FACDL V RUMPOLE

Well, we did it again. Incurred the wrath of FACDL (motto: "Dues por favor"). So to be fair, here is how we have been chastised:

FACDL Board Member said...

Rumpole. You are wrong, dead wrong, for publicly airing the private discussions of what takes place on the FACDL List Serv. You used to do it regularly, but have not done so in a long time. You do not have the right to publicly air these issues. That List Serv is a private List Serv for Members Only. The members expect that, whatever they send out to the entire membership, by way of email, will not make its way into the public domain.

And before you tell us that you did not identify the members, you miss the point. It is not only who is doing the emailing, but the content of the conversation as well. You have no right to disseminate that information either.

There are times when a sensitive issue may appear on the List Serv that members would never want aired in a public domain. Let's use an example: what if someone sent an email that said, Members: I am in front of Judge Jacqueline Woodward for the first time, on a DUI trial. How does she handle sentencing if my client is convicted on a first with a refusal. Should I tell my client to bring their toothbrush? And, then ensues a litany of responses from other attorneys' opinions on the topic of discussion.

Not only would none of those attorneys want to be identified by name on a public Blog, but none of them would want the content of the discussion and their responses on the Blog either.

If members see that these discussions end up on the Blog, members are less likely to seek out input from the membership as a whole, and members are less likely to respond to the topic of discussion. The members expect and are entitled to privacy within the private membership of the List Serv.

But, you just don't get that. And please spare us (the readers) of you "pat" response that explains how you are not a member and that someone emailed you the string of emails. Save it for someone like Donald Trump who would be the only one with an IQ so low that they would believe that line from you.

You are wrong for publicly airing these emails and the topic and you are hurting the membership as a whole in other possible future important discussions.

FACDL Board Member

Tuesday, February 05, 2019 2:39:00 PM

And Rumpole, responded thusly: 

Rumpole said...

Well FACDL board member, I see your point. There is NOTHING I see in the emails that contains any warning that the emails are private. I think when you send an email to a listserv you lose the right to complain.
On the other hand you are correct the listserv is apparently used for discussions that are private in which attorneys are seeking advice and that my publication of them could have a chilling effect which is why I do not normally do so, although I am not sparing you by telling you I get at least two emails a week from your members asking me to print some email exchange.

I think what I did here does not have a chilling effect. Your members will find other media outlets if not my blog (The Herald anyone) so I am at a loss here as to what to do.

Tuesday, February 05, 2019 8:07:00 PM

We live in a (semi) democracy. Let's take a vote:

1) The FACDL should hire Robert Muller to investigate Rumpole and establish a link between Russia, Rumpole, Wikipedia, The Tri-lateral Commission, the Infield Fly Rule,  and FACDL emails...

OR

2) Leave Rumpole be! If you write an email to the listserv, and one of your members rats you out, you have no right (write) to complain.

As to the Board member's invective that only POTUS would believe we are not on the listserv, we can find no better authority than Groucho Marx to respond: "We would not care to be a member of any club that would have us." 
So there.
Plus- what about the Sunshine law? What's FACDL hiding? Fake news? Collusion with the PBA?

From Occupied Miami, Fight the Power, and Publish/don't publish the emails?