Explains shift in “goals”.
You may need some dramamine before reading it – it could make you dizzy from the spin. A new legal director with no litigation experience, for one…
h/t to SS
Comments on this Entry:
(Jules on
Feb 22, 2008 11:46 AM)
Oh good grief….
Just the other day I was “told” what a great job they were doing at the capitol, and I was like whhhaaaaat? When I asked a few too many questions they finally admitted it wasn’t the GA Capitol but Trenton NJ!
The “hard work” was on the NJ Death Penalty Abolition, which BTW is good news, but seriously lets NOT confuse a progressive legislature like NJ with what’s going on in the cage match under the gold dome.
My God we’re the Hatfield and McCoys over a survey dispute from the 1880’s and coming up on Confederate appreciation month. I feel like I live in GA of the 1940’s not 2008.
Yeah um ok…best of luck with your new model. Sounds to me like they cleared the NC office out and sent them here.
(Jen B. on
Feb 22, 2008 11:55 AM)
When I saw that in the Daily Report this morning, I LOL’d so hard.
Good to know that 2.5 years outta law school, I have more litigation experience than the LEGAL DIRECTOR of the ACLU.
(innerredneckexposed on
Feb 22, 2008 12:10 PM)
and even better to know that 0.0 years outta LS and with no degree period i still have more litigation experience than the legal dir. of the ACLU.
(Tony on
Feb 22, 2008 1:23 PM)
fwiw: The ACLU has a long history of using cooperating attorneys (from outside law firms) in the past, even when it had a robust legal department. In some cases — but certainly not all cases — the cooperating attorneys were given considerable leeway in deciding the course of the actions they managed with the ACLU. The ACLU attorneys were always, of course, an important resource for the cooperating attorneys. And, the cooperating attorneys have always been an important resource for the ACLU. In fact, I have no doubt cooperating attorneys have competently handled many important pieces of litigation for the ACLU, as some of them are among the most seasoned litigators in the state.
I know that Gerry, Maggie and the rest of the staff served important roles within the ACLU and that the organization benefited tremendously from having them on the payroll (and would have continued to benefit by keeping them). But, I don’t think this change necessarily spells a complete end to the ACLU’s ability to use the court as a means to defend our rights.
Well, that was my post for ‘08. Keep up the good work, and I’ll keep trolling.
(CatherineAtlanta on
Feb 22, 2008 1:35 PM)
Tony, thanks for commenting! Of course, you’re right that the ACLU of Georgia can continue to fight for the important issues. Among other things, I think this concern, as expressed in the article is valid:
Weber also was skeptical. In addition to working with local volunteer lawyers, he noted that when he was at the ACLU, he often helped volunteer lawyers working with affiliates in other parts of the country. “But the question is, do lawyers at other affiliates have time at that particular moment?” he said.
In an e-mail message, he mentioned another issue raised by the ACLU’s new model: “There are many controversial cases that, as a practical matter, firms (large ones in particular) shy away from. For those, having in-house staff to litigate is key.”
(Tony on
Feb 22, 2008 1:50 PM)
Duly noted. I wasn’t advocating that this is a better system (for the record, I don’t think it is better), and Gerry certainly would know better than I if it wasn’t. But, I would be surprised if the ACLU leadership — locally and nationally — wasn’t thinking about those issues and figuring out ways to ensure it defends the cases where it should. I also hope that they would be responsive in making corrective measures if this system didn’t work.
In sum, I don’t think it is doom and gloom . . . but, working for two companies that were reorganized (read: downsized) without devastating results may flavor my opinion. Being a cooperating attorney may also flavor my opinion.
Catherine, I thought the moderators were supposed to harass new commenters on this site, especially when they offer a different perspective?
(chris on
Feb 22, 2008 2:02 PM)
Well, in those cases you may not get anyone from Sutherland or McKenna, but what about the Bondurant types out there?
For political consulting you guys often advocate some form of what the ACLU is doing, ie parties/candidates don’t need to pay someone to do X when a volunteer from the private sector who does X for a living could do it for free…
I also think a certain breed of lawyer does not want to shy away from this kind of stuff, even if they work at a big law firm. Big law firms have relatively liberal partners these days who might actually encourage that stuff.
(CatherineAtlanta on
Feb 22, 2008 2:13 PM)
Well, I’m sorry that it may sometimes seem that way. We tend to be a snarky and outspoken bunch.
