Andy McCarthy points out a curious little nugget about the Wise Latina(tm). It appears that from 1983-1986, Ms. Sotomayor was running a private law firm, Sotomayor & Associates.
What was the problem? Well, first this “law firm” was really just a moonlighting job she had while working as an assistant district attorney, then as a member in a law firm, during that time period.
As McCarthy observes
This seems odd. When you’re a prosecutor, your client is the public and you’re really not supposed to be taking on private clients who may have conflicts-of-interest with the public. [...]Furthermore, law firms frown on their associates running on-the-side legal practices. Leaving aside whether income the lawyer earns should be going through the firm, good law firms set up systems to check for conflicts-of-interest: whenever new business comes in the door, the firm does a conflicts check to make sure the prospective client isn’t in an adversarial posture as to a current client to whom the firm already owes professional fealty.
I am unaware of how New York runs their DA department, but I doubt it is much different than any other local government entity — any outside activities, both income generating or volunteer, have to be cleared through administration.
Associates in the district attorney’s office and George M. Pavia, the senior partner of Pavia & Harcourt, said they did not recall that she had done outside legal work at the time. “It is news to me,” Mr. Pavia said. He said she likely cleared the outside work with her direct supervisor, who is now dead. [...]Although the White House said Judge Sotomayor earned income in 1983, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, Alicia Maxey Greene, initially said that the office did not allow prosecutors to charge for outside work. Generally, they were only allowed to help friends and family for free on a case-by-case basis.
Several former members of the office said they remembered the policy as being quite clear. “We were expressly prohibited from having a law practice on the side,” said Katharine Law, a friend of the judge who worked with her at the time.
But District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau said subsequently that his spokeswoman had been wrong and that the office had been quite liberal at the time in approving outside work by staff, even if they charged fees.
Convenient, that last, hmmm?
As interesting is the Sotomayor & Associates name. There were never any “associates.” Sotomayor ran her sideline practice from her apartment and has given no indication she ever had a partner or ever sought one. At best, her “& Associates” is misleading in trying to pose as a law firm in a way similiar to inflating one’s resume by claiming degrees not earned.
There is no law Sotomayor has broken with such behavior. However, McCarthy underlines the NYTimes’ curious claim …
Neither bar opinions nor cases to date have held that it was misleading for a sole practitioner to use the name ‘and Associates’ in such private communications[.] … In fact, in the early 1980s, no rule prohibited the use of ‘and Associates’ in these circumstances and the only authority regarding the use of ‘and Associates’ in an advertising context was advisory, not mandatory, and thus not readily enforceable.
See? It wasn’t illegal, it wasn’t actionable, therefore No Harm, No Foul, Nothing to See, Move Along.
Riiiiiight.
***************
From NY Personal Injury Attorney Blog
I found an ethics advisory opinion from 1973 from the New York State Bar Association that was directly on point. It’s in the comments part of that post, but it is worth reprinting here since this has now become an issue:
Opinion 286 — 3/16/73 (1-73)
New York State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics
March 16, 1973QUESTION
May an attorney who employs two or more “associates” use firm name “John Smith and Associates”?
OPINION
While not the usual form, there is nothing improper in the use of the firm name “John Smith and Associates”, provided that the lawyer or the firm has in fact two or more lawyer employees so that the name is not misleading. EC 2-10; EC 2-13; ABA 318 (1967); cf. EC 2-11; N.Y. State 45 (1967). However, where there are other partners in addition to those indicated in the firm name, it could be considered misleading to add, after the firm name the words “and Associates”, unless on the letterhead the names of all the partners and, separately, the names of the associates are shown. (ABA 310 (1963).)
The mistake was minor in the big scheme of things. If the ethics committee found out about it at the time they would have wagged their finger and said no-no, that’s misleading, please change it. That’s it.
Americans don’t expect saints on the bench. Humans are fallible. It’s OK to screw up once in awhile.
But don’t trot out lame excuses. Don’t try to lawyer your way out of this with being “advisory.” That is something that people won’t tolerate.
(h/t TimK)
Comment by Wilson McEllerson on 7/8 @ 10:13 am #
Can you prove she didn’t have associates?
Comment by Lewis on 7/8 @ 10:15 am #
As interesting is the Sotomayor & Associates name. There were never any “associates.” Sotomayor ran her sideline practice from her apartment and has given no indication she ever had a partner or ever sought one. At best, her “& Associates” is misleading in trying to pose as a law firm in a way similiar to inflating one’s resume by claiming degrees not earned.
