Ethics

WSJ Law Blog covers the story.  My initial post about her is here.

UPDATE: She got ten years. Given her age (70) and her health, that's a stern sentence (if not a life sentence).

It's hard to tell from the just the news article, but it appears that the "bubble" argument she made, with the help of her trial lawyer Michael Tigar, was on that the judge considered to be a form of lying.  If so, I have to disagree with the judge on that point.  I thought it was an appropriate rhetorical device for arguing to the jury.  (The notion was that her duty of zeal helped created a "bubble" of room for her to lawyer for her client even if the ethics rules and criminal law otherwise seemed to prohibit her conduct.)

I do believe that her argument about using sounds to prevent guards from over-hearing privileged conversations was simply a lie.  She wasn't really lawyering.  And at times when guards appeared at the window she play-acted as if she was lawyering.

The judge also seemed to be offended by Stewart's post-conviction comments, finding them to show a lack of awareness and remorse.  Here, I think, the judge was on firmer ground.  I live-blogged her appearance at Hofstra, where the law students relentlessly pushed her on related issues, and I didn't sense that much regret on her part except for getting caught.