The Commonwealth of Virginia's Ultimate Blog

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Kaine's Cases

For a while, I've wanted to read every reported case that Tim Kaine has worked on over the last twenty years.

I've finally downloaded all of the cases, and will be posting summaries over the next few weeks. The cases include Kaine's representation of Lem Tuggle, the case where he got fined, and his discrimination cases.

One interesting fact is that Kaine appeared to have developed a bit of a specialty in, of all things, railroad tax appraisals.


Blogger Cory Chandler said...

Obviously, anyone is able to review public documents filed in a legal proceeding. I hope that in reviewing Tim Kaine's cases you're not intending to use them to make political points for two reasons. First, Comment 3 to Virginia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.2 restates the ABA model rule comment that "a lawyer's representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client's political, economic, social or moral views or activities." As a matter of professionalism, attorneys are not associated with their client or their client's legal position simply by virtue of their zealous representation--which they are ethically required to provide. Second, unless you're quite prepared to subject Jerry Kilgore to identical scrutiny, there's no hint of objectivity. Objectivity may not be your aim, but I certainly call on John Behan and Steve Minor and the other professionals who are members of your Old Dominion Blog Alliance to back me up on the first point.

Now, if you're reviewing either candidate's record to determine whether there are ethical lapses in representation, that certainly would be fair game.

11:47 PM

Blogger Addison said...

Somehow, I hoped that the re-opening of your own forum would may you, well, less jaded.

I haven't said why I'm reviewing Tim Kaine's cases. For you to issue a warning to me is quite presumptious.

If you would like to discuss the substantive vs. procedural perspectives of a normative rule, then I am happy to do so. The debate is far from settled, as a survey of the literature will demonstrate.

4:25 PM

Blogger Cory Chandler said...

Oh, come on. Nowhere did I suggest I was warning anyone about anything. I was opining, as one is wont to do in a comment to a post. I mean, really. "Ooo, don't do this, or else something bad will happen. Flying monkeys will perch over your car after you've washed it."

There are a multitude of reasons why one might choose to examine an attorney's cases; I only mentioned two. One would, I believe, be bad; the other would be fair game in anyone's book. I present them as points along a spectrum.

Comment 3 to Rule 1.2 may be normative in the sense that it prefers that attorneys not deny representation to those with controversial or unpopular causes, but the corollary that attorneys do not--simply by accepting a client--align themselves with that client's politics, morals, &c. is, I believe, generally accepted. Craig Cooley may have defended John Lee Malvo, but that doesn't mean Craig Cooley plans to become a sniper or condones murder. Neither does it mean, without more, that he opposes the death penalty--not anymore than it means, without more, that he opposes criminalization of murder.

10:44 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home