Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

If KHarvey16 clears my firm of any wrong doing in a 100 million dollar law suit, and a few days later he's seen laughing it up with me at my super swank party then yeah people will think it was fishy as fuck, as they should.

People can act like its normal all they want, but the judge should have politely declined, especially since he just ruled on the damn case of the man's party he is now going to attend with all those really wealthy and influential people.

Hell at my job, if anything even looks close to fishy when it comes to gifts, lunches, dinners, i have to run it all through HR to protect my ass and make sure no lawsuits or any kind of bias could be said I showed. It's how its done. I guess unless you're a federal judge and a super rich football owner.

Your party? Your firm? Your facts, and therefore your analogy, are wrong.

You're not paying attention, and the author of the article was banking on it. People are tripping over themselves to fall for this tripe, and I'm guessing many of those same people have the audacity to decry the state of clickbait journalism and headlines.

 

[Kibbles]

I knew Oprah was behind this

 

[Etrian Oddity]

 

[TemplaerDude]

ROFL the amount of salt on this forum the past week is absolutely hilarious. I can't wait for the next thread.

 

[Dali]

There is no appearance. We don't need to accommodate the lowest common denominator here, we can assume a basic level of intelligence and information. It's a clickbait story trying to create news where there literally is none.



There is absolutely no ethical violation here. The proceedings are over and they didn't even involve Kraft to begin with.

I think the whole concept of that expression is escaping you. It's basically "don't do something that will make you look like you're doing wrong."

Let's say a judge awards full custody of kids to a woman for good reason. He happens to see her at a celebratory dinner the next night at a restaurant where she urges him to take a picture with her and her family celebrating the victory. He does so and she posts to fcbk.

He should have declined thinking in his head "this may appear improper to that douche that just lost his kids. Hell... He may even suspect collusion."

 

[KHarvey16]

I think the whole concept of that expression is escaping you. It's basically "don't do something that will make you look like you're doing wrong."

Let's say a judge awards full custody of kids to a woman for good reason. He happens to see her at a celebratory dinner the next night at a restaurant where she urges him to take a picture with her and her family celebrating the victory. He does so and she posts to fcbk.

First of all, Robert Kraft was not a party in the legal proceedings. He wasn't involved. Second, the judge isn't in any pictures.

It's like if a wife and a husband went to court over custody. The husband chose which particular court, and then lost. The court's ruling shows no irregularities and everyone agrees it's legally solid and soundly reasoned.

Then the judge is reported to have been at a 100+ person social gathering at the same time the woman's mother was.

 

[Dali]

First of all, Robert Kraft was not a party in the legal proceedings. He wasn't involved. Second, the judge isn't in any pictures.

It's like if a wife and a husband went to court over custody. The husband chose which particular court, and then lost. The court's ruling shows no irregularities and everyone agrees it's legally solid and soundly reasoned.

Then the judge is reported to have been at a 100+ person social gathering at the same time the woman's mother was.

I didn't say it was a 1:1 comparison. I was just trying to make sure you understood the right of things has nothing to do with the expression. Your repeated statements of everything was legally kosher has nothing to do with appearances which is the basis of the expression.

I've always seen the expression from a business perspective, but googling it, apparently it's something that is supposed to be ingrained in Judges and lawyers too.

I'll concede this is probably click bait if no one can produce a picture of alleged aggressive mingling.

 

[KHarvey16]

I didn't say it was a 1:1 comparison. I was just trying to make sure you understood the right of things has nothing to do with the expression. Your repeated statements of everything was legally kosher has nothing to do with appearances which is the basis of the expression.

I've always seen the expression from a business perspective, but googling it, apparently it's something that is supposed to be ingrained in Judges and lawyers too.

I'll concede this is probably click bait if no one can produce a picture of alleged aggressive mingling.

You would consider the example I gave above as giving an appearance of impropriety? Because I don't think anyone would.

As far as being "ingrained" in lawyers and judges, as stated previously, lawyers and judges and the people appearing with and before both socialize all the time.

 

[DarkFlow]

Remember when the Cardinals won the Super Bowl?

According to PeregrinSe7en we can now care about championships before the Super Bowl. So we have 2 championships baby! Kiss the rings!

