A reporter wrote that she's "working on a story about ethical breeches
of public defenders." It looks as if there could be some serious
ethical problems there.
« The Ethics of Subsidizing Law Schools Part IV and V (Baselines and Benefits) | Main | Daniel Currell & M. Todd Henderson, "Can Lawyers Stay in the Driver's Seat?" »
The comments to this entry are closed.
Perhaps I should add that I had to look it up. The American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.) defines breech as "The lower portion of the human trunk; the buttocks." And breeches in part as "Trousers."
Posted by: Monroe Freedman | January 24, 2013 at 04:49 PM
So it's about attorneys caught with their pants down?!
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | January 24, 2013 at 05:49 PM
What a perfect opportunity to link to this clip about one of my favorite fictional lawyers, Lionel Hutz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faVTL6Sj_2A
Posted by: John Steele | January 24, 2013 at 06:02 PM
Our University student newspaper once reported on our law school's Mute Court program.
Posted by: Rick Underwood | January 24, 2013 at 09:57 PM
It must not have involved any court hearings.
Posted by: Patrick S. O'Donnell | January 24, 2013 at 10:23 PM
The appeals fell on deaf ears.
I'm sorry. That was wrong. Yes?
Posted by: Rick Underwood | January 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM
As I recall the Navajo Nation Courts do not require men to wear breeches. The rules explicitly require traditional native garb or a coat and tie. Expressio exclusio: pants are not required.
Posted by: anon | January 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM