Yesterday, I posted about Holder's representation of Chiquita so I feel somewhat responsible for starting this brouhaha regarding the ethical obligation of an attorney to represent a client.

Today, given your arguments, my opinion has seemed to evolve into one in which the question isn't whether he (Holder) represented Chiquita to the question of HOW he represented them.

If Holder's representation of Chiquita was based upon the law(s) of the country involved, I don't have a problem with that. However, if Holder used his past associations with high ranking US or foreign government officials to secure a settlement favorable to Chiquita, I believe that's a horse of a different color.

Is there any information available which would shed some light on this aspect of the issue?

Oh, new ToD page is up. Link at sig.

@omooex, I wasn't attacking you and I've never criticized your spelling, especially since mine is usually less than stellar. But even if someone did, that isn't an attack on your intelligence, it's a comment on your spelling.

I was answering a question you posed to me. I don't think that a 25 year old attorney should be ashamed of working for an automobile insurer. He was just making a comment about the negative reaction he gets.

I daresay an ACLU attorney (who a majority on this board would "approve" of) gets the same shudder of disgust from a solid majority of people they meet. The ACLU's reputation has been attacked by the RW for so long it has tarnished their reputation, even if that's unfair.

p.s. From what I'm reading, it appears to me that you are feeling ganged up on. You have to remember that GG has been attacked and vilified himself for his representation of a less than popular white supremist. I don't want to mention the name because it seems the nutjobs come out of the woodwork when his name is mentioned and possibly linked to.

I posted your response along with PDA's. I like your work, don't call me an idiot.

In the context of the current judicial system we have, I'd say a) no, b) no, c)no.

I just don't understand how you can consider those activities to be OK (representation of rich child molesters, unions and terrorists) -- not to taint the lawyer -- but consider representation of a rich corporation like Chiquita to be morally suspect.

And I didn't call you an idiot. I said that people who argue that doctors should make moral judgments about patients before deciding whether to extend medical treatment are idiots, though - in light of the disagreement we're having - I probably came closer to calling you an "idiot" than I should have.

You may have answered the question I asked, but I'm going to give you another swing.

Are rich corporations on a separate plane from mother-rapers and father-stabbers, vis á vis their right to representation? Leave compensation out of it for the present.

I know your not attacking me, and I understand what you're saying. My spelling has deteriorated yearly since they invented spellcheck.

I don't have a problem with the defense of the unpopular. I am a member of one of the most maligned sub-groups in the world, and I appreciate the fact that there are always those who are willing to engage the opprobrium to make sure justice is served.

Its the profit motive behind law that makes me uneasy, not the defense of the unpopular.

If I am not mistaken, the US works closely with certain "war lords" in Afghanistan who not only pay lip service to fighting the Tally-ban (when they're not colluding with them), but also make a ton of money in the Opium trade.

So I don't want to wrongly associate bad and illegal behavior solely with the poor banana. There are any number of other produce items--leafy greens like coca, or cut flowers like poppies, that may be involved.

And so, when the US government charges Chiquita with consorting with (paying off) terrorists, while at the same time paying off Sunni tribesmen in Iraq and drug-dealing former taliban war-lords in Afghanistan, I think it is fitting and proper that lawyers get involved.

I know I wrote on another thread that I'd not read any more of GBT's posts, but I had no idea I had such incredible powers of concentration that I could make them literally invisible to my eyes!

=)

Glenn, I know that lawyers can't be (and shouldn't be) LEGALLY judged on the basis of who they've chosen to represent, but surely any individuals not only CAN make such judgements, but inevitably MUST or WILL do so, especially in the most obvious cases? Not all morality and can be codified into law. Isn't this really what omooex is expressing?

It seems to me that it matters how a corporate lawyer behaves, and that can't be confused with the names or crimes of the clients. I know a corporate lawyer who isn't morally qualified to be in any public office higher than penitentiary inmate, I've also met corporate lawyers of the absolute highest integrity.

Mark Falkoff worked for Covington and Burling too. Alberto Mora works for Walmart. Charles Swift works for Perkins Coie. Is he a bad person? [full disclosure, I wrote-in for Alberto Mora for AG on Obama's website.]

If Holder's representation of Chiquita was based upon the law(s) of the country involved, I don't have a problem with that. However, if Holder used his past associations with high ranking US or foreign government officials to secure a settlement favorable to Chiquita, I believe that's a horse of a different color.

I'm not sure how possible it is to draw this distinction. Is there evidence that Holder did anything improper or exerted influence within the DOJ?

The Chiquita agreement with the DOJ was reached in 2007 -- 7 years after Holder last served in the DOJ. How likely is it that Bill Clinton's DAG had real influence, 7 years later, inside the Bush DOJ?

Was Holder's prior position inside the Justice Department a factor in some clients' desire to retain him? Probably. But that is hardly unique to Holder. That is the way of Washington. Obama is surrounded by all sorts of people who made money in the private sector after leaving the Clinton administration.

Rahm Emaneul made $16 million in 3 years after he left at Wasserstein, Perella. Are people going to hire Tom Daschele's lobbyist wife now -- or John Podesta's lobbyist brother (and former lobbying partner) -- because of their influence in the Obama administration? Probably.

If there is evidence that Holder asserted influence over prior subordinates and the like, that would be relevant. But absent that evidence, this looks to me like ordinary lawyering. If you were in trouble with the DOJ, wouldn't you want to hire someone who has an intimate knowledge of how it works?