My Legal Ethics Association Dilemma

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments
Great. Unethical legal ethicists....

I have gradually discovered, over the past few months, that the association of legal ethics lawyers in which I am a card-carrying member is, in fact, biased, partisan, and not particularly ethical at all.

Membership in the group is considered a credential and an important one, especially since few legal ethics experts have degrees in the field. (My mentor in the area, Michael Daigneault, is one of the few who do.) I don’t belong to the association because of the credential—membership in the ABA ethics section is regarded as a credential too, and that association is crippled by bias, so to hell with it—but because it once seemed like a useful network and because the listserv keeps me relatively informed of major developments in the field.

I knew the group was overwhelmingly left-biased because the whole legal profession is left-biased. Conservative members generally foxhole during discussions that turn political, and they often do. When I have decided to be Popeye (“It’s all I can stand, ‘cuz I can’t stand no more!”) and point out a particularly annoying outbreak, I receive sheepish emails off site from members who tell me that they agree with me. They just don’t have the guts to say so on the site.

Last month, as I have mentioned here, I raised for discussion the difficult problem of how to square the legal profession’s protection of its many (MANY) alcoholic and substance-addicted lawyers with the duties of candor and communication to clients, supposedly a core legal ethics requirement. The group’s reaction was to “circle the wagons,” deny the problem, and attack me. When I responded in words I believed were appropriate to the attacks, I was singled out and threatened by the group’s president, who said that he had received complaints about my “incivility.”

Translation: Non-conforming positions that made some members uncomfortable are not welcome. Shut up, Jack.

I haven’t participated since. I had already been disillusioned twice in the previous weeks, once when the consensus was that ethics lawyer somehow get an exception from the legal ethics duty to report lawyers they know are unfit to practice ( it would take too much time, you see) and that the fact that bar associations, contrary to the public’s belief, not only do a terrible job policing the profession but intentionally make it difficult for the public to flag unethical lawyers. “How dare you!” would be my summary of the group’s reaction to my pointing out that fact.

Today I saw a post on the listserv by an esteemed member whose signature contained this as a feature:

“A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People.” —-Declaration of Independence

So now I have to put up with partisan, No Kings, Trump Deranged virtue signaling. I am sorely tempted to drop a note with the coda, “These people are crazy.” —President Donald J. Trump, 2026 State of the Union Message.

I’m sure I would again be the target of censorship, and maybe, finally, banned. On one hand, I still find the listserv a valuable resource. On the other hand, as Captain Hook would say, they are hypocrites and unethical., and somebody ought to tell them.

Now what?

Ethical Quote of the Week: President Donald Trump

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Exactly.

The President acceded to a “cease fire” that only gave America’s sworn enemy time to regroup, and Iran an opportunity to demonstrate that it cannot be trusted to meet the terms of any treaty or agreement, as Barack Obama cynically and foolishly pretended when he sold out our country and Israel’s in the “palettes of cash for lies” deal.

Iran is in the grip of a sick culture that cannot accommodate the modern world. I’m sure Trump will be assailed by the usual suspects for calling the Iranian leadership “scum,” and probably the Pope as well, because, you know, humanity, redemption, yada yada.

Islam is a religion that celebrates lying to the enemy as a virtue. To trust the current Iran regime is a death wish.

Ethics Quote Of The Week: Jim Geraghty, As The Graham Platner Debacle Becomes An Official EA Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

“If Platner fooled you, maybe you should find something to do with your life besides writing columns about politics. Because the U.S. political landscape is full of creeps, cretins, con artists, crooks, and cads of every kind, and it always will be. If the media has any useful role to play in our system, it is to look beyond the spin and the campaign-crafted image and to tell the world who these candidates really are, warts and all, so the electorate can make an informed choice.”

—-Jim Geraghty in The National Review in a long, thorough and detailed review of just how obvious it should have been to Democrats and journalists (but I repeat myself) that Graham Platner is “an awful human being, and that fact was about as hidden as a supernova from the start.”

The specific political columnist Geraghty was admonishing is the New York Times’ hard left-biased, consistently unethical hack pundit Michelle Goldberg, one of my favorite examples of the kind of flagrant propagandist the New York Times gives its platform to. [Goldberg’s EA dossier is here.] I haven’t bothered to write about her for a while: The Julie Principle. In a classic “Oopsie!” column, she wrote,

“Last October, when stories about Platner’s tattoo and Reddit posts first broke, I went to Maine to write about him. I tried to convey what I saw: a campaign that was electrifying angry Maine voters. But I deeply regret that, impressed by Platner’s political charisma, I wrote that he was “nothing like the edgelord caricature I encountered online.” If anything, he seems to be significantly worse.”

