tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post1210340783940812284..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Main Justice confirms: DOJ recusal period is 2 yearsBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-10109639958511621172009-05-09T19:47:00.000-07:002009-05-09T19:47:00.000-07:00I'm not sure what the big deal is. Model Rule 1.1...I'm not sure what the big deal is. Model Rule 1.11(d)(2)(i) states that:<br /><br />"Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer currently serving as a public officer or employee ... shall not participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless the appropriate government agency gives its informed consent, confirmed in writing."<br /><br />Dealing with the first part, "except as law may otherwise permit," it's pretty clear that 5 CFR 2635.502 authorizes participation after a thorough review of the circumstances when the agency concludes that there would be no air of impropriety to allow the attorney's inclusion in the case.<br /><br />As for the model rule itself, it clearly only allows participation of a potentially conflicted current government attorney only after the agency itself authorizes it in writing, which goes hand-in-hand with the CFR.<br /><br />Finally, 1.11(d)(1) still requires the government attorney to abide by rules 1.7 and 1.9 for current and former clients, respectively. So if a former industry attorney was required to take a position adverse to their former client in a litigation, he or she would still be under a professional duty to decline representation.<br /><br />Finally, the DoJ would only be pursuing criminal infringement cases anyway, which seems to undercut much of the uninformed internet outrage over the issue. Even if these former industry attorneys were the authors of the brief intervening on statutory damages, it still likely wouldn't qualify as a "matter" in which they had previously personally and substantially participated.<br /><br />From what I've seen, the claims of unprofessionalism and bias and unethical behavior that originate in places like "RIAA vs the People" seem completely unfounded both under the facts and the relevant rules.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com