PROPOSED RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT (California State Bar)
Rule 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client
(Updated 5/17/10)

(a) A person who, directly or through an
authorized representative, consults a lawyer
as defined in paragraph (c), representation of the affected
client is permissible if both the affected client
and the prospective client have given
informed written consent.

Comment

[1] Prospective clients, like clients, may disclose
information to a lawyer, place documents or other
property in the lawyer’s custody, or rely on the
lawyer’s advice. A lawyer’s discussions with a
prospective client usually are limited in time and
depth and leave both the prospective client and the
lawyer free, and sometimes required, to proceed
no further. Hence, although the range of a
prospective client’s information that is protected is
the same as that of a client, a law firm is permitted,
in the limited circumstances provided under
paragraph (d), to accept or continue representation
of a client with interests adverse to the prospective
client in the subject matter of the consultation. See
Comments [3] and [4]. As used in this Rule,
prospective client includes an authorized
representative of the client.

[2] Not all persons who communicate
information to a lawyer are entitled to protection
under this Rule. A person who by any means
communicates information unilaterally to a lawyer,
without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer
is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a
client-lawyer relationship or to discuss the
prospective client’s matter in the lawyer’s
professional capacity, is not a “prospective client”
within the meaning of paragraph (a). Similarly, a
person who discloses information to a lawyer after
the lawyer has stated his or her unwillingness or
inability to consult with the person in the lawyer’s
professional capacity would not have such a
reasonable expectation. See People v. Gionis
(1995) 9 Cal.4th 1196 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 456]. In
addition, a person who communicates information
to a lawyer for purposes that do not include a good
faith intention to retain the lawyer in the subject
matter of the communication is not a prospective
client within the meaning of this Rule.

[2A] Whether a lawyer’s representations or
conduct evidence a willingness to participate in a
consultation is examined from the viewpoint of the
reasonable expectations of the prospective client.
The factual circumstances relevant to the existence
of a consultation include, for example: whether the
parties meet by pre-arrangement or by chance; the
prior relationship, if any, of the parties; whether the
communications between the parties took place in
a public or private place; the presence or absence
of third parties; the duration of the communication;
and, most important, the demeanor of the parties,
particularly any conduct of the attorney
encouraging or discouraging the communication
and conduct of either party suggesting an
understanding that the communication is or is not
confidential.

[3] It is often necessary for a prospective client
to reveal information to the lawyer during an initial
consultation prior to the decision about formation of
a client-lawyer relationship. The lawyer often must
learn such information to determine whether there
is a conflict of interest with an existing client and
whether the matter is one that the lawyer is willing
to undertake. Sometimes the lawyer must
investigate further after the initial consultation with
the prospective client to determine whether the
matter is one the lawyer is willing or able to
undertake. Regardless of whether the lawyer has
learned such information during the initial
consultation or during the subsequent
investigation, paragraph (b) prohibits the lawyer
from using or revealing that information, except as
permitted by Rule 1.9, even if the client or lawyer
decides not to proceed with the representation.
The duty exists regardless of how brief the initial
conference may be.

[4] In order to avoid acquiring information from
a prospective client that would prohibit
representation as provided in paragraph (c), a
lawyer considering whether or not to undertake a
new matter must limit the initial interview to only
such information as reasonably appears necessary
for that purpose. Where the information indicates
that a conflict of interest or other reason for non-
representation exists, the lawyer should so inform
the prospective client or decline the representation.
If the prospective client wishes to retain the lawyer,
and if consent is possible under Rules 1.7 and 1.9,
then consent from all affected present or former
clients must be obtained before accepting the
representation.

[5] A lawyer may condition conversations with a
prospective client on the person’s informed
consent that information disclosed during the
consultation will not prohibit the lawyer from
representing a different client in the matter. See
Rule 1.0.1(e) for the definition of informed consent.
However, the lawyer must take reasonable
measures to avoid exposure to more information
that prohibits representation than is reasonably
for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or
securing legal service or advice from the
lawyer in the lawyer’s professional capacity,
is a prospective client.

(b) Even when no lawyer-client relationship
ensues, a lawyer who has communicated
with a prospective client shall not use or
reveal confidential information learned as a
result of the consultation, except as Rule 1.9
would permit with respect to information of a
former client.

(c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not
represent a client with interests materially
adverse to those of a prospective client in
the same or a substantially related matter if
the lawyer received confidential information
from the prospective client that is material to
the matter, except as provided in paragraph
(d). If a lawyer is prohibited from
representation under this paragraph, no
lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is
associated may knowingly undertake or
continue representation in such a matter,
except as provided in paragraph (d).

