From the National Law Journal. It is utterly amazing that the client gave him permission to write the book, but the Hearing Board found in an unanimous decision that it “betrayed client confidences!” Can anyone explain all this to me? (Client confidences belong to the client and can be waived with consent.)
And if the attorney didn’t write that book, then people would not be able to read about this story that might be important to them.
What is the point of this suppression of information to the public? Does the public not have a right to know what truly goes on in Washington and with their tax dollars? Do we need this nanny state?
Seems not, according to the Indiana lawyer hearing board.
It is clearly the public that loses when books, blogs and information are suppressed under the guise of “government action.” The Citizens United case clearly says the government is not to interfere with the dissemination of information to the public. The Hillary move, a horrendous and pejorative movie–even according to SCOTUS, involving no less than 4 lawyers spouting all sorts of horrendous trash talk about Hillary Clinton, should have the right to be published, disseminated and paid per view whenever and where ever.
I believe the decision was entirely correct. The government should not be in the business of regulating pejorative movies.
But then again, we’re talking Indiana, and it’s south of 80/90, the line of intolerance.
Let’s see what happens.