OK, I looked up the Kentucky Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys....

[steve2470]

http://www.kybar.org/?page=Rulesprofessional

Of course this is about Kim Davis' attorney, Mr. Roger Gannam. I don't know if the attorney is licensed to practice elsewhere, as well. Someone said earlier that he committed malpractice by advising her to go to jail. Is this covered in these rules ? Thanks in advance.

eta: Matt Staver is one of the other attorneys.

[jberryhill]

1. No, he did not violate the rules

She is engaging in informed civil disobedience for the purpose of setting up a test case.

The thing about counseling clients who are determined to do something illegal is that you can certainly discuss outcomes and options associated with a proposed course of action. What you cannot do is help them cover it up or avoid detection. In other words, you can't be a conspirator in the crime for the purpose of getting away with it. Nobody is trying to get away with anything here, and she issued a statement ahead of time to the effect she had made an informed decision as to how she wanted to proceed.

If you want to start going after the lawyers for Greenpeace, whose activists remained dangling from that bridge in Portland after the judge found them in contempt, then you are welcome to do so. But people who engage in civil disobedience with the intent of testing a legal theory - no matter how ill conceived, but sincerely believed - are entitled to counsel.

A LOT of civil rights cases involve the deliberate and structured violation of laws and court orders. Lawyers often advise such clients on how to conduct themselves so as to best present the legal issue in question.

Civil disobedience is a time honored tactic. As a tactic, it does not guarantee success nor is it the exclusive property of people who are correct.

These people are seeking to establish a rule of law which permits government officials to act on their religious beliefs, regardless of whether such action is consistent with the law. They will fail. However, they do not get the opportunity to try out their argument, absent acting in the way they have.

On the flip side, the rest of society benefits by these "legal theatrics" by having it made clear that government officials must perform their duties in accordance with the law, and cannot discriminate against individuals with whom they have religious disagreements.

There simply is no downside to letting these people do their thing, make their arguments, and lose. That is how the law proceeds.

If you agree that people should have the opportunity to challenge unjust laws in court, then you are going to have to accept the fact that you are not going to get everyone to agree on what is an "unjust law" or even be correct in their opinions. Sorting that out is what courts are for. And by all accounts, this exercise in fail is proceeding splendidly.

[steve2470]

3. thanks for that lengthy explanation

My question was really focused on "advising" her to go to jail (if that's what he did). In a way, advising her to go to jail is complying with the judge's contempt citation, instead of barricading herself in her office and forcing the marshals to come get her. What I am gleaning from your remarks is there is no cause for malpractice.

[jberryhill]

4. "Malpractice" is total bullshit

First off, a malpractice claim would be hers to make, not anyone else's.

The relevant rule of conduct is the one about assisting clients to commit a crime. That's not the same as advising clients who have decided to engage in s criminal course of conduct. Incidentally, violating a court order is not a "crime" per se. The crime here is a misdemeanor failure to perform official duties under KY state law.

But, yes, the entire point here is deliberately not to comply with the court order, in order to be able to appeal the order. This is a preliminary order. There's a whole lawsuit yet to unfold here.

Malpractice would be if her being jailed for contempt came as some kind of surprise that her attorneys did not discuss with her. She gave an interview just the other day in which she said that's what she was prepared to do.

Her attorneys are diligently doing exactly what she wants them to do - represent her in her refusal to issue these licenses.

If being on the wrong side of the argument was some sort of offense, then half of all lawyers will be out of business by the end of the month, and the other half will be next month.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. A closer look at dear ole Matt......Wiki sez:

Staver received his B.A. in theology from Southern Missionary College, his M.A. in Religion from Andrews University,
and his J.D. from the University of Kentucky.

In 2014 Staver was suspected of lying when testifying before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice when questioned on his support of the anti-gay laws in Uganda and Russia.

Liberty Counsel is headed by attorney Mathew D. Staver, who founded the legal ministry with his wife, Anita, in 1989 and currently serves as its chairman. Anita L. Staver, his wife, serves as president of Liberty Counsel. A close partnership exists between Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Liberty Counsel; Staver serves as Liberty University's law school dean. In 2004, Liberty Counsel became affiliated with Liberty University/Falwell Ministries and Liberty Counsel opened an office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Liberty Counsel has been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center


Matt is trying to make his bones on cases like this one.
Univ. of Kentucky is ranked 63rd in list of law schools.
http://www.top-law-schools.com/rankings.html

[Nevernose]

5. 63rd actually isn't terrible

Top third, anyway.