Subpoena argument at Supreme Court

[Gold*]

John Roberts once lost a Supreme Court case to the late Rex Lee, who was the president of BYU and Roberts' friend and mentor. The vote was 9-0. Roberts called his client to advise of the drubbing. "9-0? 9-0?" the client said. "Why did we lose 9-0?" Said Roberts, "Well, because there are only nine justices."

I think we’re going to see the tax returns and a lot of bank records. This is going to be mandatory precedent that will end this debate.

Then again, US v. Nixon is such mandatory precedent. So is the Paula Jones case — hell, that case directly addresses the issue of acts by the President before he took office, including acts not relevant to issues in the civil case (i.e. Lewinksy). It wasn’t very hard to figure out that they have to produce the documents here.

I mean, when Clarence Thomas dunks on you, you gonna lose.

 

[Rippin]

John Roberts once lost a Supreme Court case to the late Rex Lee, who was the president of BYU and Roberts' friend and mentor. The vote was 9-0. Roberts called his client to advise of the drubbing. "9-0? 9-0?" the client said. "Why did we lose 9-0?" Said Roberts, "Well, because there are only nine justices."

I think we’re going to see the tax returns and a lot of bank records. This is going to be mandatory precedent that will end this debate.

Then again, US v. Nixon is such mandatory precedent. So is the Paula Jones case — hell, that case directly addresses the issue of acts by the President before he took office, including acts not relevant to issues in the civil case (i.e. Lewinksy). It wasn’t very hard to figure out that they have to produce the documents here.

I mean, when Clarence Thomas dunks on you, you gonna lose.

Are you seriously implying that Obama’s IRS, the same people WHO GOT CAUGHT TARGETING CONSERVATIVES, just allowed Trump to get away with cheating on his taxes without taking any action against him/auditing him when he called out Obama for not being born in the USA?!

Are you implying that Mueller wouldn’t have found financial crimes during the course of his 2.5 yr investigation of Trump that included his handpicked team of never-Trumpers? Not only did Mueller & everyone on his Special Investigation team hate Trump, SO DID THE GUY THAT APPOINTED MUELLER (Rod Rosenstein!)

Lol DUDE, your TDS is showing again. Bad.

 

[astonmartin708]

Are you seriously implying that Obama’s IRS, the same people WHO GOT CAUGHT TARGETING CONSERVATIVES, just allowed Trump to get away with cheating on his taxes without taking any action against him/auditing him when he called out Obama for not being born in the USA?!

Are you implying that Mueller wouldn’t have found financial crimes during the course of his 2.5 yr investigation of Trump that included his handpicked team of never-Trumpers? Not only did Mueller & everyone on his Special Investigation team hate Trump, SO DID THE GUY THAT APPOINTED MUELLER (Rod Rosenstein!)

Lol DUDE, your TDS is showing again. Bad.

Good sir, you have to realize that this issue is bigger than just Trump. What if it was a Democrat in office who was arguing they were immune from subpoena and / or hiding their tax returns.

 

[Gold*]

Live look at Jay Sekulow, idiot tv lawyer trying to play in the majors.

 

[Gold*]

Good sir, you have to realize that this issue is bigger than just Trump. What if it was a Democrat in office who was arguing they were immune from subpoena and / or hiding their tax returns.

I don’t think these cases are that complex and don’t believe this argument should be taking place. That said, I can see slight merit in doing this. You have to understand that such discovery type disputes are rarely heard this high up and the only reason it’s there is because it involves the President.

All that said, the procedure behind this is very complex and that’s what controls most of these issues. What is the procedural issue the Court is reviewing? What Court has subject jurisdiction? How did this get to the Court — original or appellate jurisdiction? If you don’t understand these issues, it’s pretty hard to have a coherent opinion, especially when you’re an apprentice level rectal haberdasher seeking new opportunities, in this economy no less.

