tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2800555221998084403.post4745608890245700774..comments2024-03-16T23:25:49.228-07:00Comments on THE LEGAL WATCHDOG: Coloring books, case law, and the Devil’s DictionaryMichael D. Cicchini, MBA, CPA, JDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13734180053800866578noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2800555221998084403.post-72940411829249193782016-01-01T15:35:34.233-08:002016-01-01T15:35:34.233-08:00Mo, this is absolutely bizarre! It's a case o...Mo, this is absolutely bizarre! It's a case of "the law clearly says X, but we'll 'interpret' it to say Y." For example, rule 8.2 and its comment (at least in Wisconsin) ACTUALLY says this: "A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the<br />qualifications or integrity of Michael D. Cicchini, MBA, CPA, JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13734180053800866578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2800555221998084403.post-45406834426632360652016-01-01T14:31:39.797-08:002016-01-01T14:31:39.797-08:00Michael
Great post -- but be on your guard, as you...Michael<br />Great post -- but be on your guard, as you well know, the free speech rights of lawyers are severely constrained -- mustn't shake up public confidence. <br /><br />All the same, check out at least one modest attempt at reform:<br /><br /><br />Margaret Tarkington on, "A Free Speech Right to Impugn Judicial Integrity in Court Proceedings." Abstract: <br /><br /> &Mohttps://lawmrh.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com