Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gregory]

Who is it that has to pay Simpson for his continued services?

Simpson represents a client who has retained his services. That client pays Simpson everytime Simpson acts on behalf of the client.  In order to faithfully fulfill his duties to his client a service to the client is generated, with consequent payment, everytime Bob or Gailon acts in a manner that involves Sompson's client.


 
 
 

[childoftheking]

And who pays when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?

[Gregory]

And who pays when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?

So, who do you think decides that his defense is a "questionable action?"  The answer to that question is the Bar Associaiton Ethics Committee.  It is not you.  It is not me.  It is not his client.  Should the Bar Associaton decide that Simpson did something wrong, it would prescribe a corrective action.


 
 
 

[childoftheking]

A  questionable action by definition would be an action that can be questioned. Whether the  Bar Association Ethics Committee agrees that it bears further looking into and correcting is another matter. But my understanding is that the parties to a lawsuit have the right to raise the question of whether the lawsuit was conducted properly.

And was you words "not you, not me" intended to put me in my place?

[Gregory]

Yes, the parties to a law suit do have the right to question the actions of their attorney.  They would first likely talk to their attorney. Then, if not satisfited, they would bring it to the attention of the Bar Association Ethics Committee.  Or, they could consult with an attorney who specicializes in attorney misconduct.  There are such.

As to putting you in your place:  When you said: 

. . . when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?

it came across to me as factual statement on your part, that in your opinoin  Simpson had already acted in his own interests in defending questionable actions.  I thought that others would likely agree with that position.  So, I wanted to simply point out that we who are on the sidelines and only observe a part of what goes on, do not have the knowledge to decide whether or not an action of Simpson is questionable. Although you may have stated a tautology in which case your statement was true.

 

[Bob Pickle]

Ok so I also have some questions.  Bob and Gailon.  Why did you not return the documents?

Because there is no legal requirement to do so, and as Simpson himself knows, since he can't quote anywhere in the two orders in question where we are told that we have to return all copies of documents. Here he is threatening to drag us back into court, and so I ask him to quote that language of the orders that require us to return all copies, and he can't do it.

Also, if Danny and 3ABN sued us again, we'd have to get these documents again, and to do that we'd have to spend months fighting in court again just to get them to turn them over to us.

Plus, they now know better what is incriminating, and they might not turn that over, and they might even destroy it.

[Bob Pickle]

Number 2, above, is the issue here.  The two sides each are making conflicting claims in regard to a judicial order.

But Simpson can't even quote where the order supports his position. It's pathetic.

[Bob Pickle]

And who pays when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?

So, who do you think decides that his defense is a "questionable action?"  The answer to that question is the Bar Associaiton Ethics Committee.  It is not you.  It is not me.  It is not his client.  Should the Bar Associaton decide that Simpson did something wrong, it would prescribe a corrective action.

Incorrect. It is God Himself who will judge Greg Simpson, and Greg Simpson will have to answer to God for his lies, unless he repents.

And Danny Shelton and Jim Gilley and Carmelita Troy and all the rest will have to answer to God Himself for every lie that they paid Simpson to tell.

If Nadab and Abihu were responsible for what they did while under the influence, then Ellsworth McKee and Bill Hulsey are responsible for what their representative did for them in court while representing the entity they are directors of.

And I think that the churches these folks are members of should hold them responsible for Simpson's lies and for the persecution they launched and continue to perpetrate against those who spoke out against the cover up of child molestation allegations and private inurement.

[Gregory]

Yes, Bob, your are correct that in the venue of eternal values it is God who decides and neither you nor I as neither of us is God.

Now I do not think that Child of the King was talking about eternal life and standing in the place of God in what appeared to me to be her judgement call.  I would never attribute that to her.

I felt that she asked her question from the social structure of this world and this life.  If I am wrong, I am wrong and it will not be the first time.

So, I responded from the standpoint of the social structrue in which we live and more specificly the structure in which Simpson practices law. From that standpoint I was correct and I was not wrong as you suggested.  Surely you understood that and knew the context in which I spoke.