(d) When the lawyer has received information
that prohibits representation as defined in necessary to determine whether to represent the
prospective client.

[6] Even in the absence of an agreement with
the prospective client, under paragraph (c), the
lawyer is not prohibited from either accepting or
continuing the representation of a client with
interests materially adverse to those of the
prospective client in the same or a substantially
related matter unless the lawyer has received from
the prospective client information that is material to
the matter. For a discussion of the meaning of
“materially adverse” as used in paragraph (c), see
Rule 1.9, comment [7]. For a discussion of the
meaning of “substantially related” as used in
paragraph (c), see Rule 1.9, comments [4] – [6].

[7] Under paragraph (c), the prohibition in this
Rule is imputed to other lawyers as provided in
Rule 1.10, but, under paragraph (d)(1), the
consequences of imputation may be avoided if the
lawyer obtains the informed written consent of both
the prospective and affected clients.

[8] Rule 1.18 leaves open the issue of whether,
in a particular matter, use of a timely screen will
avoid the imputation of a conflict of interest under
paragraph (c). Whether timely implementation of a
screen will avoid imputation of a conflict of interest
in litigation, transactional, or other contexts is a
matter of case law.

[9] For the duty of competence of a lawyer who
gives assistance on the merits of a matter to a
prospective client, see Rule 1.1. For a lawyer’s
duties when a prospective client entrusts valuables
or papers to the lawyer’s care, see Rule 1.15.

advice may involve facts and alternatives that a
client may find unpleasant and may be disinclined
to confront. In presenting advice, a lawyer
endeavors to sustain the client's morale and may
put advice in as acceptable a form as honesty
permits. However, a lawyer should not be deterred
from giving candid advice by the prospect that the
advice will be unpalatable to the client.

[2] In some cases, advice couched in narrow
legal terms may be of little value to a client,
especially where practical considerations, such as
cost or effects on other people, are predominant.
Although a lawyer is not a moral advisor, in
rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to
law, but to other considerations such as moral,
economic, social and political factors that may be
relevant to the client’s situation.

Rule 2.4 Lawyer as Third-Party Neutral
(a) A lawyer serves as a third-party neutral when
the lawyer is engaged to assist impartially
two or more persons who are not clients of
the lawyer to reach a resolution of a dispute,
or other matter, that has arisen between
them. Service as a third-party neutral may
include service as a neutral arbitrator, a
mediator or in such other capacity as will
enable the lawyer to assist the parties to
resolve the matter....

Disclaimer

Lawyers are notorious for being nit picky detail freaks, at least those considered competent, which is a matter of wide interpretation anywayyy. Regardless, given the "Proposed" rules above it is safe to say that there has been some confusion over the years over just when a 'representation relationship' arises and what is and isn't confidential communication.

A recent Cal Bar Continuing Education course talked about the pitfalls of 'casual / cocktail party legal representation' - which is similar to running in to a doctor at a party and asking them to diagnose you for embarrassing social diseases, without learning first that the doctor is a PHD. Ahem.

Hence - although I do intend to post in this thread - Be Advised, I am Not Seeking Clients (never got a dime off the license anyway, just Legal Misandry as a 'just' reward) and will Not treat any disclosures as Confidential - Unless otherwise stated In Writing, By Me.

There - Feel Better Already.

Consumer Education Pamphlet Hotline: 888-875-LAWS (888-875-5297) - [**California State Bar http://www.calbar.ca.gov
Kids & the Law
Seniors & the Law
When You Become 18
Guide to Legal Literacy
Legal Health Checklist

"Get the Legal Facts of Life" Pamphlets:

1. How Can I Find And Hire The Right Lawyer?
2. How Can I Resolve My Dispute Without A Trial? (ADR)
3. What Should I Know If I Am Arrested?
4. What Should I Do If I Have An Auto Accident?
5. How Do I Use The Small Claims Court?
6. What Can I Do If I Can't Pay My Debts?
7. What Should I Know About Divorce And Custody?
8. Can The Law Help Protect Me From Domestic Violence?
9. What Should I Know Before I Rent?
10. Can The Client Security Fund Help You?
11. How Is Your Client Security Fund Request Handled?
12. What Should I Do If I Am A Crime Victim?
13. What Can I Do If I Have A Problem With My Lawyer?
14. Do I Need A Will?
15. Do I Need Estate Planning?
16. Do I Need A Living Trust?
17. What Are My Rights As An Employee?
18. What Can a Lawyer Referral Service Do For Me?
19. What Do I Need to Know About Serving on a Jury?
20. How Do I Become A Lawyer?
21. What Should I Know About Elder Abuse?

