Ciceronian Review

Irell Gets Slapped

In this decision, the Central District of California found Irell's performance wanting.  The Court suppressed evidence based on failure of the defendant's counsel -- Irell -- to properly disclose actual and potential conflicts, and for giving stupefyingly bad advice.  The government took its lumps -- important evidence was suppressed.  Irell, on the other hand, not quite so much.  There is the embarrassment of a public rebuke by the Court, which is something.  And the Court referred the firm to the State Bar.  But that is the end.  The Court did not order disgorgement of fees, and did not sanction any particular lawyers or the firm's management.  I did not see anything in the order which would put any particular lawyers in front of the State Bar.  And that seems odd.  Someone had to have committed the violations -- particular lawyers are named as having communicated in various ways, but the Court never says anything about any of them violating their duties.  The firm alone violated duties?  That is odd.  Not only because actual people have to do the things which constitute the violation, but also because it is unclear how the firm could be under the State Bar.  The firm is not a member of the Bar, never sat for an exam, etc.  The members did.  And what will the Bar do?  Is there some provision allowing sanctions against a firm, rather than against some lawyer?  It looks, in the end, that there is the public reprimand and nothing more.  Which hardly seems a deterrent, let alone justice. 

On the other hand, the Bar did successfully prosecute a prosecutor for ethical violations.  The outcome of that, is mixed up.  But remarkable that it happened.  So maybe there is more there than I think.  Not for the first time. 

Schnabel

Julian Schnabel has directed four films, of which I have seen three: Basquiat, Before Night Falls, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly.  All three are quite good, and not of a kind I would say.  They are all quite unlike his prior work -- his paintings, etc.  It is a curious case where the second line of work - the film making -- is much better and more interesting than what brought Schnabel fame in the first place.  The latter I found to be entertaining, but only.  Post-card art I would say.  The movies are visually interesting and inventive, well-paced, intellectually engaging.  Thoughtful.  The other art is commodity work.

Basquiat, for example, conveys the art effectively, and also the person.  It is a good biographical film, at least in the sense that it conveys a good deal about the nature of the artist, his context (what the old would call his milieu), and the drift into death.  It is one of the best about a visual artist that I have seen.  (There is a video about Cartier-Bresson that is quite good as well, although that is almost all art.)

Ward, You're Back!

Remarkably, Ward Churchill won his wrongful termination suit, at least at the trial level.  Churchill was fired by the University of Colorado following his remarks about the September 11 attack.  After the fact, the University uncovered evidence showing Churchill was a pretty poor scholar -- plagiarism and the like -- and tried to dress up the firing with that set of clothes.  But it was political.  After all, if plagiarism won't get someone fired from Harvard, why should it be enough for Colorado?  An unfortunate aspect is that Churchill is an unattractive plaintiff, he is sanctimonious and a poor political thinker.  The jury gave him only $1 in damages, which tells you a good deal.  The judge has yet to decide whether Churchill will be re-instated. 

He is a good test for commitment to academic freedom and integrity, or one of a couple.  Yoo is another good test, and there is the Harvard plagiarists.  Rubbermaid standards.

Stevens Lives Free

Ted Stevens is a felon no more.  The Attorney General has decided to abandon the prosecution of the former senator on corruption charges.  In one of those movie moments, an extended pattern of prosecutorial misconduct by the Public Integrity Division of the Justice Department led the Attorney General to request dismissal of the case.  The prosecutors are the subject of an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility.  As the trial attorneys seem to have included the top of the Public Integrity Division, the investigation will be interesting.  It is the sort of thing that does more damage than the individual case.  After all, if the prosecutors perform so badly in a case receiving the judicial and public attention of the Stevens prosecution, one cannot help but believe that in lower profile cases matters are no better.  Maybe they are.  Maybe the apples all rotted together in one case.  
In any event, kudos to Holder, and to Sullivan for recognizing that Holder did right.