I'm getting the impression it's not easy to disbar somebody and takes *forever*.
Which is probably a good thing as you're taking away somebody's livelihood, but I agree it seems like it's taken too long in this rather obviously deserving case.
The justice system takes away people's livelihoods all the time with unconscionable rapidity so i really don't have a lot of sympathy for that argument
That means there should be more protections for everyone, not less protections for lawyers.
Either way, Giuliani deserves to be disbarred everywhere and have to find some other job. And hopefully not politics again.
Ok well when we have those I'll say its ok for us to be loosey goosey as a society with lawyers but until then I think the only reasonable way to counterbalance the extreme harm lawyers can do to people is to make them accountable to an extremely rigid code of professional ethics.
My honest assumption was that a core rationale behind professional accreditation for lawyers, doctors, engineers etc. was precisely that it is important to prevent them from using their positions to do harm, so you need a more responsive body to remove them from their work than the legal system
A huge part of the reason i hate cops as an institution is that they either drag their feet or flat out refuse to allow any cop to come to any level of accountability for misconduct.
Lawyers are sort of by nature called to do lots of extremely unpopular things on behalf of their clients, so the bar for the bar to disbar them just because of public outcry has to be pretty darn _firm_. But unfortunately, many bars have confused that with making the bar _high_. Two different things
Yeah I mean no one is saying that lawyers should be disbarred just because of public outcry. All I'm saying is that we should make it a priority to investigate and once we determined that an ethical lapse occurred, shitcan them so fast their heads spin
If they did that, so many judges & prosecutors would be out on their ass in a heartbeat, but then state bars would lose their legitimacy & influence, which they derive primarily from money & political power first, professional consistency second. It like a union & a monopoly both.
From who? The people who ultimately practically decide its legitimacy are all members of the bar: non-lawyers don't get a say in it. It has de facto legal authority but not really any public accountability. It's not great system, but a lot of the alternatives seem worse, tbh.
From the communities lawyers serve???????
Like lawyers dont exist for lawyers they exist for people.
Same as every other profession??
Like if your professional association has no ethical standards why should I trust anyone who is a part of your association??
