Chief Disciplinary Counsel Mark DuBois regards the issue I submitted on behalf of the Twittergate Committee, composed of a few bloggers who felt strongly about the controversy mentioned above, as frivolous, suggesting that both I and Mark Bennett have too much time on our hands. Case closed. No ethics violation, not even probable cause to believe there was one.
That ends the matter for me. But I am sure you can find continued commentary on it elsewhere.
I published the bulk of the correspondence between Mr. DuBois, self-styled “leading American trial lawyer” Norm Pattis, and me here, and predicted that Pattis would claim that Dubois’s response vindicated Pattis’s foolish Twitter post.
Where the Twitter post itself showed only a momentary lapse of judgment, Pattis’s response to the criticism revealed something else entirely. A thing can be wrong even though it is not grievable; this is indisputable, and to loudly maintain otherwise, as Pattis has done, betrays a want either of reason or of integrity.
Since Pattis sees nothing wrong with that Twitter post, he can have no possible objection to my posting this one, similar in theme:
Now suppose that you’re a juror in a case involving a teacher charged with having sex with a student. You look up the lawyer online, and you find that Tweet. Do you think, “oh, he just forgot to say ‘alleged'”?
Or do you reach an entirely different conclusion?