 

[Gold*]

Sekulow’s argument that your can infer bad faith from the state subpoena because it mirrors the congressional one, even though every court already made a finding there is no such intent, is so effing bad. But Fox News lawyer gonna Fox News.

The Supreme Court can’t make a finding of fact in an appeal. They are stuck with the facts below. Even this group of Federalist Society all stars (club for dudes who didn’t get laid in law school) can’t figure out a way around that.

 

[aTUfan]

Tax returns are irrellovent. A good tax attorney can legally hide lots of money.
The question should be, where did the money come from that paid for what you did today.

 

[Rippin]

Tax returns are protected as they’re private.

Y’all need to be careful what you wish for, seriously because if this scrutiny/transparency were applied to every single public servant (elected & non-elected) most of the people you support in politics would be disqualified. It would also give incentive for potentially great politicians to not run for office.

 

[Rippin]

Live look at Jay Sekulow, idiot tv lawyer trying to play in the majors.

View embedded media

I would never post this trash. You can take your kid to drag queen story hour or stripper story time. Watch the country burn, since that’s clearly what you want to see happen.

 

[Gold*]

Tax returns are irrellovent. A good tax attorney can legally hide lots of money.
The question should be, where did the money come from that paid for what you did today.

Tell me about this “irrellovence” standard. Seems interesting.

You are so clueless, it’s not even cute. The standard for a civil subpoena is whether the documents are proportional to the needs of the case and calculated to lead to admissible evidence. A criminal subpoena (like New York State) is much broader. A Congressional subpoena is possibly limitless (which was really the argument today). The standard just isn’t whether the documents would be “relevant” in a court proceeding. Never has, never will.

The rest of your argument is obscene. Tax fraud is a crime. There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud. That alone is discoverable through a subpoena. You can’t just assume the tax attorney did it right because they say so. The state and federal taxing authorities have an absolute right to look into that (although that isn’t really the issue here). These things are subject to process, just like Bill Clinton’s pre-presidential sexual escapades.

What’s it like to be so clueless?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Tell me about this “irrellovence” standard. Seems interesting.

You are so clueless, it’s not even cute. The standard for a civil subpoena is whether the documents are proportional to the needs of the case and calculated to lead to admissible evidence. A criminal subpoena (like New York State) is much broader. A Congressional subpoena is possibly limitless (which was really the argument today). The standard just isn’t whether the documents would be “relevant” in a court proceeding. Never has, never will.

The rest of your argument is obscene. Tax fraud is a crime. There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud. That alone is discoverable through a subpoena. You can’t just assume the tax attorney did it right because they say so. The state and federal taxing authorities have an absolute right to look into that (although that isn’t really the issue here). These things are subject to process, just like Bill Clinton’s pre-presidential sexual escapades.

What’s it like to be so clueless?

You'd think he'd wise up and realize he gets made a fool whenever he posts this stuff. Nope, repeatedly replays the fool.

 

[TU_BLA]

Tell me about this “irrellovence” standard. Seems interesting.

You are so clueless, it’s not even cute. The standard for a civil subpoena is whether the documents are proportional to the needs of the case and calculated to lead to admissible evidence. A criminal subpoena (like New York State) is much broader. A Congressional subpoena is possibly limitless (which was really the argument today). The standard just isn’t whether the documents would be “relevant” in a court proceeding. Never has, never will.

The rest of your argument is obscene. Tax fraud is a crime. There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud. That alone is discoverable through a subpoena. You can’t just assume the tax attorney did it right because they say so. The state and federal taxing authorities have an absolute right to look into that (although that isn’t really the issue here). These things are subject to process, just like Bill Clinton’s pre-presidential sexual escapades.

What’s it like to be so clueless?

