting assessment of Judge

Roberts and Catholicism by Texas lawyer Ron Anderson.  I

may not agree with it, but it is worth checking out.

 








 



since I’m old
the fleas aren’t worried
about escaping

 

 


translated by David G. Lanoue

 

 

Powered by WordPress