Geraghty’s review of just how smoky the “Platner is a world-class creep” gun was is instructive. That anyone endorsed the guy or believed the lame narrative that he was a “changed man” should make the most knee-jerk Democrat think hard about how trustworthy, honest, and, let’s face it, smart this party and its leadership is. Geraghty makes showing their confirmation bias, corruption and contrived blindness look so easy because it is easy:

Pages: 1 2

Post 250th Ethics Observations

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

That whiny, divisive, Trump Deranged video re-hashing familiar progressive, “No Kings” talking points while attacking the elected President of the United States is as good a symbol as any of the despicable efforts the Angry Left…now in the process of morphing into the Communist Left, made to undermine our 250th Anniversary celebration.

What a collection of Hollywood has-beens and hysterics! Then, for good measure, they had to include Margaret Atwood, because everyone knows President Trump wants to force American women to be baby machines. Then there was Chuck Todd, by far the worst, dimmest, most biased an partisan host “Meet the Press ” ever had, whining on his podcast,

Trump’s doing all of us a favor by selfishly trying to steal this anniversary from us. We now see who he really is. So no, it’s not the celebration we deserve. It’s not the one we could could have had. But we get a mirror, and the mirror is telling us something. The country is a lot bigger than Donald Trump. It is bigger than any president and it’s obviously bigger than any political party. And there’s no one definition of patriotism. But it still needs leaders who understand that. It still needs citizens who insist on it. And it still needs people willing to say that the national story belongs to all of us, not just whoever happens to hold power at any one moment. America at 250 may be a lost opportunity. Donald Trump has absolutely sullied the brand of America, doesn’t have to be at 275 Donald Trump has absolutely sullied the brand of America. But America 275 does not have to be…For some people the central text in their lives is religious and I respect that. For me the constitution has always carried that kind of weight. So that’s why I’m so angry and feel betrayed. I do. I feel betrayed as an American by him on this. The Constitution is not perfect, but it gives us a way to keep going. It gives us structure for disagreement. It gives us a method for repair. It gives us the possibility of becoming better without pretending we were always good.May it makes some of the same promises that some religious texts do for people.And this is why I’m so pissed off. Not because I love the country less, but because I love the idea of America enough to resent seeing it cheapened by this man.America deserved better at 250. Someday, I believe it will get better, but it’s in your hands.”

Pages: 1 2

From The Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: Why We Is “Getting Dummer,” Fox Weather Division

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

This is the second EA reference to “IQ 83” in a week, strongly suggesting that “The Great Stupid” is not slowing down, and may be accelerating.

There really isn’t much more to be said, is there?

Unethical Weekend At Mitch’s, As the GOP Imitates Democrats [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Is the reference to “Weekend at Bernie’s,” the silly cult hit from 1989 about two guys lugging a corpse around, too obscure now? Remember?

But I digress. In addition to that awful film, the current machinations of the Republican Party to conceal the presumably dire and maybe even Bernie-like condition of former Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell is disturbingly redolent of how the Democrats humiliated the late Senator Diane Feinstein in her dotage in 2023.

I wrote then:

“The party’s reduction of Senator Diane Feinstein, 90, once a sharp and professional Senator from California, but now a sick, mentally-diminished shell, to its marionette is particularly ugly. Last week, Feinstein relinquished the power of attorney to her daughter, a tacit admission that she was no longer competent to handle her own affairs. Yet she remains in a position that requires her to participate in decisions regarding the affairs of the United States and its many millions of citizens. How could she be incapable of acting in her own interest but still qualified to do the job her constituents (foolishly) elected her to do? Obviously, she can’t.

“Feinstein had already begun to display disturbing signs of age-related cognitive decline before a series of health issues sent her into medical earlier this year. She was missing from the Senate for months, and when she returned appeared frail and confused. Since returning to Washington DC, she has appeared frail and has shown the public several alarming mental lapses. She should resign, of course, but may no longer have the requisite mental acuity to understand that she should resign. Her party, meanwhile, is perfectly satisfied to allow her to embarrass herself and scar her reputation as a distinguished public servant as long as she allows it to pull her strings so Democrats can maintain their filament-thin majority in the Senate…”

McConnell is arguably worse off than Feinstein, since he may be dead. From the Washington Post:

Pages: 1 2

Ethics Observations on Stephen King’s Unethical Tweets Supporting Graham Platner

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Wow. Stephen King is so Trump Deranged and politically obtuse that he’s really publicly defending a Nazi-loving, lying, unqualified, serial sexually-abusing accused rapist communist as the Democratic candidate to be a U.S. Senator of his home state, Maine.

