Frigglesnitz asked some questions that deserve to be answered. The issue is my post on Judicial Immunity. 

Quoting my last sentence:  I believe the citizens would lose little and gain much if both judges and attorneys lost some of the immunity and independence they currently enjoy.  I should have emphasizes the word "some."  Full immunity leads to chaos if every person with that immunity does not possess perfect mores.  Forbes published the results of a very interesting study on UN Diplomats with full immunity which I blogged on about a month ago.  The study showed how their conduct changed when their countries got punished for their conduct, effectively lifting their immunity.

FS:  That's a fine line you're walking there. Lawyers must be free to work as well as they possibly can for clients they take on.  I disagree, and so does the ABA.  Criminal attorneys have the most latitude, but there are many many restrictions even on them.  Both Civil and Criminal attorneys are prescribed from presenting false arguments, false evidence and allowing false testimony, undue delay etc.  I could go on as there are probably 30 restrictions on both Criminal and Civil attorneys  but my experience in Colorado is that not only are these kinds of rules ignored by lawyers and judges, it is impossible in many cases for a litigant to make a complaint.  You and I live in different states, with different legal systems and different cultures.  Here, in the wild, wild west the only rule seems to be that there are no rules.  Your state is a bit more refined, or claims to be.  Perhaps you have not noticed a problem because there isn't one.

FS:  There are legal limits, of course, and it is my view that the great majority of lawyers are simply doing what they want to do within those limits: representing clients to the best of their respective abilities.   I would agree.  I have a GREAT lawyer who very likely saved me from losing my life savings to a scam.  He started out as my friend.  I have a number of friends who are lawyers, and I choose my friends carefully.  I have no friends who are unethical.  I have tried to guess how many attorneys are unethical.  I think it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%.  I think that the profession unintentionally teaches people who would otherwise be ethical to be unethical and makes no real effort to get rid of them when it happens.  That may be harsh, but nearly every interaction I have had with an attorney professionally has involved some form of unethical conduct, including fraudulent solicitation, billing for taking someone to lunch when his mandate was to review a contract, writing a very obnoxious contract that would have forced me to give up any right to defend myself in a certain circumstance.  Need I go on?  How does the ratio of ethical to unethical attorneys compare with the ratio of ethical to unethical people in the general population?  I'd guess that in the general population, 3-5% are criminals and another 5% would do something unethical but not illegal if they thought they wouldn't get caught.  I have nothing to back any of those figures up, but that is my gut feeling.  It is not an accident that the legal profession is not well thought of in society.

FS:  There is no doubt in my mind that chaos would reign if lawyers were prohibited from using every legal tool available to them in the pursuit of client representation.   I agree fully, PROVIDED you insert the word "legitimate" between the words "every" and "legal."  Chaos reigns when that word is omitted, as my experience shows it is here in Colorado.

FS:  Of course, many lawyers are limited by lack of imagination; many of them are limited by the necessity of actually running the business of operating a law firm while at the same time attempting to practice law. Many are limited by overwork in the pursuit of advancement -- particularly in large firms.  There are also some who have way too much imagination, and way too much time to figure out how to game the system.  If you recall, this conversation started when I asked you to identify and blog on them.  Conservatives want lawyers and judges to follow the law and the Constitution, not use their imaginations.  Wild imaginations lead to a lack of discipline, and a lack of discipline leads to unlawful decisions like Hamdan, Kelo, Term Limits, and Roe to name a few.

FS: It would seem to me that one needs to spell out the degree to which lawyers' and judges' independence and immunity should be limited. Examples where such independence and immunity have harmed any entity would also be of interest.   Two Questions here.  The second deserves a whole separate post.  To the first I'd answer that it would be a big mistake to spell out here or anywhere in law the limitations.  Laws and Constitutions are too inflexible, too hard to change.  The easiest way to allow the system to be tweaked to a point where there is a balance that favors the citizenry (not too much and not too little immunity)  is to empower a group (commission) of non lawyers with no conflicts to make and enforce court and ethics rules.  Those, not laws are the source of most immunities, anyway.  That has worked in other professions (most notably, real estate) and it would work with lawyers and judges, much as they might dislike it.   You just have to give that group immunity from interference by the courts, including the State Supreme Court, and I know how I would do that-a subject for another day.

If correctly empowered, this commission could also monitor DA's.  Currently there is a scandal regarding Bill Ritter, Democratic Candidate for governor.  It seems he allowed illegal aliens to plead to "agricultural trespass" as a mechanism to avoid deportation.  Under the current system, he is fat, dumb, and happy, if embarrassed.  With a commission, he would be toast, as would the judges who approved these plea bargains and the defense attorneys who sought them.  The law is the law, and those who circumvent it shouldn't be attorneys or judges.

Good questions.  I hope the answers measured up.  I prefer inquiries of this sort because while I try to anticipate every question, I cannot.  If I seem like a wild eyed radical on some issue, I'd like the chance to confirm or dispel that impression.