It is misleading, but comparing that to claiming degrees not earned is bullshiat.
This is essentially similar to a friend of mine – let’s call him John Smith – who works for himself. He set up his own business as a consultant – calls it The Smith Group.
Yeah, sounds like a major player, right? But of course, The Smith Group consists of John Smith, and that’s it.
Misleading? Yes.
Fraudulent? No so much.
Comment by happyfeet on 7/8 @ 10:16 am #
We’re a lot getting the slovenly unkempt oh-so-motherfucking-wise marxist latina piece of shit justice hoochie we deserve I think.
Comment by maggie katzen on 7/8 @ 10:17 am #
I’m guessing the “associates” were kittehs.
Comment by josh on 7/8 @ 10:18 am #
This is ALL you have? That she had a weird name for her law firm, which was neither unethical nor illegal? That she made money? I thought we were all good conservatives who approved of private business.
You know, the ABA has rules/guidelines on pro bono work too, but few associates or ADA’s have the time or energy to provide pro bono time. Could you look in her background (with Wendy Long and Andy “torture is cool” McCarthy) to see if she shirked her pro bono work? I’m sure that’s a bombshell.
Did you John Roberts dressed in drag? Try being serious for one moment and stop shifting through people’s garbage and mail to tell us what part of a person’s judicial philosophy you don’t like. This demand, on both sides, but worse on the Right, that a person has to be Jesus before they were nominated is just plain silly. Imagine what people like you and ol’ torturing Andy would do to Oliver Wendell Holmes’s pre-bench career.
Comment by Lewis on 7/8 @ 10:19 am #
Sotomayor had zero “Associates”.
Again:
Sketchy? Yeah, I guess.
Fraud? Don’t embarrass yourself.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 10:19 am #
“I am unaware of how New York runs their DA department, but I doubt it is much different than any other local government entity — any outside activities, both income generating or volunteer, have to be cleared through administration.
Well Darleen, I am quite familiar with this since my wife is a DA in Queens, and they are not allowed to run a “practice” on the side under any circumstances. Outside of assisting family and friends, for free, with cases that do not involve the city government it is not allowed…
All swords cut both ways, along with the obvious advantages of being a prosecutor, much like any government employee, there are also the disadvantages; which generally invilve relatively low wages compared to private sector attorneys and the inability to “hang out your shingle” while in the employ of the state…
Kinda gets my goat sometimes as I would like her to challenge the constitutional basis of certain laws and government actions. But, I guess that will be relegated to being among our mutual retirement activities…
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 10:20 am #
English, do you speak it?
Comment by maggie katzen on 7/8 @ 10:20 am #
well, no, as you’ll notice it’s #1,462.
Comment by happyfeet on 7/8 @ 10:21 am #
that’s if you don’t break up #992 into a, b, & c
Comment by Darleen on 7/8 @ 10:24 am #
Lewis
Can you point to the LAW or STATUTE that says you can’t be creative on a resume?
Comment by CGHill on 7/8 @ 10:25 am #
Good lord, it’s Eisenhower and Lutz!
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 10:27 am #
OK josh,
Her finding in the Ricci case violated the precedent set by Bakke in the 70’s, a decision upheld in 2003 in Gratz v Bollinger and Grutter v Bollinger, and showed that she would elevate race issues above matters of law. And, since we expect justice to be blind, and the law administered equally regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, then that makes her a flawed nominee for the SCOTUS…
Do you prefer that?
Oh and her “side” business is not allowed in the the boroughs, regardless of what the aged Mr Morganthau chooses to recall at this time…
Comment by TimK on 7/8 @ 10:29 am #
Actually, as the New York Personal Injury Law Blog has pointed out, there was a 1973 ethics advisory opinion from the New York Bar Association that stated that “there is nothing improper in the use of the firm name “John Smith and Associates”, provided that the lawyer or the firm has in fact two or more lawyer employees so that the name is not misleading.” So while Ms. Sotomayor’s use of the “& Associates” was not unlawful, it was contrary to known ethical guidelines.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 10:39 am #
Nice find TimK…
Comment by Joe on 7/8 @ 10:51 am #
Should Protein Wisdom be renamed Goldstein & Associates, Outlaws, PLLC?
You know to get into the whole hope and change spirit!
