The FACDL listserv is the place to be these days.
It all started when a well-known raconteur and gadfly "Person W" wrote a post commenting on the public bar suspension of "Person M". *
That was like walking into a crowded bar in a Trump hotel and yelling "Clinton!" or "Russia!".
Dozens of responses ensued. These are actual emails with the names redacted to protect lawyers who will not go on the record about anything.
Person G: "What's the point of sending this other than to embarrass [person M]?
Person C: "Well said [person G]."
Person D: "Gotta agree with [Person W] on this. "She was trying to inform...not embarrass."
Former Judge C: "Does everyone know People Magazine covered my engagement to a Hollywood superstar."
PersonG2: "Is the bar as worried about lawyers who do not fight for their client as lawyers like [Person M] who fight hard for their clients?"
Person B: " A sanction that includes not being able to make a living for any period of time is absolutely out of bounds."
Person R: "[Person M] has won more first degree murder cases than any case most lawyers on here have tried."
Person H: Won Rumpole's heart by quoting Teddy Roosevelt's the Man In The Arena Speech .
Person C: "I trained [Person M] and he's gone way overboard and even yelled at me but then apologized."
President T: "Fake news. Get me [Person M] he's just what I need at Justice."
And on and on it went and it's still going.
Coming next: Why the Governor of Virginia should not resign and other tales from history.
* The litigation from the last time Rumpole publicly identified FACDL listserv members and their emails has not yet been concluded. Injunctions and 57.105 motions have been bandied about, and in abundance of caution, something we are not known for, we are not publicly identifying anyone. However, if the members of FACDL want to keep their communications private, they should stop members from sending the entire email chain to yours truly.
When you see something that is not right, not fair, find a way to get in the way and cause trouble. Congressman John Lewis
JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG
WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL RICHARD E GERSTEIN JUSTICE BUILDING BLOG. THIS BLOG IS DEDICATED TO JUSTICE BUILDING RUMOR, HUMOR, AND A DISCUSSION ABOUT AND BETWEEN THE JUDGES, LAWYERS AND THE DEDICATED SUPPORT STAFF, CLERKS, COURT REPORTERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHO LABOR IN THE WORLD OF MIAMI'S CRIMINAL JUSTICE. POST YOUR COMMENTS, OR SEND RUMPOLE A PRIVATE EMAIL AT HOWARDROARK21@GMAIL.COM. Winner of the prestigious Cushing Left Anterior Descending Artery Award.
8 comments:
Best line is the line about Judge C- made me laugh out loud. Well done Rumpole.
Fun Fact.
$34,894,900 was wagered LEGALLY in NJ on #SBLIII with a total sportsbook payout of $39,469,147. The sportsbooks LOST $4,574,247, per preliminary wagering data from NJ Division of Gaming Enforcement.
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
This is the second time I've heard a retired miami judge is marrying a hollywood actor. Who is the judge and actor?
While Person M may be an excellent attorney, I, who was on the receiving end of his anti-semitsm, am celebrating his suspension.
Dee people talkin bout me on dee facdeeel list ting?
DIS EEEEES BULLSHEEEEEET
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.
You can do nothing wrong in my book!
Post a Comment