Posted by
NOTLEGALROADKILLYET on Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:57:32 PM
BW and I cross posted. I am pretty impressed with BW for several reasons, the most important being the loyalty he is showing to his friend or lawyer, perhaps both, Mr. Jonathan R. Steiner. If Mr. Steiner were a total turkey, there is no way that he would get this kind of loyalty. I am pretty much convinced that Mr. Steiner's worst crime may very well have been to come up on my radar in a situation where his actions seemed to illustrate several points about the legal ethics system that I wanted to make. Timing is everything, for good or evil.
People are best judged by the friends they make and keep. Here is what BW said:
I read your featured posts and I think I have an understanding of your overall view that you would prefer legal ethics be judged by those not within the legal profession. Better checks and balances?? In principle, I agree with you. It is only because I have insight to this particular case that I have the opinion I do.
In addition, I agree with you that Mrs. Chambers likely had absolutely nothing to gain from her actions short of the appreciation of her friend/acquaintance/whatever. But that makes me wonder even more why she did what she did. Why risk professional condemnation for such a small personal gain--if you can even call it that.
My opinion is that she likely placed the call to Mr. Steiner with the assumption that he would be intimidated and that he would simply let the matter die.
Unfortunately for her, she was wrong.
I too have had bad experiences with judges who should have long ago left the bench. I had a case pending against the City of Louisville (Ky) essentially thrown out because the judge, who had cancer but would not step down, didn't feel well enough to hear the case. We were forced to settle. Not exactly what we had in mind when we went to all the trouble to prepare the case etc. So, I feel your pain in that regard.
I just feel that, here and other outlets, due to many of the facts of this case still being hidden from the general public, that Mr. Steiner--who I know to be a very fair and honest person--is getting a bad rap. He is not the one bringing these charges. He simply did what he felt he had to do in this case because he felt the contact from Mrs. Chambers to be inappropriate.
Whether it was or was not remains to be seen. If your point is that the people deciding if it was right or wrong are the wrong people, you probably have a very valid point. Good, bad or indifferent, it is what it is. Do the people bringing this case have other motives? It certainly wouldn't surprise me. I know for a fact that many judges seem to be siding against Mrs. Chambers which raises a red flag indeed since it would seem they should, like anyone else, wait to hear ALL the facts prior to making a judgement.
The highlights and underlining are mine.
---------
You have my points exactly, or at least some of them. You also made one I didn't expect you to make. As I was driving to and from Denver today I was thinking about this blog, as I often do. The theme of my reverie: Whether intentional or not, the legal system has created a low level of fear among many citizens, influential or not. Essentially, it is a "cross us and we will retaliate" mentality. "It may take years, but we will retaliate!" They are only a bit more sophisticated than the Sopranos. Only a bit more.