Comment by Joe on 7/8 @ 10:53 am #
Sotomayor had high hopes to one day have associates.
Leave the wise Latina alone!
Comment by Ric Locke on 7/8 @ 11:01 am #
Just following the example of our Elite Betters, Lewis.
You and your buddies have already demonstrated that sending squads of people to dig through dumpsters and old files, bringing up matters that shouldn’t make a damn bit of difference to anybody is exactly the way to knock a political opponent out, especially if it’s a woman. Too bad she doesn’t have kids for us to PhotoShop® in insulting ways, eh?
Regards,
Ric
Comment by N. O'Brain on 7/8 @ 11:01 am #
If this were a Republican……
[sigh]
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 11:06 am #
It isn’t illegal or unethical, is it?
Comment by Mr. Pink on 7/8 @ 11:14 am #
“This is ALL you have?”
Maybe I live in bizarro world but when a judge says he or she would make a better decision than another judge based upon the color of their skin that is pretty freakin disqualifying if you ask me.
Comment by LTC John on 7/8 @ 11:30 am #
ALL? Running a side practice while serving as an ADA?! That is utter crap. “& Associates” is just the whipped cream on that fecal sundae.
You have one client as part of the prosecutors office – the People of [insert jurisdiction here]. I had that made perfectly clear when I was an ASA – the only folks who could do outside work were contracted or “Special Assistant State’s Attorney” types – ie. collections attorney, maybe child support enforcement part timers.
Bad decision, shabby ethics.
Comment by Mr. Pink on 7/8 @ 11:34 am #
Sorry John but I guess you are limited by your experience of being an unwise white guy and can not appreciate the nuance of this action considering it is coming from a wise latina.
Comment by N. O'Brain on 7/8 @ 11:35 am #
It brings into question her judgment.
Which is a bad thing in a judge.
Comment by Jim in KC on 7/8 @ 11:41 am #
Having been to NYC a time or two, I”m guessing more likely rats and cockroaches.
The whole thing sounds like a tax dodge to me. Some smart reporter somewhere should oughta look at her deductions for the time in question.
Comment by maggie katzen on 7/8 @ 11:45 am #
oh, I was thinking crazy cat lady. she has said it’s hard to be a judge and meet men.
Comment by Jim in KC on 7/8 @ 11:48 am #
Yeah, I was just looking at the statistical likelihoods…
Comment by lee on 7/8 @ 11:53 am #
Dodging taxes is a resume enhancement for the Obama administration.
Comment by SDN on 7/8 @ 12:02 pm #
#25: And rats, cockroaches, and lawyers are different how?
Comment by cranky-d on 7/8 @ 12:08 pm #
A few strangers came by to comment. Interesting. I think this story has legs. Notice how they went after the “& Associates” thing being less than fraudulent and NOT the fact that she did something questionable by having a law practice on the side while working as an ADA. The method is always to attack side issues, and they think by discrediting the side issue they have discredited the main issue.
Comment by Joe on 7/8 @ 12:08 pm #
“Paying Taxes is Patriotic.” Plugs Biden. So let it be written so let it be done.
Comment by Chairman Hussein on 7/8 @ 12:20 pm #
The leftists posting here are full of spotted-Al krap. It is highly unethical to be a prosecutor AND a lawyer representing private citizens. To think otherwise just shows how unethical leftists are.
Comment by Mangas Colorados on 7/8 @ 12:23 pm #
There is a fraud there, I think. Her claim that she is a wise lating is demonstrably false.
Comment by Mangas Colorados on 7/8 @ 12:23 pm #
latina, sorry.
Comment by Pablo on 7/8 @ 12:26 pm #
One has 2 legs, one has 4 legs, one has 6 legs.
Comment by Pablo on 7/8 @ 12:27 pm #
Not if you’re a progressive. You simply can’t be unethical, even if you’ve got baby guts stuck between your fangs.
Comment by Curmudgeon on 7/8 @ 1:25 pm #
If this were a Republican……
There would be conflict of interest investigations galore, until the nominee withdrew.
Sorry Josh and Lewis, as long as the Commiecrats play no-holds-barred, we are going to stop playing by Maquis of Queensberry rules.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/8 @ 1:27 pm #
Maybe Sotomayor & Associates was just a cleaning-lady business.
I denounce myself.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 1:29 pm #
Salt Lick,
Dude! that was sweeeeeet!
