What a shame. An end to a great legal career. I can't pass judgement on his faults, crimes, real or accused, but he did leave a very interesting life, and had a fascinating legal career.
A moment for us to all reflect. He defended someone judged harshly by history, to the limits of his abilities.
Then again, the recent multi-part documentary on the trial (I watched on apple's music service) didn't reflect kindly on the defense. They were presented as willing to do nearly anything to get their client off.
On the gripping hand, is this kind of behavior the extremum moment of the adversarial judicial system? Even if we disagree, should we respect F Lee and Johnny because they are the primary exemplars of this adversarial system?
That moment captured in the photo is one of the best captures of that trial I've ever seen.
Looking at that photo with at least two decades more experience dealing with people than I had back then, I now think he demonstrates a bit too much joy if one is to assume that he has just been given what is rightfully his - an acquittal because of actual innocence. If I were just acquitted of anything I didn't do I would be pissed the fuck off.
Does the profession hate him so much for the result of the OJ case that he can't even make money off of TV appearances in the way the likes of Allred and Spence do?
Is that it? if so, what a terrible reporting work.
Apart from a single mention of O.J. being frightened not to talk to him in prison there is no mention of what kind of retaliation he received. There is no attempt to get remarks or opinions from those who apparently retaliated.
It makes no mentions of the reasons why he was disbarred, or why, since he was 60 years old during the O.J. trial and implied to have had a lot of money did he not have enough money left to retire.
Read the Town and Country feature. While I'm dubious about the financial shenanigans that got him disbarred, and it seems they are addressed only in passing, if it's true that he's being kept disbarred purely for having fought this case, unlike anyone else who would be in this situation, then that's a disgusting travesty.
The American compact is that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that all criminals get defence lawyers. It is because you cannot trust the justice system to accuse only innocent men; the state cannot be allowed the power to point at a person and send him to jail for life. It would be one thing to use your right of free association to avoid this man in one's day to day life, and eminently defensible, but for him to be subject to systematic retaliation that destroys his career for doing a good job defending someone controversial and unpopular?
That's not really something I want the state bar association to do. The justice system is already over-incentivized to over-prosecute, over-convict and run roughshod over defendant's rights whenever it can. If they can find an excuse to deprive you of a job for defending OJ, they can find a similar one for (say) defending someone from Black Lives Matter in a court in Alabama.
It is made quite clear in the Town and Country article that he continues to be denied entry to the Maine bar because of his complete lack of remorse or willingness to admit guilt for "mishandling" the client funds. A perfect example of someone who cannot stand to lose an argument even winning imposes a higher cost than losing.
Even if he had not been OJ's lawyer he would have remained disbarred and in fact the only reason anyone knows or cares about him is because of his role in defending that particular murderer.
Seems to me painfully obvious that he isn't being punished for being on the Simpson team, but because he refuses to give disciplinary authorities any reason to believe he recognizes, has learned from, and would not repeat the errors for which he was disbarred.
Even acknowledging the fairly obvious error (if one accepts his account of events) of not having a substantial revision to the documented, signed fee arrangement itself documented and signed would probably go a long way.
If you can't acknowledge that you did the wrong thing (only that you were found the have done so), at least acknowledge the giant slip-up as a lawyer that resulted in you being judged to have done the wrong thing and show you've learned from it, since it's the kind of slip-up that could get your client nailed for wrongdoing that they are innocent of, were you readmitted to practice.
12 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 43.9 ms ] threadThen again, the recent multi-part documentary on the trial (I watched on apple's music service) didn't reflect kindly on the defense. They were presented as willing to do nearly anything to get their client off.
On the gripping hand, is this kind of behavior the extremum moment of the adversarial judicial system? Even if we disagree, should we respect F Lee and Johnny because they are the primary exemplars of this adversarial system?
That moment captured in the photo is one of the best captures of that trial I've ever seen.
Apart from a single mention of O.J. being frightened not to talk to him in prison there is no mention of what kind of retaliation he received. There is no attempt to get remarks or opinions from those who apparently retaliated.
It makes no mentions of the reasons why he was disbarred, or why, since he was 60 years old during the O.J. trial and implied to have had a lot of money did he not have enough money left to retire.
The American compact is that people are innocent until proven guilty, and that all criminals get defence lawyers. It is because you cannot trust the justice system to accuse only innocent men; the state cannot be allowed the power to point at a person and send him to jail for life. It would be one thing to use your right of free association to avoid this man in one's day to day life, and eminently defensible, but for him to be subject to systematic retaliation that destroys his career for doing a good job defending someone controversial and unpopular?
That's not really something I want the state bar association to do. The justice system is already over-incentivized to over-prosecute, over-convict and run roughshod over defendant's rights whenever it can. If they can find an excuse to deprive you of a job for defending OJ, they can find a similar one for (say) defending someone from Black Lives Matter in a court in Alabama.
Even if he had not been OJ's lawyer he would have remained disbarred and in fact the only reason anyone knows or cares about him is because of his role in defending that particular murderer.
Even acknowledging the fairly obvious error (if one accepts his account of events) of not having a substantial revision to the documented, signed fee arrangement itself documented and signed would probably go a long way.
If you can't acknowledge that you did the wrong thing (only that you were found the have done so), at least acknowledge the giant slip-up as a lawyer that resulted in you being judged to have done the wrong thing and show you've learned from it, since it's the kind of slip-up that could get your client nailed for wrongdoing that they are innocent of, were you readmitted to practice.