There are probably a few things they are trying to hide. The self-donations to his own charitable organization which was proven to be fraudulent...thus tax write-offs on donations to a non-profit that never qualified for NP status for one. Or double reporting losses as was frequently the case with his casinos. There's a long string of incidents in the 80s/90s of Trump Org. double reporting items. I have no doubt State of NY can get him on a crime, probably racketeering but the real reason to do it is to show the red states they've been duped by a two-bit con artist, who is a failure as a businessman, except for the part of getting away with white collar crimes....so far.

 

[Gold*]

There are probably a few things they are trying to hide. The self-donations to his own charitable organization which was proven to be fraudulent...thus tax write-offs on donations to a non-profit that never qualified for NP status for one. Or double reporting losses as was frequently the case with his casinos. There's a long string of incidents in the 80s/90s of Trump Org. double reporting items. I have no doubt State of NY can get him on a crime, probably racketeering but the real reason to do it is to show the red states they've been duped by a two-bit con artist, who is a failure as a businessman, except for the part of getting away with white collar crimes....so far.

No, the state subpoena is related to a grand jury that is vested with virtually limitless power to investigate crimes. If there’s a crime, even one not involving Trump or Deutsche Bank, they can investigate. That’s just what the law says.

The Congressional issue is different. I think Article I is so broad (you can repeatedly investigate Hilary Clinton’s private emails) that the argument for a limit is really weak. They are inviting limitless litigation if they try to establish a rule here. The House attorney has the better side, but wasn’t as strong. But his briefs are way better than Trump’s.

 

[aTUfan]

irrovent -- many people like congressmen live beyond their posted income. Someone else foots the bill. ie. benefits from a trust, charities, campaign funds, so called business write offs, wined and dined by everyone wanting something, the taxpayers . . .

"There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud"
trump must use quicken or tax act to do his own taxes then
Because no accounting firm would jeopardize them self to commit fraud

 

[Gold*]

irrovent -- many people like congressmen live beyond their posted income. Someone else foots the bill. ie. benefits from a trust, charities, campaign funds, so called business write offs, wined and dined by everyone wanting something, the taxpayers . . .

"There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud"
trump must use quicken or tax act to do his own taxes then
Because no accounting firm would jeopardize them self to commit fraud

That’s all completely irrovent to what we are talking about.

This is the NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

They won a Pulitzer, not a “Noble.”

 

[Rippin]

No, the state subpoena is related to a grand jury that is vested with virtually limitless power to investigate crimes. If there’s a crime, even one not involving Trump or Deutsche Bank, they can investigate. That’s just what the law says.

The Congressional issue is different. I think Article I is so broad (you can repeatedly investigate Hilary Clinton’s private emails) that the argument for a limit is really weak. They are inviting limitless litigation if they try to establish a rule here. The House attorney has the better side, but wasn’t as strong. But his briefs are way better than Trump’s.

They require probably cause, fool. The GJ is convened to decide if probable cause exists for alleged crime(s) to be addressed with charge(s)/indictment(s) - you seem to have it backwards & think any GJ can just be sequestered to look at any abundance of “evidence” (even if it’s private & protected by law) in an effort to just go through everything (even if it’s HIPAA protected) to try & find a crime or a lead to a crime that may or may not have been committed by a person or group. Let’s just throw the constitution out the window, while we’re at it!

wow

 

[Rippin]

That’s all completely irrovent to what we are talking about.

This is the NYT article. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-tax-schemes-fred-trump.html

They won a Pulitzer, not a “Noble.”

Way to end a sentence with a preposition while hating on him for a typo... you’re not cool & you’re a damned cookie cutter lawyer! The only people who laugh at your bs are fools! You give me reason to go ahead & take the bar just so I can find a way to destroy you.

 

[Rippin]

irrovent -- many people like congressmen live beyond their posted income. Someone else foots the bill. ie. benefits from a trust, charities, campaign funds, so called business write offs, wined and dined by everyone wanting something, the taxpayers . . .

"There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud"
trump must use quicken or tax act to do his own taxes then
Because no accounting firm would jeopardize them self to commit fraud

This is absolutely correct. They’re corrupt. Obama —> Iran deal —> slush fund —> Singapore —> book deal. The hammer has been raised, it’s about to drop.