You may have won the thread with that one; regardless of the de rigeur denunciation…
Comment by AlexinCT on 7/8 @ 1:56 pm #
Progressives never do anything wrong, even when they break the law or skirt it, because they mean well. The end justifies the mean, don’t you know? Besides, “The law of unintended consequences” is just an artificial construct of the vast right wing conspiracy to defame and defraud the deserving “Ivy League” elite anyway, so this stuff is unimportant. Power to the people! Well, to some select few that is. Not us peasants.
Comment by Salt Lick on 7/8 @ 2:01 pm #
Thanks, Bob. Ever hear of cleaning lady Oseola McCarty? Now there was a wise woman.
“There’s a lot of talk about self-esteem these days … If you want to feel proud of yourself, you’ve got to do things you can be proud of.” — Oseola McCarty
Comment by Obstreperous Infidel on 7/8 @ 2:04 pm #
Pablo gets it. See, we’re arguing over different things. Like the “waterboarding is torture” debate, this one lacks a basic agreement on what it is. To the statist leftists, It is my best guess, that ethics might mean something completely different than to most everyone else. Most everyone meaning people with ethics.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 2:09 pm #
Salt Lick,
That lady you cite is a fine example of our nation’s best values; and speaks more to the value of individual charity than reams of government program directives.
We should all laud her frugality, hard work, personal dignity and responsibility, and charity…
I had never heard of her before, and appreciate you enlightening me on the personal history of a truly great American!
Best Wishes
Comment by psycho... on 7/8 @ 2:22 pm #
That’s your problem right there.
We’ve substituted law for morality by letting lawyers keep their legs.
Comment by Lewis on 7/8 @ 2:23 pm #
Ric Locke -
In your #18, you confused my post with that “josh” guy.
Just wanna let you know I ain’t him.
And, for the record, I’m reasonably confident that Sotomayor would make a pretty lousy Supreme, and she most certainly shouldn’t have been running a private practice while in public service.
But to get all huffy over the minor “& Associates” issue is silly.
Stick with with the running a private practice in the first place thing – that’s the real issue.
She probably violated the terms of her employment, and created real potential for conflict of interest, which is the reason for those terms in the first place.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 2:27 pm #
“But to get all huffy over the minor “& Associates” issue is silly.”
You’re right Lewis, it’s a distraction from the real ethical and legal concerns…
But Ric is correct(as he often is!) in that a lot of us on the right are tired of the dirty pool and “by whatever means necessary” tactics of the political left. And whatever one’s position on those tactics are, I predict that there will be a lot of goose-gander commupances dealt out soon…
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 2:31 pm #
josh is well and truly estupido, no?
Lewis – Wait, are you saying what the Dems do, as a matter of routine, is bad?
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 2:44 pm #
I read you 5X5 JD, and concur on the josh-bot…
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 2:47 pm #
The emerald waters of the Redneck Riveria could not even gloss over the gargantuan estupido of teh josh.
Comment by Darleen on 7/8 @ 2:47 pm #
But to get all huffy over the minor “& Associates” issue is silly.
Lewis,
Strange, but when I put in phrases like “curious little nugget” and “as interesting” (making the following secondary to the first) I don’t see where “huffy” comes in.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 2:52 pm #
Ah the “Redneck Riviera”…Biloxi may be my fave in that region…
But this is one time when, “it’s all good” is apropo!
Comment by JD & Associates on 7/8 @ 2:54 pm #
That was kind of curious. I do not see any “huffy” directed at that either.
Comment by Lewis on 7/8 @ 2:55 pm #
Darleen -
Sorry about the criticism, but that one point comprised about a third of your post.
I’d liken it to slamming a perp. for violating the speed limit, in the course of his making a getaway from a double homocide.
A little focus here people!
Comment by maggie katzen on 7/8 @ 2:59 pm #
I dunno, Lewis, it’s like my friend that always puts that she’s sung at Carnegie Hall in her bio. It’s factually correct, but it was with 200 some odd other people. makes me shake my head.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 3:01 pm #
Violating the ethics standards is nothing. Look away. Nothing to see here.
Comment by TaiChiWawa on 7/8 @ 3:03 pm #
The “and associates” — even if only a white(!) lie — suggests that she is not above wanting to appear to be more than what she really is.
Comment by Log Cabin on 7/8 @ 3:05 pm #
I agree with Lewis:
let’s ‘focus’ on her “Wise Latina” judicial philosophy and the fact that her decisions are overturned about as often as recent Cabinet nominees cheat on their taxes.
