Kavanaugh hearings: Avenatti casually tossing bombs

[Reality Check]

I'd like to know why attorneys on this forum can't express their honest opinions without getting shit for it.

I apologize for not properly genuflecting to these Fogbow attorneys of which you you speak. It won't happen again - unless it does.

[Foggy]

Just don't make us sit in the back seats of the bus, OK?

[ZekeB]

Just don't make us sit in the back seats of the bus, OK?

We cool guys all sat in the back of the school bus. We could monkey around and play grabass and not get caught - as much.

[Foggy]

Yeah well, I'm still waiting for the day when treating your fellow members of the forum with a basic amount of respect means you are "genuflecting" to them.

[Suranis]

If you need tips on proper genuflecting, then call a Catholic. We are experts.

[Reality Check]

If you need tips on proper genuflecting, then call a Catholic. We are experts.

Thanks. The problem at my age is that once I kneel I might not be able to get back up.

[fierceredpanda]

Yeah well, I'm still waiting for the day when treating your fellow members of the forum with a basic amount of respect means you are "genuflecting" to them.

So I took the weekend to calm down and think about this.

Speaking for only myself, I don't ask for anyone to grovel before my law degree. All I ask is not to have my opinions dismissed by non-lawyers with "well, you're only criticizing that other attorney because you're jealous" or "I'll listen to you when you've accomplished something similar." Not only is that personally insulting to me, and any other attorney, but it is utterly beside the point when talking about, for instance, Michael Avenatti.

Yes, he wears Brioni suits, owns a Ferrari, and drives race cars in his spare time because he's been tremendously successful as an attorney. Yes, he's gotten a lot of good publicity lately. But if your standard for judging the quality of an attorney as an attorney is as simple as looking at a fancy suit, an expensive car, and seeing them on TV, you are begging to be taken advantage of. Because, sorry to say, our profession has more than its share of unethical mountebanks who are counting on laypersons to look no further than appearance and persona. If I seem insistent on the point with respect to Avenatti, it's because I care deeply about my profession as one that can, every once in a while, help someone receive justice. That's it. That's what we do. And I cannot tell you how fucking sad it makes me to see someone capitalizing on his clients' legitimate grievances to boost his own ego and jumpstart a political career. Like I said earlier, I do political work on the side when I'm not defending clients, but the thought simply would never occur to me to take advantage of my clients to further a political agenda, and I don't believe the legal profession should tolerate anyone who would do so.

My legal ethics professor gave a lecture about how lawyers will only be permitted to regulate ourselves as long as we demonstrate to laypersons and policymakers that we can be trusted to do so. The fact that so many attorneys were incriminated in Watergate brought so much public outrage that the whole profession was reformed. Legal ethics became a required course in law school, and the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination was instituted, to say nothing of the revisions of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and corresponding revisions of the rules governing lawyers in every state. I don't care about a lawyer like Kellyanne Conway going on TV to spew bullshit while having a law degree. She's not actively engaged in the practice of law. But Michael Avenatti is representing real clients. Maybe he tells his clients he's going to put on a big dog-and-pony show and they approve it, but I really doubt that. And I cannot tell you how frustrating it is for those of us who don't drive Ferraris and are doing things the right way to see all the glory going to people like Avenatti, who are bringing the profession into disrepute. Maybe he gets some good results, but at what cost to the rest of us who are fighting for our clients every day?

I'll note finally that there is (or rather, was) a bit of special pleading at work with the "you're just jealous" and "you haven't accomplished anything similar" responses to attorneys criticizing Avenatti. A week or so ago, I absolutely lit into retired Judge Richard Posner in a discussion of appellate courts. Posner is a legend who has published numerous books and has had a lasting influence on legal philosophy and policy. Did anyone call me down for not being worthy to criticize Judge Posner? No. Because Posner isn't a frequent TV guest and serial antagonist of Donald Trump. If anything, I'm slightly more cautious about criticizing someone like Posner than Avenatti, because Posner's writings and opinions will be read by law students decades from now. Avenatti's antics may enter into a legal ethics course as a cautionary tale, but that's about it.