What are you going to say when Trump finally declassifies of Barry Hussein Obama admin’s crimes? I know you’ll stare truth in the face & deny it or at least try to but when the declas actually happens you & all the other bleeding hearts/wanna be cool libtards won’t be able to live with yourselves because it’s going to truly be that damning.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Way to end a sentence with a preposition while hating on him for a typo... you’re not cool & you’re a damned cookie cutter lawyer! The only people who laugh at your bs are fools! You give me reason to go ahead & take the bar just so I can find a way to destroy you.

So which of the four states who allow you to take the bar without a law degree are you going to pick. I'm guessing Virginia. Cali might be whispering to you though. Good luck finding a lawyer in any of those four states to apprentice you, which is a prerequisite.

 

[Gold*]

So which of the four states who allow you to take the bar without a law degree are you going to pick. I'm guessing Virginia. Cali might be whispering to you though. Good luck finding a lawyer in any of those four states to apprentice you, which is a prerequisite.

Pretty sure you have to take Bar everywhere but Wisconsin. Used to be if you graduated from Wisconsin law school, you were in. There’s now some sort of universal bar exam, which seems kinda silly.

California allows non ABA approved law school grads (online law school) to take bar, but their bar exam is much harder. Oklahoma had to make its test easier a few years ago because people weren’t passing. Candy asses . . .

The bar is hard work. Some will remember Gusherbob yelling at me on here to study.

But for many, it’s hard enough to get into law school. You have to have an undergrad degree first! And they don’t recognize rectal haberdashery, either. Especially if it’s not approved by the ABA.

Also, this:

 

[HuffyCane]

Pretty sure you have to take Bar everywhere but Wisconsin. Used to be if you graduated from Wisconsin law school, you were in. There’s now some sort of universal bar exam, which seems kinda silly.

California allows non ABA approved law school grads (online law school) to take bar, but their bar exam is much harder. Oklahoma had to make its test easier a few years ago because people weren’t passing. Candy asses . . .

The bar is hard work. Some will remember Gusherbob yelling at me on here to study.

But for many, it’s hard enough to get into law school. You have to have an undergrad degree first! And they don’t recognize rectal haberdashery, either. Especially if it’s not approved by the ABA.

Also, this:

View embedded media

He’s referring to the four jurisdictions that permit the “reading of the law” as an exception to an ABA degree. Washington, Vermont, California and Virginia all have apprenticeship alternatives to the law school model. It isn’t easy and most fail the bar exam. In Cali, you took a baby bar exam, if you pass it, then you can begin the apprenticeship. It’s between 3 and 10 years depending on how much you work per week. It probably makes sense for non-trial divorce lawyers, traffic court lawyers, and some types of uncontested wills and trusts lawyers (with a boat load of malpractice insurance). $150,000 for law school to push DUI pleas on first time offenders makes as much sense as $200,000 for a TU communications degree. So I see the draw. But most people just waste five years of their life giving free labor to some hack and can’t pass the bar exam.

I did post grad study at Oxford. I’ve talked to people on faculty there, folks who have written philosophy textbooks, Ivy League doctors, foreign service exam graduates, nuclear engineers, all of whom have taken the bar exam and all of whom agree it was the most strenuous intellectual exercise in their lives, but some disagreed it was the most stressful. A barred ER doc told me he found it relaxing.

Oklahoma was significantly more difficult than other states. Weird subjects like Oil and Gas Tax and such that aren’t required courses. Extra essays. Confusing multiple choice.

 

[HuffyCane]

So which of the four states who allow you to take the bar without a law degree are you going to pick. I'm guessing Virginia. Cali might be whispering to you though. Good luck finding a lawyer in any of those four states to apprentice you, which is a prerequisite.

You think he’ll make it past the mental health and character fitness interview after the bar?

