quote:

---

Announcing the plan, Giuliani praised his own political courage, predicting "screams and howls," and boasting of how solving problems others found intractable gave him "a great deal of satisfaction." Then he set about casting aside city procedures, taxi regulations, and the Constitution. While Giuliani assured the public, "We are perfectly entitled to do this," his taxi commissioner began to seize cabs, suspend licenses on the spot without any hearing, and revoke the licenses of cabbies found guilty by taxi commission judges. Headlines hailed the mayor for taking on "racist cabbies." For Giuliani, fresh from scandals involving Abner Louima and Amadou Diallou, both black victims of police brutality, it was all good politics.

But even as Giuliani was announcing the plan, his aides were drafting memos questioning the legality of the penalty scheme. This time, there were no public hearings, and the board of the taxi commission was not even consulted. Five hundred drivers had their licenses suspended. Almost 100 had their licenses revoked. Their livelihoods disappeared in a flash.

It took three years from the crackdown for a federal judge to declare the mayor's suspensions of the cabbies' licenses without hearings unconstitutional, in response to a lawsuit in which I represented the drivers. Finally, in 2006, the city agreed to a settlement by which it paid the cabbies it had suspended $7 million in damages. Along the way, the evidence showed that just 15 percent of the alleged refusals to pick up passengers involved race. The vast majority were based on destination.
...
As the Operation Refusal lawsuit progressed, city lawyers hid critical documents, such as the taxi commission's internal penalty guideline and the City Hall staff memos, and persistently fought demands that Giuliani answer questions. Operation Refusal was the work of underlings, they said. He was too busy, they said—never mind that he was now out of office and was making millions as a private citizen consulting and giving speeches. As a former "high public official," the former mayor should be immune, they argued.

Finally, in 2005, after the stonewalling became too egregious to ignore, a federal magistrate judge ordered Giuliani to testify. By this time, Giuliani was gearing up for his presidential campaign. His memory of Operation Refusal was hazy, he testified in a deposition, his tone now subdued. He said he could not even recall whether the plan was his idea.

All told, Giuliani testified that he could not recall 88 separate times. It was the kind of performance the once-crusading prosecutor would have mocked and derided. Except now, he was the one giving it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by advice for robots:
I'd say it's easier to say "The buck stops here" once you're seated in the Oval Office. It's the getting there that's the tricky part.

---

The buck stops here... well, it would if I could remember that "buck" happens to be, anyways.
 

---

Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
Another possibility, in the military, a routing slip is called a "buck slip". It will be attached to a document and give the persons, in order, who are to review the document. The last name or address on the buck slip is the person or office with the responsibility to take the action referred to by the underlying document.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Ah, thanks! Now I know.
 

---

Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
 
Why do so many people think he'd be a good president in the first place? Why do people think he'd be better than Ron Paul?
 

---

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
Because he single-handedly kept the country intact during 9/11.
Seriously though, I'm not sure that many people really think Giuliani or Hillary would be good presidents. The media just keeps cycling this buzz that they are going to be the nominees, and it's being taken as fact (which could, in turn, make it fact -_-)
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saephon:
Because he single-handedly kept the country intact during 9/11.
Seriously though, I'm not sure that many people really think Giuliani or Hillary would be good presidents. The media just keeps cycling this buzz that they are going to be the nominees, and it's being taken as fact (which could, in turn, make it fact -_-)

---

quote:

---

To make the bias even worse, the author, Dan Ackman is the lawyer who represented the taxi drivers! Maybe Ackman can't recall that fact? So much for journalistic integrity at Slate...

---

quote:

---

It took three years from the crackdown for a federal judge to declare the mayor's suspensions of the cabbies' licenses without hearings unconstitutional, in response to a lawsuit in which I represented the drivers.

---

quote:

---

Dan Ackman is the lawyer who represented the taxi drivers! Maybe Ackman can't recall that fact? So much for journalistic integrity at Slate...

---

If you're going to use this article as triumphal evidence of Slate not having journalistic integrity you better at least read it carefully to make sure that it is, in fact, guilty of the transgression you accuse it of. Ackman can not only recall that fact but disclosed it clearly in the article.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
If there is an ethical issue, I think it might be more along the lines of Ackman writing a news piece about a case he was in, where there was presumably confidentiality and priviledged information. While he could certainly clear the article with his client, I can't help this feeling that he must know more than he is saying. I don't know. I just don't think lawyering and journalism mix well. It's kind of like how you can't have cameras in courtrooms. There should be a line between the truth as it is sought in the courtroom and truth as it is exposed in the press, because the press is ultimately a marketplace.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
You wouldn't have an issue like this for a standard news outlet like the AP. But this is Slate, and most anything about politics written in it is going to be leftist commentary anyway. So it's just a soundboard for someone who is anti-giuliani in the first place.

I mean, totally, let's look at this article. Is it going to be a solely informational article? No. It's by slate. It's an op ed. And it's doing that thing that other dorky news sources like Newsmax do where they find the worst most abnormal picture possible of the person they're sullying.
 

---

Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
 
The author being who he is, and Slate being what it is, there is certainly a need to control for bias. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that his point isn't valid. After all, New York prosecutors turned governors have historically abused their power for political gain. Spitzer, anyone?
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I think that confidentiality privilege can be waived. If he isn't disclosing anything but what is on the public slate from the court case and -- if anything confidential with his clients -- only if the confidentiality was explicitly waived, it should be okay.

I think. Not my area. (Hey, Dagonee and imogen, can confidentiality be waived?)
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yes, it can be waived, but getting such a waiver requires advising the client to seek independent counsel before signing it. The lawyer would have a conflict of interest concerning the issue of the waiver, so could not provide advice to the client in that regard.

Moreover, if waiving confidentiality will prevent the lawyer from zealously advocating for his client or create a different conflict of interest (such as public opinion, or wanting an article to be more exciting*), he may not disclose even with a waiver.

Any aspect of representation that becomes public is no longer covered by privilege. This has significant consequences for the client.

It can be done, but these waters are fraught with danger.

An attorney writing about a case raises significant ethical issues. However, there's a public benefit to having attorneys write about public justice issues with which they are intimately familiar, so I don't advocate banning such practices. The attorney needs to carefully consider all the consequences, which extend far beyond confidentiality.

I don't see anything in this article that would be confidential information.

*This is why attorneys may not obtain media rights from a client.
 

---