Quote:
Originally Posted by bimmertl
"The3 Attorney General - who is supposed to be the top lw enforcement officer for the nation - comes from the law firm representing several Gitmo detainees, and these are ongoing cases."
Holder's law firm has over 600 attorneys. In addition, many of the Gitmo defendants are represented by US military officers who have called the proceeding a sham. You can do the research, but I bet the US military currently represents, and has represented, more Gitmo detainees than Holders law firm. So I guess the Pentagon, and officers such as Lt Cmdr Kuebler, must also be of questionable character?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/19gitmo.html |
It's a matter of ethics, not of "questionable character".
If an attorney is a member of a firm which has represented Client X, the attorney must be able to show that s/he has been 100% isolated from any contact with the case file, preparation, discussion, strategy, etc. before the attorney can represent the opposing party against Client X, and that still is often insufficient. All of that is to protect Client X's right to counsel and confidentiality. Also, Client X must agree to waiver the attorney's subsequent representation in the matter.
For a member of the DC Bar, the DC Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct apply (
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/eth...ules/index.cfm), and Rules 1.6 through 1.11 get into the attorney-client relationship.
I find it curious how AG Holder is going to ethically represent the US' interests regarding Gitmo detainees when his firm (of which he was a senior partner) represented Gitmo detainees. Any AG-level decision cannot help but be questionably tainted against one of the parties.