 

[Gmoney4WW]

You think he’ll make it past the mental health and character fitness interview after the bar?

Only if he's got Raymond Reddington in his corner.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

He’s referring to the four jurisdictions that permit the “reading of the law” as an exception to an ABA degree. Washington, Vermont, California and Virginia all have apprenticeship alternatives to the law school model. It isn’t easy and most fail the bar exam. In Cali, you took a baby bar exam, if you pass it, then you can begin the apprenticeship. It’s between 3 and 10 years depending on how much you work per week. It probably makes sense for non-trial divorce lawyers, traffic court lawyers, and some types of uncontested wills and trusts lawyers (with a boat load of malpractice insurance). $150,000 for law school to push DUI pleas on first time offenders makes as much sense as $200,000 for a TU communications degree. So I see the draw. But most people just waste five years of their life giving free labor to some hack and can’t pass the bar exam.

I did post grad study at Oxford. I’ve talked to people on faculty there, folks who have written philosophy textbooks, Ivy League doctors, foreign service exam graduates, nuclear engineers, all of whom have taken the bar exam and all of whom agree it was the most strenuous intellectual exercise in their lives, but some disagreed it was the most stressful. A barred ER doc told me he found it relaxing.

Oklahoma was significantly more difficult than other states. Weird subjects like Oil and Gas Tax and such that aren’t required courses. Extra essays. Confusing multiple choice.

Yep that was exactly what I was referring to. Oil & Gas is a gas. gas, gas to answer on the bar exam, I am sure. The only test I have ever taken, in your list was the foreign service exam. That was definitely hard, but I took it right after 911, which was way too close to my stroke in '94. I'd like to take it again, but they have increased the stringency of acceptance back to normal now.

 

[HuffyCane]

Yep that was exactly what I was referring to. Oil & Gas is a gas. gas, gas to answer on the bar exam, I am sure. The only test I have ever taken, in your list was the foreign service exam. That was definitely hard, but I took it right after 911, which was way to close too my stroke in '94. I'd like to take it again, but they have increased the stringency of acceptance back to normal now.

Yeah, but it’s free at any Slyvan center now and it’s offered year around. Nothing to lose.

 

[Gold*]

He’s referring to the four jurisdictions that permit the “reading of the law” as an exception to an ABA degree. Washington, Vermont, California and Virginia all have apprenticeship alternatives to the law school model. It isn’t easy and most fail the bar exam. In Cali, you took a baby bar exam, if you pass it, then you can begin the apprenticeship. It’s between 3 and 10 years depending on how much you work per week. It probably makes sense for non-trial divorce lawyers, traffic court lawyers, and some types of uncontested wills and trusts lawyers (with a boat load of malpractice insurance). $150,000 for law school to push DUI pleas on first time offenders makes as much sense as $200,000 for a TU communications degree. So I see the draw. But most people just waste five years of their life giving free labor to some hack and can’t pass the bar exam.

I did post grad study at Oxford. I’ve talked to people on faculty there, folks who have written philosophy textbooks, Ivy League doctors, foreign service exam graduates, nuclear engineers, all of whom have taken the bar exam and all of whom agree it was the most strenuous intellectual exercise in their lives, but some disagreed it was the most stressful. A barred ER doc told me he found it relaxing.

Oklahoma was significantly more difficult than other states. Weird subjects like Oil and Gas Tax and such that aren’t required courses. Extra essays. Confusing multiple choice.

In Oklahoma, if you do what you are supposed to on multistate, I have been told they don’t read the essays. There are only essay questions on state test and MBE is all multi-choice.

I studied just as hard for essays. It wasn’t that bad. They gave me every test going back 10-15 years and you start to notice patterns. I created several topic outlines for issues to look for. By memorizing those, I had about 90-95% covered.