Other Publications

* Kids & Law - An A-Z Guide for Parents
(For print copies: kids@calbar.ca.gov)
* Seniors & the Law: A Guide for Maturing Californians
(For print copies: seniors@calbar.ca.gov)
* When You Become 18
(For print copies: 18@calbar.ca.gov)
* Guide to Legal Literacy (Available online only)
* Legal Health Checklist (Available online only)
* The State Bar of California - What Does It Do, How Does It Work? (Available online only)
* Additional State Bar publications

Here is an example of the 'competition' - except of course that there are a No such resources for Men.

1. National Women's Law Center
   The National Women's Law Center's mission is to protect and advance the progress of women and girls at work, in school, and in virtually every aspect of their lives.
   http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=316&section=employment

The SF Chronicle had an interesting Legal Article in it today (6/6/2010) under the headline: "All - Female Firm Tough on Job Bias" featuring an interview with the head (a Womyn shown wearing a Purple Sweater - although who knows what that could mean?) during which Men are actually Mentioned - in a Most Peculiar Way...

Perhaps some of the Men (XY DNA) here who have interacted with attorneys might care to reply to the author. Or Perhaps it is better to keep shut and not present a target.
Ahem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Three Questions For Kathryn Dickson
Robert Selna, Chronicle Staff Writer Sunday, June 6, 2010

Kathryn Dickson is the most senior partner in an all-female employment law firm that recently opened in Oakland. Dickson Levy Vinick Burrell Hyams LLP has five female partners, which they believe is the most of any law firm in the country that supports employees' rights.

Q: Why was it important to you to create an all-female employment law firm?
A: We can serve as a model and inspiration for other women to start their own firms. There are a lot of small businesses owned by women, but that hasn't been true in the law...

Often, women plaintiffs appreciate having a female lawyer in cases that are sensitive for women, such as sexual harassment in the workplace or emotional distress, where to some degree, the private lives of the plaintiffs become an issue in the case.

I've never encountered a case in which a man has said he would feel more comfortable talking to a man.

A lot of times, a male client will believe that a woman has more sensitivity.

Q: What are some keys to winning a workplace discrimination lawsuit?
A: 1. Keep the momentum...

E-mail Robert Selna at rselna@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page D - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Read more: Three Questions For Kathryn Dickson

The ABA doesn't have any Men's Rights sections, but then why would any organization concerned with gender and the law do so?


Partner Advises Women Law Grads to Value Adversity, Get Real About Balance

Posted Jun 9, 2010
By Debra Cassens Weiss ABA Journal

Andrews Kurth partner Kathleen Wu wishes someone would have told her at her law school graduation in 1985 to get real about work-life balance.

It’s possible to have work and a family, Wu advises women law grads in a Texas Lawyer article. But there will be sacrifices.

“Recent grads shouldn't get their hearts set on ‘having it all,’ " Wu says. “The practice of law is demanding—exceedingly so. It is next to impossible to balance a full-time legal career with marriage, children and regular trips to the gym. It's no coincidence that the two women most recently nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court—now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor and nominee/U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan—are unmarried and childless.”

Wu also advises women to trumpet their career successes—a practice that can come in handy at bonus time. She also says grads should be grateful about graduating in a bad economy because it will teach creativity and resilience that can pay off in later years.
Related Topics

Careers, Women in the Law, Work/Life Balance, Law Firms, Partners

This Headline graced a recent article in the ABA Journal. Prospective road kill... er, um, clients of the 'legal' system, should take the warning seriously, and always count fingers after a handshake.


Ex-BigLaw Attorneys Profit at Smaller Firm via Flexible Fees & Eat-What-You-Kill Comp - ABA Journal 6/11/10

Gender and racial discrimination required by Dodd-Frank bill
Bryan Fischer-Focal Point 7/8/2010

Diana Furchtgott-Roth, wrting in RealClearMarkets, points out that the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill will mandate discrimination based on both gender and race.

In other words, this bill is both sexist and racist, since it requires that both males and whites be discriminated against in order to fulfill gender and ethnic quotas.

What’s worse is that this sexism and racism is being forced on private companies in the financial industry.

All this, of course, is utterly at variance with the Judeo-Christian tradition, which suggests that in an enlightened view of the world, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

In other words, in view of higher basis of unity, distinctions of race, class and gender no longer become bases on which we separate, divide and count people. Dodd-Frank will drag us another step backward in the direction of division and tension based on surface characteristics and away from our national slogan, “Out of many, one.”

