Good.
So many of my legal ethics colleagues have been bending over backwards to deny that the blatant conflict of interest persisted in by Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis (being sexually involved with one of the prosecutors she hired to try to stop Donald Trump from being her party in November) implicates her trustworthiness and honesty as a prosecutor. Maybe this will teach them something. The lesson: bias makes you stupid, and it applies to Willis, main squeeze David Wade, and them. Most of my colleagues hate Donald Trump as much as she does, and thus despite every indication that the woman is a legal hack, a liar, and dumb as they get in the elected DA category, almost all of these supposedly objective lawyers and scholars have insisted that she should not be, and would not be, thrown off the contrived Georgia racketeering case.
Right now it looks like she will be lucky not to be thrown out of the law and into a jail cell.
Under oath in the hearing about the scandal, both Willis and Wade insisted that Cupid did not lead them into the fun stage of their close “friendship” until after she hired Wade as a special prosecutor in November 2021, in early 2022. The couple swore that they had never spent the night together until months after he was hired. (That would have been unethical too, but not a legal ethics breach.) Wade said that he had visited Fani’s condo fewer than ten times in that year. You know, to borrow cups of sugar, or something.
Yesterday, Trump’s legal team produced phone records showing “a minimum of 35 occasions” when Wade’s phone was in Willis’ neighborhood for an extended period. But the real smoking gun is that the records show “over 2,000 voice calls” and thousands of text messages between the pair in 2021. This is, it is true, circumstantial evidence, but I can’t wait to hear Fani and Wade’s explanations for it. Have you ever sent any business associate thousands of text messages in your lifetime, never mind a single year?
And text messages can be recovered.
The stupidity displayed by both Wade and Willis in this scandal is mind-boggling. All they had to do was get Wade out of the equation as soon as the allegations of their affair became public, and the “no harm, no foul” rationalization would have probably kept Willis and the Georgia division of the Democrats’ lawfare against Trump safe. Wade could have escaped with his reputation and career mostly unscathed. Fani, however, had to deny, deny, deny, do her race-baiting act, and rely the progressive bias of ethics experts, her legal community, and the news media.
In one particularly obnoxious exchange among my legal ethics peers last week regarding Willis, one timid soul whose objections to the overwhelming support for Willis had been evident but muted, ventured that he didn’t find the DA believable. He was slapped down by a cant-spouting, virtue-signalling member of the group who wrote, “I try to believe all women, including women of color.”
My approach is to judge a lawyer’s credibility based on facts, words and conduct, not party affiliation, chromosomes and skin shade. This appears to be an eccentric approach in my field.
Ethics Alarms 
Do you think they’re that stupid, or that they believe they’re untouchable because they’re Melanin Positive, or both?
PWS
No, I think they really are stupid, with just enough arrogance to make them unaware of it.
“He was slapped down by a cant-spouting, virtue-signalling member of the group who wrote, “I try to believe all women, including women of color.”
This person is a lawyer? Even in my profession where I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, I would never take this position. Everyone lies, especially when they have something to gain or lose by it.
BMYS!
Jack: what are your thoughts about her tweeting out “$464,576,230.62” as a taunt to Trump. Could it arguably be a violation of the ABA Prosecution Standards (perhaps Standard 3-1.10 Relationship with the Media, subsection (c))? Assuming he appeals, it is still an ongoing prosecution and “will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a criminal proceeding or heightening public condemnation of the accused…”
I know the question is moot as nothing will be done about it but thought it raised an important issue and illustrated how degraded our system of justice has become.
https://twitter.com/NewYorkStateAG/status/1761127120481198282
Whatever the case, it’s wildly unprofessional but what else would you expect from her?
The ABA prosecution standards are non-binding guidelines only, and the last two NY AG’s have already breached professionalism standards by openly declaring Trump guilty of something before charges were brought, as part of their political campaigns. Since the number she’s taunting Trump with is, as of now, factual, she couldn’t be sanctioned for prejudicing the public with her tweets, but it is certainly gutter level conduct, unethical but not a technical violation.
Thanks Jack! That’s pretty much what I thought. Although I knew the result, I thought the issue of the monetary award with the appeal pending – might – create some wiggle room but you covered it perfectly. Thanks again.