- 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
re: Is bob barton the least professional of them all?
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:26 pm to NBD
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:26 pm to NBD
quote:
"Matter" does not mean pending litigation but refers to the subject of the representation.
This is an extraordinarily broad interpretation of the word "matter". What exactly is the "subject of the representation" in this context? That LSU exists and has general counsel doesn't implicate the existence of a "matter" from my interpretation of the rule. Maybe we should get Prof. Ciolino in on it
This post was edited on 3/14/19 at 3:27 pm
1
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:27 pm to NBD
quote:
No - just cannot stand ill informed arse hole trolls.
Yet, you are here arguing that Wade's attorney could legitimately be disbarred for sending an email to LSU representatives and copying their representation. Am I ill-informed, or are you disingenuous?
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:27 pm to NBD
If we’re being ultra-technical, you could make a strong argument the attorney violated that ethics rule as Alleva and Alexander are agents of the university Barton represents. However, I agree with one of the posters that if Barton reports him to the NY Bar, the worst he probably receives is an admonition if any discipline, attorneys do not get disbarred over this stuff, especially with the fact pattern being as murky as it is and it was only one sentence. The rules aren’t a book you throw at and disbar everyone who may commit an arguable violation, depends on the gravity of the offense, context, that attorney’s standing with their bar, stuff like that, think you’re being way off base with arguing for disbarment over one sentence lol.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:27 pm to NBD
Well then I stand corrected. Appreciate the insight. Recently asked a well respected attorney who defends lawyers at their DH, and she is actually the one who referred me to this case.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:28 pm to GoldenAge
Rule 4.2 (a) (b) and (c). BTW - Rule (a) (b) and (c) are "or" propositions.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:28 pm to NBD
Stop the nonsense
The email copied the attorneys representing LSU
That’s right the email had the lsu attorney basically present and in the room
If you follow the opinion of one Bob Barton you have to then suggest that if they were on a conference call or in a room all together that an attorney could not inform directly by looking straight at Joe Alleva and saying something to him.
It is petty at best and comical at worse and certainly not unethical. The intent is to make sure the party has its representation present . They dont have to be the only one that can hear.
The email copied the attorneys representing LSU
That’s right the email had the lsu attorney basically present and in the room
If you follow the opinion of one Bob Barton you have to then suggest that if they were on a conference call or in a room all together that an attorney could not inform directly by looking straight at Joe Alleva and saying something to him.
It is petty at best and comical at worse and certainly not unethical. The intent is to make sure the party has its representation present . They dont have to be the only one that can hear.
This post was edited on 3/14/19 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:30 pm to ThePTExperience1969
I did not argue for disbarment. I simply stated that he "could" get disbarred for violating the ethical rules applicable to attorneys. Disbarment is a sanction available in every lawyer disciplinary case. I doubt he would get disbarred, but he could.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:33 pm to Pmtiger
Simply copying opposing counsel with a communication forwarded directly to another person who is represented by counsel directly violates the rule. Try again.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:33 pm to NBD
quote:
I did not argue for disbarment. I simply stated that he "could" get disbarred for violating the ethical rules applicable to attorneys. Disbarment is a sanction available in every lawyer disciplinary case. I doubt he would get disbarred, but he could.
Wow what a crawfish statement.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:33 pm to BlackAdam
Factual statement - no crawfishing.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:36 pm to NBD
quote:
I did not argue for disbarment. I simply stated that he "could" get disbarred for violating the ethical rules applicable to attorneys.
Sure if there were serious aggravating circumstances such as a history of ethical violations by this attorney, or a showing that the communication was made with "intent to affect the outcome of the proceeding, and causes significant or potentially significant interference with the outcome of the legal proceeding;"
But again, what is the "matter" here? What is the "subject of the representation" within the context of 4.2? Where is the "legal proceeding"?
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:37 pm to lsu2006
I sure hope you are not a practicing attorney.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:37 pm to NBD
IDK you were getting really angry and hung up over this to the point you were losing your cool. Judgment over emotion, Attorneys.
Well obviously if we apply your insane logic, every attorney every day “could get disbarred” for arguable, gray area violations of the MRPC Bc people in every profession step on the ethical line in some way but the reality is they don’t get disbarred because these rules don’t exist in a vacuum like I explained earlier. My point’s correct and no ethics committee in their right mind would ever agree with your extreme argument in applying the ethics rules.
Well obviously if we apply your insane logic, every attorney every day “could get disbarred” for arguable, gray area violations of the MRPC Bc people in every profession step on the ethical line in some way but the reality is they don’t get disbarred because these rules don’t exist in a vacuum like I explained earlier. My point’s correct and no ethics committee in their right mind would ever agree with your extreme argument in applying the ethics rules.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:38 pm to Pmtiger
quote:
Stop the nonsense The email copied the attorneys representing LSU That’s right the email had the lsu attorney basically present and in the room If you follow the opinion of one Bob Barton you have to them suggest that if they were on a conference call or in a rom all together that an attorney could not inform directly by looking straight at Joe Alleva and saying something to him. It is petty at best and comical at worse and certainly not unethical. The intent is to make sure the party ha sits representation present . They dont have to be the only one that can hear.
NBD is over dramatic, but he not wrong.
Let’s say you accidentally rear end Jumbo. Jumbo goes to a billboard lawyer. Your insurance company provides you Barton as a lawyer, even before suit is filed.
It would be wildly inappropriate for billboard lawyer to copy you on an email, even if Barton was also included. Barton’s literal job is to defend you, and that can mean limiting the options you have to reply to billboard lawyer without him making sure you don’t hurt your case.
That’s the ethics of it.
Professionally is a different story. Dude probably should have just sent a short email asking that all communication be directed through him.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:38 pm to NBD
No need to try again. I am not trying to debate the wording of the law. I am not a lawyer. No harms no foul. They were in the room. ( email)
It’s petty and comical.
The attorney in question has a pretty strong resume and with most good atttoneys won’t do anything without over thinking it strategically
He probably felt it was the least adversarial way to go about this . Of course bob chose the most adversarial. Sorry that doesn’t work.
I would have liked the email to have come from Coach and copied all of the attorneys which would have been the absolute least adversarial.
At some point let’s stick with the issues not the nonsensical stuff
It’s petty and comical.
The attorney in question has a pretty strong resume and with most good atttoneys won’t do anything without over thinking it strategically
He probably felt it was the least adversarial way to go about this . Of course bob chose the most adversarial. Sorry that doesn’t work.
I would have liked the email to have come from Coach and copied all of the attorneys which would have been the absolute least adversarial.
At some point let’s stick with the issues not the nonsensical stuff
This post was edited on 3/14/19 at 3:39 pm
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:39 pm to NBD
I am, but I'm not an ethics expert and don't typically test the waters of contacting parties I know to be represented by counsel in any of my cases.
Can you answer my previous questions? I'm trying to understand.
Can you answer my previous questions? I'm trying to understand.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:39 pm to sealawyer
Any attorney who answers like Barton did is being a petulant child. A “hey bro, please remember to direct all communication through my office” is all it takes.
Posted on 3/14/19 at 3:39 pm to NBD
quote:
Ill informed!
You win the internet today!
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News