Liberals want to make “many” out of “one” instead, and seem intent on destroying unity and common identity wherever they can. Surely we as a people are better than that. That’s what the Civil War and the civil rights movement of the 1960s was all about.

The liberals who support Dodd-Frank want to drag us back to the pre-Civil War South, in which people are excluded from economic opportunity by the color of the skin. Shame on them.

Here are some excerpts from Ms. Roth’s piece with commentary:

I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America's financial industry.

In addition to this bill's well-publicized plans to establish over a dozen new financial regulatory offices, Section 342 sets up at least 20 Offices of Minority and Women Inclusion.

The Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.

Each office would have its own director and staff to develop policies promoting equal employment opportunities and racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of not just the agency's workforce, but also the workforces of its contractors and sub-contractors.

What would be the mission of this new corps of Federal monitors? The Dodd-Frank bill sets it forth succinctly and simply - all too simply. The mission, it says, is to assure "to the maximum extent possible the fair inclusion" of women and minorities, individually and through businesses they own, in the activities of the agencies, including contracting.

Since the Supreme Court has ruled that fair inclusion is a matter or proportion (if a college student body is 55% female, 55% of its athletes must be female), this is nothing less than a quota system imposed on private financial institutions. They no longer will be allowed to select employees based exclusively on merit. They will, in fact, be required to lower the level of talent in their workforce to satisfy sexist and racist standards.
This means quite simply that highly qualified males and highly qualified whites will be denied employment based on their gender and race. What else is this but sexism and racism? This is not reverse discrimination, it is plain, old-fashioned discrimination, period.

This latest attempt by Congress to dictate what "fair" employment means is likely to encourage administrators and managers, in government and in the private sector, to hire women and minorities for the sake of appearances, even if some new hires are less qualified than other applicants. The result is likely to be redundant hiring and a wasteful expansion of payroll overhead.

If the director decides that a contractor has not made a good-faith effort to include women and minorities in its workforce, he is required to contact the agency administrator and recommend that the contractor be terminated.

Translation: This is a green light for government bureaucrats, accountable to no one, to rat out contractors on the entirely subjective basis that the bureaucrat thinks “a good-faith effort” has not been made to meet racial and gender quotas. This is a license to put any contractor out of business who will not make sexism and racism his highest priority in hiring and firing.

Section 342's provisions are broad and vague, and are certain to increase inefficiency in federal agencies. To comply, federal agencies are likely to find it easier to employ and contract with less-qualified women and minorities, merely in order to avoid regulatory trouble. This would in turn decrease the agencies' efficiency, productivity and output, while increasing their costs.

As if our federal government was not inefficient and unproductive enough as it is!

With the new financial regulation law, the federal government is moving from outlawing discrimination to setting up a system of quotas. Ultimately, the only way that financial firms doing business with the government would be able to comply with the law is by showing that a certain percentage of their workforce is female or minority.

This has had no coverage by the news media and has large implications.

As Ms. Roth points out, this provision in Dodd-Frank has received no attention in the media. It’s time for that blackout to end.

I post this article from the American Bar Assc journal for the insight it provides in to Alternate Ways to avoid Court - such as being Generous at the Outset (something that admittedly rarely appeals to those undergoing nasty divorces) - in order to actually lower the cost of the process.

The simple fact is that most lawsuits only enrich the lawyers, and there are famous cases where the clients had to pay out of their own pockets for lawyers to 'represent' them in class action suits the 'client' didint even know they had been drug in to.

Soooo.... BP is hiring lawyers and experts by the bucket full, to do legitimate work -but also because that means they cant work for the opposition too. The $20 Billion slush fund is a big bait ball target for legal sharks, and yet it is meant for the people harmed - not the suits smelling blood. Thus I salute the 'Generous' approach to avoiding court as a much better alternative than to feeding the three piece sharks.

Ohso
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>

"BP Claims Chief Advises Claimants to Avoid Court, Offer Priestly Proof - News - ABA Journal"

The lawyer who will be overseeing a $20 billion compensation fund for Gulf oil spill victims is acknowledging that some people don’t have tax returns to prove their lost income—but he says that won’t be the death knell for a claim.

Kenneth Feinberg is stumping for the compensation fund, boarding a BP-funded Learjet, a helicopter and SUVs to take his message to those harmed by the BP oil spill, the New York Times reports.
Feinberg told claimants they won’t need “a whole lot of corroboration” to receive emergency payments, Bloomberg reports. Have the tax returns been “lost”? There are other means of proof, he said, according to the Times account. “Do you have a profit and loss statement? Do you have a checkbook? Check stubs?” he said. “No? Well, then, tell the captain of the boat, or your priest, to vouch for you.”

