3 ms·

I'm quite aware of the judicial bar, and i don't think it even comes close to "appearance of a potential conflict". Which, as a phrase without interpretation,

I'm quite aware of the judicial bar, and i don't think it even comes close to "appearance of a potential conflict". Which, as a phrase without interpretation, of course, covers literally everything (IE defendant is a vegan and I am not). So in the end, i simply disagree with you - this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions.

epgui 4y ago
> as a phrase without interpretation That's not particularly productive: the meaning of the phrase is studied and covered ad nauseam by case law and scholarly (legal & ethical) literature. Differences in dietary preferences is unlikely to ever be interpreted as a potential conflict of interest, although it's certainly not impossible. There would need to be "reasonable grounds" to think the judge was unable to hear both parties fairly. I know that this sounds a bit wishy-washy, but that's the legal system for you.
- DannyBee 4y ago
  As a recovered lawyer (though still licensed in several states), and friends with many judges, i'm again, aware, and have read plenty of it, and been forced to talk about it at parties (unfortunately). That is precisely why i said " this is not a close call, as the order is written, and as the bar has ever been interpreted, either by caselaw, or by ethics opinions." What is here would never be considered reasonable grounds. It's not even close. Outside of random people arguing on hacker news, of course.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]