Tell me when you've had enough
May 5, 2007 8:23 PM Subscribe
Last September, White House Counsel Harriet Miers asked if the US Attorney who was investigating the Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Commitee, could be made to resign. A month later Debra Wong Yang did just that, and accepted a $1.5 million signing bonus to become a partner in the law firm which was defending the target of her former investigation. NYT, reg req'd.
This post was deleted for the following reason: SLOE outragefilter. -- jessamyn
Ah, this is yet another of those instances where we shout with furious fury and raging rage at the blank wall of evil, powerless to do a thing about it.
Dammit, why isn't anyone with real power this angry?!
posted by JHarris at 8:39 PM on May 5, 2007
Dammit, why isn't anyone with real power this angry?!
posted by JHarris at 8:39 PM on May 5, 2007
Well, you know what they say...
There's nothing a lawyer won't defend for enough money.
Principles and ethics be damned.
Still, it'd be strange if this guy is **still** found guilty.
Wait.. How is this even legal?
Can a former defence attorney turn arround and work for the prosecution? Of the same case?
posted by Balisong at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2007
There's nothing a lawyer won't defend for enough money.
Principles and ethics be damned.
Still, it'd be strange if this guy is **still** found guilty.
Wait.. How is this even legal?
Can a former defence attorney turn arround and work for the prosecution? Of the same case?
posted by Balisong at 8:46 PM on May 5, 2007
People with real power can buy their habeas corpus. Better start saving...
posted by yeloson at 8:48 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by yeloson at 8:48 PM on May 5, 2007
Meh, they're lawyers. What can you do? It's like fighting City Hall.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:49 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:49 PM on May 5, 2007
balisong:
you're not allowed to play on both sides of the field.
technically, though, there shouldn't be a conflict of interest here as long as the ex-US Atty stays away from this case and concentrates on other business at the firm (which one would assume they'd be very, very careful about.)
that said, this still strikes me as incredibly sketchy.
posted by theoddball at 8:58 PM on May 5, 2007
you're not allowed to play on both sides of the field.
technically, though, there shouldn't be a conflict of interest here as long as the ex-US Atty stays away from this case and concentrates on other business at the firm (which one would assume they'd be very, very careful about.)
that said, this still strikes me as incredibly sketchy.
posted by theoddball at 8:58 PM on May 5, 2007
I fail to see anything improper here. You people just see scandals everywhere.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:58 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:58 PM on May 5, 2007
JHarris: Dammit, why isn't anyone with real power this angry?!
Because the people with real power are getting $1.5M checks not to be angry. For $1.5M, it's really, really easy not to be angry. [See, Yang was the one who was supposed to be ferreting out the bad behavior...] But more generally: the people with power aren't angry because they have power. It's easy to justify the system when you're on top. In fact, we humans have a general tendency to legitimate the status quo even when we aren't on top. It usually takes obvious, salient, impossible-to-ignore-or-rationalize bad acts and easily identifiable bad actors to get us to change things much.
On preview: Balisong: the answer is generally no, they can't work on the same case. Yang will conflictout of any involvement with an ongoing investigation and defense. But how that's enforced is another issue.
posted by dilettanti at 9:00 PM on May 5, 2007
Because the people with real power are getting $1.5M checks not to be angry. For $1.5M, it's really, really easy not to be angry. [See, Yang was the one who was supposed to be ferreting out the bad behavior...] But more generally: the people with power aren't angry because they have power. It's easy to justify the system when you're on top. In fact, we humans have a general tendency to legitimate the status quo even when we aren't on top. It usually takes obvious, salient, impossible-to-ignore-or-rationalize bad acts and easily identifiable bad actors to get us to change things much.
On preview: Balisong: the answer is generally no, they can't work on the same case. Yang will conflict
posted by dilettanti at 9:00 PM on May 5, 2007
Can a former defence attorney turn arround and work for the prosecution? Of the same case?
