Comments on Advance Indiana™: Ethics Schmethics

If I'm a prospective bidder for a contract involvi...

2009-03-24T18:02:00.000-05:00

If I'm a prospective bidder for a contract involving construction for the state or local government I must sign a non-collusion affirmation,IC 5-22-16-6, but as a lawyer per the city council reasoning I don't need to disclose clients who may be doing business with the state or local government. Interesting logic, so the 'logic' is thus, if I'm a lawyer and on the city council everything is privileged because I say so.

To your point, Paul, when Barack Obama served in t...

2009-03-24T07:04:00.000-05:00

To your point, Paul, when Barack Obama served in the Illinois Senate, he worked for a law firm in an "of counsel" capacity that represented clients doing business with the State of Illinois. On his ethics disclosure statement, he listed every one of the firm's clients which did business with the state. There was only one client which really needed to be disclosed because that was the only one Obama himself represented. In the case of that client, Obama served as the firm's "general counsel", even though he didn't provide the overall legal services a general counsel typically provides a business. Instead, Obama used his senate office to secure over a half-million dollars in grant money for the firm. Obama received payments for his work in the amount of $115,000. Neither his work as "general counsel" or the $115,000 payment were disclosed on his economic statement. A sharp newspaper reporter pieced together the facts years after the fact from tax return information. It just goes to show you how specific these disclosure statements must be made in order to give them any teeth. Obama gave the appearance of full disclosure by providing a long list of clients of the firm. In reality, he was covering up a big conflict of interest in the work he was performing directly for a private business using his Senate office to make money.

The Councils' ethics rules can be whatever the Cou...

2009-03-24T06:59:00.000-05:00

The Councils' ethics rules can be whatever the Council thinks they can get by with.

If they aren't called out publicly, then they can (and will) do whatever they darn well please.
You know, the behavior is serial entitlement disorder.

It isn't surprising the Ethics Committee has an et...

2009-03-24T06:28:00.000-05:00

It isn't surprising the Ethics Committee has an ethics problem. The Council has been dysfunctional for years. Sad time when the foxes control the keys to the chicken coop.

Gary, Lutz, Caine and Elrod are flat out wrong. Th...

2009-03-23T23:50:00.000-05:00

Gary, Lutz, Caine and Elrod are flat out wrong. They apparently do not understand what is covered by the attorney-client privilege.

That you represent a particular client is not covered by the attorney-client privilege. Communications between you and that client are covered by attorney-client privilege. But the attorney-client privilege does not extend to prevent you from disclosing WHO you represent.

It should be pointed out that the attorney-client privilege is a privilege of the client and not the attorney.

The Caine/Lutz/Elrod theory would allow a client wanting to do business with the city to hire counselors who are attorneys and then the counselor would have to conceal the attorney's conflict of interest due to this alleged attorney-client privilege. Does that make sense? Of course not.

It's a moot point though. The attorney-client privilege simply does not apply to prevent you from revealing WHO you represent.

Once again, I'm underwhelmed by the quality of the legal advice Bob Elrod has given to the council. I'm still amazed that he apparently did not more closely read the coroner legislation, which would have raised a major red flag regarding whether the statute was intended to apply retroactively to someone who is in office.