3 ms·

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:

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have told my family members in their case after taking tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of their money: "I can no longer represent you in this case."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
  > Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money. No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight. THAT is why this wouldn't be pursued in court.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight Why is that my problem?
    - busterarm 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Protecting your sources is the cornerstone of journalism This is the journalist's job to weigh. Not counsel's. If the journalist says fight, counsel should fight. > Your moral compass is fucked If we're going ad hominem, I'm not the one advocating deference to illegal police actions. (And to be clear, we were never debating whether action should be pursued. Just whether it could be, or whether an attorney should refuse to do so.)
        busterarm 3y ago
        I'm advocating not putting other people at undue risk. The same as you would tell people not to drive drunk. I'm not advocating for somebody to spend money on a cab, that's just circumstantial.
        busterarm 3y ago
        > (And to be clear, we were never debating whether action should be pursued. Just whether it could be, or whether an attorney should refuse to do so.) No, we were, because that was my argument. This is putting words in my mouth and moving the goalposts. I never said my basis for "should", you just chose it to read as "should on legal grounds" whereas my statement was "should if all things were fair".
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > my statement was "should if all things were fair" You raised it as grounds for disbarment. You don't get disbarred for being unfair.
FireBeyond 3y ago
> 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 Not that you have to disclose, but I am taking an educated guess, as someone who has also worked for a (very) large law firm... You reference a single civil case. Where "two dozen" attorneys have each been retained as counsel, done work for your family on this one case, and every one of the two dozen of them have individually withdrawn their representation? At some point (multiple points, really), something has to be very very wrong here: Who are these attorneys who are all constantly withdrawing from your family's case, and why? That to me (and please, I am not attempting to judge) sounds like 1) their client (your family) failed to disclose fairly substantial material information to them, causing them to withdraw, or 2) their client has been notably/repeatedly uncooperative with their attempts to represent them, or 3) their client has (repeatedly) ignored statements about the futility of their case, and stubbornly pushed it forward, still. And then we get to the court. A judge that doesn't raise an eyebrow at the second withdrawal of an attorney, let alone twenty plus is comatose at the bench. In my area, a capital city, judges want explanations from attorneys on their withdrawal, and the predicament doing so might leave their client in. They've even been ordered to brief public defenders (I know, criminal) before they could withdraw. Hell, even civil continuance orders for more than a month or so require justification as to why the continuance need be that long.
- busterarm 3y ago
  Some of these things are close enough to true, but my family has semi-famously been involved in an in-family legal battle that has been ongoing in various forms since 1989. Everyone involved on both sides has been a complete asshole to each other, lawyers, the court and uninvolved family members (like myself). This particular court is very slow and exceptionally so since COVID. This current appeal was supposed to have a decision 3 years ago and that still hasn't happened and we know there will be no court date for at least 6 months.

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
> Sure. And I'd have wasted time and money. No, you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight. THAT is why this wouldn't be pursued in court.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > you'd have pinned your NYPD officer sources asses up against the wall because you leaked their information by losing your subpoena fight Why is that my problem?
  - busterarm 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Protecting your sources is the cornerstone of journalism This is the journalist's job to weigh. Not counsel's. If the journalist says fight, counsel should fight. > Your moral compass is fucked If we're going ad hominem, I'm not the one advocating deference to illegal police actions. (And to be clear, we were never debating whether action should be pursued. Just whether it could be, or whether an attorney should refuse to do so.)
      - busterarm 3y ago
        I'm advocating not putting other people at undue risk. The same as you would tell people not to drive drunk. I'm not advocating for somebody to spend money on a cab, that's just circumstantial.
      - busterarm 3y ago
        > (And to be clear, we were never debating whether action should be pursued. Just whether it could be, or whether an attorney should refuse to do so.) No, we were, because that was my argument. This is putting words in my mouth and moving the goalposts. I never said my basis for "should", you just chose it to read as "should on legal grounds" whereas my statement was "should if all things were fair".
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > my statement was "should if all things were fair" You raised it as grounds for disbarment. You don't get disbarred for being unfair.

FireBeyond 3y ago

> 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 Not that you have to disclose, but I am taking an educated guess, as someone who has also worked for a (very) large law firm... You reference a single civil case. Where "two dozen" attorneys have each been retained as counsel, done work for your family on this one case, and every one of the two dozen of them have individually withdrawn their representation? At some point (multiple points, really), something has to be very very wrong here: Who are these attorneys who are all constantly withdrawing from your family's case, and why? That to me (and please, I am not attempting to judge) sounds like 1) their client (your family) failed to disclose fairly substantial material information to them, causing them to withdraw, or 2) their client has been notably/repeatedly uncooperative with their attempts to represent them, or 3) their client has (repeatedly) ignored statements about the futility of their case, and stubbornly pushed it forward, still. And then we get to the court. A judge that doesn't raise an eyebrow at the second withdrawal of an attorney, let alone twenty plus is comatose at the bench. In my area, a capital city, judges want explanations from attorneys on their withdrawal, and the predicament doing so might leave their client in. They've even been ordered to brief public defenders (I know, criminal) before they could withdraw. Hell, even civil continuance orders for more than a month or so require justification as to why the continuance need be that long.

busterarm 3y ago
Some of these things are close enough to true, but my family has semi-famously been involved in an in-family legal battle that has been ongoing in various forms since 1989. Everyone involved on both sides has been a complete asshole to each other, lawyers, the court and uninvolved family members (like myself). This particular court is very slow and exceptionally so since COVID. This current appeal was supposed to have a decision 3 years ago and that still hasn't happened and we know there will be no court date for at least 6 months.