I presume there are ethical obligations re firewalls and privilege and so on, but the problem is that it stinks.
It will make a great episode of Law and Order.
posted by unSane at 9:02 PM on May 5, 2007
I presume there are ethical obligations re firewalls and privilege and so on, but the problem is that it stinks.
It will make a great episode of Law and Order.
posted by unSane at 9:02 PM on May 5, 2007
Quia suam uxorem etiam suspiciore vacare vellet.
posted by eriko at 9:04 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by eriko at 9:04 PM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I don't understand how things like this happen, and no one cares at all. It hurts my brain. Anything good on youtube?
posted by Methylviolet at 9:08 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by Methylviolet at 9:08 PM on May 5, 2007
Yang will conflict out of any involvement with an ongoing investigation and defense. But how that's enforced is another issue.
Does that mean that they will just walk out of the room when attorneys are talking in the same law firm, or does it mean that juicy tidbits of vital information will be traded behind closed doors?
Doesn't sound good for Truth and Justice either way.
posted by Balisong at 9:09 PM on May 5, 2007
Does that mean that they will just walk out of the room when attorneys are talking in the same law firm, or does it mean that juicy tidbits of vital information will be traded behind closed doors?
Doesn't sound good for Truth and Justice either way.
posted by Balisong at 9:09 PM on May 5, 2007
But $1.5 mil gan make you forget about a lot of...
Hey! Wow!! A new boat!! For ME!!??
posted by Balisong at 9:10 PM on May 5, 2007
Hey! Wow!! A new boat!! For ME!!??
posted by Balisong at 9:10 PM on May 5, 2007
I'm not sure there's anything particularly difficult about possible conflicts of interest. This is a firm with hundreds, if not thousands of lawyers, who do all kinds of work; they shouldn't have any trouble keeping her off the case she was working on. In fact, I suspect these kind of conflicts can up fairly regularly, as lawyers move from private practice to government work and back again, they're going to tend to work the same sorts of issues, and I suspect all institutions involved are experienced at dealing with it.
As for the deal itself, it's a little suspicious, probably worth looking into for what it's worth, but it's hardly shocking. A US Attorney is given a large amount of money to work in private practice? I assume this is the story of every US Attorney who decides to go to the private sector. Without more information, like whether she contact them about a position, and who within the firm made the hiring decision, I would be hesitant to assume a conspiracy.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2007
As for the deal itself, it's a little suspicious, probably worth looking into for what it's worth, but it's hardly shocking. A US Attorney is given a large amount of money to work in private practice? I assume this is the story of every US Attorney who decides to go to the private sector. Without more information, like whether she contact them about a position, and who within the firm made the hiring decision, I would be hesitant to assume a conspiracy.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2007
So, working for a "Defense Team" is different than working for the same law firm that is defending someone you were prosecuting?
Sounds like douchebaggery to me..
The obvious solution is a fisticuftsmanship duel.
Us VS them.
posted by Balisong at 9:51 PM on May 5, 2007
Sounds like douchebaggery to me..
The obvious solution is a fisticuftsmanship duel.
Us VS them.
posted by Balisong at 9:51 PM on May 5, 2007
Have any of you met the people who go to law school in general? When I was in college, all the pre-law and law students I met were part of the douchebag brigade, even the ones that started off as idealists who said they were doing it because they lurved the law ended up as conservative assholes. Especially after those summer internships where they got to rub up against the powerful and smell the new car smell all around them. After the conversion there were lots of complaints of, "you just don't understand." Evidently that phrase can justify anything.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 10:02 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 10:02 PM on May 5, 2007
Ah, this is yet another of those instances where we shout with furious fury and raging rage at the blank wall of evil, powerless to do a thing about it.
