NFL Appeal oral arguments thread

[PatsWSB47]

No. Every lawyer has an ethical obligation of candor before the tribunal. That means you can be brought before the court and subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including disbarment. I haven't seen it done other than with briefs, but I suspect a motion could be filed for sanctions from the court as well. What you cannot do is interrupt the argument and/or cut off a judge on the panel to say the other guy is deceiving the court.

well you not seeing it done is anecdotal but if its not done much then its a rather hollow ethical obligation. In the Brady case the lies are repeated from the first case and they were exposed for that. Now they repeat them. Apparently they measured it an acceptable risk. If they get away with it I'll have to conclude that its indeed hollow

 

[MassPats38]

well you not seeing it done is anecdotal but if its not done much then its a rather hollow ethical obligation. In the Brady case the lies are repeated from the first case and they were exposed for that. Now they repeat them. Apparently they measured it an acceptable risk. If they get away with it I'll have to conclude that its indeed hollow

Those are two possibilities. Typically ethical issues are raised to committees (those do happen regularly, usually with the other side filing the complaint). Sanctions would be requested from the court itself as a result of misconduct in the proceeding. I have not personally seen a motion for sanctions based on conduct in oral argument (I have based on written misrepresentations in written briefs filed with the court), but I assume they could happen.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Those are two possibilities. Typically ethical issues are raised to committees (those do happen regularly, usually with the other side filing the complaint). Sanctions would be requested from the court itself as a result of misconduct in the proceeding. I have not personally seen a motion for sanctions based on conduct in oral argument (I have based on written misrepresentations in written briefs filed with the court), but I assume they could happen.

Do you think its called for..sanctions based on the blatent lies in this particular case?

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

Do you think its called for..sanctions based on the blatent lies in this particular case?

In practice, lawyers very rarely ask the court for sanction against other lawyers. At least that's how it is in NY.

 

[Ring 6]

Well at least it should.

Unfortunately Goodell has claimed he can do whatever he wants under article 46, and Kraft is perfectly happy to roll over for the good of the 31.

He couldn't take away picks and suspend Brady if the wells report was honest and concluded nothing happened but science.

 

[flasox27]

Don't be too sure. With the POS and his henchmen, the Pats are always guilty. Wells was given a conclusion and asked to find or make up evidence. This is the opposite of the Rice whitewash in which the investigator was told to find nothing.

 

[Nehalem]

He couldn't take away picks and suspend Brady if the wells report was honest and concluded nothing happened but science.

He fined the Jets a measly $100,000 for tampering and took away multiple draft picks from KC for tampering. Seems pretty clear he can do whatever he wants regardless of the facts.

 

[PatsWSB47]

In practice, lawyers very rarely ask the court for sanction against other lawyers. At least that's how it is in NY.

So it sounds like in practice lawyers can say whatever they want because other lawyers won't actually ask for sanctions. Why did you tell me they won't lie because they can be brought up for discipline, sanctions or disbarment when in practice it isn't done or is rarely done? I'm not picking a fight with you but when the most blatent obvious lies are told and everyone then just let's it ride then these ethical standards you speak of are a joke

 

[Calhoun44]

So it sounds like in practice lawyers can say whatever they want because other lawyers won't actually ask for sanctions. Why did you tell me they won't lie because they can be brought up for discipline, sanctions or disbarment when in practice it isn't done or is rarely done? I'm not picking a fight with you but when the most blatent obvious lies are told and everyone then just let's it ride then these ethical standards you speak of are a joke

Learning about how the courts work is getting even more depressing. I just want my illusion of justice to still exist. Damn it, football is supposed to be where I go to hide away from real life problems.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

So it sounds like in practice lawyers can say whatever they want because other lawyers won't actually ask for sanctions. Why did you tell me they won't lie because they can be brought up for discipline, sanctions or disbarment when in practice it isn't done or is rarely done? I'm not picking a fight with you but when the most blatent obvious lies are told and everyone then just let's it ride then these ethical standards you speak of are a joke

Did I say that?

The wiser policy is to practice ethically so you can't be attacked in case you make powerful enemies (that may not stop them from trying anyway).

The NY Disciplinary Committee is a complete joke. I once reported a law firm that was stealing money from clients. I had irrefutable proof. They weren't interested.