There were a few curveballs, like an ag law/ security interest in cattle question, two Con law questions (that I knew more than anything), two PR questions (you have to pass that), and this weird question about implied contracts when you order at a restaurant. I don’t think there’s anything more needed than a superficial knowledge of oil and gas. I spent a bunch of time learning about bailment for some reason and still drop that on people from time to time. And for some reason I was worried about tax law and insurance, which really aren’t on the test.

I took all the first amendment stuff in law school, but this off brand bar outline I had was way better for that. I do use that in my practice. There’s a curious amount of defamation cases in this state. They never go anywhere, but there are crazy ass okie fact pattens that make those cases work.

One thing that has always annoyed me is that they throw some bankruptcy/ commercial paper/ secured transactions stuff at you in bar prep, but all you needed to know is there is this thing called an automatic stay. I wasted so much time trying to learn the entire UCC.

There are some really bad lawyers. It can’t be that hard.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yeah, but it’s free at any Slyvan center now and it’s offered year around. Nothing to lose.

Yeah except I'm 51 now. Prolly a little late to start a career with them.

 

[Gold*]

You think he’ll make it past the mental health and character fitness interview after the bar?

They check on that before law school and during law school. The application you fill out in law school is a major pain in the ass. They want to know about everything you’ve ever done, traffic tickets, and any arrests (not just charges that were expunged). You have to list everywhere you’ve lived, find someone there to vouch for you (that was a pain), and you get your name printed in the bar journal and anyone reading can send in comments about whether you are fit or not.

They kicked out a couple of classmates in law school who didn’t tell the truth on these things. One dude in my class got kicked out in gear two for not telling the whole truth on the application.

There’s an attorney in town whose claim to to fame is that he was teacher that hooked up with a couple of 14 year old students before he took the bar. The laws on molestation were different then. They wouldn’t let him take the bar for years, then somehow he was able to do so. I’ve tried several times to figure out what he did to get around this case, but I don’t think there’s a record. https://www.leagle.com/decision/19881785759p2d102611774

I had a case against him and found him to be as dishonest as you would imagine. He had filed an emergency motion and we agreed we would meet at 3:30. I got over there a little after 3, with my client, and he had the order signed. He hasn’t taken a case against me since and got out of that one.

 

[Rippin]

So which of the four states who allow you to take the bar without a law degree are you going to pick. I'm guessing Virginia. Cali might be whispering to you though. Good luck finding a lawyer in any of those four states to apprentice you, which is a prerequisite.

You should know by now that I forged my law degree... it is frawyoujulent

 

[astonmartin708]

You guys need to experience some of the engineering licensure exams. Some are harder than others. My discipline was Bananas. Certainly comparable to the time most of my acquaintances who are lawyers spent studying for the bar. I would say more trying though because study materials were much harder to come by.

 

[Rippin]

You guys need to experience some of the engineering licensure exams. Some are harder than others. My discipline was Bananas. Certainly comparable to the time most of my acquaintances who are lawyers spent studying for the bar. I would say more trying though because study materials were much harder to come by.

I studied female anatomy & how to communicate in a banana republic. Does that count? I have more hours than the average lawyer both inside & outside... the courthouse.

 

[Rippin]

Tell me about this “irrellovence” standard. Seems interesting.

You are so clueless, it’s not even cute. The standard for a civil subpoena is whether the documents are proportional to the needs of the case and calculated to lead to admissible evidence. A criminal subpoena (like New York State) is much broader. A Congressional subpoena is possibly limitless (which was really the argument today). The standard just isn’t whether the documents would be “relevant” in a court proceeding. Never has, never will.

The rest of your argument is obscene. Tax fraud is a crime. There was a fantastic NYT article some time back about Trump’s decades of tax fraud. That alone is discoverable through a subpoena. You can’t just assume the tax attorney did it right because they say so. The state and federal taxing authorities have an absolute right to look into that (although that isn’t really the issue here). These things are subject to process, just like Bill Clinton’s pre-presidential sexual escapades.

What’s it like to be so clueless?

Is treason a crime?

