|
Even when you go out of your way to pretend it's all about the Weinstein case, you still couldn't manage to completely hide any mention of the misconduct Sullivan was actually fired for, which should be a clear sign of just how severe his misbehavior was. What misbehavior? Well, another Harvard faculty member is facing sexual harassment allegations, and Sullivan publicly spoke out in support of him - while condemning #MeToo as a movement dedicated to false rape charges, and claiming that the accusers were coached. Given that Harvard has faced a number of sexual harassment scandals in recent years, having a faculty member shooting off his mouth about claiming that victims are actually liars who are framing professors isn't a good look, especially when he's also leaking details from the confidential investigation. Given the above, it should be no surprise that the students were uncomfortable with him being in a position of leadership and oversight. His first response was to appoint a "point person" in his residence hall who would hear sexual harassment allegations in his place, but the fact that he felt it necessary to hand off part of his job duties to someone else was just more evidence that he wasn't suitable for that job. Not to mention, of course, Sullivan's long history of troublemaking as a faculty dean, marked by years of bullying and retaliation against underlings, forcing students into doing personal errands for him, threatening people seen as "disloyal" to him, and once driving his subordinates to the point of engaging in an organized labor action against him. When tutors criticized his stance on sexual harassment, he threatened to give them negative performance reviews and made numerous hostile comments. The OP of the thread is unfortunately impossible to discuss as anything more than a hypothetical strawman, because it's simply not true. It's plain to see that Sullivan's long history of inadequacy and misconduct as a faculty dean have far more to do with him losing the dean role than anything he's done as an attorney.
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2019 06:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Are there really that many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include helping rich assholes get away with horrible crimes? Of course there are. Just as there are many lawyers whose career goals explicitly include putting as many poor black people in prison as possible, regardless of their actual guilt. After all, those are the two paths to fame, fortune, and political power for an ambitious lawyer.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2019 17:55
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Can we have a thread rule that we all acknowledge that money grants unequal access to a bunch of things but rehashing that argument is kind of boring so we just accept it as read into the record and focus on other questions? Why shouldn't all criminal defense attorneys be funded by the government? All prosecutors are, after all, and I've never heard of them running into budget problems. If it's impractical, why don't you lay out for us how it's totally practical to pay for the prosecution side of every case but not the defense side of every case, instead of just asserting that it's "problematic" to disagree? And claiming that massively overloaded public defender caseloads are actually good because it means PDs have a lot of experience is one hell of a spin.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Is it immoral to choose the defendant who can pay over the defendant who cannot if they are equally deserving of a defense? If it's just purely a matter of wanting everyone defended out of principle, then why should the lawyer even need to ask about the wealth levels of their potential clients? Though if you think about it, this isn't actually a real choice that anyone would ever have to make. If it's a matter of individual choice, then all the rich clients will be snapped up by the greedy unprincipled lawyers who specialize in defending the rich. And if the principle is enshrined in the system and all defense lawyers become public defenders, then lawyers won't get to pick their clients anyway. Ogmius815 posted:But that doesn’t work outside the very narrow case of criminal defense work. Should we also have a massive system of free civil litigators? I don’t think that’s workable. Why not? I don't see why it wouldn't be workable.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 22:07
|
|
|
Schubalts posted:The point is that "punish a lawyer because ~the community~ doesn't like their clients" doesn't apply only to rich people's lawyers. Doesn't it? I don't think public defenders, who don't get to pick their clients, are worried that ~the community~ will hate them based on who they were assigned to defend.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2019 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:this thread is bizarre because the op and friends are clearly aware the present system is not the end-all-be-all best that can possibly be done. after all, a rich scumbag's scumbag lawyer suffered consequences for his actions, which they are extremely concerned by. but they are still morally opposed to any structures that might give rise to a change in that system. The thread is bizarre because it's a baseless right-wing talking point being used to whitewash the abuses of power committed by a conservative authority figure, distracting the media conversation toward instead trying to prove once and for all that the left are the real amoral villains. That's why the OP seeks to falsely connect Sullivan's firing to his representation of Weinstein, and that's why as soon as that misleading framing was called out, the goalposts quietly shifted from "is it okay to fire lawyers for who they represent" to "is it okay to say mean things about lawyers who represent guilty people".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2019 21:44
|
|