7 ms·

There's no question, really. It's not ethical by any means. If it wasn't a military court the judge would spank them, hard. But the defense could still report t

There's no question, really. It's not ethical by any means. If it wasn't a military court the judge would spank them, hard. But the defense could still report the prosecuting attorneys to the state bar.

torstenvl 7y ago
I think it's ethical. Why do you think otherwise? What is your hypothetical basis for reporting it to the state bar? What Model Rule do you have in mind that it could possibly violate?
- heyyyouu 7y ago
  Where there's plenty of cases out there but I'd ask you why you think that opposing counsel attempting to violate attorney/client privilege is ethical?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    If there are "plenty of cases," then cite one. You're making the accusation. Provide the basis.
    - chrischen 7y ago
      Perhaps if this is a courtroom in a trial, but he is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to do research for you. All information he provides is free and under no warranty to be correct. Think of it as a pro-bono donation of the truth (from his perspective of course). It is up to you, or the reader, to choose to believe him or not and the information he provided is already more than he is obligated to give to enrich your life with. It is, as you put it, a “good place to start” if you wish to google more yourself.
      - torstenvl 7y ago
        No. It is up to the proponent of a proposition to offer evidence of its truth. Perhaps those with no legal training should be the ones Googling, since many here clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
        chrischen 7y ago
        There is no oxygen in space (any area reasonably far from a planet). My lack of citation does not make it any less true. And if I were to try to convince you of that fact it would be simply for your benefit. Think of any comment by anyone here as someone graciously providing you with free counsel out of the time of their day, with the big disclaimer that they are not your client, and that the information is under no warranty. This disclaimer is implicit on all internet comments. It is up to you to consider their claims, and verify them. If you’re not willing to research their claims yourself then it’s pretty clear that 1) you’re just here to argue for one side to the public (aka propaganda) 2) pursuit of the truth is not actually your goal Given that your profile states that you are both part of the military and also a government lawyer may indicate that both 1) and 2) are true. I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince people they are wrong simply by accusing them that they are wrong due to lack of evidence. There is no court here, no jury to decide you win or lose. You can contribute more to this discussion by offering your unique perspective given your background.
        torstenvl 7y ago
        It is impossible to engage with someone's mistaken position without clarifying that position. As a result, I asked which rule they thought was violated. Since they are unwilling to even explain their reasoning, it is simply not possible to engage with them productively. Instead, people make it personal (like you just did with your accusation of propaganda) and go completely off the rails instead of answering a very simple question. This entire thread has fallen well short of the expectations of intellectual curiosity and genuine good-faith debate expected on HN. Shame.
        7y ago
    - dariusj18 7y ago
      I agree with you that many people in this thread are talking out of their asses, but as a thought experiment, would it be unethical for an Prosecutor to plant a tracking device on the car of a Defense attorney? Is there a legal difference between that and attempting to track the behavior of the Defense attorney online?
- chuckgreenman 7y ago
  This is clearly an attempt to gather evidence about the defense and the journalists involved. It is also likely that they are attempting to identify the source for the Navy Time's reporting. Here's an analogy from the civilian world: An employee reports an OSHA violation. Their employer is fined and forced to spend money on fixing the violation. Angered by this, the employers management tries to find who reported them to OSHA. They were caught doing something wrong, and now they are trying to identify who caught them doing it. The ethical response is to admit wrong doing and make it right, not intimidate your opponents. If you don't understand that I'm not sure there's much debate to be had.
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    Okay so what ethics rule are you claiming was violated? https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
    - chrischen 7y ago
      I don’t think they meant “ethics rules of just lawyers.” It’s unethical because the only reason they are trying to unsurface the leaker is so that they can potentially punish them to discourage that behavior which revealed bad behavior in the first place.
      - torstenvl 7y ago
        The comment discussed reporting them to the state bar. The state bar only enforces ethics rules of the type I'm discussing. If the original comment far upthread was contemplating reporting someone to the state bar for something that didn't violate state bar ethics rules, then that's even more egregiously inflammatory.
        chrischen 7y ago
        That is true, but I think those were two unrelated points. That is “... is unethical” and also “they should report to the state bar.” I believe that was the original intent of the commenter, since the sentences did not directly follow each other in his paragraph.
cjhopman 7y ago
Right. It's just like how we consider lawyers sending certified mail totally unethical because it allows the sender to know that the receiver received it. Shame on them.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

torstenvl 7y ago

I think it's ethical. Why do you think otherwise? What is your hypothetical basis for reporting it to the state bar? What Model Rule do you have in mind that it could possibly violate?