How’s your ‘focus’ on that?
Comment by JD & Associates on 7/8 @ 3:06 pm #
Denounced, TaiChiWawa.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 3:07 pm #
Why not all of the above, Log Cabin?
Comment by TaiChiWawa on 7/8 @ 3:14 pm #
Denounced, TaiChiWawa.
I’ll get my staff of legal advisers to look into your accusation, JD.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 3:15 pm #
I tend to agree with LC here,
There are some in the MSM that would focus on the “distraction” of getting cought up in criticizing Sotomayor’s self aggrandizement, and would cast it in the light of a petty objectionist argument.
Instead, talk more broadly about here having the “side” firm going while employed as an ADA; that would resonate with a lot of attorneys I know here in NYC among my wife’s liberal lawyer budz especially…
Any attempt to dismiss that would smack of the “good for me, but not for thee” hypocrisy that is apparently among the guiding paradigms of the Oabam administration in general…
That, and the racialistic (is that a word?) outlook of Judge Sotomayor. Keep agitating about her judicial activism beliefs, her racialist remarks, and the fact that her decision in Ricci had absolutely nothing to do with law, and everything to do with “empathy”, illegal quotas, and a fear of being mau-maued by the professional race-baiting grievance-mongers…
Hit her with the big guns, so to speak, and save the side-bar damnations for cocktail party arguments…
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 3:16 pm #
Is that TaiChiWawa and associates perchance..?
Comment by lee on 7/8 @ 3:19 pm #
Did someone say cocktail?
Why yes…yes I do believe I will have another, thanks!
Comment by Darleen on 7/8 @ 3:19 pm #
that one point comprised about a third of your post.
Did you get out a ruler to measure that?
Maybe you should look at the title of my post again and at the concluding paragraph … it was about substituting law for morality. A person of principle wouldn’t have to have a “legal opinion” on using “& Associates” in a solo venture, the question never would have come up.
Yes, it is minor, but it is telling.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/8 @ 3:21 pm #
lee,
Snag one off the silver serving tray for me bro!
Comment by Jim in KC & Partners on 7/8 @ 3:26 pm #
So see? “& Associates” was essentially accurate.
I still say the whole thing was a tax dodge. Dinner is expensive in NYC. But if you can deduct it as a business expense… Makes me wonder if she’s released any tax returns, or if they’re stored with President Dumbo’s transcripts.
Comment by Cranky-d & Associates on 7/8 @ 3:34 pm #
You have to post how I want you to post, dammit! Otherwise, I will send an intimidating letter. If that doesn’t work, I will send another one.
Comment by Cranky-d & Associates on 7/8 @ 3:35 pm #
I will be using my corporate letterhead, of course.
Comment by Danger on 7/8 @ 4:15 pm #
“And whatever one’s position on those tactics are, I predict that there will be a lot of goose-gander commupances dealt out soon…”
Bob,
That one was definately worth framing.
Keep firing!
Comment by Danger on 7/8 @ 4:37 pm #
“Did someone say cocktail?”
Ok, now you’re just being cruel;)
Comment by SBP on 7/8 @ 4:59 pm #
This is ALL you have?
That’s it, “josh”. Ignore the main issue like the good little screechbot you are.
Say, how’s that job search coming along?
Comment by Cranky-d & Associates on 7/8 @ 5:34 pm #
I see no josh here.
Comment by commander0 on 7/8 @ 5:42 pm #
I gotta say I was surprised as all hell that it took this long to find some smelly stuff about her. Because I know things. And one of things I know is that she is from a really mobbed up neighborhood and that that fiance, Peter White, is one seriously sketchy dude. Mutual acquaintances say that she didn’t know but I find that hard to believe. If she didn’t know his history she is a moron. I have said all I’m going to say. I’m being Deep Throat here. Follow the fiance.
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 5:47 pm #
So why do you think she put “& Associates” on there, meya?
What was her intent?
Comment by meya on 7/8 @ 6:08 pm #
I have no idea. I don’t even know what she used the name for.
Comment by Cranky-d & Associates on 7/8 @ 6:14 pm #
The black helicopters are on their way, commandero.
Comment by B Moe on 7/8 @ 6:16 pm #
So you have no idea whether it was fraud or not?
Comment by SBP on 7/8 @ 6:20 pm #
I have no idea.
Liar.
