Monday, November 19, 2007

kanBARoo Court, 9th Installment, Continued response to critics

Discussion continues at, where I posted this further response in the thread at

My response had nothing to do with the ineradicable nature of Internet publications. As I pointed out, I intentionally admitted a form of managerial negligence, and I quoted from my pleadings to prove that I had admitted the same directly to the Bar. The blog proves no admissions not made in the actual proceeding.

----Poster commentary that I do not reproduce because of denial of permission-------

Since you are not a lawyer, what warrants assuming that you know better than I the potential benefits and perils of hiring a lawyer? No other attorney would consider using the arguments on which I center my defense. In defending myself, I need not worry about my client alleging malpractice for the unconventionality of my approach. Any hired lawyer would have to consider this.

The approach the Bar Defense Establishment takes is to avoid conflict and impress the Bar with the respondent's remorse. Before my case even comes to issue, the Deputy Trial Counsel already complains that I have shown myself remorseless. Experienced California attorneys know the California State Bar is a vindictive claque, and the defense attorneys dedicate themselves to avoiding the State Bar's lasting enmity.

I have nothing to hide, as cannot be said of the California State Bar.

  • If a particular aspect interests you, and you want to hear more, do not hesitate to comment. No registration is required, and I will not censor comments.
  • If you are interested in the story, the legal issues it raises, or its conclusions, keep reading my (at least) thrice-weekly installments.
  • If you like the legal theory, my writing, or want to know more about what services I provide for litigation and trial attorneys, see My Profile.

No comments: