Comment on [REPOST] Lawyer has to convince judge of no jurisdiction to return deported man but achieves the opposite

ultranaut@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It looks more like he was doing the best he could to behave ethically.

  Agreed, 100%

  He can’t lie to the judge so he didn’t.

  Again, in 100% agreement.

  There’s not really anything else he could have done without violating his duty to the court.

  I addressed this in my comments about the case. So apparently the US attorney general said this,

  “He shouldn’t have taken the case. He shouldn’t have argued it, if that’s what he was going to do,” she said.

  Now, it wasn't clear to me if a DOJ lawyer can avoid taking on a case like this, as Bondi seems to be saying. But Google's AI did report this to me, below.

  If Google's AI is accurate or Bondi is correct, then Reuveni could have passed on the pass and let someone else argue it. And if every legit ethical lawyer in the DOJ was allowed to pass on the case, it'd end up in the lap of some newly appointed MAGA lawyer guy who might have struck lightning and someone convinced the judge that reversing the deportation is not possible - or at least gotten additional delays in, prolonging Abrego Garcia's suffering.

  So my case is that he didn't do the minimum (which was the pass on the case) but he took it and then did the minimum on the case, ensuring a victory for the other side.

  From Google's AI:

  Yes, a lawyer within the Department of Justice (DOJ) can pass on a case, but it's typically done through a formal process and with the approval of superiors, not simply by choosing to ignore it.
  Here's a more detailed explanation:
  DOJ Lawyers are Assigned Cases:
  DOJ lawyers, like other government lawyers, are assigned cases by their superiors or within the legal team they are part of.
  Reasons for Passing on a Case:
  There are several reasons why a DOJ lawyer might pass on a case, including:
  Conflict of Interest: If a lawyer has a conflict of interest, they may need to be removed from the case.
  Lack of Expertise: A lawyer might not have the specific expertise or experience necessary to handle a particular case.
  Overload: A lawyer might be overloaded with other cases and unable to take on additional work.
  Case Strategy: A lawyer might believe that the case is not worth pursuing, or that the best course of action is to pass it on to another lawyer or unit within the DOJ.
  Formal Process:
  Passing on a case is not something a lawyer can do unilaterally. They must follow a formal process to request to be removed from a case, which usually involves:
  Consulting with Superiors: The lawyer must first discuss the reasons for wanting to pass on the case with their supervisor or other relevant authority.
  Documentation: The reasons for passing on the case should be documented.
  Approval: The request to pass on the case must be approved by the appropriate authority.
  Consequences of Passing on a Case:
  There can be consequences for a lawyer who passes on a case, including:
  Loss of Trust: If a lawyer passes on a case without a valid reason, it could damage their reputation and the trust of their superiors.
  Negative Impact on the Case: If the case is important, passing it on could have a negative impact on the outcome.
  Alternative to Passing on a Case:
  Instead of passing on a case, a lawyer might seek assistance from other lawyers or units within the DOJ, or they may request additional resources to handle the case.
  Generative AI is experimental. For legal advice, consult a professional.

  source

  • abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So I meant to write in the above comment that while not every case of quiet quitting is malicious compliance, and not every case of malicious compliance related to employment is the same as quiet quitting, there is definitely room for overlap - a situation where one is both quiet quitting and performing malicious compliance. I thought that this was such a case.

    After reading https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/e285ec96adf8d443/5868d536-full.pdf I'm backing away from that. What the new whistleblower report seems to allege is that Reuveni was ordered to make statements to the court that he knew were wrong and misleading, and he outright refused - which is honourable but it's non-compliance rather than malicious compliance.

    He also actively sought to confidentially relay the situation to folks higher up on the food chain in order to get them to push back against this, which is probably too much effort to count as quiet quitting.

    source
• adarza@lemmy.ca ⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  it’s hard to present anything valid and based in reality when you have absolutely nothing to begin with.

  source