Feinberg said he is determined to create a system that will be more generous than filing a lawsuit. According to the Times, he played the role of both salesman and politician as he visited locals in four Louisiana towns on Thursday.

“Despite his 64 years, Mr. Feinberg shows no sign of slowing down as he cajoles people to steer clear of the courts,” the Times said. “His campaign stops are high-energy affairs. He jabs the air, punches up words to drive home a point and gets laughs with self-deprecating references to his Boston accent. ‘It’s a campaign,’ he said. ‘It’s a road show. It’s a seminar.’ ”
Under the two-part claims process, emergency payments are available for up to six months’ worth of damages at a time. Under the second phase of the program beginning 90 days after the oil spill is stopped, claimants may be paid for economic losses if they sign waivers promising not to sue.

I post this article here because it is important to understanding the notion of 'Standing' - as in having the right to sue and or appeal an action, and how it has played out to the Detriment of the Citizens in Kalifornia.

Essentially - one side (in 'favor' or Proposition 8) wants to protect a Word 'marriage' Only, and was willing to stipulate (concede without counter argument) away alleged 'facts' about the radical homosex agenda and homosex behaviors that the Majority wanted to Contest, but were denied the 'standing' to do so.

It is more than just a difference in semantics or even tactics - but a fundamental problem with those who are afraid to take on the radical leftist / gender feminist / homosexualist agenda of Misandry (Hatred of Men, Masculinity and Normal Heterosexuality) because of concerns ranging from being labeled as having "Ism-Obia", to fear of the more common forms of harassment and intimidation that radical homosex activists have dumped on Pro-Family / Marriage advocates during the Prop. 8 campaign.

The Lifesite article is the first to expose this issue, and the potential rift between those who want to defend a word for appearance sake, and those who want to defend society for their children and families sakes. Not that our 'lamestream' media would report on such issues, lest they too be accused of the political thought crime of "ism-Obia"

BTW - your correspondent was once denied 'Standing' by a court, because of Male Gender. A poster on the 'feminist law blog' summed up the ruling quite succinctly, in a Misandrist short of way, when she announced that as a Male I Lacked Standing: "Because He Stands to Pee!"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

ADF & Liberty Counsel at Odds over Prop. 8 Trial
By James Tillman

August 17, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In the wake of Judge Vaughn Walker’s controversial decision finding Proposition 8 (California’s constitutional amendment protecting true marriage) unconstitutional, an internal spat has broken out between two different Christian legal societies about the manner in which the defense of Prop. 8 was handled.

Both the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Liberty Counsel (LC) are dedicated to promoting religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and family values. Thus, when California Attorney General Jerry Brown decided not to defend California’s ban on homosexual “marriage,” both groups sought to intervene.

But according to Liberty Counsel, the ADF kept them out of the Proposition 8 trial because they disagreed over legal strategy - a disagreement that LC says resulted in a radically weakened argument that ignored the central reasons to oppose homosexual "marriage."

At the time, the ADF's Andrew Pugno said that Liberty Counsel should not defend the proposition. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Pugno has said that the Campaign for California Families (CCF), Liberty Counsel's client, "represents the extreme fringe and is not representative of the coalition that got [Proposition 8] passed."

"The proponents believed that intervention by that group would harm, not help, our case," Pugno told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN).

Pugno also said that the CCF had opposed "efforts to qualify Proposition 8 for the ballot, and actively campaigned against it." According to an ADF-supported brief opposing the CCF’s entry as a proponent, the “CCF maintained its antagonism to Proposition 8 for many years; it was not until quite some time after the Proposition 8 campaign began, and just a short period of time before the November 2008 election, that CCF first indicated any support for that measure.”

The ADF successfully prevented the Liberty Council and CCF from intervening.

But Matthew Staver, chairman of the LC, denies that that the CCF had worked against Proposition 8, and told LSN that there were two reasons the ADF opposed LC's intervention.

"First was a misplaced idea of competition or domination of the case," he said. "And second, a desire to narrow the defense so as not to focus or even address the consequences of homosexuality and homosexual marriage."

"We wanted to include that as part of our defense," he continued.

According to Staver, the ADF "basically gave away the essence of the case, because they wanted to shy away from homosexuality and really were not willing to take the issue directly head on."

The ADF wished to stipulate, he said, that counseling some homosexuals to change could be harmful, that homosexual partners form long and lasting relationships, and that homosexuality does not impair any area of life. Liberty Counsel was not willing to do so.