And they say President Trump is losing it.

I admire and enjoy Stephen King as a writer. Few writers’ books and stories have spawned as many excellent movies as King. He manages to keep politics out of his horror tales, for the most part. His political opinions are routinely infantile, but let’s face it, artists are usually like that. Stevey doesn’t style himself as an intellectual: G.K. Chesterton he’s not. I would be surprised if anyone is influenced by King’s political outbursts, to which the only response should be “Shut up and scare us.”

However, those tweets cross an ethics line, embracing multiple rationalizations while indicating the ethics standards of a mollusk.

Observations:

1. Why in the world would King, or anybody, hope that Platner doesn’t drop out? At this point Platner can’t win. His party has announced that it will not support him. At best he was a long-shot to defeat Susan Collins even before the latest rape allegation. Does King like Nazis? Tattoos? Communism? He can’t like Communism, can he? King is worth an estimated $500 million. If he’s into income redistribution, why hasn’t he redistributed his?

2. Whatever Donald Trump has or hasn’t done, his conduct is irrelevant to Platner’s qualifications to be a Senator. This is whataboutism at its dumbest. The corresponding rationalizations on the list are #2, Whataboutism, or “They’re Just as Bad,” #22, The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things,” and #31, The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now.”

3. The term “Abuser in Chief” is a trope of the Epstein conspiracy theorists, and they are the dumbest, most vicious and most immune to justice, fairness and logic of the Trump Deranged.

4. King’s second tweet is even worse, which is remarkable. He libels every member of Congress with no facts whatsoever. “If we knew what we don’t know, I know that every member of Congress has done horrible things.” What an astoundingly irresponsible statement, as well as pompous, arrogant and mean! King also tops his previous rationalizations with the biggest rationalization of them all, and the most childish: #1 on the list, “Everybody does it.” But everybody doesn’t rape women. Or get a giant Nazi tattoo on his chest. Or post vile things on social media.

5. Finally, King defaults to the hoary “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone” (John 8: 7,10,11), #5 on the Rationalizations list. It doesn’t mean what King and other lazy wielders of the line cite it to mean. Jesus said that to a group of men preparing to stone a prostitute that all of them had slept with. He was condemning hypocrisy of a very extreme sort, not saying that only the perfect and blameless could make moral judgments. In the context of Platner’s conduct, the quote means, “Let him who isn’t a serial sexual abuser, rapist and substance abuser who has no experience in governing whatsoever and who presumes to run for U.S. Senate cast the first stone.

Oh, NOW Platner Isn’t An Acceptable Candidate? [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Exactly a month ago, I wrote “I Would Say Graham Platner Poses An Integrity Test For Democrats, Except They Have Already Flunked.” From that post…

“The fact that the Democratic Party is rallying around an unequivocal scumbag like Graham Platner is damning. So desperate is our aspiring totalitarian party to pack the Supreme Court, add automatic Democratic states like Puerto Rico and D.C. to the stars on the flag, open the borders and lock up their political opponents that they are willing to betray their duty to the political system not to present untrustworthy candidates to voters. It doesn’t matter that Platner, about to be nominated as a Senate candidate in Maine, is a liar, a Nazi admirer, a serial sexual offender and has no qualifications for office.”

But for some reason Platner being accused of “rape rape” (in Whoopi Goldberg’s immortal parlance) is too much. What a ridiculous, repellent, disgusting party the Democrats have become! Now, after the latest revelations, previous supporters of this unequivocal scumbag are running for their lives like the rats on board the Titanic.

“I’ve been very clear that sexual assault or violence against women is a red line. These allegations are very serious and credible. Graham Platner should drop out from the race. I am withdrawing my endorsement,” tweeted Rep. Ro Khanna, who is quite a scumbag in his own right. Democrat Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego wrote, “The allegations against Graham Platner are troubling and deeply serious. I am rescinding my endorsement.”

Wait, the earlier established facts about Platner weren’t troubling and serious? Democratic anti-gun hysteric David Hogg also withdrew his Platner endorsement today. So did Hollywood Democratic Party lackey Jon Favreau. Finally, The Maine Democrat Party has called for Platner to withdraw from the race.

