Rudy Giuliani

[Flatpoint High]

“Alan Dershowitz to Newsmax: Giuliani Denied Due Process, Suspension Won't Stand”:
https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/alan ... d/1026530/

he also wrote a piece for The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/5 ... titutional

[LM K]

"For completeness": Turley's blog: Politics By Other Means: Why Giuliani’s Suspension Should Worry All Lawyers.

I always find Turley interesting.

I have a few questions for lawyers:

1. One of Turley's assertions is that "other lawyers did it without consequences, so why is Giuliani different?". Doesn't someone have to report a lawyer before any bar can evaluate the lawyer for possible disciplinary actions?

2. Is Turley ignoring differences in state bar requirements?

3. While Turley makes an interesting point about free speech, no one is blocking Giuliani from speaking. State bars are not government entites. As an educator, I have free speech. But if I verbally sexually harass a student or colleague, I lose my job. Speech has consequences. The government isn't putting parameters on Giuliani's speech. So why can't state bars keep lawyers accountable for their speech if said speech is job related?

The state bar is only addressing Giuliani's speech in his official role as a lawyer. No one blocked Giuliani from saying "on a personal level, I think xyz". The state bar isn't saying Giuliani can't share his personal opinions. They are saying that when presenting his speech in a professional capacity, Giuliani has professional responsibilities.

ETA: While Giuliani didn't have a hearing, the suspension decision recognized that issue and imposed a temporary suspension. They're waiting to take further action until Giuliani can have a hearing. Am I correct? And does this raise legal issues?

[bob]

Doesn't someone have to report a lawyer before any bar can evaluate the lawyer for possible disciplinary actions?

That's what generally happens, and in fact did happen here: Many people complained about Giuliani to the bar. It would be hard to conceive a scenario in which a lawyer did something so egregious that the bar act would on its own without someone also filing a complaint. (Bar complaints often are lawfare by other means.)

Is Turley ignoring differences in state bar requirements?

And, and also reality. We here know, for example, how slow the California bar is at investigating bona fide complaints. So Turley may be overgeneralizing, but not egregiously so.

State bars are not government entities.

State bars are government entities.

Or, more precisely: law licenses, like all other licenses, are granted (and yanked) by the state. In some states, the bar is a governmental entity (usually operated by the courts). And others, the bar is a just voluntary trade association; it has no legal authority; some other entity actually licenses.

Regardless of the name of the issuing authority, licensing is a state function and therefore implicates the First Amendment.

So why can't state bars keep lawyers accountable for their speech if said speech is job related?

This where the policy arguments starts, as no one doubts the state's ability to regulate what lawyers say in court. But these opinion pieces are focusing on what was said out of court. The Dersh's piece, for example, says the marketplace of ideas should govern out-of-court statements. I'm not saying it is a great or even persuasive argument, but what one would expect from someone claiming to a libertarian or small-c conservative.

And many a government worker (including police officers) have successfully sued for reinstatement after disciplinary actions unrelated to their official duties.

Cf.: Terry Lakin; Kansas denied him a medical license because his non-doctor-y statements showed he lacked the fitness to be a doctor.

While Giuliani didn't have a hearing, the suspension decision recognized that issue and imposed a temporary suspension. They're waiting to take further action until Giuliani can have a hearing. Am I correct? And does this raise legal issues?

Yes, it is an interim suspension, pending a full hearing. In general, the standards for granting immediate action (such as a TRO) before a full hearing are meant to be higher. And included in those protections is access to prompt (but not immediate) relief.

There would due-process concerns if the interim relief stretched out too long; the temporary solution becomes the permanent one. But Giuliani's case hasn't hit that point yet.

[Frater I*I]

Cf.: Terry Lakin; Kansas denied him a medical license because his non-doctor-y statements showed he lacked the fitness to be a doctor.

I thought that was due to his conviction for dereliction of duty, therefore showing that he's unfit to hold a medical license....

[bob]

I thought that was due to his conviction for dereliction of duty, therefore showing that he's unfit to hold a medical license....

No; the Kansas board looked beyond his conviction and focused on why he was convicted: he let his personal beliefs override his professional duties.

[Maybenaut]

Cf.: Terry Lakin; Kansas denied him a medical license because his non-doctor-y statements showed he lacked the fitness to be a doctor.

I thought that was due to his conviction for dereliction of duty, therefore showing that he's unfit to hold a medical license....

It was because, in refusing to deploy he

"…potentially jeopardized the health, safety and welfare of the military troops for with applicant was employed to provide medical care."

https://web.archive.org/web/20140331002 ... nt-see-you

[noblepa]

And many a government worker (including police officers) have successfully sued for reinstatement after disciplinary actions unrelated to their official duties.

One difference in the case of Juliani, is that he was vigorously holding himself out as being the president's lawyer. He strongly implied, if not outright stated that his was relaying the opinions and wishes of his client. Therefore, he was acting in his capacity as a lawyer, licensed by the state, rather than in his personal capacity as citizen Juliani.

The government workers and police officers were not implying that they spoke for their employer or that they were acting/speaking in any capacity other than as a private citizen.

