tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post8677630337098176786..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: A primer on judicial conflictsRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-6134816572080697092010-03-23T01:17:56.927-05:002010-03-23T01:17:56.927-05:00Approvingly your article helped me very much in my...Approvingly your article helped me very much in my college assignment. Hats high to you dispatch, choice look forward in behalf of more related articles without delay as its one of my favourite topic to read.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-58414167507554758922007-03-12T17:20:00.000-05:002007-03-12T17:20:00.000-05:00Not sure what anon #1 was talking about, but here ...Not sure what anon #1 was talking about, but here is my take, for what it is worth.<BR/><BR/>I am an attorney in a large law firm in Madison. One of my colleagues is related by marriage to a judge (as an "in-law"). While that colleague has a practice area which makes it extremely unlikely that he would ever have anything to do with a case involving a state court, the judge discloses that relationship and offers to recuse herself or hold a hearing in literally every case that involves any attorney from our firm. The judge does that in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict, even though any rational person upon reviewing the facts would recognize that there is no actual conflict. THat notice is required by judicial ethics and general legal ethics (e.g., we would disclose if for some reason the judge did not).<BR/><BR/>Ziegler utterly fails to understand this requirement and has made excuse after excuse for not following it. From your post, I gather you agree that Ziegler had this responsibility, and there is no "gut-test" for this area of ethics. What alarms me as an attorney is that this is a very basic requirement of judges. For Ziegler to not understand that fact makes one wonder what else she does not understand about the law and ethics. Truly scary stuff.<BR/><BR/>On to the next point, which has to do with matters that could impact the economic interests of the judge. As you point out, this rule appears to have a less mandatory character. But if reports are accurate--that Ziegler had $50,000 in stock-- I think that crosses the line into at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. Does she have blinders on such as those established by politicians so that she has no idea where her money is invested? It does not seem so. Then I think it does fall back into at least the appearance of economic interest. And I can tell you that as a lawyer, I want to know if my judge has substantial stock in the entity I am suing. It may or may not impact my decision to ask for a recusal, but I damn sure want to know. <BR/><BR/>Again, the utter failure to consider this a problem shakes me to my legal core. I think we're setting up a situation in which a supreme court justice could be sanctioned by the OLR. In my opinion, Zieglers actions are much worse than her former adversary's Joe Sommers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31324765024945431972007-03-08T06:36:00.000-06:002007-03-08T06:36:00.000-06:00You should be ashamed of yourself if your planning...You should be ashamed of yourself if your planning to white-wash what Judge Ziegler has done. <BR/><BR/>There obviously is a serious problem up in Washington County Courthouse that also affects conservatives. <BR/><BR/>I've been a conservative since you've been inhaling and I am offended that you would think we would want injustice in our courts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com