25 Oct 10
Originally posted by utherpendragon"All" applies to "all". US lawyers appearing in foreign courts is fairly routine these days and Rule 8.5 clearly refers to other jurisdictions (without a qualifying "US"😉. The onus should be on sh76 to present some evidence that when the rules stated "all" they meant something else.
That doesnt apply to foreign governments. You're taking it out of context.
25 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay; I'll look through the comments and law reviews. There's probably some discussion of this somewhere.
"All" applies to "all". US lawyers appearing in foreign courts is fairly routine these days and Rule 8.5 clearly refers to other jurisdictions (without a qualifying "US"😉. The onus should be on sh76 to present some evidence that when the rules stated "all" they meant something else.
25 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Comment to Rule 8.5:
Okay; I'll look through the comments and law reviews. There's probably some discussion of this somewhere.
[7] The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in transnational practice, unless international law, treaties or other agreements between competent regulatory authorities in the affected jurisdictions provide otherwise. (Emphasis supplied)
EDIT: That's a Game. Set. Match. moment.
25 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderwhat makes and who judges what is "competent"?
Comment to Rule 8.5:
[7] The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in [b]transnational practice, unless international law, treaties or other agreements between competent regulatory authorities in the affected jurisdictions provide otherwise. (Emphasis supplied)
EDIT: That's a Game. Set. Match. moment.[/b]
25 Oct 10
Originally posted by sh76Sorry, you lose. Read Comment 7.
I'll take that as a
"I have no authority that any of these rules apply to actions of foreign courts"
Edit: MR 8.5 refers to conduct done outside the jurisdiction, not actions in contravention of a foreign court.
Nothing in any of those specify that another jurisdiction includes those outside the United States. Obviously, the rules have to distinguish ...[text shortened]... would have the same effect.
None of the language you cited is relevant to this question.
25 Oct 10
Originally posted by zeeblebotare you saying once you're on a plane the cabin crew makes the laws?
have you ever flown on an airplane? modern public jet transport?
doing anything the cabin crew tells you not to do is illegal.
why would she need to serve herself, unless the crew had already refused her?
do you know how ridiculous this sounds?
25 Oct 10
Originally posted by PalynkaThat's what courts are for. But apparently some US citizens and even lawyers think that foreign courts should be ignored and their orders disobeyed with impunity.
So...
...have you guys already concluded that in that article there's not enough information to properly judge who is right?
25 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderCongrats on managing to find post facto (with my help) what I was asking if you had when you made the initial assertion - which you plainly did not.
Comment to Rule 8.5:
[7] The choice of law provision applies to lawyers engaged in [b]transnational practice, unless international law, treaties or other agreements between competent regulatory authorities in the affected jurisdictions provide otherwise. (Emphasis supplied)
EDIT: That's a Game. Set. Match. moment.[/b]
The previous comment to that section, prior to recent amendment was:
The choice of law provision is not intended to apply to transnational practice. Choice of law in this context should be the subject of agreements between jurisdictions or of appropriate international law.
...until it was amended a few years ago.
(I'd give you the link, but it's a Lexis link and you'd need a Lexis password to access it anyway.)
So, in essence, what you took for granted (which I did not assert either way, if you'll notice) was in fact that way it was NOT until a few years ago.
You got lucky on that one. Congratulations.
That doesn't change the fact that you made an assertion without having a clue as to whether it was true and then, in response to a request for authority, could do little other than muster some sarcastic comment about my understanding English.
25 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76LMAO!!! Are you sure you even went to law school?
Congrats on managing to find post facto (with my help) what I was asking if you had when you made the initial assertion - which you plainly did not.
The previous comment to that section, prior to recent amendment was:
[quote]The choice of law provision is not intended to apply to transnational practice. Choice of law in this context should be the subject y, could do little other than muster some sarcastic comment about my understanding English.
That the choice of law provision was in the past subject to "agreements between jurisdictions or of appropriate international law" does not mean misconduct in a foreign jurisdiction was not subject to discipline. It merely means that the disciplinary rules to be followed would be, in the absence of said agreements, be those of the home jurisdiction. But since it is misconduct to disobey or counsel a client to disobey a court order in NY, it would still be misconduct for a NY lawyer to disobey or counsel a client to disobey a Brazilian court order. That's what the first sentence of 8.5 says.
Any time you need more help, let me know, but I might have to send you a bill if I keep having to teach you such basic principles of ethical behavior.
25 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, so you:
LMAO!!! Are you sure you even went to law school?
That the choice of law provision was in the past subject to "agreements between jurisdictions or of appropriate international law" does not mean misconduct in a foreign jurisdiction was not subject to discipline. It merely means that the disciplinary rules to be followed would be, in the ab e to send you a bill if I keep having to teach you such basic principles of ethical behavior.
1) Used a comment to prove your point; and then
2) Argued that the negation of that same comment is irrelevant.
I'm quite sure I went to law school; but I'm not sure you attended high school Logic.
As for billing me, I'm not a miscreant so I doubt I'll ever be in need of your professional services.
If you want an estate plan, though, you can PM me.