3 ms·

We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021. But chances are he was close to that case. We don't know that. The jud

We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021. But chances are he was close to that case. We don't know that. The judge says she doesn't know that either, and we can take her at her word. But she certainly asked him "Do you think there could be a problem?". The husband answers "Maybe", and he does not cross any ethical boundaries about client-attorney confidentiality. Then the judge simply follows the rule "when in doubt, recuse yourself".

mcrady 4y ago
IANAL but it seems like it could be a basis for appeal. And what's the point of putting in months of work hearing a case if there's a chance that it will all get nullified.
- mattkrause 4y ago
  I’m not sure I see how judges recusing themselves could be grounds for appeal. Not recusing oneself though…
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    That’s what they were saying.
AlbertCory 4y ago
> We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021 He didn't only "work" in the firm; he was a partner in it. Maybe he talked to the partner who managed the SBF work; maybe he didn't. But as a partner he'd have some justification for asking, "Hey, how's that crypto case going?" at least.
- tptacek 4y ago
  There are almost 200 partners at the firm. It's not that big a thing.
  - ffggffggj 4y ago
    I think you’re right, but I assume the whole idea was to avoid having the formal version of this thread in an appeals court a year from now.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > not that big a thing "Your Honor, the Prosecution suggests this is not that big a thing!" No. Don't want to go there.
jrochkind1 4y ago
Does it cross any boundaries of client-attorney confidentiality to say that you were someone's attorney or worked on a case? I don't believe so.
- robryk 4y ago
  Surprisingly in some jurisdictions it does. At least in cases related to criminal defense in Poland the existence of a attorney-client relationship is protected (obviously if it comes to trial, it's eventually revealed, but it's not subpoenable up to that point).
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
>chances are he was close to that case Nope. “My husband has had no involvement in any of these representations.”
DannyBee 4y ago
Greg was also a US attorney in the southern district for 12+ years, and special counsel for the US for 2 years in 2017 before he went back to davis again (IE davis->us attorney->davis->us attorney->davis) That is a more interesting conflict than the Davis-Polk one to me, since he likely worked directly with the office handling the case. Outside of that, he was at Davis since 1999. There is simply no sane argument that, essentially anyone his quite-large firm worked for (without him even knowing about it), since 1999 should cause his wife to recuse. It violates no ethical rules, opinions, cases, or what have you. Judges have stricter ones too, and it doesn't violate or even come close to appearing to violate any of them. It would be laughed out of appeals. i've not yet seen any convincing argument here. As such, i maintain she probably did this because she didn't want the case.
- gist 4y ago
  > As such, i maintain she probably did this because she didn't want the case. I was going to agree with this but then I realized and made this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34120906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34120906 Essentially I feel this is about business for the firm going forward, not anything that happened in the past.

mcrady 4y ago

IANAL but it seems like it could be a basis for appeal. And what's the point of putting in months of work hearing a case if there's a chance that it will all get nullified.

mattkrause 4y ago
I’m not sure I see how judges recusing themselves could be grounds for appeal. Not recusing oneself though…
- 1123581321 4y ago
  That’s what they were saying.

AlbertCory 4y ago

> We only know the husband worked in a large company that had SBF as a client back in 2021 He didn't only "work" in the firm; he was a partner in it. Maybe he talked to the partner who managed the SBF work; maybe he didn't. But as a partner he'd have some justification for asking, "Hey, how's that crypto case going?" at least.

tptacek 4y ago
There are almost 200 partners at the firm. It's not that big a thing.
- ffggffggj 4y ago
  I think you’re right, but I assume the whole idea was to avoid having the formal version of this thread in an appeals court a year from now.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > not that big a thing "Your Honor, the Prosecution suggests this is not that big a thing!" No. Don't want to go there.

jrochkind1 4y ago

Does it cross any boundaries of client-attorney confidentiality to say that you were someone's attorney or worked on a case? I don't believe so.

robryk 4y ago
Surprisingly in some jurisdictions it does. At least in cases related to criminal defense in Poland the existence of a attorney-client relationship is protected (obviously if it comes to trial, it's eventually revealed, but it's not subpoenable up to that point).

NotYourLawyer 4y ago

>chances are he was close to that case Nope. “My husband has had no involvement in any of these representations.”

DannyBee 4y ago

Greg was also a US attorney in the southern district for 12+ years, and special counsel for the US for 2 years in 2017 before he went back to davis again (IE davis->us attorney->davis->us attorney->davis) That is a more interesting conflict than the Davis-Polk one to me, since he likely worked directly with the office handling the case. Outside of that, he was at Davis since 1999. There is simply no sane argument that, essentially anyone his quite-large firm worked for (without him even knowing about it), since 1999 should cause his wife to recuse. It violates no ethical rules, opinions, cases, or what have you. Judges have stricter ones too, and it doesn't violate or even come close to appearing to violate any of them. It would be laughed out of appeals. i've not yet seen any convincing argument here. As such, i maintain she probably did this because she didn't want the case.

gist 4y ago
> As such, i maintain she probably did this because she didn't want the case. I was going to agree with this but then I realized and made this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34120906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34120906 Essentially I feel this is about business for the firm going forward, not anything that happened in the past.