I don't need anyone to genuflect. If a layperson doesn't agree with my opinion, that's fine. Just understand that talking smack about "accomplishments" and "jealousy" as a means of dismissing considered opinions of professionals who generally know of what they are speaking doesn't strengthen your argument. If anything, it weakens your case by giving the distinct appearance that you would rather get personal than debate the merits. That's why ad hominem is a fallacy. And it is just plain disrespectful. I haven't always been the most level-headed poster here, and I'm certainly not the most accomplished attorney on Fogbow. But I do try really hard to be helpful and, on occasion, slightly witty. I'm happy to continue to do so. I don't need any pats on the back. I just don't particularly care to be slapped in the face, either.

[Reality Check]

I take that as fair criticism but for months I have seen multiple attorneys on this forum going tsk tsk about Avenatti and his tactics when he is a least doing something that has caused a tremendous amount of bad publicity and real harm to Trump. I know some think he had nothing to do with Cohen going down but exposing the huge payments to Cohen and his blatant peddling of influence certainly shined the light on his sleazy tactics and got the attention of Mueller at the NY US Attorney's office. Maybe they were already on to him but maybe not.

BTW, my post wasn't directed at you because frankly I haven't paid much attention to what you have posted.

[Foggy]

The great thing about being a lawyer is that you don't have to actually go to law school to be an expert on the law, as we have witnessed over these past many moons whilst following the birthers and SovCits.

It doesn't take any special talent. Anybody who can read English can read the Constitution and figure out EXACTLY what it means, so the opinions of a bunch of high-falutin' elderly eggheads from Harvard and Yale in their fancy little black robes can't possibly be more important than the opinions of people like Kap'n Karl and Gav Slime and Robert Laity ... OK, well actually people like that don't even have to read the damn thing in order to know what they think it says, which is lucky because if you actually do try to read it, it takes a while.

Even ol' Wifehorn - half the reason she married me was so she could threaten people, "Well, my husband is a lawyer and ..." The other half was so she could tell me how the law really worked. Worst client I ever had.

So you don't need a day of law school to tell people, "I've spent many years studying the law, and blah blah blah." The important thing is that what you say makes common sense, because if the law means anything, it should be based on common sense, and of course every lunatic in Pootville and Birthertown is so full of common sense it just leaks out their orifices all day.

'Course, then you get a guy like Kavanaugh, who really DID go to Yale, and that man has no idea in the world what judicial temperament is, and I bet he's not much better when it comes to actually interpreting the Constitution.

Anyway, I tell people "My name is Bill, and I'm a recovering attorney." I got a 30-day chip to prove it!

[fierceredpanda]

I take that as fair criticism but for months I have seen multiple attorneys on this forum going tsk tsk about Avenatti and his tactics when he is a least doing something that has caused a tremendous amount of bad publicity and real harm to Trump. I know some think he had nothing to do with Cohen going down but exposing the huge payments to Cohen and his blatant peddling of influence certainly shined the light on his sleazy tactics and got the attention of Mueller at the NY US Attorney's office. Maybe they were already on to him but maybe not.

You're deliberately ignoring my point. Avenatti's role as an attorney representing real clients is not to cause Trump to have "bad publicity." His job is not to make Cohen "go down." His job is to advocate for his clients, Stormy Daniels and Julie Swetnick, and get the best outcomes possible for them. That is it. He has been very successful at generating bad PR for Cohen and Trump. He has been far less successful at getting positive results for his clients. My entire point is that laypeople applauding lawyers who behave in that manner are incentivizing unethical behavior by an attorney. Maybe your hatred of Trump is so intense that you think that's worth the cost. I dislike Trump every bit as much as you, but I don't want to see the day come when every lawyer is willing to throw their client under the bus to achieve a political end, desirable though that end may be.

Or, to put it this way: If your lawyer was willing to sacrifice your objectives for someone else's, would you be happy?

[fierceredpanda]

BTW, my post wasn't directed at you because frankly I haven't paid much attention to what you have posted.

Noted.

[Mikedunford]

I don't think anyone has questioned whether Avenatti has done harm to the Trump Organization/Trump/Cohen, although some of us have questioned the amount of actual harm. I think the criticism has been more over whether the harm he's caused Trump excuses the unnecessary risks (eg SLAPP penalties) he's exposed his clients to, the occasionally suboptimal quality of his legal work, and the reputational harm to the legal profession.