Lawyers generally don't make complaints against other lawyers because (1) it's too easy for the lawyer to weasel out of it; (2) the people charged with overseeing attorney conduct won't care and may question your motives for complaining; and (3) you'll be know as a "rat" among your colleagues.

Let's face reality. The system is broken. At least in NY it is.

 

[upstater1]

Did I say that?

The wiser policy is to practice ethically so you can't be attacked in case you make powerful enemies (that may not stop them from trying anyway).

The NY Disciplinary Committee is a complete joke. I once reported a law firm that was stealing money from clients. I had irrefutable proof. They weren't interested.

Lawyers generally don't make complaints against other lawyers because (1) it's too easy for the lawyer to weasel out of it; (2) the people charged with overseeing attorney conduct won't care and may question your motives for complaining; and (3) you'll be know as a "rat" among your colleagues.

Let's face reality. The system is broken. At least in NY it is.

This basically means $$$ rules. Hire the top dog because he wont be challenged. And the top dog works for $$$ clients.

 

[MassPats38]

Do you think its called for..sanctions based on the blatent lies in this particular case?

I think the SI article here offers some fairly compelling reasons why there might be problems with such a motion. I won't repeat them, as he does a fairly good job of spelling them out.

As a practical matter, good appellate advocates know that Brady's actual statements are a part of the appellate record. Those are the actual facts (as is Rog's ridiculous conclusion mischaracterizing those facts). Filing motions like this do not win appeals, but as Scalia wrote in his book on appellate advocacy the advocate should aspire to be liked as judges do feel better about decisions when they help the "good guy." Throwing rocks at opposing counsel, when the result is a fee award, may play a part in effect winning a battle, losing the war as it paints the complaining party as a drama queen and potentially unnecessarily papers the docket for judges who are acquainted with the appellate record and were actually there at argument.

This is not to say the judges will rule against Brady because of a decision to file a motion for sanctions, but when decisions turn on interpretations of law that are not set in stone, one for and one against the argument, much goes into the ultimate decision and these highly paid advocates know that reality.

 

[XLIX]

So it sounds like in practice lawyers can say whatever they want because other lawyers won't actually ask for sanctions. Why did you tell me they won't lie because they can be brought up for discipline, sanctions or disbarment when in practice it isn't done or is rarely done? I'm not picking a fight with you but when the most blatent obvious lies are told and everyone then just let's it ride then these ethical standards you speak of are a joke

It is, by its very nature, a dishonest trade. I don't even care if he himself gets sanctioned, but I sure hope it sways one of the judges away from the NFL and to Brady's side.

 

[PatsWSB47]

Did I say that?

The wiser policy is to practice ethically so you can't be attacked in case you make powerful enemies (that may not stop them from trying anyway).

The NY Disciplinary Committee is a complete joke. I once reported a law firm that was stealing money from clients. I had irrefutable proof. They weren't interested.

Lawyers generally don't make complaints against other lawyers because (1) it's too easy for the lawyer to weasel out of it; (2) the people charged with overseeing attorney conduct won't care and may question your motives for complaining; and (3) you'll be know as a "rat" among your colleagues.

Let's face reality. The system is broken. At least in NY it is.

My mistake, MassPats38 said lawyers don't lie because breaking thos ethical standards would mean discipline and sanctions...then he said that those penalties dont actually happen or he hasn't seen them happen. Now I see that's because bringing it up backfires on you for doing it. Lawyers and judges deserve their ****ty reputation. Bunch of hypocites.

 

[MassPats38]

My mistake, MassPats38 said lawyers don't lie because breaking thos ethical standards would mean discipline and sanctions...then he said that those penalties dont actually happen or he hasn't seen them happen. Now I see that's because bringing it up backfires on you for doing it. Lawyers and judges deserve their ****ty reputation. Bunch of hypocites.

I have no idea of what the specific background of YOUGOTMOSSED is. Generalizing any profession - lawyers, doctors, police, military or otherwise (with their own ethical/professional standards) - is ridiculous and ignorant. If you spend any time on this planet, then understand there are good and bad people, honorable and dishonorable, in every profession (including your own, if you have a profession). I have seen all types in actual practice in real courts. If you haven't met these people in fashioning some generalization, then I would suggest you keep your opinion to yourself because you sound completely clueless. Travel a bit and learn professions are not honorable by nature. The people who work those professions earn the right to call themselves honorable by how they conduct themselves every day. There endeth the lesson of the day.

