Catching Up With “The Lincoln Lawyer” Part 4

/ Jack Marshall / 1 Comment

I like the show in general, but its writers need to catch up with the Rules of Professional Conduct and their interpretation.

Twenty years ago, in “The Sopranos,” Tony and his wife Carmella were having marital problems—gee , I wonder why?—and Tony was tipped off that she was looking for a divorce lawyer. So Tony contacted every major divorce lawyer he could find to tell them all about his marriage on the pretext that he was considering retaining one of them.. The idea was to conflict them all out of representing her, because they had received confidential communications from Tony.

Rule 1.18, relatively new at the time, held that lawyers had to keep the confidences of even potential clients, making such a dastardly tactic possible. But not long after that episode of “The Sopranos” revealed the loophole in the rules, courts and legal ethics opinions closed it with the sensible holding that someone only consulting a lawyer to create a conflict and not as a good faith effort to seek legal representation was not a genuine potential client.

Nevertheless, in the current season of “The Lincoln Lawyer,” Mickey’s newly minted lawyer associate (and ex-wife) says she got her first family law client because the woman had been frozen out of hiring the established divorce lawyers after her louse of a spouse had pulled Tony’s old trick.

True, it’s not always easy to prove that an estranged spouse is seeking conflicts rather than a lawyer. Nonetheless, lawyer TV shows are ethically obligated not to deceive the public. Tony Soprano’s method is unlikely to work now, and hasn’t been viable for at least a decade.

In one area, “The Lincoln Lawyer” deserves praise for properly representing a lawyer’s duty that Hollywood almost always ignores. Whenever Mickey Haller, “The Lincoln Lawyer,” is presented with a plea deal or another offer from the opposing attorney, even if Mickey makes it clear that he thinks the offer is ridiculous, he always says, “I’ll run it by my client,” which he has to do. But even in some of the most celebrated legal films, like Paul Newman’s “The Verdict,” the lawyers don’t do that. As a result, many clients don’t know their attorney can’t reject or accept a settlement offer without consulting them. That misconception can cause real harm.

The previous installments of these legal ethics commentaries on the streaming series can be found here, here, and here.

Pre-Valentines Day and Lincoln’s Birthday Ethics Warm-Up, Feb. 12, 2026

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Stop me if you’ve heard this one…

My favorite Valentine’s Day memory comes from when I was a student at Harvard, directing my first show at nearby M.I.T. I had bemoaned to my cast how the holiday was bound to be a lonely one for me, as I had no girlfriend at the time and my room mates, who were all from far-flung states, where certain to be getting copious love notes in their mail boxes while mine would be, as usual, empty. (My home was in Arlington, Mass., a quick bus ride from Cambridge.) When February 14th arrived and the usual morning mail call with it, my room mate who was on mail duty that day announced, “Dick, you have eight cards. Slip, you have two. Mark, you got 12 cards. Worldman [he was Hawaiian], you also have 12. I have three, and Shithead (my room mates often called me “Shithead”) you have…these.”

And he poured out 58 little envelopes on the floor, each containing one of those little Valentines we used to exchange in elementary school. An M.I.T. coed named Nancy Green (not the original Aunt Jemima) in my chorus had persuaded every student in her dorm to write a personal message on one of those little cards, and she stamped, addressed and mailed them. It was a classic random act of kindness. Thanks, Nancy—wherever you are.

Meanwhile…

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Quiz: The I.C.E. Endorsement

/ Jack Marshall / 17 Comments

Sarai Jimenez, a special education teaching intern at in Pajaro Valley School District’s Watsonville, California-based MacQuiddy Elementary, endorsed the presence of I.C.E. officers in her town in a comment on Facebook last month.

“Yay!!! We need ICE in Watsonville!! It’s been getting out of hand,” Jimenez wrote, as you can see above. But the parents in Pajaro Valley Unified School District, where 84% of students are Hispanic and, given California’s sanctuary state aspirations, might belong to families with one or more illegal immigrants, considered Jimenez’s support for ICE….that is, enforcement of U.S. law…unconscionable. Many complained, and Jimenez was placed on leave from her job in Pajaro Valley School District. It appears that she will be fired, if she hasn’t been already.

