Making the social media rounds today is the Matter of Yu, a disciplinary decision out of New York, that is a case study in how not to be My Cousin Vinny.
ethicking.com
Thoughts on legal ethics and law practice. Licensed in Wisconsin and Illinois, opinionated everywhere.
Thoughts on legal ethics and law practice. Licensed in Wisconsin and Illinois, opinionated everywhere.
![That’s What Friends [May Not Be] For](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5d93821f16ea12193a39cbf7/1751490714546-QHBUIOPLPH77FYYNV590/unsplash-image-LjqARJaJotc.jpg)
That’s What Friends [May Not Be] For
Last week, I co-presented a session at the “Life Is a Highway: Handling Traffic Cases”* seminar at the State Bar of Wisconsin, with my friend Emily Bell. Our session was about dabbling—when you want to work on matters not in your normal areas of expertise, and sometimes without the preparation and training you need.
One of the topics we discussed is that “no good deed goes unpunished” thing when your friends know you’re a lawyer—they want you to handle their legal matters.
But can you?
Unconquered Suns and Orders to Show Cause
I like to think I’m up on current events. Prior to today, I was aware that members of the Proud Boys, who were convicted of various offenses stemming from the January 6, 2021 insurrection but later pardoned or had their sentences commuted by the current president, had sued the United States for $100 million. The case is venued in the Middle District of Florida.
But prior to today, I was unaware that (a) there was a lawyer named Augustus Sol Invictus involved in that case, and (b) there was a lawyer named Augustus Sol Invictus* at all.
I can't talk about a lot of things right now so here's a post on the intersection of legal ethics and morals
I logged in to my blogging portal and realized it has been nearly two months since I’ve written anything. It has been an incredibly busy two months, and there are a lot of things I cannot blog about right now.
Lawyering in a Time of Lawlessness (And Also Probably Cholera)
Since I last wrote about this subject, my nerd association put out a statement condemning the current administration’s attack on lawyers., in response to executive orders purporting to revoke security clearances and restrict lawyers’ ability to practice, against Covington & Burling, but Perkins Coie. After the APRL statement, the administration issued a similar order against Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Paul, Weiss).
Today, however, the administration announced that Paul, Weiss has capitulated to its demands.
Play Everything-On-Fire Games, Win Everything-On-Fire Prizes
We learned this afternoon that several Democratic members of the US Senate filed a Request for Disciplinary Investigation with the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel against Interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin.
Setting The Rule Of Law On Fire, Just To Watch It Burn
So I’ve added a tag to my blog, “Everything on Fire.” It may be partially self-explanatory, but I am adding it to blog entries that discuss the contempt for the rule of law held by the current federal administration, among others. I’ve gone back and tagged a few prior entries as well. I am not sure these entries will always have a specific legal ethics bent (they will, at least, touch on lawyers and law practice), but the rule of law is important and this is my blog and at least in this virtual space, I can do what I want.
Today’s entry concerns the president doing what he wants, except instead of his blog, it’s the whole country, and he’s doing a lot of things he’s not supposed to be doing. This month, he has taking retributive action against his perceived rivals, including lawyers who have sparred with him and his administration (current and past).A couple of weeks ago, he at least purported to revoke the security clearances of lawyers Mark Zaid and Norm Eisen, without any real justification or due process.
Dead Men Neither Wear Plaid Nor Render Opinions To A Reasonable Degree of Professional Certainty
Taking a break from everything being on fire to report this quick hit (h/t several people on BlueSky): every judge interprets the Daubert standard (or whatever standard applies in their state) a little different, but I assure you that a qualification for anyone to testify as an expert witness on any subject is that they must be alive.
Bondi Blues
Earlier this week, and mostly along party lines, the Senate confirmed Pam Bondi to serve as the United State Attorney General.
You will note that this job is not called “Attorney General of the President,” and at least for now, the Department of Justice’s website includes this definition:
The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.
Shortly after she was confirmed, Bondi issued a memo in which she seems to have announced that the Department of Justice is actually there to represent the President and his interests.
You Get A Conflict! And You Get A Conflict! Everybody Gets a Conflict!
Edward Martin, interim US Attorney for the District of Columbia, was present outside the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and later defended three people charged with crimes related to the insurrection. The case against one of his clients, Joseph Padilla, was still ongoing when Trump took office and pardoned nearly everyone involved in the riots.
Are They Buying What You're Selling?
The gist of the ad I viewed is that family law attorneys should be relying on “non-attorney salespeople” to close high-net-worth divorce cases, presumably so the attorneys could work on their cases and make more money. As I do not wish to book a call to find out if this two-day seminar (which costs an amount of money not disclosed in the ad or on the advertiser’s website, and would require out-of-state travel) is right for me, there seems to be no good way for me to find out exactly what they’re teaching about the use and supervision of such salespeople, but hey, it prompted this blog entry.
Daddy Sang Bass, Mama Sang Ethics
If any of you are in need of 2.5-3 on-demand ethics CLE hours (depending on how your state counts time), or are curious about what happens when people who are not me* try to make ethics CLE fun, Cleveland-based Squire Patton Boggs has created a free long-form ethics CLE musical. (Hey, I run a legal ethics snark blog, I’m not judging.)
Quick Hits from Elsewhere
I’m working on some longer pieces and on my actual job, so for now, a few quick hits.
Should strangers get to file grievances? Arizona says "maybe, but."
Some interesting (if you are me) news came out of Arizona this week: Its Supreme Court approved a rule change limiting the ability of people not directly involved in, or who do not have first-hand knowledge of, a particular matter to pursue ethics complaints.
This Thing Is On, I Promise
So the thing about having an elections practice in a swing state is that one day you’re writing about bad news that can’t wait and the next day it’s November and everything has waited. I’m still not quite up for air, but I am getting there.
If My Blog Actually Got Comments, This Would Be A Cautionary Tale
As reported by Above the Law and the Legal Profession Blog, a Colorado lawyer received a 60-day suspension, stayed if he successfully completes a two-year probationary period, for posing as a judge and a former deputy district attorney in blog comments submitted to a moderator.
When Bad News Can't Wait
I’ve spent the last day-plus at another engaging Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers (APRL) conference, and just like last year at this same conference, and just like when I was on vacation last year, I got some big news from the courts.
Georgia On My Mind
Hi, everyone. At long last, some original (if not exactly breaking) content. But I’ve gotten enough questions to pivot from my other busyness and try to answer (even though the answer keeps changing as I write this)—what the hell is going on in Atlanta?
That Time I Turned An Earworm Into A Column
At risk of this blog turning into a Wisconsin Lawyer repository (as original-to-the-bog content has been…well, mostly missing), I present for your consideration “Ethics Song ‘89,” my latest contribution to the State Bar journal.
When “Revocation” isn’t Revocation
I write to revisit a topic I wrote about a couple of years ago—the fact that Wisconsin does not have true, lifetime “disbarment.” My position hasn’t changed since 2022—I remain opposed to permanent revocation. Sure, there are absolutely some people who should never have a law license again, but petitions for reinstatement, which require character and fitness investigations, (in most circumstances) a referee hearing, and Supreme Court review provide an appropriate safeguard.