[childoftheking]

Gregory are you aware that (to me at least) you come accross as very condescending in your manner. This seems to be quite deliberate. Now I may be wrong and it is not your intention to lecture or talk down to us individuals who are mere mortals.  In which case your remarks would be appropriate.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory, if we step back from eternal realities, your statement is still incorrect. You said that it was the bar ethics committee, not you, not others, who decides whether what Simpson has done is right or not.

That's akin to saying that the common people have no say so in regards to religious matters since they don't have degrees or haven't been ordained.

Everyone of us may assess the facts ourselves and decide for ourselves. There are times when some organizations protect their own, and if the common people don't independently assess the situation, things run awry.

The fact of the matter is that attorney ethical rules require attorneys to be truthful. And yet attorneys have a reputation for lying. How can that possibly be?

Do ethics committees come down on attorneys who lie more often than bishops come down on priests who fornicate?

[Gregory]

My response to you was divided into two parts:  In the first part of your post I thought you were asking a real quesiton:  Who pays when an attorney does something that is inappropriate.  That happens more often than it should.  Lawyers make mistakes.  They misjudge. They go off on tangents that are called by their fellow attornies "novel."  I took your question to be an honest one in which you were asking how a client could address such a situation.  My short answer was:  Go the Ethics Committee of the State Bar Association.  I shoud have said to talk to the attorney first.

As to the second part: I was acutally addressing more than your post.  I was expanding my response to include those who suggest that Simpson (or other attornies) have done something questionable, yet are not in a position to know the inner workings of the legal issues as experienced by his client.  I was basicly saying that we who only have part of the picture are not in a place to state a dictum that his actions are quetionable.  We simply do not know the whole picture.

As to the general style of my writing: That is how I write in another venue and quite successfully.  In that context I am not understood as being condecending.  I tone my style down somewhat when I post here, but not becasue I feel a need to talk down to anyone, but because the context, and purpose, here is different from the context and purpose where I otherwise write.

As to talking down to you personally:  I have never felt the need to do that.  If I respond to a post it is because I beleive that an individual has raised a valid quesstion that I am interested in responding to.

[Gregory]

Bob said:

That's akin to saying that the common people have no say so in regards to religious matters since they don't have degrees or haven't been ordained.

Bob, as I have stated, I was not posting in the context of religioius or spiritual matters.  As I stated my my most recent post, I responded to what I thought was an honest question as to what should happen  when a client questioned the actions of the attorney who represented the clilent.

You mention degrees and ordination:  That did not come into play in any of the posts.  It certainly did not come from anyting that I have said.

If Child of the King was asking a spiritual question, I was wrong in my response and you were correct.  S he mentioned "payment" this in my mind placed the context in the secular world in which we all live today.  The context had been "payment" as generally understood today of Simpson for his many hours of legal work.  The previous posts were not focused on standing before the judgement bar of God. 

[childoftheking]

My meaning was specific. I meant, assuming that an attornery has malpractice insurance to cover it, if he or she did something that was considered wrong but did it at the direction of his client or if he had been had been misled by a client, would he or she have to bear the cost and the legal responsibility or would the client have some liability? I know there is confidentiality between a lawyer and client. If a lawyer did something unethical because he or she felt it would be in the best interest of his or her client's case but without being directed to do so by his or her client, who would be considered to be legally responsible? What if they conspired to try to get away with something? What if permission to use shady tactics wasn't stated but implied or just tolerated. The question was who would pay and I didn't feel that the question was addressed.

I am aware that God's standards are more strict than those of our legal system. A client should make it clear to his attorney that he wants his lawyer to adhere to these higher standards and should ensure that any lawsuit is conducted accordingly. The Court of Heaven is indeed the court of final appeal but Christians are directed to be as salt in this world.

[Gregory]

No, I did not address that question.   I did not understand that as your question.

That is a question that I do not beleive that have the knowledge to answer.  Most anytling that I would say would be guesswork.  So, I will leave it at that.