“You can’t just tell the world how you feel and not expect repercussions from people because of how they feel about I.C.E.,” local parent Jorge Guerrero said. If I were awake completely, which I’m not, I would compose several alternate versions of this statement with provocative substitutes for “I.C.E.”

Jimenez tried to save her job by groveling a politician-style denial rather than an apology,“I’m sorry that the comment was taken out of context,” she told reporters. “But my actions speak so much louder than all those hateful bullies’ words.” The hateful bullies are the ones who bombarded her with threats and insults until she took down her Facebook page. “You are a shameful disgraceful disgusting woman,” one critic wrote.

Predictably, though apparently not by the interning teacher, the school administrators sided with the bullies if not their methods (although firing someone for supporting law enforcement is a lot more harmful than insulting her).

MacQuiddy Elementary Principal Sara Pearman said in a statement that Jimenez’s comment “does not reflect the values” of the school or district.

Hmmmm…

Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day:

Is it ethical to fire Jimenez for expressing support for law enforcement officials doing their jobs?

I think this is a close call. Some points:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations On Atty. Gen. Bondi’s Appearance Before The House Judiciary Committee

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

I will stipulate here that Bondi is unethical, unprofessional, incompetent, and a hack attorney who was arguably the worst of Trump’s Cabinet appointments once Matt Gaetz withdrew. Nothing that occurred at today’s embarrassing (to everyone, including me) hearing altered any of that. Furthermore:

1. Being rude and confrontational to members of Congress is demeaning to our government, however much our terrible elected representatives deserve it. Bondi’s boss might enjoy a “fiery” hearing, but it is disgraceful and unnecessary. Being cool under fire is what Americans should expect from their top lawyer. If Democrats like Rep. Jayapal and Rep. Raskin want to act like hyper-partisan assholes as they so frequently do, the best way to expose them is by contrast.

2. Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias! CNN actually had the gall to write, “It seemed Bondi was playing to the “audience of one” — Trump. But that came potentially at the expense of appealing to an American public that really does want answers.” If the public “wants answers,” it is incumbent on Congress to run hearings that are substantive and involve genuine matters of concern, rather than throttle a contrived scandal that was supposed to embarrass President Trump but that has behaved more like a boomerang. The Democrats on the committee seemed to only be interested in “gotcha!” questions, attacking the President, and deflecting from their own President’s absolute inertia on the same matter they were criticizing Bondi for her lack of zeal regarding. Had the committee members delivered a fair and professional inquiry, or even attempted to hold one, CNN blaming Bondi for failing to sufficiently enlighten the public would be valid. But they didn’t, and it isn’t. The CNN commentary once again just proved again that the news media is interested in partisan advocacy above all else.

Pages: 1 2

Some Perspective on the Ignorant “Things Are Worse Than Ever!” Lament

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Almost 14 years ago, I was directing a play in Arlington Virginia about the dance marathons that were held during the Great Depression. I wrote a post about what I had discovered in researching the show, which became one of the projects I am most proud of in my parallel career as a stage director. The essay began,

“Jews sometimes are criticized for evoking the Holocaust at every opportunity. Their explanation is that we “must never forget,” an argument I once thought was bizarre. “Who could forget the Holocaust?,” I wondered. Something so unique and horrible would be impossible to forget; it would be like pretending the Grand Canyon didn’t exist.

“That was ignorant of me. Nations, religions, cultures and groups of all kinds are stunningly effective at forgetting historical episodes which challenge their self-image and most cherished illusions. Jews are rightfully and wisely vigilant at reminding the world of what was done to them as the rest of humanity passively looked on in the 30’s and 40’s, because their extermination at the hands of the Nazis is a prime candidate for history’s memory hole, where good and sensitive people, along with their nations, communities and cultures, dispose of memories too ugly to remember. Once the memories are gone, they no longer haunt us, it is true. They no longer teach or warn us, either. The ethical course of action is to remember our worst moments, and evoke them as often as possible. We can only be our best by admitting our worst.”

