Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
August 29, 2004Stop it.By Jim DallasTAPPED has a little ditty implying that John O'Neill should be disbarred. There are lots of things which ought right to be done to John O'Neill (one of the Swifties), but disbarment, at least for the reasons cited in the TAPPED post, is probably not one of them. To begin with , 8.02 seems to apply strictly to judicial candidates - judges, district attorneys, and attorneys general. Why drawing the line there would make sense ought to be obvious. But if it doesn't consider the reasoning in comment 8.02.1 - "Assessments by lawyers are relied on in evaluating the professional or personal fitness of persons being considered for election or appointment to judicial office and to Second, 8.04 would, I believe, is extremely general, almost a sort of catchall "don't do bad stuff." And the thrust of it, as far as I can tell, is that it is aimed at stuff that lawyers do in their capacity as lawyers, or that would reflect upon their lawyering. That said, I think the Swifties stuff makes O'Neill look hackish, but that doesn't necessarily change my opinion on his other professional activities. If you're going to start pulling rules out of thin air, oughtn't the Bar ignore you? This is just silly. Stop the "hunting of the Bush lawyers" on flimsy grounds. UPDATE: On the other hand, the case against Ben Ginsburg is looking pretty solid.
Comments
John O'Neil is beyond reproach. He is a democrat people! Read the LA Times from Saturday. He voted for Al Gore in 2000 and has called Bush "an empty suit"( I don't agree with him on that comment). He believes, as well as lots of other vets that John Kerry is not fit for commander-in-chief. He has a first amendment right to say so. Posted by: Allan Bartlett at August 29, 2004 04:49 PMI'm not sure anybody is beyond reproach (and, you know, the whole Nixon-O'Neill tapes certainly color my opinion, but that was 30 years ago); to the extent that O'Neill is voicing his opinion he has an absolute right to criticize Kerry for just about anything. And even if it's a really bad opinion predicated on disinformation, it's probably a bad idea to go around threatening people. On this I think we agree. Posted by: Jim D at August 29, 2004 04:56 PMI love this. He practices law like John Edwards. He looks out for the little guy. He says he voted for Al Gore. He calls W an empty suit and you guys want to take him out. Take away his occupation. All for St. Kerry. You guys must have problems sleeping at night, or your soul is gone already. The Liberal Media is beginning to leave your loser Kerry. They're not going to be W supporters, just not Kerry defenders. Posted by: peter at August 29, 2004 05:24 PMJohn O'Neill is a Republican. When confronted with federal records of his massive cash donations to GOP candidates, he just lies about it. I will never understand why people are so desperate to hate Democratic candidates that they will latch onto obvious smears and slanders and defend them to the death. Posted by: Matt at August 29, 2004 05:55 PMThe following language from Texas Disciplinary Rule of Professional Conduct 8.02: "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the *qualifications or integrity* of . . . . . . candidate for election . . . to . . . . . legal office;" would seem to apply to this situation. The issue then becomes does the State Bar want to conclude that O'Neil knew or was acting in reckless disregard as to the statements." If anyone does file a grievance complaint about it, you can have a lawyer represent you before the committee in which case the lawyer and you can be present at the proceedings. They recently changed the grievance process so it has become a little more "fast tracked." Posted by: WhoMe? at August 29, 2004 06:10 PMThe thing on Ben Ginsburg may be an issue on the written fees, but not on the pro bono. The rule lists an explanation of groups that can be considered pro bono in the traditional sense of the phrase, but there is genrally no prohibition against doing work for free for any client. The one possible exception may be with political groups, but that is a function of the election laws, not the ethics rules. I know that services given to certain political groups (such as candidates and office holders) is considered an "in kind" contribution, and so one is subject to doination caps (which is why Clinton had to incur debt to and pay his whitewater attorneys). With the (not so) Swifties, I think you can give unlimited amounts. Someone ought to look into that and if he cannot, then file an FEC complaint that Ben Ginsburg made an illegal donation to the group. Posted by: WhoMe? at August 29, 2004 06:17 PMI've since posted an update to my Ginsberg piece that extends my previous remarks--as WhoMe? notes, you can do work from free for a client, but doing so opens you up to some thorny questions of independence. But the term "pro bono" doesn't just mean "free." I was astonished that a smart fellow would bandy that term around. Posted by: Tim Francis-Wright at August 30, 2004 09:11 AMPost a comment
|
|