Atlanta lawyer knows a little too much

Interesting when compare the ABA professional ethics standards to the apparent conduct of an attorney: Raises reasonable questions about the reliablity of the legal profession.

It would appare as though an attorney had prior knowledge that documents were unreliable, but publicly discussed that information, without adequately disclosing the full knowledge, connection, and means of acquiring that information.

Yet, why would anyone be surprised that the legal profession has a problem with selective memory, disclosure? It wouldn't be the first time that an attorney has implied that they know one thing, but failed to disclose all the relevant facts.

Indeed, when an attorney discloses knowledge but fails to disclose "the rest of teh story," we need not be surprised why the legal profession suffers a loss of confidence.

Indeed, it is the memos from an ABA-certified attorney in the White House [Gonzalez] that attempted to create the illusion that the US President was somehow above the law, not subject to the conditions. Ant it was also an ABA-certified attorney that lied [Clinton] before a jury prompting him to be both impeached and lose his license to practice law in Attorney.

Today, we can only speculate why the ABA that promulgates standards does not aggresively move to impose consequences on one of its members that brings discredit on the legal profession.

At this juncture, we have yet to hear a real accounting by the attorney in question, nor have we had a credible investigation into the actual content of the letters. Alas, we need not be surprised why the ABA-certified attornies have a reputation problem: As it was they who failed to adequately inquire into the facts and circumastances of the accounting an Enron; and continued to create financial structures that faciliated the Enron deceptions.

Attorneys are not to be trusted. There needs to be more credible federal regulation of the legal professoin so that nationally the public can have the tools to better manage attorneys and remind them who pays the bill. The attorneys believe they have a legal-monopology; but there are alternatives to relying on bad legal advice: Simply turning your back on the legal community and refusing to engage in any transaction that requires legal inputs.

Informatoin

The following goes into details related to the Attorney who posted on the Free Republic Website. It appeara as though despite inside knowledge about the source of this informatoin, he selectively disclosed information, all the while diverting attention from the content which remains in question, and raises serious questionsa about the President's conduct in 1972-3.

Buckhead

Black propanda? FreeRep link. Hmmmm.... beware those who protest...as they may have an agenda.

Why does the Republican party have access to the Democratic-party e-mail discussions?

Meanwhile, a retired Texas National Guard official mentioned as a possible source of the disputed documents said he passed along information to a former senator working with John Kerry's campaign.

In an Aug. 21 e-mail to a list of Texas Democrats, Bill Burkett said that after getting through "seven layers of bureaucratic kids" in the Democrat's campaign, he talked with former Georgia Senator Max Cleland about information that would counter criticism of Kerry's Vietnam War service. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the e-mail Saturday.

More...

MacDougald works in the Atlanta office of the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based firm Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice and is connected to the conservative Federalist Society and Southeastern Legal Foundation, where he serves on its legal advisory board. "

Ref