heyyyouu 7y ago
Where there's plenty of cases out there but I'd ask you why you think that opposing counsel attempting to violate attorney/client privilege is ethical?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- torstenvl 7y ago
  If there are "plenty of cases," then cite one. You're making the accusation. Provide the basis.
  - chrischen 7y ago
    Perhaps if this is a courtroom in a trial, but he is under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to do research for you. All information he provides is free and under no warranty to be correct. Think of it as a pro-bono donation of the truth (from his perspective of course). It is up to you, or the reader, to choose to believe him or not and the information he provided is already more than he is obligated to give to enrich your life with. It is, as you put it, a “good place to start” if you wish to google more yourself.
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      No. It is up to the proponent of a proposition to offer evidence of its truth. Perhaps those with no legal training should be the ones Googling, since many here clearly have no idea what they're talking about.
      - chrischen 7y ago
        There is no oxygen in space (any area reasonably far from a planet). My lack of citation does not make it any less true. And if I were to try to convince you of that fact it would be simply for your benefit. Think of any comment by anyone here as someone graciously providing you with free counsel out of the time of their day, with the big disclaimer that they are not your client, and that the information is under no warranty. This disclaimer is implicit on all internet comments. It is up to you to consider their claims, and verify them. If you’re not willing to research their claims yourself then it’s pretty clear that 1) you’re just here to argue for one side to the public (aka propaganda) 2) pursuit of the truth is not actually your goal Given that your profile states that you are both part of the military and also a government lawyer may indicate that both 1) and 2) are true. I think you’ll be hard pressed to convince people they are wrong simply by accusing them that they are wrong due to lack of evidence. There is no court here, no jury to decide you win or lose. You can contribute more to this discussion by offering your unique perspective given your background.
        torstenvl 7y ago
        It is impossible to engage with someone's mistaken position without clarifying that position. As a result, I asked which rule they thought was violated. Since they are unwilling to even explain their reasoning, it is simply not possible to engage with them productively. Instead, people make it personal (like you just did with your accusation of propaganda) and go completely off the rails instead of answering a very simple question. This entire thread has fallen well short of the expectations of intellectual curiosity and genuine good-faith debate expected on HN. Shame.
        7y ago
  - dariusj18 7y ago
    I agree with you that many people in this thread are talking out of their asses, but as a thought experiment, would it be unethical for an Prosecutor to plant a tracking device on the car of a Defense attorney? Is there a legal difference between that and attempting to track the behavior of the Defense attorney online?
chuckgreenman 7y ago
This is clearly an attempt to gather evidence about the defense and the journalists involved. It is also likely that they are attempting to identify the source for the Navy Time's reporting. Here's an analogy from the civilian world: An employee reports an OSHA violation. Their employer is fined and forced to spend money on fixing the violation. Angered by this, the employers management tries to find who reported them to OSHA. They were caught doing something wrong, and now they are trying to identify who caught them doing it. The ethical response is to admit wrong doing and make it right, not intimidate your opponents. If you don't understand that I'm not sure there's much debate to be had.
- torstenvl 7y ago
  Okay so what ethics rule are you claiming was violated? https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...
  - chrischen 7y ago
    I don’t think they meant “ethics rules of just lawyers.” It’s unethical because the only reason they are trying to unsurface the leaker is so that they can potentially punish them to discourage that behavior which revealed bad behavior in the first place.
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      The comment discussed reporting them to the state bar. The state bar only enforces ethics rules of the type I'm discussing. If the original comment far upthread was contemplating reporting someone to the state bar for something that didn't violate state bar ethics rules, then that's even more egregiously inflammatory.
      - chrischen 7y ago
        That is true, but I think those were two unrelated points. That is “... is unethical” and also “they should report to the state bar.” I believe that was the original intent of the commenter, since the sentences did not directly follow each other in his paragraph.

cjhopman 7y ago

Right. It's just like how we consider lawyers sending certified mail totally unethical because it allows the sender to know that the receiver received it. Shame on them.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]