NFLPA to file grievance for Hernandez' bonus

[IllegalContact]

I don't know, are you suggesting a lawyer has never resigned because of ethical differences? I find that hard to believe.

What I am suggesting is that the players come together and create and vote on their own standards for union membership including some sort of personal conduct policy (other than retired NFL retires which already have such standards). I'm not suggesting they conform to my standards, but rather create a policy so that they at the very least give the appearance that they are taking on some responsibility for this problem among NFL players. To my knowledge many other unions have such language.

except, as I mentioned before, the union is only about applying as much financial leverage for their clients as possible. putting in morals clauses into their charter would only work to compromise their own original goal.

The league hands out discipline.....to have another entity involved from a notion of 'self policing' players sounds noble, but I don't think it could ever work in conjunction with goodell's agenda....over the long haul it would create more problems than it solves

 

[BSR]

except, as I mentioned before, the union is only about applying as much financial leverage for their clients as possible. putting in morals clauses into their charter would only work to compromise their own original goal.

The league hands out discipline.....to have another entity involved from a notion of 'self policing' players sounds noble, but I don't think it could ever work in conjunction with goodell's agenda....over the long haul it would create more problems than it solves

Its a good point about the overlap with Goodell, I'll have to give it more thought.

 

[CPAGuy]

For any posters on here that are lawyers and/or familiar with the Boston Legal market-what kind of money is AH paying his lawyers(I know he's got not one but THREE top lawyers working for him)

 

[MassPats38]

I don't know, are you suggesting a lawyer has never resigned because of ethical differences? I find that hard to believe.

I gave you two ethical definitions. Pick one as I have already explained the significance of each. I am assuming you mean professional ethics, as personal codes are of little consequence. As attorneys know the professional code, your belief is of little consequence as the rules are written for you to review. As stated, once an attorney agrees to represent a client, it takes a lot to get removed from the case. Feel free to read the ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility, if you are having difficulty sleeping, and find the "I don't like this guy" escape clause. You won't. There are also plenty of disciplinary opinions written on conflicts of interest - feel free to read them as well and prove it to yourself. It isn't as easy to end that relationship as you appear to believe it is. Also, once an attorney and client agree to continue on a case or issue, a crisis of conscience is not grounds to escape unless it makes it virtually impossible to do the job. If a lawyer cannot do the job, then he or she should not have agreed to take the case in the first place.

What I am suggesting is that the players come together and create and vote on their own standards for union membership including some sort of personal conduct policy (other than retired NFL retires which already have such standards). I'm not suggesting they conform to my standards, but rather create a policy so that they at the very least give the appearance that they are taking on some responsibility for this problem among NFL players. To my knowledge many other unions have such language.

But your problem isn't with some screening issue prior to joining the NFLPA. It appears to be some after-the-fact approach that allows the union representative to bow out using some sort of rule governing conduct. Will that rule govern uncharged conduct, minor infractions, misdemeanors, felonies, bad felonies, or really bad felonies? The ownership, not the union, is seeking to deny bargained for payment in this case. Your original proposition was that the union pull a no show on that member advocacy. That is action, not an ideal that has no enforcement. The NFLPA can come out now and say it does not like murder. What you appear to want is the player charged with murder to be expelled prior to a conviction, and therefore not receive the bargained for advocacy of the union. Feel free to google that concept and find an instance where a union bails on a member as a result of an adverse action. It would appear to run afoul of the general concept of representative the interests of the protected membership. And who want an advocate that runs when the PR gets bad. Not exactly the sense of security unions were designed to bring to an employee.

 

[Joker]

For any posters on here that are lawyers and/or familiar with the Boston Legal market-what kind of money is AH paying his lawyers(I know he's got not one but THREE top lawyers working for him)

 

[MassPats38]

For any posters on here that are lawyers and/or familiar with the Boston Legal market-what kind of money is AH paying his lawyers(I know he's got not one but THREE top lawyers working for him)

I believe in Boston that could be from $1000 to $1500 per hour for the better firms. The OJ Simpson trial cost approximately $3 to $6 million to defend in 1994 dollars. Two more high profile attorneys on that case, but that is not a bad baseline for this case.

 

[BSR]

I gave you two ethical definitions. Pick one as I have already explained the significance of each. I am assuming you mean professional ethics, as personal codes are of little consequence. As attorneys know the professional code, your belief is of little consequence as the rules are written for you to review. As stated, once an attorney agrees to represent a client, it takes a lot to get removed from the case. Feel free to read the ABA Rules of Professional Responsibility, if you are having difficulty sleeping, and find the "I don't like this guy" escape clause. You won't. There are also plenty of disciplinary opinions written on conflicts of interest - feel free to read them as well and prove it to yourself. It isn't as easy to end that relationship as you appear to believe it is. Also, once an attorney and client agree to continue on a case or issue, a crisis of conscience is not grounds to escape unless it makes it virtually impossible to do the job. If a lawyer cannot do the job, then he or she should not have agreed to take the case in the first place.

The point is it does and has happened especially when they aren't directly involved in an action with the client.

But your problem isn't with some screening issue prior to joining the NFLPA. It appears to be some after-the-fact approach that allows the union representative to bow out using some sort of rule governing conduct. Will that rule govern uncharged conduct, minor infractions, misdemeanors, felonies, bad felonies, or really bad felonies? The ownership, not the union, is seeking to deny bargained for payment in this case. Your original proposition was that the union pull a no show on that member advocacy. That is action, not an ideal that has no enforcement. The NFLPA can come out now and say it does not like murder. What you appear to want is the player charged with murder to be expelled prior to a conviction, and therefore not receive the bargained for advocacy of the union. Feel free to google that concept and find an instance where a union bails on a member as a result of an adverse action. It would appear to run afoul of the general concept of representative the interests of the protected membership. And who want an advocate that runs when the PR gets bad. Not exactly the sense of security unions were designed to bring to an employee.

I think it would be enough if it was after a conviction. As it stands now they still couldn't kick him out as long as he paid his dues (which I find pretty funny). As for a sense of security, as long as it was voted on by the members and they know ahead of time, then what would be the problem with it? Are they really going to worry about their advocacy if one of the stipulations is don't kill anyone on purpose?