- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/14/19 at 2:59 pm to lsu13lsu
Wrong again. The reason that no meeting has taken place between Wade and LSU is because Wade insisted on having his lawyer present at the meeting. LSU would not agree. And because of that, LSU cannot and will not speak to Wade directly unlike what Wade's lawyer is trying to do with LSU.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 2:59 pm to Da Joker
Lawyers argue about this a lot, but what’s not argued about between them. The rule that is referenced here is Rule 4.2 of Louisiana’s rules of professional conduct. The part of the rule in question is part b.
Rule
My interpretation is that it wasn’t against the rules because wade has a constitutional right to employment, and the email was sent to his employers. Read comment 5 of the ABA rule, which our rule is directly adopted from.
LINK
My explanation to Nitwit the genius
I will assume you are smart enough to know that 4.2 subpart (a) does not apply, and you want to argue over subpart (b). Upon reading the comments, you will clearly see that Louisiana adopted the Model Rule's comment 7. From there, you can go to comment 5 for the ABA rules and find:
quote:
[5] Communications authorized by law may include communications by a lawyer on behalf of a client who is exercising a constitutional or other legal right to communicate with the government.
Wow. . . . LSU is a governmental entity, and Will Wade has a legal right to employment. So you're telling me that his lawyer is prohibited from communicating to others about a legal right his client has, although the rule clearly says it is allowed?
Further, if you go back to the Louisiana Rules in Comment (4) you will see that the rule "does not prohibit communication w/ a represented person, or an employee or agent of such a person, concerning matters outside the representation." Sending an email regarding when he would meet with the LSU administration does not have to do with the federal trial.
Rule
My interpretation is that it wasn’t against the rules because wade has a constitutional right to employment, and the email was sent to his employers. Read comment 5 of the ABA rule, which our rule is directly adopted from.
LINK
My explanation to Nitwit the genius
I will assume you are smart enough to know that 4.2 subpart (a) does not apply, and you want to argue over subpart (b). Upon reading the comments, you will clearly see that Louisiana adopted the Model Rule's comment 7. From there, you can go to comment 5 for the ABA rules and find:
quote:
[5] Communications authorized by law may include communications by a lawyer on behalf of a client who is exercising a constitutional or other legal right to communicate with the government.
Wow. . . . LSU is a governmental entity, and Will Wade has a legal right to employment. So you're telling me that his lawyer is prohibited from communicating to others about a legal right his client has, although the rule clearly says it is allowed?
Further, if you go back to the Louisiana Rules in Comment (4) you will see that the rule "does not prohibit communication w/ a represented person, or an employee or agent of such a person, concerning matters outside the representation." Sending an email regarding when he would meet with the LSU administration does not have to do with the federal trial.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:03 pm to NBD
quote:
Wrong again. The reason that no meeting has taken place between Wade and LSU is because Wade insisted on having his lawyer present at the meeting. LSU would not agree. And because of that, LSU cannot and will not speak to Wade directly unlike what Wade's lawyer is trying to do with LSU.
I thought LSU's lawyer was added to meeting then Wade's said he wanted his lawyer.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:03 pm to NBD
quote:
Wade's attorney could get disbarred for this conduct.
This state has an attorney on contract with at least one public board who was put in jail for committing a felony associated with major public corruption. If that guy can get his license reinstated, even suggesting disbarment for this is laughable.
This post was edited on 3/14/19 at 3:06 pm
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:06 pm to GoldenAge
Your argument has absolutely no merit and would be rejected outright by the Louisiana ODC. LSU, although a state university and a state actor, is not the "government".
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:06 pm to ThePTExperience1969
quote:
Barton must’ve just been having a bad day when he responded.
Ya think? I bet every day is a bad day for him recently.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:09 pm to Jester
Stick with your day job. The attorney who was reinstated was originally .......??? Disbarred! The issue here is not reinstatement to the bar but the sanction that could be imposed based on Wade's lawyer's alleged unethical conduct.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:10 pm to NBD
quote:
Wade's attorney could get disbarred for this conduct.
Lolz
No. At worst he would get an admonition. That's even assuming this was found to be a violation of 4.2. Which is questionable considering there is no pending "matter".
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:15 pm to Adam Banks
Barton is playing his cards like an arrogant shite. LSU should be embarrassed.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:17 pm to NBD
Have you ever worked for LSU? Or a public university for that matter? Honest question. If so, then you know that you work for the state. Hell, if you go to apply to work for LSU, you will likely submit your resume through governmentjobs.com. Also, when Thomas Payne attempted to sue the university, the court viewed him as a employee of the government.
Case
quote:
“[W]hen a public employee has a legitimate entitlement to his employment, the due process clause may protect as ‘property’ no more than the status of being an employee of the governmental employer in question together with the economic fruits that accompany the position.”) (quoting Jett v. Dall. Indep. Sch. Dist., 798 F.2d 748, 754 n.3 (5th Cir. 1986)).
Case
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:19 pm to lsu2006
Rule 4.2 - "Unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order, a lawyer in representing a client shall no communicate about the subject of the representation with: (1) a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter".
"Matter" does not mean pending litigation but refers to the subject of the representation.
"Matter" does not mean pending litigation but refers to the subject of the representation.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:20 pm to NBD
Please tell me which rule he violated, subpart included. No sarcasm or ill tone included.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:23 pm to GoldenAge
The honest answer is that I have worked for a Louisiana public university - as its lawyer. Your are conflating the issue of being a "state actor" with the term government. And having litigated the issue, your argument has no merit.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:23 pm to NBD
quote:
Stick with your day job. The attorney who was reinstated was originally .......??? Disbarred! The issue here is not reinstatement to the bar but the sanction that could be imposed based on Wade's lawyer's alleged unethical conduct.
You want so hard to score a win here.Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:24 pm to NBD
quote:
The honest answer is that I have worked for a Louisiana public university - as its lawyer
Why so salty, Bob?
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:24 pm to Jester
No - just cannot stand ill informed arse hole trolls.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:25 pm to Jester
Not quite - because if I were Bob - I would be handling this a lot differently.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News