Regardless of the reason that the ADF opposed Liberty Counsel’s entrance, the attitude that the ADF wished to project towards the court was reflected in the witnesses they planned on calling: at least three seemed to think that homosexuality, in itself, was perfectly fine.

Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson had been slated to testify before the court for the proponents of Proposition 8, but they were both withdrawn before they did so. Advocates of same-sex “marriage,” however, used Young’s and Nathanson’s videotaped depositions to help bolster their own arguments.

In Nathanson's deposition he stated that homosexuals can be good parents, while Young said in his videotaped testimony that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that homosexuals have the same potential and desire as heterosexual couples to raise children.

In 2003, Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson wrote that although legalizing "same sex marriage is a bad idea" they only opposed "gay marriage, not gay relationships."

"There's nothing wrong with homosexuality," they stated. "One of us, in fact, is gay."

One of the two witnesses that proponents of Proposition 8 did not withdraw, David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, had previously written that the U.S. would be "more American on the day we permit same-sex marriage than we were on the day before."

He has since defended himself against charges of anti-homosexual bigotry in the courtroom by pointing out that he "told the court that [he] believe[s] in the equal dignity of homosexual love."

The ADF, however, says that the openly homosexual Judge Walker, whom conservative pundits have accused of bias, ignored perfectly good evidence that was presented in the courtroom. "The court flat-out ignored extensive written evidence and testimony presented during cross-examination of plaintiffs’ witnesses," the ADF's Jim Campbell told LSN.

For instance, under cross-examination, UCLA social psychology professor Dr. Letitia Peppeau, an expert witness for the plaintiffs, admitted that sexual exclusivity among gay men is the exception rather than the rule. The Proposition 8 ruling nevertheless included in its 48th “finding of fact” that the statement that “same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions.”

"It’s obvious that no number of witnesses for the defense would have changed the result," said Campbell.

Matthew Staver nevertheless says he thinks that far better witnesses could have been selected.

"We would have called a number of witnesses who have high credentials in the area of homosexuality and homosexual behavior, marriage, and reparative therapy," he said.

He said that he had spoken to a number of well-known experts on homosexuality whom the ADF did not decide to contact. "None of them had even been called," he said. "They were shocked; we were shocked."

Staver believes that addressing the negative aspects of homosexuality is "a very critical component to the case, as to why same-sex marriage would ultimately harm marriage."

The ADF nevertheless "completely refused to put on that kind of testimony," he said.

Missing Moonbeam
Both Kalifornia's RINO Child Pimp Uber Kommandant, Der Arnold Inc., and the Attorney General (moonbeam brown) have decided to work against the Citizens and not only overturn what the CA Supreme Court has said is a Constitutional Proposition 8 - but help fine (as in charge for the opponents attorney fees and costs) those working to uphold the Constitution after the two of them buggered out of the process.


I was in Court the day that the Judge called upon the representatives of both to ask whether they had anything to submit to the trial - and both said No... Refusing to defend either the Constitution or the Citizens when in conflict with their masters in the radical hollywerid homosex hate lobby.


Of course, Der Arnold is pretty much done in politics - but is saving up lots of juicy favors from said hollyweird homosex lobby for wife Maria to take over - in a klintonesque switch of power, only left coast style. Hence, what Der Arnold pimps for today, can be cashed in by 'Saint Maria of the D&S' (in recognition of hyr kennedyesque feminist abortinist agenda) when Maria takes over the political reins of the family and Der Arnold goes back to the movies.


The Capitol Resoursce Institute had a good insight in to this process:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


CRI Calls on Attorney General to Do His Job
While the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal of the district court's decision regarding the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the court specifically ordered the appellants to show why the court should not dismiss the matter due to a lack of standing.


Although existing precedent strongly supports legal standing by the Proponents of Proposition 8, if the 9th Circuit rules otherwise, the case may end with the decision issued in early August by one San Francisco based judge. U.S District Court Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the voter approved initiative limiting marriage to those between one man and one woman was unconstitutional.


"I am surprised that this issue is not receiving more attention," said Karen England, Executive Director of Capitol Resource Institute. "Twice the voters of California have indicated that they do not want to expand the definition of marriage. Now one biased judge in San Francisco, aided by one biased Attorney General in Sacramento might overrule the will of the voters."


At issue is whether anybody other than the government party in the case Perry v. Schwarzenegger can file the appeal. Attorney General Jerry Brown, currently the Democrat Party nominee for California Governor, not only refused to defend the voter approved measure when challenged in the District Court but he actively colluded with Plaintiffs to undermine the defense.