As far as I can tell, the lawyers here have always critiqued legal work, and the critiques have been both unsparing and even-handed. We've critiqued the utterly crappy legal work of the birther lawyers and the incomprehensible filings of sovcits, but we've also given praise when due, even to those not on our 'side' of any particular case. (For example, the exemplary work done by Lisa Hay in her defense of the Bundy Buffoon Brigade.) We've also not spared lawyers on our side from critiques before. (The work of the prosecutors in the Bundy case in Arizona got some heat.) Even the legal work believed to have been submitted by lawyers affiliated with this site wasn't spared, with things like typos and inadvertent double-negatives getting pointed out in public.

That's something that's benefitted me tremendously over the last several years. And it's a bit disconcerting to hear people suggest that it would be good to back off critiques of someone's legal work because they're on the right side.

[Reality Check]

Noted.

No offense intended with that remark either. I just haven't read every single post here.

[Jim]

I think the criticism has been more over whether the harm he's caused Trump excuses the unnecessary risks (eg SLAPP penalties) he's exposed his clients to, the occasionally suboptimal quality of his legal work, and the reputational harm to the legal profession.

I hope no one backs off, I learn so much!

But what if that's what the client wants? Obviously hasn't hurt Stormy and the publicity she's been getting is probably worth more than the hush money Trump gave her.

[SLQ]

So why aren't we seeing Avenatti roiling about the scope of the FBI investigation to exclude Swetnik (sp).

[TexasFilly]

One of the most important lessons I learned in my Trial Practices courses in law school, reinforced by countless CLE classes and invaluable in over 3 decades in the trenches is that a good trial lawyer has to know when to "shut up and sit down." This is the actual phrase, not me trying to insult anybody.

You fellows have made your legal points ad nauseum. The folks here are educated and intelligent and are free to consider what you've said and form their own opinions.

Continuing this is a perfect example of

I'll end with something I've also learned after 3 decades of marriage: you don't always need to get in the last word.

[Mikedunford]

So why aren't we seeing Avenatti roiling about the scope of the FBI investigation to exclude Swetnik (sp).

Don't know, and I think it's probably too early for informed speculation. Could be that he's waiting to see how things shake out, and to see what happens in the next couple of days. Could be that he prefers to start roiling in public on a weekday, when more people are paying attention to the nightly news (in which case we'll probably hear more from him today or tomorrow). Could be that he's decided, for any of several reasons, that participation isn't in his client's best interests, and to not push for it unless she's contacted. Could be something else that I haven't thought of.

[Mikedunford]

I think the criticism has been more over whether the harm he's caused Trump excuses the unnecessary risks (eg SLAPP penalties) he's exposed his clients to, the occasionally suboptimal quality of his legal work, and the reputational harm to the legal profession.

I hope no one backs off, I learn so much!

But what if that's what the client wants? Obviously hasn't hurt Stormy and the publicity she's been getting is probably worth more than the hush money Trump gave her.

Even assuming a client goal of maximum publicity, the potential exposure to SLAPP penalties still strikes me as an unnecessary own-goal. She was already getting lots of publicity when the defamation claim against Cohen was filed. There was still going to be lots of possible exposure to publicity beyond that. I could be mistaken, but I don't think the addition of the defamation claim bought her more than one extra news cycle, and some of that coverage included, even on favorable networks (IIRC), some questions as to whether the claim was viable or a SLAPP.

[TexasFilly]

So why aren't we seeing Avenatti roiling about the scope of the FBI investigation to exclude Swetnik (sp).

I checked his Twitter. There are more than one tweet about this, but here's a sample:



While the "official" investigation wants to ignore Swetnik, the right seems to have geared up a mud slinging campaign. AP reports she has been involved in lawsuits. Laura Ingraham will have Swetnik's ex-boyfriend on her show tonight. Et cetera.

[Foggy]

One of the most important lessons I learned in my Trial Practices courses in law school, reinforced by countless CLE classes and invaluable in over 3 decades in the trenches is that a good trial lawyer has to know when to "shut up and sit down." This is the actual phrase, not me trying to insult anybody.

You fellows have made your legal points ad nauseum. The folks here are educated and intelligent and are free to consider what you've said and form their own opinions.

Continuing this is a perfect example of

I'll end with something I've also learned after 3 decades of marriage: you don't always need to get in the last word.

[BigSkip]

FierceRedPanda: Anyone who reads my posts know that I largely agree with you re: Avenatti. Please do not leave. One of the characteristics that makes the Fogbow incredibly valuable, at least to me, is the diversity of opinions, with there being a level of intelligence, reasoning and integrity behind those opinions that is not often found IRL, must less the internet.

