5 ms·

Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal. At lea

Don’t forget the 2008 kids for cash scandal: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal. At least those judges were eventually tried and are serving time.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Convicted in 2011, disbarred in 2019. The guild will go to great lengths to protect their most guilty.
- rayiner 6y ago
  It takes years for a conviction to become finalized. He was temporarily suspended in April 2012, while he appealed his conviction. The Third Circuit denied his habeas petition on March 2019. He was disbarred in October 2019. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/26DB2012-Ciavarella,%20Jr..pdf http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out....
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gruez 6y ago
    Is there a reason why they can't be disbarred upon conviction, and then reinstated if the appeal goes through? After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      The temporary suspension accomplishes the same purpose. Either way you can't practice law while you're appealing, which is the only punishment the bar can mete out.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process You can, though it's not very common, and, in the US, it's not available in all jurisdictions. See, e.g., https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursuing-an-appeal/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursui...
- SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
  Don't forget that disbarment is not permanent in a majority of states.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Disbarment is quite literally the permanent revocation of your license to practice law in a jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, if you have been disbarred, you can never practice law there again unless you disbarment is overturned, which generally requires a court order following a lengthy appeals process. As a practical matter, the number of lawyers who get reinstated each year numbers in the single digits or low double digits.
    - SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
      Nonsense. You even contradicted yourself, first writing that disbarment is "quite literally the permanent revocation of your license" after which you start to describe how you think reinstatement works. "Permanent" and "disbarment" don't go together the way most people assume they do. When the public reads that Attorney Bob got caught doing Bad Things and was disbarred, they assume that down the road if they hire an attorney (or receive PD services), the Bad Guy is not in the running. A 2007 paper titled "Should Permanent Disbarment be Permanent?" published in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics provides a good overview of just how impermanent 'permanent disbarment' is. Its author found that "Five states mandate that all disbarments be treated as permanent. Eight states allow for disbarments to be permanent in some situations. In these states, when disbarment is not permanent, readmittance can either be applied for in seven years, five years, or at any time, depending on the jurisdiction. . . . The remaining 35 states and DC have no procedure for permanent disbarment." Of course, there's also the matter that not all states have 'disbarment in any other jurisdiction' as a disqualifier. Disbarred? Maybe it's time for a move? Joseph O'Malley is best known for his 2013 "indefinite disbarment" after the now-former prosecutor was charged with nine violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his improper influencing of a judge, and his August 2011 convictions in an Ohio federal court for misprision of a felony and making a materially false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. O'Malley's 2013 disbarment generated a lot of press. Know what no one reported anywhere? That he was reinstated in 2016. He was recently appointed as public defender for a cop who was arrested for OVI. (Adjudicated not guilty on that charge.) As a practical matter, the number of reinstated lawyers each year is not even remotely close to as low as you claim. I just now looked at the data for a handful of states and I'm already way over your upper end. It's more like "In any given state, annual figures are in the single to low double digits" — with a few much larger outliers.
candiodari 6y ago
The whole thing there can be reduced to the observation: why does society let foster care and youth protective services exist? You might say "well to protect kids". Except, there's a massive body of research proving that they make things worse, certainly on average: https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Massive negative effects, from reading scores, to later earnings, to subjective happiness (yes, really, kids report more happiness while being abused than in youth services), to later crimes. So no youth protection is better for everyone. This is obvious in the case of scandals and the many "accidents". But it is true in general. And it is true for everyone. No child protection is better for the kid, for families (obviously I guess), and due to the increase in crime if we destroyed youth protection causes, it is better for society itself. If you start checking, you will find that youth protection is involved in the raising of many of the worst criminals we've ever known. Even child psychiatry and "special needs schools" ... well. Comparing symptoms upon entry and symptoms upon exit paints a very clear picture that really questions why they're allowed to exist. https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-017-1048-1 https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007... And then of course there's the many scandals that these people keep and keep and keep producing. Abuse within foster families is higher than in families in youth protection services. In institutions it is a lot higher. So they don't protect kids. And crimes are astronomically higher in both foster care and institutional care (and youth psychiatry). So they don't protect society against those kids either.
- remmargorp64 6y ago
  So where is a child supposed to go when their parents have died or been imprisoned? Should they just be homeless? What alternative do you envision?
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    Ideally parents agree this with somebody appropriate in advance. Like end of life planning it's something that people are told to do, but most don't bother. If my parents had both died during my childhood we knew we'd live with our cousins Catherine and Victoria. If somehow we didn't come with a pile of money (from insurance paying out or other mechanisms that fire when two child-rearing age people suddenly die) things would have been very tight for my Uncle and his wife but we'd have family.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

Convicted in 2011, disbarred in 2019. The guild will go to great lengths to protect their most guilty.

