Re: It was the wrong thread
 

2. The judge is obviously a product of public schools.:(

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Wholly disagree. First, the attorney that said she knew it was privileged but did nothing, violated established CA law that she had to notify and return the inadvertently disclosed information. Second, they lie. They are attorneys. Even the taint equals stink. And that story made G&R stink.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I didn't say it was right; I said the court overreacted. Ordering a party to retain lawyers other than those of its choosing -- and its own GC -- is an interference with the rights of a client in order to resolve what is a matter of ethics of the profession.

And I think some courts and bar associations have lost sight of the purpose behind the attorney-client privilege. It's a privilege from having your statements to an attorney used against you in a legal proceeding (and it protects the attorney's advice to you in order to prevent the implicit disclosure of what you have said to elicit that advice). Treating it like a radioactive material that taints everyone it touches is bullshit. IMHO.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Litigators have become such an obnoxious, unprincipled and contentious crew, I'm generally in favor of giving them grief in any way. They are law's equivalent of the tea party. If you ask me, judges should require that litigants retain corporate lawyers to resolve all disputes.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Is that much different from arguing that there should be no fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

For it to be perfectly analogous, the judge would have to disqualify the prosecutor's office from pursuing the case because some of them had seen evidence collected in violation of the Fourth or Fifth Amendments -- which OBTW they do see, all the time. By contrast, I would have been supportive of issue sanctions against G&R's client to preclude the improper use of privileged material but would have stopped short of saying either (1) their brains were infected by having seen a privileged document or (2) they need to be punished by having a client taken away.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

I generally agree with this. :)

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Strange bedfellows: Clarence Thomas and Stephen Reinhardt?

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

if the spouse is truly controlling of the Judge's opinion, the Judge would be afraid to grant the motion, so the only time the motion could be granted would be when it didn't matter. Catch 22.

think. about. it.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

That paradox applied to every motion for recusal. If the judge really is biased, he'd deny every motion.

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Could you create a board where all these exist with explanations/definitions? Otherwise it just reads like a bad inside joke, like your blogs cut and pastes on the PB. No offence. :(:(:(

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Boies and Olson benchslapped by Reinhardt - http://abovethelaw.com/2011/01/break...rt/#more-51453 .

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Deservedly so. :(:(:(

Re: It was the wrong thread
 

Really? I read it as Reinhardt being pissed that a district court ruling he surely likes will have to be dismissed for lack of standing at the appellate level so that it cannot be given broader application outside California.

I'll wait for Atticus to weigh in, but whom exactly were they supposed to sue other than state officials, when only state officials are charged with implementing the law? They could sue Atticus's kids, but wouldn't they have been dismissed as defendants for not being proper defendants?

It seems like the strategy was entirely explicable--they knew that the state wasn't going to defend the law so you sue the defendants that you know are going to lie down anyway.