This is interesting. But, is there an ethics violation here? I just don't know enough about the topic to comment.

aggiehawg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

This is interesting. But, is there an ethics violation here? I just don't know enough about the topic to comment.

---

Don't know enough yet to say. Smith had unlimited budget to hire whomever he wanted on the taxpayer dimes. The only reason I can think of why they would be pro bono is to keep their involvement under the radar for some period of time, at least. Why? Curious about that.

---

Yeah, I get that.

But a government employee getting outside counsel to provide advice that what he is doing is / isn't illegal, regardless of what the DOJ says, doesn't seem to be something I would want to restrict.

Let's say that Jack Smith wasn't an absolute filthy pig, and he got some advice from outside counsel that this was all dirty, and Jack resigned his position as opposed to continuing his work. I would say that it was pretty smart for him to ask outside counsel their opinion before resigning.

However, I agree with you that the people that are involved here sure do point towards a major conflict and trying to hide things that are illegal.

aggiehawg said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

This is interesting. But, is there an ethics violation here? I just don't know enough about the topic to comment.

---

Don't know enough yet to say. Smith had unlimited budget to hire whomever he wanted on the taxpayer dimes. The only reason I can think of why they would be pro bono is to keep their involvement under the radar for some period of time, at least. Why? Curious about that.

---

Is there a reliance on counsel defense that works better if he engaged outside counsel vs inside?

Just rewatched Goliath Season 1 so I feel my legal expertise is at least that of Brittany Gold, maybe even Patty Solis-Papagian!

Seriously though, does Smith get to hid behind such if DOJ comes knockin? I don't think Biden handed him a nifty pardon.

LOL. The last people anyone should ask about a conflict of interests is Covington, Burling.

Besides there is a section at DOJ to which he could consult on whether to resign or not.

BusterAg said:

---

But a government employee getting outside counsel to provide advice that what he is doing is / isn't illegal, regardless of what the DOJ says, doesn't seem to be something I would want to restrict.

Let's say that Jack Smith wasn't an absolute filthy pig, and he got some advice from outside counsel that this was all dirty, and Jack resigned his position as opposed to continuing his work. I would say that it was pretty smart for him to ask outside counsel their opinion before resigning.

---

I would think he should be reliant on inside counsel. What he was doing was an act of government, right?

He was taking free advice that you or I would never be offered.

legalizing "Quid pro Quo"

Quote:

---

I would think he should be reliant on inside counsel. What he was doing was an act of government, right?

He was taking free advice that you or I would never be offered.

---

Why I think Covington, Burling was being used as some type of cut-out. Maybe Fanni Willis? Alvin Bragg? Letitia James?

CampSkunk said:

---

If somebody gives me $140,000 worth of free legal advice because I'm a government employee, or a soon to be separated government employee, don't I have an additional $140,000 in taxable income?

---

You most certainly would. Jack Smith is probably going to live in Europe until democrats are back in charge.

Jack Smith better remember to report those services on his taxes.

CampSkunk said:

---

If somebody gives me $140,000 worth of free legal advice because I'm a government employee, or a soon to be separated government employee, don't I have an additional $140,000 in taxable income?

---

A gift to you is not taxable income to you.

Providing pro bono legal services for someone does not mean they have to report the money they didn't pay on their taxes.

As aggiehawg is raising above, why in the hell is the government employee receiving free legal services? Even at a $2500 rate this is over 50 hours of time. Stinks to high heaven

But is a gift to a government employee really a gift? This law firm didn't give me $140,000 worth of services, because I can't give them anything in return. But government employee Jack Smith certainly was capable of a quid pro quo.

CampSkunk said:

---

But is a gift to a government employee really a gift? This law firm didn't give me $140,000 worth of services, because I can't give them anything in return. But government employee Jack Smith certainly was capable of a quid pro quo.

---

I remember working for a large American technology company and being deployed to Canada to close down a satellite company. In the process, we worked with some Canadian employees of our company and some employees of the Canadian company their work was being outsourced to. We were extremely cautious to not take anything of value from the new company so as not to appear to be doing anything improper.

Guess working for the government is significantly different.

CampSkunk said:

---

But is a gift to a government employee really a gift? This law firm didn't give me $140,000 worth of services, because I can't give them anything in return. But government employee Jack Smith certainly was capable of a quid pro quo.

---

until they receive the quo, its just a quid. being "capable" of the quid pro quo does not make it rise to a taxable event. but it is why its completely inappropriate and unethical

for tax purposes, its not "income" to Smith.

BusterAg said:

---

This is interesting. But, is there an ethics violation here? I just don't know enough about the topic to comment.

---

If you ain't violating ethics, you ain't trying. Bonus points for violating the law.

It does appear to me that Smith was consulting them in both his private and positional capacities.

So about attorney client privilege. Billing records (even if pro bono) are NOT protected by AC privilege. Need to find out where that $140,000 number originated.

Awesome. Thanks for the research and update.

Looks like there is a mechanism in place to investigate this kind of gift to fed employees.

I'm hoping that Martin finds those receipts he is looking for!

I give you a blue parachute.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

CampSkunk said:

---

But is a gift to a government employee really a gift? This law firm didn't give me $140,000 worth of services, because I can't give them anything in return. But government employee Jack Smith certainly was capable of a quid pro quo.

---

I remember working for a large American technology company and being deployed to Canada to close down a satellite company. In the process, we worked with some Canadian employees of our company and some employees of the Canadian company their work was being outsourced to. We were extremely cautious to not take anything of value from the new company so as not to appear to be doing anything improper.

Guess working for the government is significantly different.

---

Different issue here.

Stealing intellectual property is what you are referring to. The problem with Jack is that he was working with terribly conflicted law firms while working on the Trump investigation. If these law firms were helping Jack Smith to engage in lawfare because they would financially benefit from Jack bringing these charges against Trump, and this was not properly disclosed that opens up a can of worms that will be a legal problem for everyone involved.

Quote:

---

Billing records (even if pro bono) are NOT protected by AC privilege.

---

to expound on this, the records are not necessarily protected, but things within those records are protected. for example, in the below billing entries, the part in italics is protected by privilege and would be redacted in the bills.

Conference with client regarding relevant law in this jurisdiction, potential defenses and strategy

Research law in New York on statute of limitations and draft memo outlining strategy for other jurisdictions


whats interesting about this Smith case is that if he was getting advice/counsel is his professional capacity, then DoJ holds the privilege and can waive it from my understanding.

Quote:

---

whats interesting about this Smith case is that if he was getting advice/counsel is his professional capacity, then DoJ holds the privilege and can waive it from my understanding.

---

Yep. And demand all the files since they would be the client and therefore entitled to them.