6 ms·

The ACLU on their own doesn't have standing. They still have to best represent their client. Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thi

The ACLU on their own doesn't have standing. They still have to best represent their client. Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. The ACLU would only have the opportunity if this kind of subpoena was used on the ACLU itself.

NewJazz 3y ago
Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. Even if the client asks for that?
- busterarm 3y ago
  Are you even thinking about the risks if he loses the case? He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up to the risk of them investigating him and charging him with other crimes. Any intelligent attorney would advise their client against it. Once you go to court anything can happen and either way it's prohibitively expensive. People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost everything they owned fighting in civil court over smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys. Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and insurance/liability cases. /s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
  - fwip 3y ago
    What a lawyer would "advise against" and what they "should be disbarred for doing" is not nearly the same thing.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred This is a novel take. Were this me, I'd require my lawyer pursue the NYPD for the cost of the original legal fees. They would not refuse.
- busterarm 3y ago
  See my response to NewJazz.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > See my response to NewJazz Sure, and I'd expect them to explain that to me. But to outright refuse--I would have a serious issue with that. EDIT: Just asked. Friend, my counsel and partner at a Big Law firm. He'd absolutely do it.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      Refusing is easy. As about two dozen attorneys have told my family members in their case after taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money: "I can no longer represent you in this case." As for your friend, I'm not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area. Once it gets to court NYPD's lawyers could just say some handwavey "homeland security" shit and your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you. In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Refusing is easy Nobody claimed otherwise. > not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area He asked a litigation partner who represented me the one time Nassau County police got cute with me. In that case, we weighed being aggressive after the department pulled its accusations and I decided not to pursue given my financial condition. Were that to happen today, I'd decide differently. > your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money and possibly more. > In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court Constrained to the case or controversy, sure. But that isn't always the entire picture. Seeing that context is what separates the great lawyers from the commodity ones.
        busterarm 3y ago
everforward 3y ago
> Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. This is not true. Check out the American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_2_scope_of_representation_allocation_of_authority_between_client_lawyer/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...). Broadly speaking, lawyers are bound to the client's wishes, and are expected to represent their client the best they can under those circumstances. If a lawyer's client wants to sue the NYPD, even if the chances of winning are slim, they can represent that client (barring some niche scenarios). This is how the ACLU typically works. They find someone with standing who cares enough to bother with following the lawsuit through and they represent that person.
- busterarm 3y ago
  I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they shouldn't. The client isn't the only person with things to lose here, it's their sources who are at risk if he loses the case. The client wouldn't pursue it for journalistic ethics reasons.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they shouldn't. You said it would be grounds for disbarment.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      Yes if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney that is my opinion of what should happen.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney that is my opinion of what should happen This isn't how disbarment works. Given we're in an adversarial system, I'm glad it doesn't. (Could you imagine a lawyer refusing to advance litigation against a city because it would harm the city's taxpayers?!)
dylan604 3y ago
Is that the only way the ACLU works? Can't they offer to cover the expense of the person with standing by either using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team already in place?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Can't they offer to cover the expense of the person with standing by either using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team already in place? This is how they actually work.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
    Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care about.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care about Sure. The point is the ACLU doesn't wait to get sued itself. That would be stupid. It finds test cases and supports them with external resources.

NewJazz 3y ago

Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. Even if the client asks for that?

busterarm 3y ago
Are you even thinking about the risks if he loses the case? He'd be giving up his sources and even opening himself up to the risk of them investigating him and charging him with other crimes. Any intelligent attorney would advise their client against it. Once you go to court anything can happen and either way it's prohibitively expensive. People in my own family have done nothing wrong and lost everything they owned fighting in civil court over smaller stakes than this. Going to civil court is the absolute last resort. Nobody wins but the attorneys. Going to court is only worth it in criminal cases and insurance/liability cases. /s used to work at one of the largest lawfirms in the US.
- fwip 3y ago
  What a lawyer would "advise against" and what they "should be disbarred for doing" is not nearly the same thing.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred This is a novel take. Were this me, I'd require my lawyer pursue the NYPD for the cost of the original legal fees. They would not refuse.

busterarm 3y ago
See my response to NewJazz.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > See my response to NewJazz Sure, and I'd expect them to explain that to me. But to outright refuse--I would have a serious issue with that. EDIT: Just asked. Friend, my counsel and partner at a Big Law firm. He'd absolutely do it.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    Refusing is easy. As about two dozen attorneys have told my family members in their case after taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money: "I can no longer represent you in this case." As for your friend, I'm not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area. Once it gets to court NYPD's lawyers could just say some handwavey "homeland security" shit and your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you. In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Refusing is easy Nobody claimed otherwise. > not even sure I care unless this lands squarely in his practice area He asked a litigation partner who represented me the one time Nassau County police got cute with me. In that case, we weighed being aggressive after the department pulled its accusations and I decided not to pursue given my financial condition. Were that to happen today, I'd decide differently. > your judge might just piss their robes and rule against you Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money and possibly more. > In civil matters it's always better to seek agreement outside of court Constrained to the case or controversy, sure. But that isn't always the entire picture. Seeing that context is what separates the great lawyers from the commodity ones.
      - busterarm 3y ago

everforward 3y ago

> Doing this on behalf of the client would be the absolute wrong thing to do. Any lawyer that would do that should be disbarred. This is not true. Check out the American Bar Association Rules of Professional Conduct 1.2 (https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_2_scope_of_representation_allocation_of_authority_between_client_lawyer/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibili...). Broadly speaking, lawyers are bound to the client's wishes, and are expected to represent their client the best they can under those circumstances. If a lawyer's client wants to sue the NYPD, even if the chances of winning are slim, they can represent that client (barring some niche scenarios). This is how the ACLU typically works. They find someone with standing who cares enough to bother with following the lawsuit through and they represent that person.

busterarm 3y ago
I'm not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they shouldn't. The client isn't the only person with things to lose here, it's their sources who are at risk if he loses the case. The client wouldn't pursue it for journalistic ethics reasons.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > not saying that they wouldn't. I'm saying that they shouldn't. You said it would be grounds for disbarment.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    Yes if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney that is my opinion of what should happen.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > if people are harmed by your actions as an attorney that is my opinion of what should happen This isn't how disbarment works. Given we're in an adversarial system, I'm glad it doesn't. (Could you imagine a lawyer refusing to advance litigation against a city because it would harm the city's taxpayers?!)

dylan604 3y ago

Is that the only way the ACLU works? Can't they offer to cover the expense of the person with standing by either using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team already in place?

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Can't they offer to cover the expense of the person with standing by either using their attorneys or footing the bill for the team already in place? This is how they actually work.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care about.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Provided you're fighting for the liberties they care about Sure. The point is the ACLU doesn't wait to get sued itself. That would be stupid. It finds test cases and supports them with external resources.