Comment by poppa india on 7/8 @ 6:32 pm #
B Moe, where do you get off questioning your betters? The only judicial Latinas we’re allowed to doubt are those on the Honduran supreme court bench.
Comment by JD on 7/8 @ 6:45 pm #
meya – When you said “I have no idea” that might be the first honest comment you have ever made around here. You should try that more often, you fascist twit.
Comment by LTC John on 7/8 @ 6:55 pm #
So, meya has no idea what the name was for, or what the intent was in using it….but holds an opinion as to the whole issue anyways. Right-o!
Comment by PalmettoTiger on 7/8 @ 7:02 pm #
@76
S&Assoc. was the name of her private law firm that she ran while being an Assistant District Attorney. First sentence in the post. It was an ethical lapse but as for fraud, well, I’d check with the DA’s office….
Back to lurking.
PT
Comment by meya on 7/8 @ 7:21 pm #
“So you have no idea whether it was fraud or not?”
Nope, though I’ve only read the NRO and NYtimes articles on it. I don’t know if she used the name in trade, if people relied on it materially, or if people were damaged by it.
Comment by serr8d on 7/8 @ 7:23 pm #
A properly trained Alinsky-bot wouldn’t think so. Barack Obama, our Organizer in Chief, would probably assign a dozen or so frothing bootlicking anklebiters to file meaningless ethics complaints; all within the scope of existing rules. Such filings would bog down the system and cost
Sarahthe target tens of thousands in private legal fees.We’ve need to learn these tactics, and quickly.
Comment by athomedad on 7/8 @ 7:25 pm #
ne thing that makes “& Associates” significant is that it is a marketing ploy. Why was she marketing her “meaningless” side business.
Comment by Al Gore on 7/8 @ 9:30 pm #
Don’t you people understand no controlling legal authority?
Comment by Sammy on 7/9 @ 1:05 am #
Happyfeet, I hope she gets confirmed just to piss off people like you.
Comment by SBP on 7/9 @ 2:03 am #
Happyfeet, I hope she gets confirmed just to piss off people like you.
Translation: “I am a spoiled child”.
Comment by Danger on 7/9 @ 3:08 am #
“Happyfeet, I hope she gets confirmed just to piss off people like you.”
Dems fight words pal, Feets is good people.
Comment by B Moe on 7/9 @ 5:57 am #
You are a true Patriot, Sammy.
Comment by serr8d on 7/9 @ 6:10 am #
I’m hoping she gets confirmed just so she can piss on people like you who, whilst obviously voting your core Ellsworth Toohey values, voted in that dirty socialist candidate last November, who BTW is already hosing you down. Enjoying that, much?
May you suffer repeated episodes of hosed-on delirium tremens as the America you were birthed to disappears right before your eyes.
Comment by serr8d on 7/9 @ 6:23 am #
Y’know, there’s something good to be said about the average non-progressive hard-working Russians after all. Maybe thorator was on to something.
Oh, and I am not saying “Pimping Malia“. Not at all.
Comment by The Monster on 7/9 @ 7:28 am #
Sounds very familiar:
Comment by mojo on 7/9 @ 10:10 am #
Since when does the word “associate” imply legal credentials?
Pingback by Business Law Attorneys, Atlanta Business Attorneys and Lawyers | Atlanta Georgia Business Attorneys on 7/9 @ 10:14 pm #
[...] Leaving aside whether income the Lawyer earns should be going through the firm, good Law firms set up systems to check for conflicts-of-interest: whenever new Business comes in the door, the firm does a conflicts check to make sure the prospective … Although the White House said Judge Sotomayor earned income in 1983, a spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office, Alicia Maxey Greene, initially said that the office did not allow prosecutors to charge for outside work. … SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor %26mdash; example #1462 of why substituting Law … [...]
Comment by commander0 on 7/10 @ 10:11 am #
“Comment by Cranky-d & Associates on 7/8 @ 6:14 pm #
The black helicopters are on their way, commandero.”
Peter White is once again prominently featured as a knight in shining armor in a puff piece by the NY Times. I know Peter White. If they ever check him out the shitstorm will be biblical.
Comment by Neshobanakni on 7/15 @ 9:34 pm #
“Sotomayor & Associates” was a fiction created for her tax returns. She deducted non-existent home-office expenses. She is a tax fraud. Can somebody, somewhere, prove me wrong before she joins the SCOTUS?
Neshobanakni