rayiner 6y ago
It takes years for a conviction to become finalized. He was temporarily suspended in April 2012, while he appealed his conviction. The Third Circuit denied his habeas petition on March 2019. He was disbarred in October 2019. http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out/26DB2012-Ciavarella,%20Jr..pdf http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/DisciplinaryBoard/out....
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gruez 6y ago
  Is there a reason why they can't be disbarred upon conviction, and then reinstated if the appeal goes through? After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    The temporary suspension accomplishes the same purpose. Either way you can't practice law while you're appealing, which is the only punishment the bar can mete out.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > After all, it's not like you can avoid prison time while your conviction goes through the appeal process You can, though it's not very common, and, in the US, it's not available in all jurisdictions. See, e.g., https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursuing-an-appeal/ https://www.justia.com/criminal/bail-bonds/bail-while-pursui...
SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
Don't forget that disbarment is not permanent in a majority of states.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Disbarment is quite literally the permanent revocation of your license to practice law in a jurisdiction. In most jurisdictions, if you have been disbarred, you can never practice law there again unless you disbarment is overturned, which generally requires a court order following a lengthy appeals process. As a practical matter, the number of lawyers who get reinstated each year numbers in the single digits or low double digits.
  - SpelingBeeChamp 6y ago
    Nonsense. You even contradicted yourself, first writing that disbarment is "quite literally the permanent revocation of your license" after which you start to describe how you think reinstatement works. "Permanent" and "disbarment" don't go together the way most people assume they do. When the public reads that Attorney Bob got caught doing Bad Things and was disbarred, they assume that down the road if they hire an attorney (or receive PD services), the Bad Guy is not in the running. A 2007 paper titled "Should Permanent Disbarment be Permanent?" published in The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics provides a good overview of just how impermanent 'permanent disbarment' is. Its author found that "Five states mandate that all disbarments be treated as permanent. Eight states allow for disbarments to be permanent in some situations. In these states, when disbarment is not permanent, readmittance can either be applied for in seven years, five years, or at any time, depending on the jurisdiction. . . . The remaining 35 states and DC have no procedure for permanent disbarment." Of course, there's also the matter that not all states have 'disbarment in any other jurisdiction' as a disqualifier. Disbarred? Maybe it's time for a move? Joseph O'Malley is best known for his 2013 "indefinite disbarment" after the now-former prosecutor was charged with nine violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct arising from his improper influencing of a judge, and his August 2011 convictions in an Ohio federal court for misprision of a felony and making a materially false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government. O'Malley's 2013 disbarment generated a lot of press. Know what no one reported anywhere? That he was reinstated in 2016. He was recently appointed as public defender for a cop who was arrested for OVI. (Adjudicated not guilty on that charge.) As a practical matter, the number of reinstated lawyers each year is not even remotely close to as low as you claim. I just now looked at the data for a handful of states and I'm already way over your upper end. It's more like "In any given state, annual figures are in the single to low double digits" — with a few much larger outliers.

candiodari 6y ago

The whole thing there can be reduced to the observation: why does society let foster care and youth protective services exist? You might say "well to protect kids". Except, there's a massive body of research proving that they make things worse, certainly on average: https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583 Massive negative effects, from reading scores, to later earnings, to subjective happiness (yes, really, kids report more happiness while being abused than in youth services), to later crimes. So no youth protection is better for everyone. This is obvious in the case of scandals and the many "accidents". But it is true in general. And it is true for everyone. No child protection is better for the kid, for families (obviously I guess), and due to the increase in crime if we destroyed youth protection causes, it is better for society itself. If you start checking, you will find that youth protection is involved in the raising of many of the worst criminals we've ever known. Even child psychiatry and "special needs schools" ... well. Comparing symptoms upon entry and symptoms upon exit paints a very clear picture that really questions why they're allowed to exist. https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00787-017-1048-1 https://sci-hub.se/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007... And then of course there's the many scandals that these people keep and keep and keep producing. Abuse within foster families is higher than in families in youth protection services. In institutions it is a lot higher. So they don't protect kids. And crimes are astronomically higher in both foster care and institutional care (and youth psychiatry). So they don't protect society against those kids either.

remmargorp64 6y ago
So where is a child supposed to go when their parents have died or been imprisoned? Should they just be homeless? What alternative do you envision?
- tialaramex 6y ago
  Ideally parents agree this with somebody appropriate in advance. Like end of life planning it's something that people are told to do, but most don't bother. If my parents had both died during my childhood we knew we'd live with our cousins Catherine and Victoria. If somehow we didn't come with a pile of money (from insurance paying out or other mechanisms that fire when two child-rearing age people suddenly die) things would have been very tight for my Uncle and his wife but we'd have family.