this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
87 points (98.9% liked)

politics

18850 readers
4976 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20231208134854/https://www.justsecurity.org/90509/trumps-lawyers-face-sanctions-discipline-and-indictment-how-should-the-legal-profession-respond/

The allegations and admissions of professional misconduct and criminal conduct by the Trump lawyers in these election challenges and other litigation, coupled with examination of their professional profiles, state Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and data on discipline of attorneys suggest that market incentives and structural weaknesses in current legal education and in the practice environment might encourage or, at least, leave ample room for misconduct.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] gibmiser@lemmy.world 41 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well, the BAR association could, I dunno, disbar them?

[–] DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Yes but we all know that's not going to happen.

[–] Jah348@lemm.ee 11 points 9 months ago

Tbf giuliani was disbarred

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

Can’t. They’re rich.

[–] youngGoku@lemmy.world 36 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Umm the legal profession should respond by doing their job and not lying to the court room and breaking the law.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Whoa whoa whoa, you gotta write hundreds of pages and exhaust every single other alternative before you can think about resorting to common sense human decency like that if you ever want to be a successful and influential lawyer under this legal system

[–] GlitchyDigiBun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I can tell you're being facetious, but you're 100% right. You do, indeed, need to give every benefit of the doubt in our legal process. That is what is meant by "innocent until proven guilty." They must make it so there is no foothold for appeal. No "well you didn't tell me..." or "you should have had a firm definition for..." No, if the legal system wants to take someone down, REALLY take them down, they must do it with every ounce of assurance and with no room for doubt that this person explicitly broke a law, in full knowledge and with warning, that they can be convicted to the full extent of said law.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

The bar association is a private group, not a government organization. They can do whatever they want. They're a group of lawyers. Why would they be afraid of someone suing them? They live in court.

They don't want to disbar people who are politically connected. It might lose them business. That's the answer.

[–] orclev@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago (1 children)

This seems like it's more or less working as intended. Trumps lawyers fucked around, and now they're finding out. We might wish that this all occurred a little faster or was a little more automatic, but at the end of the day they're being punished for breaking the rules.

The real failure here if there is one is entirely on the executive and legislative side of things not the judicial (well, the Supreme Court is an issue, but that's also a symptom of the current fuckery in the executive and legislative branches).

[–] athos77@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago

We might wish that this all occurred a little faster or was a little more automatic, but at the end of the day they’re being punished for breaking the rules.

What bothers me is that all these accountability efforts depend on people within the system standing up, knowing that they're going to be doxxed, hounded relentlessly by deranged cultists, have their lives and the lives of their loved ones threatened, and their jobs threatened - simply for trying to hold people accountable. It depends on the efforts of extraordinary people who are in the right place, and it shouldn't have to. Especially as the cultists become more deranged and threatening.

[–] EnderLaw@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

Any lawyer who represents Trump should have their head examined. He lies to them, blames them when the lies don't work, and then stiffs them on the bill. It's just stupid to represent him. The really good lawyers already know this and decline representation. The ones who stupidly take his cases get what they deserve.

[–] doublejay1999@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The headline is a bit rubbish. The article is more about the circumstances that motivated an allowed these lawyers to act in a way that bring The Law into disrepute - how it might be prevented.

It touches on ‘lone wolf lawyers’. - who are not answerable to partners like in a big firm, it touches on how Lawyers are educated, and it hints heavily toward the fact that there is no restriction on money for such political cases - because they fall out with the rules on declaring campaign funds.

[–] Jaysyn@kbin.social 0 points 9 months ago

Incarcerating them will be a good start.