I don't know, I rate subpoena power rather highly. At the very least, it's fun watching the cockroaches scurry.
posted by dhartung at 10:05 PM on May 5, 2007
I don't know, I rate subpoena power rather highly. At the very least, it's fun watching the cockroaches scurry.
posted by dhartung at 10:05 PM on May 5, 2007
It's possible to screen a lawyer and keep a firm "clean" so long as a) she's screened from the issue as soon as she begins work there and b) the firm can show they've been keeping her separate from everyone dealing with the related case. The easiest way to do it is to keep her in an entirely different office and have her sign a bunch of affidavits; obviously, big firms with multiple branches have an advantage here. She shouldn't bring her old work with her either. Current Federal law seems to find this sufficient, although YMMV with different circuits (and wildly differ with states). I assume Gibson, Dunn wouldn't be so dumb as to lose a big client through imputed disqualification, but who knows?
The whole thing may smell suspicious, but it's not as unusual as you might think for one side to realize how good the other side's lawyer is and hire them. The argument against heavier restrictions is the way it would lock lawyers into certain jobs they might not want to stay in.
I just took a course on this, so I'm sorry if I sound lecture-ish.
posted by Maxson at 10:14 PM on May 5, 2007
The whole thing may smell suspicious, but it's not as unusual as you might think for one side to realize how good the other side's lawyer is and hire them. The argument against heavier restrictions is the way it would lock lawyers into certain jobs they might not want to stay in.
I just took a course on this, so I'm sorry if I sound lecture-ish.
posted by Maxson at 10:14 PM on May 5, 2007
Ok, I'm not going to comment on the underlying post - just the idiotic posts I'm seeing here about lawyers. Come on people, grow up, get a life, move on, and stop boring us.
First, I love how people assume they know the law without going to law school and just pretend that those years in school and in legal practice don't mean a thing. I mean, your average dweeb on MeFi can obviously do a much better job determining what is legal and what is not without those annoying years of training, right? Do you think random folks should pretend to speak with authority regarding complex issues in our other professions? Of course not.
I also just can't wait to see another post about how lawyers are all scum...have to be by trade, and all of them are conservative, and all of them are rich or want to be, and none of them are ....blah, blah, blah.
Most of us aren't lawyers, most of you don't even know lawyers personally, and all of you commenting in generalities are showing your ignorance. You might as well be spewing hate at Jews or Gays or women or whatever other group you like to segement off and abuse trips your trigger this week.
Please, before another one of you makes such a stupid comment, please look up the definitions of a few choice words: stereotype, ignorant, ad hominem, prejudice, bigot.
If any of these words seem to apply to the post you are about to write, refrain from clicking on "post comment" for once.
posted by Muddler at 10:19 PM on May 5, 2007
First, I love how people assume they know the law without going to law school and just pretend that those years in school and in legal practice don't mean a thing. I mean, your average dweeb on MeFi can obviously do a much better job determining what is legal and what is not without those annoying years of training, right? Do you think random folks should pretend to speak with authority regarding complex issues in our other professions? Of course not.
I also just can't wait to see another post about how lawyers are all scum...have to be by trade, and all of them are conservative, and all of them are rich or want to be, and none of them are ....blah, blah, blah.
Most of us aren't lawyers, most of you don't even know lawyers personally, and all of you commenting in generalities are showing your ignorance. You might as well be spewing hate at Jews or Gays or women or whatever other group you like to segement off and abuse trips your trigger this week.
Please, before another one of you makes such a stupid comment, please look up the definitions of a few choice words: stereotype, ignorant, ad hominem, prejudice, bigot.
If any of these words seem to apply to the post you are about to write, refrain from clicking on "post comment" for once.
posted by Muddler at 10:19 PM on May 5, 2007
Yeah, you are right Muddler. I am guilty of what you say. Although I was remembering specific people and experiences, including a very good friend that continues to be a very good friend. I'm sorry I didn't back up my rant because after reading your comment, it seems so very weak to just post like that. Perhaps it's just outrage fatigue, if I can have an excuse.
