Has anyone asked the D.C. Bar to consider if Gonzales is worthy of membership?

[hootinholler]

Seems the quickest way to shit-can him. I'm pretty sure the DC Bar membership is a prerequisite for the AG post.

-Hoot

[Cheney Killed Bambi]

1. He's probably a member of the Texas Bar also

[hootinholler]

2. Then he can go back to Texas to practice.

The DC Bar is the important one.

-Hoot

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

3. I think DC Bar membership is a mere formality

In other words, if you are a member in good standing of another State's bar, then you just apply and pay your fee. I don't think there's a bar examination involved.

It may also be that, since DC bar membership relies on his Texas Bar Membership, he might lose his DC membership if he is disbarred in Texas, however, I'm not sure. Certainly, the DC Bar would look very closely at a disbarrment of an attorney in another state. Under Texas State Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 4.01 ("Truthfulness in Statements to Others"):

"In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:
(a) make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person; or
(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid making the lawyer a party to a criminal act or knowingly assisting a fraudulent act perpetrated by a client."

I submit that Gonzalez is representing a client and made a false statement of material fact to a third person. His client is the United States. I'd love to see Gonzalez have to defend a complaint against his bar membership filed with the Texas State Bar.

And here's a link to the DC Bar's Rules Of Professional Conduct. You might scroll down to #8.4 "Misconduct" and see situations where Gonzalez might be in trouble with the bar.

http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/rules_of_professional_conduct/index.cfm

[Kagemusha]

4. Hmm, that'd be saying, Gonzales is assisting the US in committing a fraud

Not the President, per se, but the United States of America (and its government thereof).

Cute, huh.

[hootinholler]

5. Thanks for that link! Very interesting...

It seems to me that the DC Bar has jurisdiction under (b)2)ii:

(b) Choice of Law. In any exercise of the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction, the Rules of Professional Conduct to be applied shall be as follows:
(1) For conduct in connection with a proceeding in a court before which a lawyer has been admitted to practice (either generally or for the purposes of that proceeding), the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the jurisdiction in which the court sits, unless the rules of the court provide otherwise, and
(2) For any other conduct,
(i) If the lawyer is licensed to practice only in this jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of this jurisdiction, and
(ii) If the lawyer is licensed to practice in this and another jurisdiction, the rules to be applied shall be the rules of the admitting jurisdiction in which the lawyer principally practices; provided, however, that if particular conduct clearly has its predominant effect in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed to practice, the rules of that jurisdiction shall be applied to that conduct.

Then there are a few candidates of violations off the top of my head.
Congressional testimony:

Rule 3.3 — Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
(1) Make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

If it can be shown that the firings were to dissuade prosecution of cases, which I believe holds true at least in Lam's case:

Rule 3.8 — Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

The prosecutor in a criminal case shall not:
(a) In exercising discretion to investigate or to prosecute, improperly favor or invidiously discriminate against any person;

Now for the big one, I think we have (a), possibly (b) if a violation of USC TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001 is upheld, I think we have (c), (d), maybe (e) but it might be a stretch:

Rule 8.4 — Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) Violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) Commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) Engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation;
(d) Engage in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice;
(e) State or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official;
(f) Knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable Rules of Judicial Conduct or other law; or
(g) Seek or threaten to seek criminal charges or disciplinary charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter.

All we need is a DC lawyer with balls:

Rule 8.3 — Reporting Professional Misconduct

(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

Any takers?

-Hoot

[MADem]

6. Actually, I'm not sure if that is the case. I don't think you even have to be a lawyer to be AG. NT

[hootinholler]

7. I'm looking for confirmation with little luck. n/t

[MADem]

8. I wish I had a definitive source, I don't. I just "seem" to remember hearing that.

And I "seem" to remember being shocked as hell about it.

Now, who knows, maybe I'm off base completely, but I've this nagging feeling that I did remember correctly. There's no 'job requirements' that I can find in the US Code: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000503----000-.html

[hootinholler]

9. Being the top prosecutor, he wouldn't have standing in the DC Federal Court

But I suppose an underling could file charges etc.

-Hoot

[MADem]

10. Well, toe tapping Ted Olson was the Justice boy in front of the Supremes, for a time, after all

Since neither Ashcroft nor Gonzales had the qualifications to perform that function. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/aboutosg/t_olson_bio.htm

Now, the Solicitor General is the brains behind the political appointee, whosoever that may be--there ARE 'smarts' requirements for that gig:

The original Statutory Authorization Act of June 22, 1870, states, “There shall be in the Department of Justice an officer learned in the law, to assist the Attorney General in the performance of his duties to be called the Solicitor General.” The Office of the Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts. The general functions of the Office can be found at 28 CFR 0.20. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/