Because the ACLU is near and dear to my heart I welcome the perspective that it may not be so bad as it looks.
(Jules on
Feb 22, 2008 2:18 PM)
I miss Maggie
(CatherineAtlanta on
Feb 22, 2008 2:28 PM)
The ACLU has benefited from pro-bono services by local attorneys all along. However, I think Mr Weber makes an excellent point in the article linked above that having an experienced litigator to follow-up, track, and be the point person for the ACLU may allow and encourage busy attorneys to provide their services.
I miss Maggie too, BTW.
(innerredneckexposed on
Feb 22, 2008 2:36 PM)
I miss Roy Barnes.
(Tony on
Feb 22, 2008 2:48 PM)
I miss nineties Bill Clinton.
Also, I don’t think you guys are as snarky and outspoken as you are passionate.
(PaulaG on
Feb 22, 2008 2:54 PM)
Would you want a medical malpractice attorney to represent you in your divorce case? One of the huge downsides of exclusively outsourcing to pro bono attorneys is that many of these cases require very specific kinds of legal expertise. Even a very enthusiastic private lawyer will often not be as effective as a dedicated civil liberties specialist.
(Tony on
Feb 22, 2008 3:26 PM)
There are numerous attorneys a scattered among many firms who regularly cooperate with the ACLU. While each individually clearly lacks the depth that a specialist would have on all matters relating to civil liberties, they have each developed specialties themselves on the matters they have handled. They will continue to lend that expertise to the ACLU’s matters, and I am sure the ACLU will take that experience into account in deciding which attorneys to work with on a given case.
Additionally, firms devote substantial time and resources (many people working many hours) to these matters. I can’t speak for every firm and every matter ever handled, but I do know that private attorneys have been more than capable in the past of developing the required expertise to handle the matters assigned to them, in some instances requiring minimal direction from the ACLU staff. I don’t expect this to change.
Like I said, not having staff attorneys certainly is a loss to the cooperating attorneys. But, I think the ACLU selects private attorneys for matters based on a fair estimation that they can handle the case (as they have historically). I hope their success continues.
(Tony on
Feb 22, 2008 3:32 PM)
And to make sure I answered the quetion, no I wouldn’t want a med mal attorney representing me in my divorce case.
But, would I want a private cooperating attorney to respresent me in my civil liberties case? Based on their historical performance, yes. From what I have seen, they take great measures to ensure effective representation.
(Decaturguy on
Feb 23, 2008 8:01 AM)
Sounds like a complete disaster if you ask me. But that is nothing new for this organiation, particularly over the last year or so. My prediction: look for some new changes in about 6-9 months.
(JerryT on
Feb 23, 2008 8:43 AM)
Having a staff attorney or two doesn’t preclude them from doing anything in their new model. All it does is reduce their options.
Total disaster. I agree- more changes to come in about 6 months.
(BEZERKO on
Feb 23, 2008 11:50 AM)
I forgot about Maggie going to work in D.C. with Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. I wonder how it’s going for her. It’s unfortunate she had to leave Atlanta, but it’s great that she’s working for such a noble cause. Atlanta’s loss is the atheist community’s gain.
Example of the fine work of AU
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8313&abbr=cs_
(JerryT on
Feb 24, 2008 10:41 AM)
While I’m sure that atheists gain from AU’s work, they are also are effective at trying to keep government out of religion and religion out of government. I hope many people of faith recognize AU’s work on their behalf, even though it seems the most vocal religious people are intent on inserting their faith into government. I think we got a glimpse of the danger to their faith when we see Christian organizations denying global warming, presumably because it suits their bed-mates in politics.
(innerredneckexposed on
Feb 24, 2008 11:38 AM)
im sure a joke is to be found along the lines of atheists won’t gain anything because they don’t have beliefs or something.
(odinseye2k on
Feb 24, 2008 1:46 PM)
“For political consulting you guys often advocate some form of what the ACLU is doing, ie parties/candidates don’t need to pay someone to do X when a volunteer from the private sector who does X for a living could do it for free…”
I think it’s much easier to prove that the effort of lawyers has something to do with the outcome of their practice. Law’s a pretty well understood field.
Political consulting on the other hand … the better paid they are, the worse they seem to do.
Hell, a cognitive scientist from Emory is making more sense on that front than a guy that supposedly does this for a living (Penn).
Share This
Random Posts