I also feel that recalling “when things were rotten,” to evoke one of Mel Brooks’s lesser efforts, is to remind ourself how resilient our American culture is, and how our virtues and values as a society sometimes fail (because our society is made up of human beings), this nation has been remarkable in its ability to recover, slap itself in the face, regroups and get back on an honorable, ethical path. The foes of American culture don’t acknowledge this. It serves their agenda to deny that the United States has ever learned or reformed, though that quality is among our greatest strengths. So I feel that it is a propitious time to again remind readers here of the horrors that were the dance marathons of the 1930s. Most people have no idea how cruel and brutal they were, almost as cruel and brutal as the economics conditions that spawned them.

Pages: 1 2

Breaking!

/ Jack Marshall / 12 Comments

….and Savannagh Guthrie’s mother is still missing.

I know I’m harping on this, but it needs to be harped on. The news networks are still giving breathless reports on this single disappearance of a woman the American public knew nothing about 11 days ago, and whose only claim to importance is that she is the mother of the Today Show’s hostess, which doesn’t even mean as much as it did a decade ago.

The Today Show made Dave Garroway, Tom Brokaw, John Chancellor, Barbara Walters, Jane Pauley, Joe Garragiola and Bryant Gumbel national figures; also Willard Scott and J. Fred Muggs, a chimp, once upon a time when most American actually watched the morning show. Now? I bet more Americans listen to Bad Bunny recordings than had a clue who Savannah Guthrie was before CNN, MSNBC and Fox News started spewing this story up our metaphorical noses like Navage.

Yet there are already specials being aired about Mrs. Guthrie’s disappearance, which makes no difference to the fate of the nation, the state of the union, or the welfare of the public in any way, shape or form. The coverage, which now resembles the endless obsession with the Malaysian airline disappearance (but a lot more than one woman vanished with that mystery), is preventing the public from learning about other events and issues that are genuinely important to more than a single family. It is also helping the news media bury stories its political bias causes it to want buried.

(I find myself fighting the impulse to hope that Mrs. Guthrie was abducted and eaten by a trans female illegal immigrant Gavin Newsom supporter, who had been arrested and released 12 times by the Biden Administration.)

This episode does have importance, however. It is important because it proves that our journalists are not journalists. They are greedy, irresponsible hacks who hold the same ethical standards as drug dealers and organized crim: prey on people’s base needs and addictions, because it’s so profitable. Hey, everybody loves a mystery, right?

Sure…and the tale of Savannah Guthrie’s mom, however it turns out, will make a dandy “48 Hours” episode. One. Last night we were getting breathless updates about an arrest. The guy’s been released: now the mystery is whether he is a DoorDash driver or not.

It would all be funny if it wasn’t so damning. The people we rely on to inform us so we can be competent citizens in a republic are silly, greedy, irresponsible and untrustworthy hacks. We shouldn’t need this ridiculous spectacle to convince us by now, but how can anyone doubt it after this?

Ethics Dunce and Unethical Quote of the Week: John Kasich

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

I confess: there was a time when I considered supporting John Kasich to be the 2016 GOP nominee for President (anyone but Trump…well, okay, and Dr. Ben Carson). Then I started listening to him. After he wiped out in the primaries, Kasich became a committed NeverTrump fanatic like the revolting Lincoln Project scamsters, left politics after being a wishy-washy Governor of Ohio, and then began being an anti-Trump “contributor” on Fox News, then CNN, NBC and MSNBC (the tell: he’s a liar) during the first Trump administration.

Kasich enthusiasticly supported Joe Biden in 2020, saying, in an endorsement that has aged as well as Walter Donovan in “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”..

