Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - loki13

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 47
you understand me in part and misunderstand in another. I agree that going to court (for anything) is a good idea. Make your good faith arguments.
I am talking about lawyers who give advise to AVOID court/arrest/etc. They are out there and very open about it. Replace with any other non legal act and its that simple. People who are still confused WANT to be confused on it.

I'm still confused by Artist formerly known as Pie. First, your continued use of the phrase "non-legal" is carrying a lot of freight, as you appear to be conflating civil and criminal infractions (malum in se and malum prohibitum). Second, you aren't being specific, at all, as to what you are alleging, or what the fact pattern could be. Facts can make a huge difference. Third, ethical rules do matter- they are not "justifications." Rules regarding, inter alia, confidentiality. 

So let's take an easy example culled from your fear of undocumented individuals in America. A student from England has overstayed their student visa, and is currently working in a bar in New York City. She goes to an immigration attorney. What advise, if any, would it be acceptable, in your mind for this attorney to give? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

Now, contrast that situation to this one- a business owner goes to an attorney regarding a tax issue. During the course of the conversation, the attorney learns that the business owner is non-compliant with a local ordinance (which is an entirely separate issue). To comply with this local ordinance (which only involves the spacing of his buildings on his property) would require millions and millions of dollars to rebuild, while his business could not operate, costing millions more. In your analysis, what can this attorney ethically do? Why? Refer, if necessary, to relevant rules in your jurisdiction or the Model Rules.

I'm really curious- after all, real life isn't always so neat. Now, if your argument was that immigration attorneys (but not others?) were lying in court, I would completely agree with you, but now I am even more confused as to what your point really is.

I mentioned these counter theories which I why I stressed the non legal act part of it. Helping to further a non legal act violates prof procedure.
Any deeper analysis is just justification.

What? Seriously, I don't understand your point. Let's take an easy example. How about a foreclosure. Let's say we have two "bad" actors in a judicial foreclosure state-
A bank that, arguably, doesn't have requisite standing at the beginning of the case. (Issues with the note)
A borrower that hasn't been paying.

So, by your argument, neither side is entitled to representation? And any deeper analysis is only "justificiation?" The bank shouldn't have representation, because no attorney should help a bank try to establish standing to foreclose when it appears the bank lacks standing. And no attorney should help the borrower, because no one is entitled to keep living in a place they have no right to (sound familiar)?

I'm having serious trouble understanding your views, other than you don't like something, so you don't feel the need to think about it.

Giving legal advice on how to continue an illegal act is a violation of the rules of prof procedure
and yeah, harboring runaway slaves WAS illegal (and enforced). And murder is another example, equally illegally. Your post pretty much sums up my point about how people view the subject, the feel they are in the moral right, so it justifies being in the legal wrong. I have trouble digesting that concept. And just so you know if simply tell them how to get away with an upcoming murder, you'd be in violation too. Just in case there is any confusion there. You don't have to do the act, its the aiding through legal advice and assistance of any kind that is the violation. And helping immigrants come to America is legit, and it is funny how often people try to confuse those two. They are polar opposites. That's like comparing legally buying a car to carjacking.

There's a lot that's confusing, here. Let's take the first sentence. For example, one can often get confused with the term "illegal." I know that in your first post, you basically stated, "civil, whatevs," but the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitum is kind of important. More importantly, you don't really specify what it is that you are objecting to. There are some undocumented immigrants that are allowed to stay here, upon going through proper procedures. And there are occasions when they aren't, but an attorney is well within their rights to advocate for their clients interests to try and stay as long as possible (and, conversely, the opposing attorney may want to get deport them).

Think of another civil context- if a person represents a business, and knows the business committed a civil infraction, but the statute of limitations past, should the attorney just think to themselves, "Well, I shouldn't argue procedure, because what they did was illegal!" What if it's something more arguable (an unclear affirmative defense)?

I think your policy views might be affecting your other views.

If you mean the notarios issue, it is a genuine problem in CA. Notarios operate almost exclusively within the immigrant community and act as quasi-lawyers.

Going completely afield of the original topic, IIRC, isn't it it the case that there is a difference between the function of an American notary and notaries in (some) other countries? For example, I believe that certain European notaries have what some of us would view as quasi-lawyer abilities.

Might that be the case with "true" Mexican (in Mexico) notaries, thus causing some confusion?

So many things to respond to...

Never heard of these rules of professional procedure and I'm from a border state.

Not sure those lawyers are advocating anyone break the law either or what exactly this supposed epidemic of illegal legal advice is.