The District Court allowed the proponents of the measure to defend Proposition 8 in the first trial, but the standard for intervention at the appellate level is higher as indicated by the Circuit Court's ominous warning that the appellants should address the issue in their opening brief.


The Attorney General has until September 11th to file the appeal on behalf of the State, putting the issue to rest. The Governor can order the Attorney General to file the appeal, and if the Attorney General refuses, California law allows the Governor to file the appeal himself.


"Clearly it is the duty of the Attorney General to defend voter approved measures in court even if he does not agree with the initiative," said John Eastman, Constitutional scholar and former candidate for California Attorney General. "The appellate process should not be terminated because one individual wishes to substitute his judgment for that of the voters."
Eastman goes on to note that the Attorney General's reluctance to simply file the appeal and then allow others to defend the measure may indicate his own fear that the appellate courts would eventually side with the backers of Proposition 8. "If Jerry Brown had confidence that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, he would welcome such a decision from the Ninth Circuit and ultimately from the U.S. Supreme Court. This would pave the way for same sex marriages throughout the entire country. But he seems afraid to let that legal process play out."

Capitol Resource Institute has produced a web site and is employing social media to encourage individuals to contact the Attorney General and ask him to file the appeal. The web site defendprop8.com also encourages calls to the Governor should the Attorney General fail to do his duty.


"We are not just calling on those who supported Proposition 8. It is completely consistent to have opposed Proposition 8 but agree that the Attorney General should not stand in the way of a full court hearing on the matter," said England.


The Ninth Circuit Court has scheduled the hearing for early December, assuring that the issue will be discussed right through the November elections. England pointed out, "Certainly Jerry Brown will feel the consequences of his actions in the upcoming election.


If he cannot be trusted to do his job as Attorney General, why would the voters want to promote him to Governor?"

The ABA is an off the rails radical activist organization devoted to Enriching themselves while Destroying the Country - kind of like the lawyers who worked to bring about the fall of Rome, only more arrogant and less cultured.

The story is placed in this thread because those seeking legal assistance should make sure to check for (non) membership in the ABA - for obvious reasons that follow:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>

American Bar Association Adopts Resolution Affirming Same-Sex ‘Marriage’
By Peter J. Smith

SAN FRANCISCO, California, August 11, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The American Bar Association adopted a resolution supporting the legalization of same-sex “marriage” across the United States at the conclusion of its annual national convention in San Francisco on Tuesday...

The resolution added that “No minority views or opposition have been identified" against the ABA’s position.

Others in the legal profession say that ABA no longer serves as a representative voice of the United States’ legal profession, especially when it comes to controversial issues, such as same-sex “marriage” and abortion.

In a joint statement preceding the ABA’s imminent adoption of the resolution, the Christian legal advocacy group, Alliance Defense Fund, and the National Lawyers Association asserted that nearly three-quarters of American attorneys do not have membership in the ABA, and that many in the legal profession do not support their views.

The NLA was formed as a breakaway pro-life alternative to the ABA, after the latter organization adopted a resolution in 1992 affirming their support for legal abortion.

“The ABA’s sojourn into social engineering is not based on scientific facts,” said John G. Farnan, President of the NLA, which claims several thousand member lawyers. “This is the same ABA which ignored biological facts when it voted to deny basic civil and human rights for the unborn.”

The ABA was not originally designed to endorse political agendas,” said Doug Napier, ADF Senior Legal Counsel.

ADF urged the association to “abandon its divisive political agenda and return to its original non-partisan mission of advancing jurisprudence, encouraging uniform state laws, strengthening the administration of justice, upholding the profession’s honor, and encouraging friendly interaction among bar members.”

The ABA’s resolution comes barely a week after Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California struck down Proposition 8, California’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

The ABA’s national convention took place between August 5-10. New York State Bar Association President Stephen P. Younger, a delegate to the ABA meeting, told the AP that the close proximity of the ABA resolution on same-sex “marriage” to Walker’s decision was merely coincidental.

Judge Orders Skype Visits as Condition of Mom's Move - News - ABA Journal

By Molly McDonough

A New York judge has ordered that a Long Island mother make her two children available to talk to their father via Skype, an online video conferencing service, as a condition of her move to Florida.

This is the first time such a condition has been made on a case in New York, the New York Law Journal reports. But last year, the New York Times reported that a number of states have begun allowing for "virtual visitation," giving judges the option to keep non-custodial parents in contact with their children via e-mail, instant messaging and Web cams.