I have worked for federal judges in the Second Circuit and Fifth Circuit (those encompass multiple states, not just some single court in NY). I have seen the disciplinary committees and the results. The rules are in place, and are enforced (happy to provide links for those google challenged souls who cannot find the published information from many state and federal courts). I have no clue what this State NY "broken system" is, because I have no context for his background or experience in making that claim. YOUGOTMOSSED cites 1 complaint and states nothing happened, then offers theories as to why that system doesn't work. I would submit that is a pretty small sample size for such a sweeping generalization.

And for the record, I stated in my reply to you, with reference to the actual ethical standard (candor), that there are penalties for dishonesty to courts, both license (rules of professional responsibility) and money (court sanctions). You asked me about the specific argument in Brady's case, and I explained why that would be challenging under the facts of this case and specific to a court order. As stated also, violations of professional responsibility are raised to committees, not courts, and have no bearing on the decision in court. I never stated that could not be done because that was not what you asked me to explain.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I have no idea of what the specific background of YOUGOTMOSSED is. Generalizing any profession - lawyers, doctors, police, military or otherwise (with their own ethical/professional standards) - is ridiculous and ignorant. If you spend any time on this planet, then understand there are good and bad people, honorable and dishonorable, in every profession (including your own, if you have a profession). I have seen all types in actual practice in real courts. If you haven't met these people in fashioning some generalization, then I would suggest you keep your opinion to yourself because you sound completely clueless. Travel a bit and learn professions are not honorable by nature. The people who work those professions earn the right to call themselves honorable by how they conduct themselves every day. There endeth the lesson of the day.

I have worked for federal judges in the Second Circuit and Fifth Circuit (those encompass multiple states, not just some single court in NY). I have seen the disciplinary committees and the results. The rules are in place, and are enforced (happy to provide links for those google challenged souls who cannot find the published information from many state and federal courts). I have no clue what this State NY "broken system" is, because I have no context for his background or experience in making that claim. YOUGOTMOSSED cites 1 complaint and states nothing happened, then offers theories as to why that system doesn't work. I would submit that is a pretty small sample size for such a sweeping generalization.

And for the record, I stated in my reply to you, with reference to the actual ethical standard (candor), that there are penalties for dishonesty to courts, both license (rules of professional responsibility) and money (court sanctions). You asked me about the specific argument in Brady's case, and I explained why that would be challenging under the facts of this case and specific to a court order. As stated also, violations of professional responsibility are raised to committees, not courts, and have no bearing on the decision in court. I never stated that could not be done because that was not what you asked me to explain.

I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you. Maybe legal speak is different than layman speak but to me what Clement said in court shows no ethical candor at all. The lie was exposed in the first appeal and it was blatantly repeated in the second appeal. He gets away with it because he knows any discipline is unlikely because its challenging for anyone to successfully get him? If he can say Brady didn't say something he actually on record did say then how much of a leap is it to say he admitted to putting a needle in the balls when he never did? what's the difference? Both are lies according to the official records, right? I don't get it.

 

[Ring 6]

He fined the Jets a measly $100,000 for tampering and took away multiple draft picks from KC for tampering. Seems pretty clear he can do whatever he wants regardless of the facts.

Are you seriously telling me that if the wells report found the deflation was solely due to weather that the patriots and Brady would have been penalized?

 

[Ring 6]

Don't be too sure. With the POS and his henchmen, the Pats are always guilty. Wells was given a conclusion and asked to find or make up evidence. This is the opposite of the Rice whitewash in which the investigator was told to find nothing.

I understand that but if wells found no guilt goodell could not have penalized the patriots.
Perhaps you want to blame goodell for hiring wells so he would fake the report but that still means wells has to fake it.

 

[YOUGOTMOSSED]

My mistake, MassPats38 said lawyers don't lie because breaking thos ethical standards would mean discipline and sanctions...then he said that those penalties dont actually happen or he hasn't seen them happen. Now I see that's because bringing it up backfires on you for doing it. Lawyers and judges deserve their ****ty reputation. Bunch of hypocites.

I wouldn't go that far. There are some good ones out there swimming upsteam in a dysfunctional system.

 

[PatsWSB47]

I wouldn't go that far. There are some good ones out there swimming upsteam in a dysfunctional system.

That's fair. I shouldn't stereotype. I don't like it when others do it so that applies to me as well.