Obama, Biden, Susan Rice & James Comey. Unfortunately, Rice & Comey may have to take the fall (along with others) for Obama & Biden for this. In fact, as the facts continue to come out it’s possible that Obama & Biden might walk on this solely because Biden is running for president. In which case it will be a genuine stroke of luck that Biden ran at all.

Let’s focus on what we know BEFORE the meeting that is now #Obamagate -

Did Obama not weaponize the C.iA / Intel against the associated Press & separately conservative senators?

Did Obama weaponize the IRS against conservatives?

Benghazi?

Fast & Furious?

Weaponize the FBI/C.iA against political opponent?

Forge a birth certificate?

Marry a man?

ok, the last two you don’t have to believe but the others are all true.

#Obamagate

 

[HuffyCane]

You guys need to experience some of the engineering licensure exams. Some are harder than others. My discipline was Bananas. Certainly comparable to the time most of my acquaintances who are lawyers spent studying for the bar. I would say more trying though because study materials were much harder to come by.

Negative. I’ve polled countless engineers who are lawyers and lawyers who were engineers before law school. They have all said it wasn’t close.

The only stem person I’ve talked to who said the bar exam wasn’t harder compared to the credentialing in their previous profession was a guy who ran the nuclear reactor on a submarine. And he said it wasn’t the science that was hard but the procedural steps you had to follow.

 

[Gold*]

Negative. I’ve polled countless engineers who are lawyers and lawyers who were engineers before law school. They have all said it wasn’t close.

The only stem person I’ve talked to who said the bar exam wasn’t harder compared to the credentialing in their previous profession was a guy who ran the nuclear reactor on a submarine. And he said it wasn’t the science that was hard but the procedural steps you had to follow.

Another unique fact of legal practice is that you are bound by very strict ethics rules. Most professions don’t have that or a regulatory body that your unethical acts can be reported to (and that lawyers underwrite with dues).

The reason they have the background check is to make sure attorneys aren’t likely to do horrible things once they pass the bar. That system mostly works, although there are still some real idiots. But once you’re in, any DUI you get has to be self-reported. If you don’t, you’re going to be in serious trouble. And as the offenses get worse, the punishment gets way worse.

I think this system needs to become more stringent. There are ethics rules about meritorious claims and knowledge of the law. I think violations of those should be more severe. For example, if you call a proud, beautiful, and intelligent woman a man in a brief, that ought to result in monetary fines and suspension if you keep doing it.

There’s a time and place to piss authority figures off, but generally you aren’t going to get in trouble if you had just cause to stand up to them. I love those days. I once caused the state Medicaid agency serious problems — and won! But there is a broader issue with meritless claims (the President is always above the law and Flynn should be dismissed) and outright lying and obfuscation (not handing over documents that should be part of record) that needs to be addressed. So much of what I do day to day is catch people lying in discovery. And once they are caught, they still won’t tell you what happened, even if you absolutely deserve to know.

Most of these ethics rules came out of the Watergate era and I wonder if we are going to need to look at that again.

 

[astonmartin708]

Negative. I’ve polled countless engineers who are lawyers and lawyers who were engineers before law school. They have all said it wasn’t close.

The only stem person I’ve talked to who said the bar exam wasn’t harder compared to the credentialing in their previous profession was a guy who ran the nuclear reactor on a submarine. And he said it wasn’t the science that was hard but the procedural steps you had to follow.

I have to respectfully disagree, having talked to multiple attorneys about their study regimen for the bar... mine was more rigorous. Especially because they expect engineers to already have 4 years of practice under their belts by the time they take their professional licensure exams. On top of that you have to take a general engineering test after college to even be able to develop the 4 years of engineering experience required to take the professional's exam. (And like I said... different disciplines of engineers have varying difficulties of exams... civils and mechanicals have it relatively easy while less populated disciplines have it harder)

 

[astonmartin708]

Another unique fact of legal practice is that you are bound by very strict ethics rules. Most professions don’t have that or a regulatory body that your unethical acts can be reported to (and that lawyers underwrite with dues).