Also, I believe that the court, in their ruling suspending his license, specifically said that the decision was made because of his lies both in and out of court.

[bob]

One difference in the case of Juliani, is that he was vigorously holding himself out as being the president's lawyer.

Which is not relevant to the point being made, i.e., that the government's punishing speech implicates the First Amendment.

But it does raise another point of defense: lawyers have an ethical duty to zealously advocate for their clients. I fully expect the argument that Giuliani's public "statements" were done in defense of his client. Whether those statements were truthful, needed to be done on the teevee shows, etc., concedes the central tenet: that he was advocating, was ethically bound to do so, and we don't want the government forcing itself between attorneys and their clients.

(Again, not a particularly persuasive one, but some will buy into the slippery slope.)

Also, I believe that the court, in their ruling suspending his license, specifically said that the decision was made because of his lies both in and out of court.

As mentioned, yes, but the defense from Turley, the Dersh, etc., are focusing on his out-of-court statements. Because the out-of-court statements are both the weakest in the actual courts and the strongest in the court of public opinion. Totally an expected tactic from his defenders.

[zekeb]

Was Roodles advocating for his client or was he taking part in a snake oil sales scam? Roodles wasn't defending the OSG as much as he was encouraging him.

[Maybenaut]

Was Roodles advocating for his client or was he taking part in a snake oil sales scam? Roodles wasn't defending the OSG as much as he was encouraging him.

In the end maybe it won’t matter. Dominion’s lawsuit against Giuliani made a pretty strong case that this was a grift. If the Court thinks that falsehoods contained in Giuliani ’s public “advocacy” were motivated as much by separating fools from their money as by advancing the interest of his client, I think the result would be the same.

[Foggy]

I think Roodles was lying to the former asshole as much as he was lying to the courts and the public.

And lying to your client, while not the basis of him losing his license, is a bad thing.

[dan1100]

"For completeness": Turley's blog: Politics By Other Means: Why Giuliani’s Suspension Should Worry All Lawyers.

I always find Turley interesting.

I have a few questions for lawyers:

1. One of Turley's assertions is that "other lawyers did it without consequences, so why is Giuliani different?". Doesn't someone have to report a lawyer before any bar can evaluate the lawyer for possible disciplinary actions?

#1 is the "there are other people out driving who are even drunker than me/what about Dahmer, he ate people" defense. Other people's misconduct is irrelevant.

[noblepa]

#1 is the "there are other people out driving who are even drunker than me/what about Dahmer, he ate people" defense. Other people's misconduct is irrelevant.

Not entirely irrelevant. If a law is on the books, but seldom, if ever enforced, or only weakly enforced, and the government suddenly decides to enforce it against one individual or pursue more serious penalties, it can raise 14th Amendment equal protection claims.

In a civil case it can make a difference, as well. In the case of copyright or trademark infringement, a company must defend its IP against everyone, or risk losing the copyright or trademark. As I understand it, the word aspirin used to be a trademark of the Bayer corp., but they allowed it to be used as a generic term for acetylsalicylic acid, and they lost the trademark protection.

I'm not saying that this is happening in Rudy's case.

Not only was Rudy making outrageous claims on his client's behalf, he was making them in the context of ongoing court cases, which, to me, makes those lies a little different than simple statements of his personal opinion. This may not be the legal reasoning, however.

[Maybenaut]

#1 is the "there are other people out driving who are even drunker than me/what about Dahmer, he ate people" defense. Other people's misconduct is irrelevant.

Not entirely irrelevant. If a law is on the books, but seldom, if ever enforced, or only weakly enforced, and the government suddenly decides to enforce it against one individual or pursue more serious penalties, it can raise 14th Amendment equal protection claims.

I have a hard time imagining that the government’s uneven, or even selective, enforcement of a criminal statute would survive an equal protection challenge. “I should be treated like all the other criminals?” Unless you could show that it’s based on something immutable, like race, it’s never fly.

[bob]

I have a hard time imagining that the government’s uneven, or even selective, enforcement of a criminal statute would survive an equal protection challenge. “I should be treated like all the other criminals?” Unless you could show that it’s based on something immutable, like race, it’s never fly.

Concur. "Selective bar prosecution!" is a policy argument aimed at the court of aggrieved conservatives.

Nonetheless, I expect Giuliani to raise an argument, under the First Amendment, about some sort of claim of content-based restrictions.

[Phoenix520]

Reading (listening to) Jeffrey Toobin’s* book, in which he mentions that among Roodles’s many contributions to American society is the Perp Walk. We have him to thank for the schadenfreude that accompanies it.



* It didn’t occur to me until after I’d started that Toobin is That Zoom Guy. Thank goodness he’s not the one reading it or I’d have many more moments of remembering mid-sentence, cracking up, and losing my place.

[LM K]

State bars are not government entities.

State bars are government entities.

Or, more precisely: law licenses, like all other licenses, are granted (and yanked) by the state. In some states, the bar is a governmental entity (usually operated by the courts). And others, the bar is a just voluntary trade association; it has no legal authority; some other entity actually licenses.

