On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, TS Glassey wrote:
> As Jorge keeps reminding everyone, I am not IETF's attorney. But I am
> an
> attorney, and so I am personally disgusted by the behavior of Todd
> Glassey
> toward another attorney on this forum.
Perhaps _both_ of the licensed attorneys could be more direct. I'd like
to see credible legal opinions, not political and evasive answers.
> There is a code of behavior among attorneys and presumably their
> clients that promotes the calm and reasoned discussion of issues.
As I understand those rules, when one asks a question of a lawyer and
receives an evasive, less than truthful answer, one can invoke the
doctrine of "unclean hands".
Besides calm discussion is exactly what you and others are trying to
prevent.
That's a good point. Frivolous complaints about the question appear to
merely avoid answering the question. A credible legal answer would put
this all to bed. There is no reason for Atty Rosen to disparage the
question as being stupid. As I keep the score, it was Atty Rosen who
first made disparaging remarks that would seem to violate the code of
behavior for calm and reasoned discussion.
> That code does not allow anyone to insist to anyone else that
> certain "questions" be answered.
> There is simply no obligation by anyone to do so short of a subpoena.
Actually, there is a civil way to insist--as Atty Rosen mentioned, a
subpoena is the strongest tool to insist that questions be answered.
But an oral or written demand for an answer seems to be quite reasonable
before litigation is filed and/or a subpoena is requested. Mr. Glassey
has made demands for answers, and all that he has received is evasive,
political responses. To these evasive respones Mr Glassey has merely
asked increasingly blunt questions and asserted there is an obligation
of an attorney to give an honest answer; to which Mr. Rosen has
attacked both the question and the questioner. The Model Rules of
Professional Conduct seem to require attorneys give honest and
forthright answers.
Attorney Rosen's complaint seems to boil down to the fact that he
doesn't want to give a non-frivolous response to the questions asked,
but doesn't want to be seen as being unresponsive or frivolous for not
answering. Mr. Glassey is just making it clear that Atty's Rosen and
Contreras aren't being responsive. Mr Glassey is also asserting that
attorneys involved in the debate as identified professional attorneys,
have more obligations to state the law and state reasonable legal
opinions than non-attorneys. This assertion seems reasonable under the
Model Professional Rules of Conduct.
It seems to me that Atty. Contreras, as the IETF Counsel, has a duty to
be responsive to IETF questions. It seems to me that Atty Rosen is
merely making political and evasive answers that merely enable Mr.
Contreras to avoid responding.
Garbage. There is NO Code that you speak of - it simply doesnt exist.
There is indeed such a code for the professional conduct of attorneys.
It can be found here: [ http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/mrpc_toc.html ]
The various state Bar Association rules are presumably similar. While
I'm not an attorney, these Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not
appear to support Attorney Rosen's contention about Mr. Glassey's
conduct. As Mr. Glassey pointed out, these rules that apply to
attorney's including Mr. Rosen and Mr. Contreras don't apply to Mr.
Glassey. I think if an attorney made Mr. Glassey's demands, the
statements Mr Glassey made would still not violate the Model Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Furthermore, Mr. Glassey has apologized for any offense found in his
questioning. That does not mean the question should be retracted or not
answered.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.5/1569 - Release Date: 7/23/2008
1:31 PM