One day you'll learn shitting on Arizona doesn't really mean anything.

 

[Alligatorjandro]

I hope you guys are watching the 2014 Patriots America's Game.

 

[mre]

I didn't say it was a 1:1 comparison. I was just trying to make sure you understood the right of things has nothing to do with the expression. Your repeated statements of everything was legally kosher has nothing to do with appearances which is the basis of the expression.

I've always seen the expression from a business perspective, but googling it, apparently it's something that is supposed to be ingrained in Judges and lawyers too.

I'll concede this is probably click bait if no one can produce a picture of alleged aggressive mingling.

I'm a lawyer in the same state (I believe) you live in, and I'm telling you that judges lawyers/parties socialize all the time and there is nothing improper about it under either the ethical rules governing lawyers or the ethical rules governing judges.

 

[Dali]

I'm a lawyer in the same state (I believe) you live in, and I'm telling you that judges lawyers/parties socialize all the time and there is nothing improper about it under either the ethical rules governing lawyers or the ethical rules governing judges.

I moved a few years ago.

Partying in and of itself is fine, but schmoozing with someone you just sided with immediately after the case ends is a bad look.

Anyway reading up on the expression's application in the law world, its applied in almost every state as at the very least an acceptable secondary reason for dismissal from a case. It was codified almost 50 years ago. Looks like its mostly used to apply to when a lawyer is involved in a case against an ex-employer, but that's not the extent of its usage. It's not in use as the sole reason for disciplinary action so much anymore because it's generally deemed too vague. Its use as applied to judges seems to be a bit more strictly applied.

So yeah even though it may not get you fired, the idea of not looking like you're doing something wrong so as to uphold the public's view of the judicial process was and still is mentioned in the your profession's guidelines as something to be avoided.

 

[cdyhybrid]

One day you'll learn shitting on Arizona doesn't really mean anything.

And one day you'll learn that this applies to all teams

 

[KHarvey16]

I moved a few years ago.

Partying in and of itself is fine, but schmoozing with someone you just sided with immediately after the case ends is a bad look.

Anyway reading up on the expression's application in the law world, its applied in almost every state as at the very least an acceptable secondary reason for dismissal from a case. It was codified almost 50 years ago. Looks like its mostly used to apply to when a lawyer is involved in a case against an ex-employer, but that's not the extent of its usage. It's not in use as the sole reason for disciplinary action so much anymore because it's generally deemed too vague. Its use as applied to judges seems to be a bit more strictly applied.

So yeah even though it may not get you fired, the idea of not looking like you're doing something wrong so as to uphold the public's view of the judicial process was and still is mentioned in the your profession's guidelines as something to be avoided.

What does it say about hanging out with a person who wasn't involved in a proceeding/case/trial after the proceeding/case/trial is over?

 

[Cornbread78]

Oh man, I can't even.. The witch hunt for nothing is crazy.

 

[Dali]

What does it say about hanging out with a person who wasn't involved in a proceeding/case/trial after the proceeding/case/trial is over?

So the coach of the team whose star player was suspended has no dog in the fight? I have no idea the extent of the interaction but don't be dense.

 

[Gonzalez]

Remember when the Cardinals won the Super Bowl?

That's like saying "Remember when the Mavs won the finals", or "Remember when The Miz main evented Wrestlemania".

 

[KHarvey16]

So the coach of the team whose star player was suspended has no dog in the fight? I have no idea the extent of the interaction but don't be dense.

He isn't the coach, he owns the team. He isn't a member of the players union and was not involved in the case at all. In fact as an owner his money was paying for the lawyers on the NFL side.

 

[mre]

I moved a few years ago.

Partying in and of itself is fine, but schmoozing with someone you just sided with immediately after the case ends is a bad look.

Anyway reading up on the expression's application in the law world, its applied in almost every state as at the very least an acceptable secondary reason for dismissal from a case. It was codified almost 50 years ago. Looks like its mostly used to apply to when a lawyer is involved in a case against an ex-employer, but that's not the extent of its usage. It's not in use as the sole reason for disciplinary action so much anymore because it's generally deemed too vague. Its use as applied to judges seems to be a bit more strictly applied.

