One of the notable features of the early months of the Trump 2.0 administration is the sheer brazenness of so many of his actions, relative to the baseline of what we’ve all grown accustomed to thinking is normal.
Brad, you opine on a remarkably timely topic. While attorney ethics/discipline has long been a near-dormant subject—in my view, though a bit more visible since January 6—it is of critical importance in the age of Trump’s Executive Orders. Your piece gets to the heart of the matter in examining the role of lawyers in the drafting and review of EOs.
It's an excellent analysis, although I do take some issue with your view when it comes to John Eastman. While you suggest that his is a hard case, it seems to me that an “out-there” case acknowledged as such by its proponent violates the “good faith” standard of Rule 3.1. I’m a believer in the rule of law (and now worry for its survival), and I’m also a believer in the rule of reason and common sense.
Brad, you opine on a remarkably timely topic. While attorney ethics/discipline has long been a near-dormant subject—in my view, though a bit more visible since January 6—it is of critical importance in the age of Trump’s Executive Orders. Your piece gets to the heart of the matter in examining the role of lawyers in the drafting and review of EOs.
It's an excellent analysis, although I do take some issue with your view when it comes to John Eastman. While you suggest that his is a hard case, it seems to me that an “out-there” case acknowledged as such by its proponent violates the “good faith” standard of Rule 3.1. I’m a believer in the rule of law (and now worry for its survival), and I’m also a believer in the rule of reason and common sense.