This side issue confused me, as well. And I can't speak to it, specifically, since I am unaware of the particulars of these claims. That said, I am familiar with immigration attorneys, and they will zealously represent their clients' interests. Which is what they are supposed to do. If there is a particular claim made that a certain action violates a rule of professional conduct, I'd be open ears.

News Discussion / Re: POTUS
« on: August 20, 2015, 09:16:28 AM »
Would you say he burned those "tunnels" of support?

Heh. Bridge and tunnel crowd. I try not to make too much fun of New Jersey- after all, some topics are too easy.

"The un PC reality is no one wants someone that fat from Jersey in charge of anything outside of that area, other than maybe Waste Management."

Maybe. I think Christie blew his (possible) opening in 2012. He is far too liberal for the GOP base, has too many unfortunate associations, no longer has an "electable" argument, and has seriously angered parts of the establishment- he doesn't play well with other GOP figures.

Pie, I almost can't believe that ANY lawyer would actually disagree with the notion of requiring a comprehensive exam to get a license to practice law. We can agree that the bar exam could be better administered and needs a make over, but no exam at all? Seriously?

I have heard this proposal floated by various libertarians. It would involve some combination of the following-
-Anyone can practice law. No restrictions. No UPL charges.
-Changing the various rules and statutes that privilege attorneys.
-People that want to learn what they are doing can go to school, etc. There could be voluntary organizations (such as the ABA) that an attorney could apply to, or take an exam with, and then advertise. "I'm ABA-certified!"
-Use the tort system (malpractice) to enforce standards.

Now, I don't buy this for a number of reasons. It gets really vague around (2) - (4). And I think that the licensing is for the protection of the consumer, and given the information asymmetry, this would be a very, very bad idea. But I have heard it.

What I would be more amenable to is loosening the UPL strictures. There are certain things that, perhaps, a fully licensed attorney is not needed for. I realize that I'm arguing against self-interest, but devolving certain extremely basic legal services might be worth exploring.

This is, quite literally, too much fun!
"All the ad hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that is NOT a tested crimpro question"

From the MBE, here are the list of topics tested that you might find relevant-
V. Constitutional protection of accused persons
A. Arrest, search and seizure
B. Confessions and privilege against
C. Lineups and other forms of identification
D. Right to counsel
E. Fair trial and guilty pleas
F. Double jeopardy
G. Cruel and unusual punishment
H. Burdens of proof and persuasion

From personal experience, I can tell you that this is not only a favorite of the MBE (it's an easily adjudicated question for multi-state), it's also a common fact pattern within states, and tends to come up on the essays. Are you sure you took the bar exam?

"And whats up with you arguing against your self on amendments? Who prior to that exact moment even mentioned them in any way?"
Because I assumed the issue was pretty obvious? It's sort of like, if I state, "The City Council passes an ordinance prohibiting the burning of the American flag," I don't think I have to specifically state, "And that's the First Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, and you might want to look at Texas v. Johnson." Or if I talk about a company requiring janitors to have a college diploma, I don't need to go through the history of Title VII, Griggs v. Duke Power, and I certainly don't need to describe McDonnell Douglas. At least, I hope not.

"I call troll. Im done with you."

The last refuge of someone who just can't bring themselves to admit they were wrong. I suggest working on that. It's a valuable skill in practice. The most common error for most attorneys is a refusal to acknowledge error when it is obvious. It can have disastrous repercussions- for example, when it is obvious to the Court.

I'm guessing it took more than one time for you.

But since you aren't clear on the fact pattern, this is basic Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the 5th (not 6th!) Amendment invocation of right to counsel to end custodial proceedings. Fair amount of case law on that. Also? Shows up on bar exams.

"As to being wrong, on what? I stand by my points."

I think your level of competence, at this point, speaks for itself.

"Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves
and its not the power to take any ones freedom, at best its the opposite of that, in reality its making arguments still.
I stand by my points. I'd rather risk being jaded than self righteous. We wear a tie and use pomp a lot, but lets not confuse that with anything more than it is."

Wow.... "Helping your friend out is an example of something someone can do for themselves"

Are you sure you passed the bar? On your *first* try? This is one of those "general questions" that is actually applicable in all jurisdictions. So let's try this again.

Your friend was just arrested for a crime. You are a licensed attorney. Your friend says that you are his attorney, and he wants to speak to you. Now, what is the difference between you being his attorney, and you being his friend. Any power there?

"I stand by my points."

Why? You haven't answered any of the specific things I brought up. Did you look at the rules for your jurisdiction? What powers and abilities does a licensed attorney have that are not available to the general public? Did you look into your subpoena rules? How about various rules for recording? Anything?

I am somewhat amazed that you manage to stand by points that are demonstrably incorrect. That's not a good way to go through life.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 47