2 ms·

> Newman's attorneys have long argued that Newman's own court should not preside over the competency probe. They said in a filing made public on Wednesday that

by Teever 3y ago

> Newman's attorneys have long argued that Newman's own court should not preside over the competency probe. They said in a filing made public on Wednesday that the committee investigating her fitness was "interested in one thing and one thing only - keeping Judge Newman off the bench via the exercise of raw power." Interesting that she has attorneys for this issue and that they're taking the position that they're taking. It seems to me that there are some ethical considerations for a lawyer who is providing a defense for a probably senile person. Is the position they're taking in the best interest of their client who is likely senile?

derbOac 3y ago
It's an important question but I also thought it was a reasonable legal position to take. If there's a conflict between two parties, you generally would have a third party address mechanisms to satisfy concerns. For example, if someone were involved in a lawsuit and countersuit involving their employer, or with a spouse they are divorcing, you wouldn't expect them to accede to the employer's or spouse's demands. You'd probably submit your own evidence (which Newman is doing), or seek a third party. Someone being 96 does not mean they are senile. This is even more likely to be true of someone with the likely cognitive background of someone like Newman. For example, in individuals over 90, the estimated dementia rate in one study was only around 33% (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961570-6/fulltext); https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... this is in a general setting also, and includes a lot of individuals of many different backgrounds. I really don't mean to be defending Newman per se (I don't really know anything about the case other than what's in the article), and I think there are good questions about representing someone where the question is competence. But reading the article it seemed like just what I'd expect if there were legal heavyweights in dispute about an issue, regardless of what's "really" going on. In fact, if anything, Newman is sort of behaving like an aggressive lawyer, which is what you'd expect if she were competent.
olliej 3y ago
> Is the position they're taking in the best interest of their client who is likely senile? I'm not willing to say the judge is "likely senile" - there are plenty of ways to no longer be competent due to age while still having full coherence. Based on phrasing, what I think you're asking is "is the job of her lawyers to do what is best for her in the long term?" but as I understand it the job of lawyers is to best represent her desired outcome, not their own personal opinion of "what is best for them".
- Teever 3y ago
  But if she is senile, then can her lawyers actually determine what is her desired outcome?

by Teever 3y ago

derbOac 3y ago

It's an important question but I also thought it was a reasonable legal position to take. If there's a conflict between two parties, you generally would have a third party address mechanisms to satisfy concerns. For example, if someone were involved in a lawsuit and countersuit involving their employer, or with a spouse they are divorcing, you wouldn't expect them to accede to the employer's or spouse's demands. You'd probably submit your own evidence (which Newman is doing), or seek a third party. Someone being 96 does not mean they are senile. This is even more likely to be true of someone with the likely cognitive background of someone like Newman. For example, in individuals over 90, the estimated dementia rate in one study was only around 33% (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961570-6/fulltext); https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... this is in a general setting also, and includes a lot of individuals of many different backgrounds. I really don't mean to be defending Newman per se (I don't really know anything about the case other than what's in the article), and I think there are good questions about representing someone where the question is competence. But reading the article it seemed like just what I'd expect if there were legal heavyweights in dispute about an issue, regardless of what's "really" going on. In fact, if anything, Newman is sort of behaving like an aggressive lawyer, which is what you'd expect if she were competent.

olliej 3y ago

> Is the position they're taking in the best interest of their client who is likely senile? I'm not willing to say the judge is "likely senile" - there are plenty of ways to no longer be competent due to age while still having full coherence. Based on phrasing, what I think you're asking is "is the job of her lawyers to do what is best for her in the long term?" but as I understand it the job of lawyers is to best represent her desired outcome, not their own personal opinion of "what is best for them".

Teever 3y ago
But if she is senile, then can her lawyers actually determine what is her desired outcome?