Regardless of the name of the issuing authority, licensing is a state function and therefore implicates the First Amendment.

So why can't state bars keep lawyers accountable for their speech if said speech is job related?

This where the policy arguments starts, as no one doubts the state's ability to regulate what lawyers say in court. But these opinion pieces are focusing on what was said out of court. The Dersh's piece, for example, says the marketplace of ideas should govern out-of-court statements. I'm not saying it is a great or even persuasive argument, but what one would expect from someone claiming to a libertarian or small-c conservative.

And many a government worker (including police officers) have successfully sued for reinstatement after disciplinary actions unrelated to their official duties.

Thank you so much for your reply, Bob. I understand Giuliani's situation much better now.

[Gregg]

"For completeness": Turley's blog: Politics By Other Means: Why Giuliani’s Suspension Should Worry All Lawyers.

I always find Turley interesting.

I have a few questions for lawyers:

1. One of Turley's assertions is that "other lawyers did it without consequences, so why is Giuliani different?". Doesn't someone have to report a lawyer before any bar can evaluate the lawyer for possible disciplinary actions?

#1 is the "there are other people out driving who are even drunker than me/what about Dahmer, he ate people" defense. Other people's misconduct is irrelevant.

That's a fw layers in, actually.

Dahmer ate more people then me
Dahmer didn't cook the people he ate
etc...

[RTH10260]

Giuliani Facing Inquiry Into Whether He Lobbied for Turkey
By Christian Berthelsen, Greg Farrell, and Chris Strohm
29 June 2021, 14:57 CEST Updated on 29 June 2021, 22:50 CEST

• DOJ inquiry is separate from criminal probe of Ukraine work
  U.S. could order ex-NYC mayor to register as foreign lobbyist

Rudy Giuliani is the subject of a Justice Department inquiry into possible foreign lobbying for Turkish interests separate from a criminal probe of his activities in Ukraine, according to people familiar with the matter.

For almost a year, the former New York mayor and personal lawyer to Donald Trump has been fielding questions about whether he was acting for Turkey when he pushed the Trump administration in 2017 to drop money-laundering charges against gold trader Reza Zarrab and also reportedly sought the deportation of exiled Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen. Zarrab later pleaded guilty and implicated Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a sanctions-evasion scheme, while Erdogan claims Gulen was behind a failed 2016 coup against his government.

The Turkey inquiry, which has not been previously reported, is not criminal, in contrast to the Ukraine investigation, which resulted in the Federal Bureau of Investigation seizing Giuliani’s electronic devices in April 28 raids on his Manhattan home and office. Though both matters focus on whether Giuliani lobbied the Trump administration on behalf of foreign interests, the Justice Department usually takes a softer approach when it thinks failure to register wasn’t intentional.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... for-turkey

[RTH10260]

Trump has cut off Rudy Giuliani, and is annoyed that he asked to be paid for his work on challenging the election, book says
Bill Bostock |
Published on 07/05/2021 at 2:34 pm | Updated 07/05/2021 at 2:35 p.m.

The Times of London published an excerpt from "Landslide," the upcoming book by the author Michael Wolff.

• Giuliani spearheaded Trump's legal attempt to overturn the 2020 election result until February.
  Giuliani has reportedly been asking Trump to pay his legal fees for weeks, but has been ignored.
  Trump and his family have also cast off Giuliani, according to a new book from Michael Wolff.

Donald Trump's family has cut off Rudy Giuliani, and the former president has been irked that the lawyer asked to be paid for his work challenging the 2020 election, according to a new book.

On Sunday, The Times of London published an excerpt from "Landslide: The Final Days of the Trump Presidency," the upcoming book on the Trump presidency from the author Michael Wolff.

In the extract, Wolff describes Trump's post-presidency life at his Mar-a-Lago resort, and how Trump is frustrated by the lack of progress in his quest to overturn the 2020 election result.

Giuliani, a longtime ally and personal lawyer of the president, started leading the Trump campaign's efforts to overturn the election on November 4, but departed sometime in February after a series of setbacks.

Since then, reports have detailed how Giuliani and his allies have sought to get paid for the legal work, but to no avail, falling foul of the president in the process.

"Trump is annoyed that he [Giuliani] tried to get paid for his election challenge work," Wolff wrote, per The Times.

"Giuliani, now beset by crushing investigations and potentially millions of dollars in legal costs, has publicly implored the Trump family and aides ... to have the Trump campaign, with its great wealth, indemnify him - and has gotten only the cold shoulder. "


https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/trump ... lff-2021-7

[Slim Cognito]

Oh Rudy, how the mighty have fallen.

[Suranis]

Rudy Rudy Tudy. When you deal with a trump, get paid before you leave...

[zekeb]

Rudy Rudy Tudy. When you deal with a trump, get paid before you leave in advance...

[Frater I*I]

Rudy Rudy Tudy. When you deal with a trump, get paid before you leave in advance...

Yeah, he should know that prostitutes always get paid up front....

[much ado]

Rudy Rudy Tudy. When you deal with a trump, get paid before you leave in advance...

I thought that’s what a retainer is for. So sad for dumbass Rudy.