After all the other “wonderful” let’s all bash Bush posts. I figured we needed some even-keeled faire for the rest of us. I am not affiliated with this site in any way. Just heard about it on the radio this morning.
There’s always got to be one soccer hooligan to put a turd in the punch bowl.
wmh
Great article in a politically balanced publication? NOT. As an attorney, I represent a corporation, I do not represent employees of the organization. I cannot assist the employe if there is any chance that the interests of the two parties are going to conflict. I tell the employee that I represent the coporation and that they must seek legal counsel elsewhere. There is no confidential attorney client relationship created and anything they say to me that is beyond the bounds of their employment with the corporation is non-priveleged and subject to discovery. For the employee who may be called before a Grand Jury to testify about something inside the corporation of which the employee may have some information or involvement with, it is sound reasonable practice for the employee to engage legal counsel.
The White House Counsel is a government employee. They work for the people of the United States, not the President or any other employee or elected official. There can be no confidential attorney-client relationship created (as the article noted). The President may be called before the Grand Jury to testify or provide a statement or submit to a deposition regarding the leak of the information. Why is it not reasonable and prudent for the employee to engage legal counsel? Why should we presume he has something to hide if he is following a reasonable and prudent course of practice for ANY employee who cannot avail him or herself of the services of the representative of the employer?
Sorry, the premises of the article is illogical and does not recognize the reality of the world we live in and the ethical requirements and responsibilities of the legal profession.
ars