It was the wrong thread

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

There must be more to the story that I'm not getting, but this seems like a huge overreaction by the Court.

2. The judge is obviously a product of public schools.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

There must be more to the story that I'm not getting, but this seems like a huge overreaction by the Court.

Wholly disagree. First, the attorney that said she knew it was privileged but did nothing, violated established CA law that she had to notify and return the inadvertently disclosed information. Second, they lie. They are attorneys. Even the taint equals stink. And that story made G&R stink.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Wholly disagree. First, the attorney that said she knew it was privileged but did nothing, violated established CA law that she had to notify and return the inadvertently disclosed information. Second, they lie. They are attorneys. Even the taint equals stink. And that story made G&R stink.

I didn't say it was right; I said the court overreacted. Ordering a party to retain lawyers other than those of its choosing -- and its own GC -- is an interference with the rights of a client in order to resolve what is a matter of ethics of the profession.

And I think some courts and bar associations have lost sight of the purpose behind the attorney-client privilege. It's a privilege from having your statements to an attorney used against you in a legal proceeding (and it protects the attorney's advice to you in order to prevent the implicit disclosure of what you have said to elicit that advice). Treating it like a radioactive material that taints everyone it touches is bullshit. IMHO.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I didn't say it was right; I said the court overreacted. Ordering a party to retain lawyers other than those of its choosing -- and its own GC -- is an interference with the rights of a client in order to resolve what is a matter of ethics of the profession.

And I think some courts and bar associations have lost sight of the purpose behind the attorney-client privilege. It's a privilege from having your statements to an attorney used against you in a legal proceeding (and it protects the attorney's advice to you in order to prevent the implicit disclosure of what you have said to elicit that advice). Treating it like a radioactive material that taints everyone it touches is bullshit. IMHO.

Litigators have become such an obnoxious, unprincipled and contentious crew, I'm generally in favor of giving them grief in any way. They are law's equivalent of the tea party. If you ask me, judges should require that litigants retain corporate lawyers to resolve all disputes.

[John Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

And I think some courts and bar associations have lost sight of the purpose behind the attorney-client privilege. It's a privilege from having your statements to an attorney used against you in a legal proceeding (and it protects the attorney's advice to you in order to prevent the implicit disclosure of what you have said to elicit that advice). Treating it like a radioactive material that taints everyone it touches is bullshit. IMHO.

Is that much different from arguing that there should be no fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by John Phoenix

Is that much different from arguing that there should be no fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

For it to be perfectly analogous, the judge would have to disqualify the prosecutor's office from pursuing the case because some of them had seen evidence collected in violation of the Fourth or Fifth Amendments -- which OBTW they do see, all the time. By contrast, I would have been supportive of issue sanctions against G&R's client to preclude the improper use of privileged material but would have stopped short of saying either (1) their brains were infected by having seen a privileged document or (2) they need to be punished by having a client taken away.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Litigators have become such an obnoxious, unprincipled and contentious crew, I'm generally in favor of giving them grief in any way. They are law's equivalent of the tea party. If you ask me, judges should require that litigants retain corporate lawyers to resolve all disputes.

I generally agree with this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Strange bedfellows: Clarence Thomas and Stephen Reinhardt?

Proponents’ contention that I should recuse myself due to my wife’s
opinions is based upon an outmoded conception of the relationship between
spouses. When I joined this court in 1980 (well before my wife and I were
married), the ethics rules promulgated by the Judicial Conference stated that judges
should ensure that their wives not participate in politics. I wrote the ethics
committee and suggested that this advice did not reflect the realities of modern
marriage–that even if it were desirable for judges to control their wives, I did not
know many judges who could actually do so (I further suggested that the
Committee would do better to say “spouses” than “wives,” as by then we had as
members of our court Judge Mary Schroeder, Judge Betty Fletcher, and Judge
Dorothy Nelson)....

My wife and I share many fundamental interests by virtue of our marriage, but her views
regarding issues of public significance are her own, and cannot be imputed to me,
no matter how prominently she expresses them.3 It is her view, and I agree, that
she has the right to perform her professional duties without regard to whatever my
views may be, and that I should do the same without regard to hers. Because my
wife is an independent woman, I cannot accept Proponents’ position that my
impartiality might reasonably be questioned under § 455(a) because of her
opinions or the views of the organization she heads.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Strange bedfellows: Clarence Thomas and Stephen Reinhardt?

if the spouse is truly controlling of the Judge's opinion, the Judge would be afraid to grant the motion, so the only time the motion could be granted would be when it didn't matter. Catch 22.

think. about. it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if the spouse is truly controlling of the Judge's opinion, the Judge would be afraid to grant the motion, so the only time the motion could be granted would be when it didn't matter. Catch 22.

think. about. it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

if the spouse is truly controlling of the Judge's opinion, the Judge would be afraid to grant the motion, so the only time the motion could be granted would be when it didn't matter. Catch 22.

think. about. it.

That paradox applied to every motion for recusal. If the judge really is biased, he'd deny every motion.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Could you create a board where all these exist with explanations/definitions? Otherwise it just reads like a bad inside joke, like your blogs cut and pastes on the PB. No offence.

[LessinSF]

Boies and Olson benchslapped by Reinhardt - http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/break...rt/#more-51453 .

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Boies and Olson benchslapped by Reinhardt - http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/break...rt/#more-51453 .

Deservedly so.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Deservedly so.

Really? I read it as Reinhardt being pissed that a district court ruling he surely likes will have to be dismissed for lack of standing at the appellate level so that it cannot be given broader application outside California.

I'll wait for Atticus to weigh in, but whom exactly were they supposed to sue other than state officials, when only state officials are charged with implementing the law? They could sue Atticus's kids, but wouldn't they have been dismissed as defendants for not being proper defendants?

It seems like the strategy was entirely explicable--they knew that the state wasn't going to defend the law so you sue the defendants that you know are going to lie down anyway.