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
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.”
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
hailstones falling–
the pigeons hear
their fate
translated by David G. Lanoue
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)
by dagosan
the grocery bag
spills — blueberries . . . r o l l
bananas don’t
[Aug. 6, 2005]
August 5, 2005
stoolies and eagles
Comments Off on stoolies and eagles
just “worried” about getting to the truth
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
Comments Off on just “worried” about getting to the truth