Posted on 06/23/2009 8:58:00 AM PDT by Nachum
The criminal defense lawyer nominated by President Obama to be the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey is declining to identify more than half of his private clients on government forms designed to help the public guard against potential conflicts of interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
The list, ping
And transparent ....
“let them eat ice cream”
Ha ha! They are all democrats and most are in congress.
Well, it’s very hard for a lawyere to find enough blameless clients in Joisey to make a proper living.
I am not now, nor was I ever a lawyer.
:-)
Same song, different verse.
I can hear the thinking already: “Well if I identify everyone, I won’t get the job!”
And that is exactly the point of why they should be identified.
The difference is, this guy was doing white collar criminal defense/government investigations work. I’ve worked at several law firms, and, from my experience, the identity of the white-collar/govt-investigations clients were among the most closely guarded secrets in the firm. Files were under lock & key. Billing records were kept with “codenames” rather than the client’s actual name. Generally, only those lawyers & support staff who were actively working on a matter knew the identity of the client.
All of this makes sense - for a publicly-traded company, in particular, the mere disclosure that the company is being investigated can be devastating.
From my experience, I’m not sure there’s anything nefarious going on here - in some circumstances (this may be one of them), the identity of a client is confidential, and, therefore, disclosing the client’s identity is itself a breach of legal ethics.
I’m not sure the thinking is “Well if I identify everyone, I won’t get the job!”
It might be more along the lines of “If I identify everyone, I might be disbarred”
He wouldn't be an ACORN member would he?
You make very good points. Clients are entitled to confidentiality, and he is obligated to provide it—just as we are entitled to full disclosure from our U.S. Attorney appointees.
Fishman can’t have it both ways. Obligations are obligations. The trust and integrity of the U.S. Justice system is every bit as important as Fishman’s career ladder. He cannot compromise obligations, and neither can we. He is not entitled to be a U.S. Attorney.
If this were an issue of a couple of non-disclosures which would pose unlikely conflicts, ok. But he’s a white collar defense attorney in New Jersey, fercryingoutloud. The nation’s official corruption capitol. Even if it could be somehow guaranteed that he would recuse himself in cases that posed a conflict, he’d be recusing himself every third case. How valuable can a guy like that be, if it’s only raw legal talent at issue? How hard is it to find a qualified, capable person without conflicts? Fishman may have the highest integrity. I don’t know. But the fact that he’s being pushed despite the unacceptable baggage should set off warning bells.
I think you are entirely correct - if he cannot ethically disclose his client list (or even most of it), as a white-collar defense attorney in NJ, he should not be the US Attorney in NJ. I also agree that it is not a wise move to nominate a guy who has a whole bunch of undisclosed clients to a position where he will likely be involved in prosecuting some of those undisclosed clients. I was merely making the point that his failure to disclose this information does not (necessarily) mean that he is an unethical/corrupt lawyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.