The reason they have the background check is to make sure attorneys aren’t likely to do horrible things once they pass the bar. That system mostly works, although there are still some real idiots. But once you’re in, any DUI you get has to be self-reported. If you don’t, you’re going to be in serious trouble. And as the offenses get worse, the punishment gets way worse.

I think this system needs to become more stringent. There are ethics rules about meritorious claims and knowledge of the law. I think violations of those should be more severe. For example, if you call a proud, beautiful, and intelligent woman a man in a brief, that ought to result in monetary fines and suspension if you keep doing it.

There’s a time and place to piss authority figures off, but generally you aren’t going to get in trouble if you had just cause to stand up to them. I love those days. I once caused the state Medicaid agency serious problems — and won! But there is a broader issue with meritless claims (the President is always above the law and Flynn should be dismissed) and outright lying and obfuscation (not handing over documents that should be part of record) that needs to be addressed. So much of what I do day to day is catch people lying in discovery. And once they are caught, they still won’t tell you what happened, even if you absolutely deserve to know.

Most of these ethics rules came out of the Watergate era and I wonder if we are going to need to look at that again.

Every state has licensing boards for Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Nurses, Teachers, etc... that you can report ethical violations to. I know for professional engineers if you catch a felony charge, your license gets taken away for at least a period of time if not permanently... and if you have a claim against you for ethical malpractice or procedural malpractice the punishment usually fits the violation. I agree that the state BARs and law schools tend to be a bit more rigorous regarding the ethical / legal violations that aspirant attorneys might have committed though. (I'm still astounded by how many times I've heard of law students using illegal drugs - coke - during law school though)

 

[Gold*]

Every state has licensing boards for Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers, Nurses, Teachers, etc... that you can report ethical violations to. I know for professional engineers if you catch a felony charge, your license gets taken away for at least a period of time if not permanently... and if you have a claim against you for ethical malpractice or procedural malpractice the punishment usually fits the violation. I agree that the state BARs and law schools tend to be a bit more rigorous regarding the ethical / legal violations that aspirant attorneys might have committed though. (I'm still astounded by how many times I've heard of law students using illegal drugs - coke - during law school though)

Right, but no other profession has rules directly created by their state Supreme Court and ultimately subject to their review. A couple of years back they started making those cases open to public on OSCN for review.

You have state medical boards that regulate ethics and safety and so on. But the rules aren’t as nuanced as this. There’s a lot you can screw up.

There are a lot of assholes in law school and the practice of law. And in general society. I wouldn’t recommend attorneys using drugs. One of my law school classmates went to Leavenworth for embezzlement related to his unimaginable appetite for cocaine.

 

[astonmartin708]

Right, but no other profession has rules directly created by their state Supreme Court and ultimately subject to their review. A couple of years back they started making those cases open to public on OSCN for review.

You have state medical boards that regulate ethics and safety and so on. But the rules aren’t as nuanced as this. There’s a lot you can screw up.

There are a lot of assholes in law school and the practice of law. And in general society. I wouldn’t recommend attorneys using drugs. One of my law school classmates went to Leavenworth for embezzlement related to his unimaginable appetite for cocaine.

I thought they just made lawyers with substance abuse problems coach pee-wee hockey teams in Minnesota.

 

[HuffyCane]

Meh. Engineering licensing in Florida is a private company under contract with the state. They have four employees. Not much regulation there. Their ethics prosecutor was fired from the Attorney General’s Office for buying hookers with a state credit card.

 

[astonmartin708]

Meh. Engineering licensing in Florida is a private company under contract with the state. They have four employees. Not much regulation there. Their ethics prosecutor was fired from the Attorney General’s Office for buying hookers with a state credit card.

Maybe that's more of a Florida problem than an engineering problem. LMAO.