….“I’m sure there are Republicans and independents who couldn’t imagine crossing over to support a Democrat. They fear Joe may turn sharp left and leave them behind. I don’t believe that because I know the measure of the man. It’s reasonable, faithful, respectful.”

The tell: Kasich is an idiot.

This diagnosis was proven spectacularly correct when Kasich tweeted, following the NFL’s cynical Bad Bunny halftime show:

“Love the halftime show which celebrates the wonderful Latino culture. Great pick and great show. Bad Bunny hit a grand slam home run!”

Apparently the ” wonderful Latino culture” is celebrated with lyrics like these…

…which Kasich either sat there getting aroused by because he’s a dirty old man, or had no freaking idea what Latinos were hearing. I tend to think that he didn’t even watch the half-time show but defended it anyway because Kasich hates Trump to pieces, so he has done so often in the past decade, Kasich proceeded to make a fool of himself.

There are some admirable aspects to Hispanic culture indeed, like devotion to family, entrepreneurism,a strong work ethics and religious faith, but twerking and a crotch obsession arenot among them. Kasich praised Bud Bunny because Trump Derangement has eaten his brain, such as it was.

Oh…and the tweet also proves Kasich is a dork. Who but a dork uses a baseball term to describe a Super Bowl half-time show?

Catching Up With “The Lincoln Lawyer” Part 3

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

This one really troubled me, because it reinforces a public misunderstanding about lawyer ethics and one that many lawyers don’t understand either. [The first two installments of this limited Ethics Alarms series are here and here.]

In Season Two of “The Lincoln Lawyer,” Mickey represented a seductive restaurant owner (above) who was accused of murdering a local real estate developer with whom she had been in conflict.

Sidebar: Mickey had intimate relations with the woman immediately prior to her being arrested and retaining him s her attorney. Not afterwards, however, because it is an ethics violation in most states to have sex with your client. Some randy lawyers have had ethics complaints dismissed by proving that they had already been making whoopee with the client, so the usual reasons for the prohibition no longer applied.

That may be true, but I regard it as unethical (and stupid) for a lawyer to ever represent a client with whom he or she has had…or even wants to have..sexual relations. The restaurant owner was obviously using her lawyer’s attraction to her to cloud his judgment.

Pages: 1 2

A Lot of People, Including A Lot of Friends of Mine, Owe President Trump an Apology. Will They Apologize? Or Even Admit They Were Wrong?

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Of course not.

And therein lies their tragedy, and ours.

A newly released document in the so-called Epstein files reveals that Donald Trump, far from being an eager participant in Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking in and exploitation of young women, was one of the first to alert authorities that Epstein was involved in illegal activities. As the New York Times reports today,

“…one of the first calls the Palm Beach police received was from Donald J. Trump, the local police chief at the time told the F.B.I. more than a decade later.

“Mr. Trump reportedly told the chief, Michael Reiter, ‘Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this,’ according to a document recounting their conversation that is part of the tranche of Epstein files released by the Justice Department.

“Mr. Trump said it was known in New York circles that Mr. Epstein was disgusting and suggested that the police also focus their investigation on Mr. Epstein’s associate Ghislaine Maxwell, according to the memo. ‘She is evil,’ Mr. Trump reportedly said.”

“Mr. Trump also told the police chief that he was around Mr. Epstein once when teenagers were present and that he ‘got the hell out of there,’ according to Mr. Reiter’s account.” The former chief described his conversation with Mr. Trump to the F.B.I. in October 2019, two months after Mr. Epstein was found dead in his jail cell while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges, the memo shows. Mr. Reiter told The Miami Herald, which reported on the document earlier, that the call with Mr. Trump occurred in July 2006.”

That’s years before Epstein’s first conviction.

Pages: 1 2

Gee, Who Could Have Ever Predicted That Marijuana Use Would Become a Problem? Me, For One…

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

I really try not to get emotional over ethics stories, but the current Editorial Board declaration in the New York Times headlined, “It’s Time for America to Admit That It Has a Marijuana Problem” makes me want to run screaming naked into Route 395.