We need that diversity of opinion because, among other reasons, it makes us better able , to defend and support our own opinions. I respect and look forward to reading your posts. But I also look forward to reading posts that I disagree with because they make me re-examine my arguments.

I know I am not doing a good job of expressing my thoughts here (I blame that on my third lithotrypsy yesterday), but please do not leave.

And to everyone: Anyone who knows me knows that I don't tolerate fools easily and that I have absolutely no hesitation about telling assholes that they are assholes. But I am begging everyone here to take a step back and remember why most of us got involved here originally, which was, IMO, because we saw something wrong in our society (which ever wrong it was may be different for different people) and we care enough to try to fix that wrong.

Without becoming too pollyannish, I hope we can remember that and remember that, whatever our differences, those differences are usually less significant in the grand scheme of things than the wrongs we are trying to address (shades of the closing scenes in Casablanca).

As a side note, I am sure that there are numerous lurkers here who could make significant contributions to our community but are scared off by some of the attacks we make on each other. I am saying "can't we all get along," but I hope we can dial back the vitriol towards each other and save it for the low life, pond scum, hypocritical, lying, etc. Right Wing Nut Jobs and their accomplices, including the Republican Party.

Nice words. Wish you had followed them when you laid into me with name calling a while back.

linky please.

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopi ... 3#p1001643
You attacked me and called me a troll based on your faulty assumption I was referring to something you said in a post. When I and another person linked to the post I was referring to you responded with silence.

So yeah, forgive me if I am not buying your BS.

[Dan1100]

It is a big assumption that Avenatti is ignoring Stormy's welfare for publicity and not doing exactly what she wants him to do.

I have no reason not to believe that Stormy wants the publicity Avenatti is getting her and to harm Trump and Cohen as much as possible and doesn't care at all about the $130,000 or maybe having to file bankruptcy if they get a judgment against her.

It is not what the lawyer thinks is the best result for the client, it is what the client thinks the best result for the client is. If a guy would rather do his 3 years, knowing he is going to be out in 9 months with good behavior instead of going to 3 months of inpatient rehab followed by 5 years supervised probation, then that may not be best for the client, but it isn't up to the lawyer to second guess that even if the real reason is that the client knows there will be great drugs in prison.

[SLQ]

So why aren't we seeing Avenatti roiling about the scope of the FBI investigation to exclude Swetnik (sp).

I checked his Twitter. There are more than one tweet about this, but here's a sample:



While the "official" investigation wants to ignore Swetnik, the right seems to have geared up a mud slinging campaign. AP reports she has been involved in lawsuits. Laura Ingraham will have Swetnik's ex-boyfriend on her show tonight. Et cetera.

Ah! In my defense, if it isn't on TFB, it doesn't exist . . .

[arock]

Julie Swetnick, a Kavanaugh accuser, has history of legal disputes

WASHINGTON (AP) — Julie Swetnick, one of the women who has publicly accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, has an extensive history of involvement in legal disputes, including a lawsuit in which an ex-employer accused her of falsifying her college and work history on her job application.

Legal documents from Maryland, Oregon and Florida provide a partial picture of a woman who stepped into the media glare amid the battle over Kavanaugh's nomination for the nation's highest court.

A Portland company sued Swetnick for defamation
https://www.oregonlive.com/silicon-fore ... anaug.html

Court records reviewed by The Associated Press show Swetnick has been involved in at least six legal cases over the past 25 years. Along with the lawsuit filed by a former employer in November 2000, the cases include a personal injury suit she filed in 1994 against the Washington, D.C., regional transit authority.

Her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, told the AP that court cases involving her have no bearing on the credibility of her claims about Kavanaugh. Avenatti said the suit from her ex-employer — it was dismissed a month after it was filed — was "completely bogus, which is why it was dismissed almost immediately."

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/ind ... h_acc.html

[Sugar Magnolia]

Just to clarify things in my own mind, Swetnick isn't accusing Kavanaugh personally of anything specific, is she? Just that she knew his gang and their usual MO? Unless the FBI is intending to investigate Kavanaugh's perjury about his drinking, I can understand why they aren't going to interview her (at least initially.)

p.s. As pretty as she is, if the stuff in that legal troubles article is accurate, she'll be well up in the top right corner of the "psycho girlfriend" matrix.