So yeah even though it may not get you fired, the idea of not looking like you're doing something wrong so as to uphold the public's view of the judicial process was and still is mentioned in the your profession's guidelines as something to be avoided.

If this had happened during the time this matter was pending before the judge, you would be right. Otherwise, you get into the issue of having the judge adhere to some sort of undefinable time frame of when they can be seen with someone who was before their bench.

We have this guy earlier saying a judge should wait a month before interacting with those before him:

Ruling was the correct ruling, but this is still a bad look. At least wait a month or something lol.

Would a month be fine with you? Maybe it would be, maybe it wouldn't be. Maybe there are members of the public who would be upset at them socializing after a year or EVER socializing at all. Should the judge be beholden to their interpretation of "appearance of impropriety"? My point is that once you move past the bright line of "is this person before the judge's bench" then there is a high likelihood that someone, somewhere will find the interaction improper. While the canons of ethics for federal judges speak to how a judge "should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," a particular judge's adherence to this canon is judged not by the public, but by his fellow judges, all of whom have been in similar situations and will ... judge that judge's behavior accordingly.

There was nothing improper about this under the ethical canons which guide federal judges.

 

[Monster Zero]

I wish the word salt was banned

 

[diffusionx]

Bob Kraft wasn't part of the lawsuit. At all. Tom Brady and the NFLPA were. Bob Kraft is Tom Brady's boss, sure, but the idea that judges are not allowed to socialize with anyone on the assumption that one of their employees may one day be in their courtroom... come on. This is crazy.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

This whole deflategate thing feels like a badly done WWF drama.

 

[BokehKing]

Bob Kraft wasn't part of the lawsuit. At all. Tom Brady and the NFLPA were. Bob Kraft is Tom Brady's boss, sure, but the idea that judges are not allowed to socialize with anyone on the assumption that one of their employees may one day be in their courtroom... come on. This is crazy.

Judges shouldn't be going to parties with rich influential people, not even the deflate gate case, but just in general, people can't serve on juries for less due to conflicts of interest

 

[Troy]

I wish the word salt was banned

Banning the word wouldn't stop the flow of salt.

 

[KHarvey16]

Judges shouldn't be going to parties with rich influential people, not even the deflate gate case, but just in general, people can't serve on juries for less due to conflicts of interest

This is complete nonsense.

 

[diffusionx]

Judges shouldn't be going to parties with rich influential people, not even the deflate gate case, but just in general, people can't serve on juries for less due to conflicts of interest

Who are judges allowed to go to parties with? Maybe they should be chained to the bench their entire lives. Surely that will make them want to become judges!

If anything this ruling affects the NFL, and hence, Kraft, negatively. Yea Tom Brady gets to play four games he wasn't going to otherwise, but that is in passing.

The NFL had its authority gutted by this ruling. This affects owners, including Kraft, far more than one QB playing four games does. Based on Kraft's actions with regards to the ballghazi team punishments (the fact that he meekly accepted the punishments), Kraft wants the NFL to have this authority. It lost it because Goodell is a stupid clown who took a stupid punishment too far, not because a judge goes to the same party as one of the owners.

 

[mre]

Judges shouldn't be going to parties with rich influential people, not even the deflate gate case, but just in general, people can't serve on juries for less due to conflicts of interest

That would not be justification to strike someone from a jury "for cause." Here's a condensed version of how the questioning would go in voir dire:

Q: Do you know either the plaintiff or the defendant in this matter?

A: Yes. I ran into the plaintiff at a cocktail party at Rich Q. Moneybag's house and talked to him for a few minutes.

Q: Despite this previously existing relationship between yourself and the plaintiff, do you think you can sit as a juror in this case and impartially weigh the facts and apply the law as the judge instructs?

A: Yes.

This juror will not be struck "for cause." Now, the defendant may still strike the juror with one of his/her discretionary strikes, but that juror would not be struck "for cause."

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

Judges shouldn't be going to parties with rich influential people, not even the deflate gate case, but just in general, people can't serve on juries for less due to conflicts of interest

What conflict of interest is there if there is not a case pending before the judge involving these folks as parties? Also, considering this is a federal judge in Manhattan, don't you think that this guy Berman was uber connected prior to his appointment? The president doesn't tap schlub solo practitioners for these positions particularly in a prime location like this.