George Will would call this “condign justice.” Nelson Muntz would say “Ha Ha!” And I channel Connie Corleone when I say, “That’s your party! That’s your party!” No one should let these hypocrites escape accountability for their open contempt for ethics, decency, voters, Maine, Congress or the Republic. Platner’s unfitness for office was already undeniable before Jenny Racicot accused him of rape, but Democrats were willing to hold their noses, cover their eyes and inflict him on the nation anyway. Never mind Platner, this tells us all we need to know about their character, their trustworthiness and their fitness to govern.

__________________

Added: Senator Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer have withdrawn their endorsement of Platner.

Ethics Dunce, Unethical Judge, and Possible Zombie: Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida Judge Diana Tennis

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

The zombie speculation is because I’m sure I’ve seen that expression on “The Walking Dead” or “World War Z.”

The Florida Supreme Court wants to fine Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida Judge Diana M. Tennis (she’s in Orlando) after she admitted making more than 900 donations to left-leaning political causes, we learn from Law.com.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission discovered last month that Judge Tennis gave nearly $30,000 in more than 900 separate donations to progressive candidates and those aligned with the Democratic Party.

Florida judicial canons explicitly bar judges from making political contributions:

Canon 7

A Judge or Candidate for Judicial Office Shall Refrain From Inappropriate Political Activity

A judge…shall not:

…make a contribution to a political organization or candidate.

Tennis told the commission that she mistakenly thought that the rule only applied to donations to candidates for state office, not federal ones. That means that she can’t read or understand statutes in plain language. Nothing in that rule above limits the restriction to state political activity. This judge is either dishonest or incompetent. Why would the Florida Supreme Court allow such a hack to continue sitting on the bench at all? She’s partisan, conflicted and untrustworthy.

The more I examine the issue, the more I realize that there are an unacceptable number of incompetent and unethical judges rotting our justice system, indeed an unacceptable percentage of bad judges that I fear equals a critical mass. Tennis is far from the worst, and she has no business judging anything more challenging than the state fair apple pie competition.

Then there is that zombie thing…

Oh Look! Now Graham Platner Is Accused of Rape…You Know, Like Joe Biden and Bill Clinton! If Democrats Were Supporting Him Before, Why Would A Credible Rape Allegation Change Anything?

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Graham Platner, the professed communist and former Nazi admirer who has lied wildly about his past and is, as progressive Stockholm syndrome victim David Brooks explained on PBS, “a moral degenerate,” has now been credibly accused of rape.

Brooks went on, “The abuse of women, the sexting, the Nazi tattoo, I don’t even need to say anything beyond his Reddit posts, which are not in the past, by the way. He did that for a long time, abusing rape — people who might have been raped, diminishing rape in the military, insulting fellow military officers, calling himself a communist.” Rape would seem to be frosting on this particularly disgusting cake that Democrats were prepared to devour and say “Yum-yum.” Rape? Never mind. Democrats, including Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren have made it clear that they will support Platner in his race against squish GOP Senator Susan Collins because they want to win majorities in Congress no matter what values they have to trash and no matter what scum they have to support to do it.

Today another test of their resolve arrived. One of the named women the New York Times interviewed in its investigation into Platner’s sexual history, Jenny Racicot, 41, elaborated on her previous account to the Times by revealing that Platner raped her. She had originally told the paper only that she cut off contact with Platner after he arrived at her home drunk and engaged in “unsettling” and “reckless” behavior. Now she admits that the “unsettling” behavior was raping her.

Racicot did not disclose the sexual assault for fear of being labeled a rape victim, she told Politico, which broke today’s story. Politico also spoke to the man Racicot dated after Platner, and whom she confided in about the alleged sexual assault, reviewed communications between Racicot and her therapist discussing her decision to come forward, and reviewed communications between Racicot and an acquaintance whom she warned about getting involved with Platner.

As he has denied so many things that turned out to be true, Platner denied the latest allegation, telling Politico, “These allegations are troubling, serious, and false. Any accusation of non-consensual behavior is categorically untrue.” He also posted a video to his Senate campaign’s X account shortly after the Politico piece was published in which he stated that the allegations of sexual assault were false and said he and his team are “taking time to reflect on the best path forward.”

I’m sure you remember that Platner also denied that he knew the large Nazi tattoo he had on his chest was a large Nazi tattoo when he got it. Platner is a serial applicant for an Ethics Alarms “Jumbo,” the award a public figure can acquire here when he or she emulates Jimmy Durante in the film of the musical “Jumbo.” Jimmy played a clown apprehended trying to steal the biggest elephant in the world from the circus. Caught elephant-handed and asked by a constable, “Where are you going with that elephant?,” Durante responded, “What elephant?”

Pages: 1 2