But hey, here's a criticism for you. You have a good point, but please, the links? Or should I say, now that I know all the definitions of my bad behavior I understand so much better. Thanks for the links!
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 10:54 PM on May 5, 2007
But hey, here's a criticism for you. You have a good point, but please, the links? Or should I say, now that I know all the definitions of my bad behavior I understand so much better. Thanks for the links!
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 10:54 PM on May 5, 2007
I'm withholding judgement until the Department of Improprietary Appearance's report.
posted by Clave at 11:31 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by Clave at 11:31 PM on May 5, 2007
Most of us aren't lawyers, most of you don't even know lawyers personally, and all of you commenting in generalities are showing your ignorance. You might as well be spewing hate at Jews or Gays or women or whatever other group you like to segement off and abuse trips your trigger this week.
Please. I am a lawyer and while I of course don't like being called part of the "douchebag brigade," I don't think it is the same as antisemitism, homophobia, or sexism.
Also, this sort of transition from private to public, including with a hefty signing bonus for someone of her stature is not rare. And there are special laws and ethic rules that deal with screening any lawyer, especially govt lawyers, from working on previous matters or related matters. There very well could be some sort of connection here, but the conclusions being drawn here are just pure speculation. And, if she were to use her previous information to help her new firm defend that guy, then it would be a gross violation of ethics and she would be disbarred.
posted by Falconetti at 11:45 PM on May 5, 2007
Please. I am a lawyer and while I of course don't like being called part of the "douchebag brigade," I don't think it is the same as antisemitism, homophobia, or sexism.
Also, this sort of transition from private to public, including with a hefty signing bonus for someone of her stature is not rare. And there are special laws and ethic rules that deal with screening any lawyer, especially govt lawyers, from working on previous matters or related matters. There very well could be some sort of connection here, but the conclusions being drawn here are just pure speculation. And, if she were to use her previous information to help her new firm defend that guy, then it would be a gross violation of ethics and she would be disbarred.
posted by Falconetti at 11:45 PM on May 5, 2007
CA ethics rules are particularly soft. As long as she is not working for the defense this probably passes muster. However, the implication of them offering money to get her off of a republican prosecution is more troubling but probably impossible to prove unless someone squeals. For an administration that preaches Christianity (although Rove is an atheist), they are the biggest bunch of crooks since Nixon, probably worse even. They have pissed off so many people that GW's former campaign strategist is now an Obama supporter!
posted by caddis at 11:58 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by caddis at 11:58 PM on May 5, 2007
SLOE.
posted by klangklangston at 12:30 AM on May 6, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 12:30 AM on May 6, 2007
Sorry Falconetti, the douchebag brigade really encompases everybody I think is a douchebag and not lawyers in general. I really do need to think before I post. Maybe I loved my term more than I should have. Anyone can be a member, as has been shown, even me! But yeah, what you said. I guess we can only hope that someone who would take the money in that manner would have the ethics to not share any information at all with her new bosses who just gave her all that money. And then we have to hope that there might be someone with the time and money to investigate it. While there may be tons of great rules about her conduct, it really doesn't matter what she does until someone investigates it and we can find out what happened. We have this little bit of information about this, but is anyone going to monitor this? I think probably not unless something big happens to prompt a further investigation.
Sorry for the circular, I'm tired.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 12:42 AM on May 6, 2007
Sorry for the circular, I'm tired.
posted by Belle O'Cosity at 12:42 AM on May 6, 2007
No big deal, O'Cosity, I like the turn of phrase myself.
posted by Falconetti at 1:36 AM on May 6, 2007
posted by Falconetti at 1:36 AM on May 6, 2007
Not all lawyers are jerks.
All rich lawyers are jerks.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:52 AM on May 6, 2007
All rich lawyers are jerks.
posted by Faint of Butt at 4:52 AM on May 6, 2007
« Older addicted to conning people | Fun odd cartoon: Mose Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 8:32 PM on May 5, 2007