In the New York case, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice Jerry Garguilo, in Baker v. Baker, ordered that the mother, at her own expense, "will see to it, prior to re-location, that the Respondent, as well as the children, are provided the appropriate internet access via a Skype device which allows a real time broadcast of communications between the Respondent and his children."

The couple has been divorced since 2008 and the mother, who is unemployed, is planning to move to Florida where she can live with her parents and find work.

In granting the mother's request over the father's objections to his children moving, Garguilo noted that common sense makes clear that a move aimed at finding a better way to support the family is necessary.

Hat tip: Legal Blog Watch.

Blogger Beware: You Can Be Sued Over 'Anonymous' Posts - News - ABA Journal
By Martha Neil

Updated: When you're angry, complaining on the Web about a business or the person who runs it can be tempting.

But you might want to think a bit before putting up an online rant. While website hosts are generally protected from liability for comments posted by others, those who write such diatribes can be sued, points out the Los Angeles Times.

Expressing an opinion is often OK. However, disparaging a business operator or accusing a public official of criminal conduct are danger zones, as a growing number of those who are criticized on the Web turn to the courts for redress.

"Most people have no idea of the liability they face when they publish something online," says Eric Goldman, an Internet law expert at Santa Clara University. "A whole new generation can publish now, but they don't understand the legal dangers they could face. People are shocked to learn they can be sued for posting something that says, 'My dentist stinks.' "

Posting anonymously also may offer little or no protection if an Internet service provider is ordered by a court to reveal the poster's identity.

Last month, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a District of Nevada order requiring identity of three people accused of conducting an "Internet smear campaign via anonymous postings" against Quixtar, the Times article reports.

And in Canada, courts are also ordering ISPs to identify individuals who have posted defamatory material online, writes attorney Maanit Zemel in a July 26 article in Law Times.

These so-called Norwich orders are routinely issued without an opportunity for the unknown poster to respond, the Miller Thomson associate points out. So plaintiffs seeking to unveil anonymous bloggers need to beware of potential legal repercussions, too.

Those who proceed without a sufficient basis to establish a defamation claim "might face significant consequences down the road," Zemel writes, "if the identified defendant can later demonstrate that there hadn't been enough evidence for the allegation of defamation and, thus, for the granting of the Norwich order."

Additional coverage:

IP Law Blog: "Anonymous Online Video and Blog Posters Beware"

JOLT Digest: "Ninth Circuit Argues for Less Stringent Test for Protecting Anonymous Online Commercial Speech"

Updated on Aug. 25 to include information from Maanit Zemel's Law Times article about Canadian law.

When looking for an attorney many people think that a 'good school' counts for a lot - but in fact it can be a detriment, particularly if it is a school more enamored with its own image than its students competence...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Adjunct Law Prof Hits Schools’ Preoccupation with ‘Impractical Scholarship’ - News - ABA Journal
Top law schools hire professors with fewer years of real-world experience than lower-tier schools, according to an adjunct who questions schools’ “preoccupation with impractical scholarship” in a law review article.

Georgetown University adjunct law professor Brent Evan Newton told the National Law Journal that he was inspired to write his article because of his students’ fears that they won’t be able to land a job after graduation. They worried that law school had not prepared them to make a living as a practicing lawyer.

His article, slated for publication in the South Carolina Law Review, is called "Preaching What They Don't Practice: Why Law Faculties' Preoccupation with Impractical Scholarship and Devaluation of Practical Competencies Obstruct Reform in the Legal Academy."

Newton contends that law schools hire professors with little practice experience and then emphasize scholarship more than teaching. These “impractical professors whose chief mission is to produce theoretical legal scholarship” feel indifferent towards—and sometimes outright disdain for—practicing lawyers and faculty members with a practical bent, he writes.

Newton suggests the problem is worse at top-tier schools. He examined entry-level tenure track hiring from 2000 to 2009 at 40 law schools. Fourth-tier schools hired faculty with an average of more than seven years of practical experience, while top-tier schools hired those with an average of less than two years’ experience.

“Especially at law schools in the upper echelons of the U.S. News & World Report rankings, the core of the faculties seem indifferent or even hostile to the concept of law school as a professional school with the primary mission of producing competent practitioners,” he writes.

He suggests law schools could emphasize practice skills by dividing faculty into two tracks, one made up of research professors who focus on theoretical scholarship, and the other, teaching professors with extensive practice experience.

Additional coverage:

Legal Blog Watch: “Two-Track Legal Education Coming to a Law School Near You?”

Wall Street Journal Law Blog: “Are Law School Faculties Part of the Problem with Legal Education?”