Foggy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:26 am
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.
"There's no play here. There's no angle. There's no champagne room. I'm not a miracle worker, I'm a janitor. The math on this is simple; the smaller the mess, the easier it is for me to clean up." -Michael Clayton