The allegations and admissions of professional misconduct and criminal conduct by the Trump lawyers in these election challenges and other litigation, coupled with examination of their professional profiles, state Rules of Professional Conduct, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, and data on discipline of attorneys suggest that market incentives and structural weaknesses in current legal education and in the practice environment might encourage or, at least, leave ample room for misconduct.
I can tell you’re being facetious, but you’re 100% right. You do, indeed, need to give every benefit of the doubt in our legal process. That is what is meant by “innocent until proven guilty.” They must make it so there is no foothold for appeal. No “well you didn’t tell me…” or “you should have had a firm definition for…” No, if the legal system wants to take someone down, REALLY take them down, they must do it with every ounce of assurance and with no room for doubt that this person explicitly broke a law, in full knowledge and with warning, that they can be convicted to the full extent of said law.
This is looking at lawyers who have already been proven to or admitted misconduct, so none of this really applies.
But while we’re at it - pretty funny how when it’s a question of powerful people being held accountable there’s this “no, we must move more slowly and get this exactly right” nonsense, but when it’s poor people in criminal court judges are all “the fact that the officer’s testimony deviated from their written report in a couple small details isn’t important, let’s move on” and we have to wait a decade for the Innocence Project to come along
You’re absolutely correct, and we should fight to ensure that the law is presented equally to all charges. That doesn’t refute my point. This is the core foundation of British Common Law, that only a sure and clear conviction may be justly carried out. Any doubt leaves injustice as the outcome as sure as you claim it to be so for the poor. If we rewrite the rules or even disregard existing precident on the grounds that “well they wouldn’t be just if it was us at the noose,” then we are pushing for the type of system you (rightfully) claim to be unequally unjust.
The bar association is a private group, not a government organization. They can do whatever they want. They’re a group of lawyers. Why would they be afraid of someone suing them? They live in court.
They don’t want to disbar people who are politically connected. It might lose them business. That’s the answer.