[mabbo]

I think the judge should not take into consideration anything about where the lawyer said they got the case information from.

When you go to court and cite previous cases, you are responsible for ensuring they are real cases. If you can't do that, what exactly is your job as a lawyer?

[kevinmchugh]

If someone hacked westlaw and maliciously replaced opinions, I think it would not warrant censure of lawyers who cited westlaw. Maybe a bad day with the judge, and they'd have to amend the filings. This is malpractice in a way that relying on an accepted if technically fallible resource isn't

[mabbo]

What a great plot that would be for a movie.

Big court case where it's pretty clear the plucky good guys aren't going to win it. So they hire hackers to break into westlaw and give the opposition fake cases, then bait them into presenting those cases - and call them out in it.

[dylan604]

>If you can't do that, what exactly is your job as a lawyer?

to convince some (judge/jury) that your client is the one to win the trial. ethics are meant to be the definer of how far to go in that cause with licensing boards being the ultimate decider if you've crossed the line and are allowed to continue in the legal practice.

[inopinatus]

Grinding against the safety rails on a mountain hairpin is not indicative of a competent driver.

[dylan604]

no, but that driver might just be that much more successful if they get away with it. in fact, while not a mountain hairpin as your example, there was a recent race car driver that did a similar thing by intentionally using the wall as a push back to allow a maneuver that allowed for success.

so a clever comment attempting to prove a point is not always indicative of a proven point ;-)

[inopinatus]

This amounts to openly advocating for dangerous driving, which is exactly the reductio ad absurdum in rejecting the advice to lawyers above.

That maneuver by Ross Chastain? It is banned.

[hluska]

No, but a winky smile after an intentionally inflammatory reply is usually indicative of someone I’m not interested in reading again. Doubly so when they refuse to use capital letters.

[subarctic]

reading what again?

[roqi]

Anything you have to say, mostly.

[freejazz]

There's a difference between having a point and having a good point. You don't have the latter.

[roqi]

> ethics are meant to be the definer of how far to go (...)

No, the definition of "ethics" is "moral principles that govern a person's behaviour or the conducting of an activity."

If you feel compelled to resort to immoral behavior to win arguments, you already lost, and your contributions to society are a net negative.

Your argument is like stating that ethics in life are meant to be the definer of how far to go in that cause, with police departments being the ultimate decider if you've crossed the line. However, if you rob and murder random people without being caught by the police, you are undoubtedly an utter failure in life.

[freejazz]

hmmm - I'll let you ponder what you think the licensing boards use to determine if you crossed the line if not for ethics....