Quote:
Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch
I realize my posts are too long to read, but your summarization skills suck. My "client's interests" are for the policy he wants to be effectuated, if that is not illegal. So I've considered my client's interest. What you're talking about is talking him out of a policy I don't like.
It is an overreach of my role to tell an elected official that what he proposes to do is stupid, if the stupidity of what he/she is about to do has nothing to with its illegality and everything to do with what I think the policy should be.
If you spent five minutes advising an elected official AS HIS LAWYER you would likely reach the same conclusion, unless you wanted your career to end whenever his did.
|
I think you know I've had a more than passing involvement with government lawyers.
One thing about lawyers: we see a lot of shit storms, and often have a good sense for the things that might happen next and their consquences, legal and non-legal. Fully informing your client of the range of possibilities, including the idea that it's the kind of action that will be piloried and ridiculed, seems to me simply giving your employer the benefit of all your experience and perspective.
You seem to assume your clients will listen to you or give your words more weight than they deserve. There are plenty of idiot politicians out there, and that may be the case for them, but there are also plenty of people in government quite capable of figuring out how much weight to give them and how to weigh them in making their decision.
I've told plenty of elected officials over the years not to be idiots, they were walking into a shit storm. Now, I usually did that with a political rather than governmental hat on, but I sure hope the government guys did the same.
