Ethics

[Note: This post was by John Steele.  Sorry for any confusion.]

Story here.  Let's see where they come out.  The decision is due within 90 days.

I've never been impressed with the argument that only lawyers in private practice can't be trusted to abide by screens.  I wish the courts would own up to the rationale that really drives their results: forbidding the use of screens is always expensive and is sometimes unnecessary, and as a matter of fiscal policy we don't want to foist unnecessary costs onto low-cost, under-funded parts of the legal profession.  That's a rationale that a reasonable person might accept.  By casting too-broad aspertions about private practice lawyers and by ignoring the full range of motivations that could tempt all lawyers to respect or to disregard a screen, the courts overplay their hand and create disrespect for their reasoning. 

But, who knows?  Maybe the court won't rely on that old canard.  But if I were a betting man, I'd predict that the court will repeat the canard.