« WATCH: Whoopi Goldberg's Advice to People Against Gay Marriage ... | Main | PHOTOS: Janet Jackson at GMA »

26 October 2010



Rod...not sure that you are correct...legal ethics, as far as I know (I'm an attorney, but not in the USA) prohibit meetings where one party is represented and the other is not given the chance to be, OR between counsel for one party and the client on the other side. Meetings between litigants, where no counsel is present, are perfectly fine, and conducted generally on the basis that the discussions there are completely off the record and cannot be utilised in court in any way.

Rod Mc

You're not an attorney in the US and you think I'm wrong? That's interesting because a White House source agrees with my assessment and tells the Wash Blade:

"Some of the participants in the meeting are involved in active litigation against the government on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, so it wouldn’t be appropriate to discuss that litigation. This is standard procedure when there is pending litigation involving the government."


In the U.S., counsel generally prevents litigants from meeting without counsel or off-the-record.

But I wasn't trying to offer a seminar in legal ethics, I was trying to give the WH the benefit of the doubt in what clearly is very bad messaging.


Didn't say I thought you were wrong...said I wasn't sure that you were right...there's a difference. That phrasing was intended as a gentle hint to get you to double check, if you hadn't. I'm on your side, dude...it's ok.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Rod 2.0 Premium

Rod 2.0 Recommends

  • PrideDating.com, a Relationship-Oriented Gay Dating Site

    The largest gay roommate finder in America

    Rolex Watches


Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    Search Rod2.0




    Blog powered by Typepad