US Politics

Military Coup in Myanmar. Claims of election fraud. I’m guessing they won’t revert back to democracy after a fair and transparent recount?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-55882489

Emboldened by recent US happenings perhaps?

Jared Kushner is nominated for the Nobel peace prize.

Where to start with that one.

Where to start with that one.

Probably best just to focus on the fact that almost any old cunt can nominate somebody for a Nobel prize and treat the nomination with the contempt it deserves.

That said, I do find it incredible that Alan Dershowitz appears to be on a path to going full Giuliani.

Trump's new lawyer has a particular set of clients

1 Attachment

What a resume....

He needs a Saul Goodman type

Wasn't Trump seen with Mafia lawyers/figures on or close to election night in 2016?

Needless to say Schoen was also going to be on Jeff Epstein's defence team before his services suddenly became no longer required. Also defended Roger Stone.

I was going to ask if he won those, but then realised that if he didn't, he'd be sleeping with the fishes by now.

He's world class at managing client expectations?

Civil Rights and Commercial Litigation include:

-Action on behalf of Ku Klux Klan striking down anti-masking and other public march prohibitions;
-Fair Housing Act action for Arab-American professor beaten and intimidated based on his ethnicity;
-Damages and injunctive relief action for Muslim inmate leading to establishment of Islamic services;

My very limited 3rd hand experience of lawyers,
(a business contact found me to be a suitable listener),
is that no matter how hopeless a Case,
as long as the lawyer is convinced the Client can pay,
the lawyer will pursue the claim or mount a defence.
[Apologies to @Brommers].

I would suggest that the original team of lawyers who were representing Trump in his 2nd Impeachment trial, were unable to convince themselves that the funds Trump claimed to have were in all ways 'clean', (not just grafted recent donations, contraventions of the Emoluments Clause, or from sources likely to be under investigation by the SDNY).

Trump therefore needed lawyers with less scruples.
Phone calls were made, favours were called in, and enter David Schoen!

Apologies to @Brommers

None needed, you're right. If a client can meet my fees, not only would I act for them, I'd be professionally obliged to do so. Not allowed to pick and choose clients.

And if your client told you to mount a defence that would get you disbarred?

Even Rudy didn't utter the words "Dominion Systems" in court.

And if your client told you to mount a defence that would get you disbarred?

If my client instructed me to deliberately mislead the court or to argue a point of law which was not properly arguable then I'd have to withdraw from the case.

like everything there's a way around that right ? diary booked for the next year solid / we're not taking on any clients right now etc ?

Trump's lawyers walked because he wants an "election was stolen" defence which would involve them misleading the court as stated above.

They were constitutional lawyers ready to argue you can't convict an ex-prez or something similar.

This kind of thing have been hammering in Myanmar well before trump so I'd think you'd need a lot more than timing to say one has contributed to he other.

Not allowed to pick and choose clients.

Really? That's interesting. So you're not allowed to consider 'reputational damage', or is such a thing not as relevant in light of not being able to choose clients?

(for example, finance here, we have a long list of clients (countries even) we can't deal with due to potential reputational problems).

Really? That's interesting.

Look up the "cab rank rule"

Summary here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab-rank_rule

Edit: I don't think many people know about this. You often see people on Twitter judging a barrister on who they have represented before as if there is any choice in the matter.

My Dad ended up quitting criminal law because of the emotional strain caused by putting huge amounts of effort into defending somebody who had comitted the most despicable crimes. He just wasn't cut out for it. Kept him awake at night. Probably still does.

Thanks - so you can't even price yourself out of it. That must be a bit stressful - someone turns up on your door and you're obliged to work with them no matter what.

To a certain extent I think its usually not a problem for a barrister. Its all about the fair and even application of the law at the end of the day. My assumption is that its unusual to have a personal problem with a brief.

In my Dad's case, it was defending somebody alleged of a particularly brutal infanticide that was the end of the line for him. He knew he was doing what was right in the eyes of the law, but coming home to his young family posed some mental barriers that he wasn't prepared for.

Edit: ^ extreme example I know, but gives you the gyst.

So you're not allowed to consider 'reputational damage',

Nope, strictly verboten.

or is such a thing not as relevant in light of not being able to choose clients?

It shouldn't be relevant but has Stonehedge says I suspect most people aren't aware of the cab rank rule. Dominic Raab, for instance, in his recent criticisms of a Hong Kong QC.

like everything there's a way around that right ? diary booked for the next year solid / we're not taking on any clients right now etc ?

In theory, yes, although that too would be a breach of my professional obligations if I used it to turn down instructions from a particular client. In practice it wouldn't work, even if I wanted to do so, because my clerks accept instructions on my behalf. So I'd have to tell the clerks 'If Scumbag McScumbag tries to instruct me, I'm busy, nudge nudge', and which point I think stern words would be spoken by my senior clerk and Head of Chambers.

wow so you could end up having to represent people worse than trump, having committed horrible crimes and have to defend that person totally against your principles