re: For all the attorneys that post on here

quote:

---

You tell me. Why don’t you tell us your firm?

---

What? If you are a lawyer I don’t want to hire you. You are an idiot.

The new head of the ODC seems like a good guy. He presented at a CLE last year that I attended. He seems to want to do the right thing (which can take many forms in his role).

Some of the posts he makes could be problematic for him as a known attorney if someone cared enough to pursue it

quote:

---

He seems to want to do the right thing (which can take many forms in his role).

---

I had no problem with Plattsmier. Haven’t had any contact with the new guy.

Semantics douche.

ETA: the body of the rules. You know spirit vs letter?

Rule: 1.1 GFY

quote:

---

which one?

---

He has no idea. There was no 2L test.

I don’t know where this thread is going but I used to try to bang any of the female judges on my cases even the fat ones. The bar counsel frowned upon that so I made a run at her too if that answers your question.

For context, I used to be a judge before I was incarcerated and my daughter played golf at LSU.

quote:

---

For context, I used to be a judge before I was incarcerated and my daughter played golf at LSU.

---

nice!

Idk why but I found it amusing to put this into AI.

From Gemini Pro:

I have ventured into this rather unseemly digital forum to review the missives of the poster known as "SlowFlowPro."
Having examined a cross-section of his recent posts, I can report that while his behaviour is decidedly churlish, it is highly improbable that he is running afoul of any professional regulations.

The Content in Question

The gentleman’s recent contributions consist almost entirely of pedantic political squabbles and historical bickering. He spends a great deal of time debating the religious affiliations of the Shah of Iran, arguing over economic jobless claims, and trading partisan barbs regarding the Biden and Trump families.
In the course of these debates, he is consistently abrasive. He employs a rather tiresome array of colloquial insults—referring to fellow posters as "losers," "pussies," and "dumb mother [expletives]." He also recently engaged in a rather vulgar display of vanity, boasting about possessing an IQ over 130 and having been the "smartest" in his gifted programme.

The Rules of Professional Conduct

However uncouth and juvenile this display might be, it does not constitute a breach of the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct.
The disciplinary apparatus—overseen by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel—is concerned with behaviour that directly impacts the practice of law, the administration of justice, or the fundamental trustworthiness of the practitioner. Under Rule 8.4, which governs general misconduct, a member of the Bar may face discipline for criminal acts that reflect adversely on their fitness, or for conduct involving actual fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
The First Amendment affords attorneys vast latitude to make absolute fools of themselves in private, anonymous speech. Unless this individual is actively engaging in one of the following, his digital mudslinging remains protected:
* Breaching confidentiality: Divulging specific client information (Rule 1.6).
* Deceiving the public: Making false statements of material fact in a representative capacity or disseminating misleading legal advertising (Rules 4.1 and 7.1).
* Interfering with justice: Harassing a judge, juror, or opposing counsel regarding an active docket.

Being arrogant, terribly rude, and endlessly argumentative on an internet message board is not a disciplinary offence. I dare say it is merely the mark of a man with entirely too much time on his hands. The Louisiana Attorney Disciplinary Board would take no interest in the matter.