The U.S. had a marijuana problem a half century ago, when an earlier wave of The Great Stupid washed over the land and all manner of important lessons a healthy and functioning society needed to remember and institutionalize were deliberately tossed away because a lot of passionate, anti-establishment assholes were sure that they knew better than anyone “over 30.” I fought this destructive development from college, when I watched one of my room mates suffer short term memory loss from getting stoned morning and night; in law school, when the student running my lightboard for a production of “Iolanthe” erased all the light cues that we had taken six hours to set up because he was higher than the moons of Jupiter, all the way onto this blog. I put up with the mockery of classmates and dorm mates over the fact that I would not “try” pot (“It’s illegal” wasn’t a winning argument, so I settled on “It’s stupid and destructive.”). I drew a line in the sand with my addiction-prone wife, a former pot-head who was already an alcoholic. My fellow lawyers quickly learned not to get stoned around me because they knew I regarded buying and selling pot when it was illegal grounds for reporting them to bar authorities and respected my integrity enough to have reasonable doubts that I might not pretend that I didn’t know what I knew.

I carried the battle onto Ethics Alarms as the relentless pro-stoner propaganda was heading to victory, resulting in the legalization of the drug, the inevitable result of which the assholes who edit the New York Times have the gall now to tell us “Oopsie!” about after being a significant part of the mob mentality that inflicted it on the public, probably forever.

Back in 2011, I drafted a post that I never finished titled, “To My Friends the Pot-Heads: I Know. I’ve Heard It All Before.” It began:

“I take a deep breath every time I feel it necessary to wade into the morass of the Big Ethical Controversies, because I know it invites long and fruitless debates with entrenched culture warriors with agendas, ossified opinions, and contempt for anyone who disagrees with them. War, abortion, religion, prostitution, drugs, torture, gay marriage…there are a lot of them, and all are marked by a large mass of people who have decided that they are right about the issue, and anyone disagreeing with them is stupid, evil, biased, or all three. Contrary to what a goodly proportion of commenters here will write whichever position I take, I approach all of these issues and others exactly the same way. I look at the differing opinions on the matter from respectable sources, examine the research, if it is relevant, examine lessons of history and the signals from American culture, consider personal experience if any, and apply various ethical systems to an analysis. No ethical system works equally well on all problems, and while I generally dislike absolutist reasoning and prefer a utilitarian approach, sometimes this will vary according to a hierarchy of ethical priorities as I understand and align them. Am I always right? Of course not. In many of these issues, there is no right, or right is so unsatisfactory—due to the unpleasant encroachment of reality— that I understand and respect the refusal of some to accept it. There are some of these mega-issues where I am particularly confident of my position, usually because I have never heard a persuasive argument on the other side that wasn’t built on rationalizations or abstract principles divorced from real world considerations. My conviction that same-sex marriage should be a basic human right is in this category. So is my opposition, on ethical grounds, for legalizing recreational drugs.”

Instead of finishing and posting that essay, I posted this one, which used as a departure point a Sunday ABC News “Great Debate” on hot-point issues of the period featuring conservatives Rep. Paul Ryan and columnist George Will against Democratic and gay Congressman Barney Frank and Clinton’s former communist Labor Secretary Robert Reich. [Looking back, it is interesting how all four of these men went on to show their dearth of character and integrity. Ryan proved to be a spineless weenie, rising to Speaker of the House but never having the guts to fight for the conservative principles he supposedly championed. Frank never accepted responsibility for the 2008 crash his insistence on loosening mortgage lending practices helped seed, preferring to blame Bush because he knew the biased news media would back him up. Will disgraced himself by abandoning the principles he built his career on in order to register his disgust that a vulgarian like Donald Trump would dare to become President. Reich was already a far left demagogue, so at least his later conduct wasn’t a departure. I wrote in part,

Pages: 1 2