the trump election lawsuit thread of dominance

[HenryJames 66365]

 

[Pato del Muerto 52960]

Would that allow him to teach at a law school?  

[TwiceHorn 31705]

9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Would that allow him to teach at a law school?  

Theoretically, yes.  Would a law school want a disbarred perfesser?  Another question entirely.

Chapman is kind of right wing identified, as evidenced by Eastman having been dean at one point.  They dropped him PDQ.

Plus, I think at least one of Wood's disciplinary proceedings was mental fitness related.

Edited July 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[Pato del Muerto 52960]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Theoretically, yes.  Would a law school want a disbarred perfesser?  Another question entirely.

Does Liberty or Robert Morris have a law school?

answered my own question 

https://www.liberty.edu/law/

Edited July 5, 2023 by Pato del Muerto

[TwiceHorn 31705]

Looks like Georgia's bar proceedings are non-public.

The disaster with Sidney Powell and the public proceedings with Eastman (Cali) and Giuliani (NY and DC) are drawing some interesting contrasts among the various discipline schemes of the various states.

[Francisco 2.0 32442]

Still amazing to me how many people have thrown away their careers, respectability and reputation for Donald Trump.  

 

 

 

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26690]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

What bother with the credentials and all the rigamarole of admission to the profession if they are going to allow such a thing?

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

interesting contrasts among the various discipline schemes of the various states.

No two clown shows are alike

[Gatorubet 30437]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

This is Woods proposal, not disciplinary counsel’s proposal.  It would require disciplinary counsel to dismiss two pending claims against him if he goes away quietly. Again, this is what Lin Woods wants, not what has been agreed to. Yet.

[TwiceHorn 31705]

16 minutes ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What bother with the credentials and all the rigamarole of admission to the profession if they are going to allow such a thing?

No two clown shows are alike

Lin Wood is losing his law license under threat of disbarment.  Isn't that the desired outcome?  Why shouldn't they allow such a thing?  What thing are we talking about again?

You keep talking about credentials?  The CPA exam is harder than the Texas Bar, and probably all bars.  I don't know what character and fitness examination they undergo, but I'm pretty sure they have to have five years of accounting school.   Go pick at CPAs for a while.

[tx 3 putt 78009]

5 hours ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Would that allow him to teach at a law school?  

Liberty U has a law school ?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20698]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lin Wood is losing his law license under threat of disbarment.  Isn't that the desired outcome? 

Only part of the desired outcome. You left out "staked out naked for three days in Big Bend while covered in honey." 

[atomheartbevo 90142]

1 hour ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Still amazing to me how many people have thrown away their careers, respectability and reputation for Donald Trump.  

And they are getting absolutely nothing as a result of throwing everything away for Trump.  The moment they stop being useful, he stops returning their phone calls.

Maybe they should have paid attention to all the contractors he stiffed over the years

[Bozo_Casanova 26690]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lin Wood is losing his law license under threat of disbarment.  Isn't that the desired outcome?  Why shouldn't they allow such a thing?  What thing are we talking about again?

You keep talking about credentials?  The CPA exam is harder than the Texas Bar, and probably all bars.  I don't know what character and fitness examination they undergo, but I'm pretty sure they have to have five years of accounting school.   Go pick at CPAs for a while.

I’d say it’s not enough to lose the license. He needs to be publicly expelled from the profession as an example to others. 
And hard to say, but it certainly seems like CPAs police the profession more rigorously based on my interactions with CPAs.

1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Only part of the desired outcome. You left out "staked out naked for three days in Big Bend while covered in honey." 

this but unironically 

[BamaATL 16593]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lin Wood is losing his law license under threat of disbarment.  Isn't that the desired outcome?  Why shouldn't they allow such a thing?  What thing are we talking about again?

You keep talking about credentials?  The CPA exam is harder than the Texas Bar, and probably all bars.  I don't know what character and fitness examination they undergo, but I'm pretty sure they have to have five years of accounting school.   Go pick at CPAs for a while.

No, the desired outcome is him going to prison for sedition.  Just my guess, but this sudden retirement pitch, made by him and released to the public; is a desperate attempt to avoid criminal charges, which are coming.  The kind of delusional thinking that a fool makes right before being indicted; somehow thinking that by volunteering to relinquish his law license it will magically negate the criminal liability he has.  It won't, and in my opinion he is about to be charged and is aware of it, hence this sudden "retirement".  

Lin Wood is a sad story, I will always remember him as the one guy that stood up for Richard Jewel, a man that was ultimately a hero from the Olympic bombing when no one else would.  That's what makes all of these people who have seemingly gleefully thrown away their lives for Donald Trump ultimately tragic; some of them at one point had done good things, and yet here we sit.  It's really sad that he choose to go down the path he has, but he did and now he has to pay for it.  Despite my feeling bad that he choose this path, ultimately, he did choose it, and that will and should have severe consequences.  

[TwiceHorn 31705]

21 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

No, the desired outcome is him going to prison for sedition.  Just my guess, but this sudden retirement pitch, made by him and released to the public; is a desperate attempt to avoid criminal charges, which are coming.  The kind of delusional thinking that a fool makes right before being indicted; somehow thinking that by volunteering to relinquish his law license it will magically negate the criminal liability he has.  It won't, and in my opinion he is about to be charged and is aware of it, hence this sudden "retirement".  

Lin Wood is a sad story, I will always remember him as the one guy that stood up for Richard Jewel, a man that was ultimately a hero from the Olympic bombing when no one else would.  That's what makes all of these people who have seemingly gleefully thrown away their lives for Donald Trump ultimately tragic; some of them at one point had done good things, and yet here we sit.  It's really sad that he choose to go down the path he has, but he did and now he has to pay for it.  Despite my feeling bad that he choose this path, ultimately, he did choose it, and that will and should have severe consequences.  

Well you understand that the state bar of Georgia is incapable of sending him to prison for anything. So within the bounds of obtaniium it's a pretty fair result should it come to pass. 

[Biff Tannen 45786]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

So within the bounds of obtaniium it's a pretty fair result should it come to pass. 

What about the bounds of unobtainium?

[nbmishoid 976]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lin Wood is losing his law license under threat of disbarment.  Isn't that the desired outcome?  Why shouldn't they allow such a thing?  What thing are we talking about again?

You keep talking about credentials?  The CPA exam is harder than the Texas Bar, and probably all bars.  I don't know what character and fitness examination they undergo, but I'm pretty sure they have to have five years of accounting school.   Go pick at CPAs for a while.

Yes, but stay off the engineers.  
In jest.  Whatever the technical skills, many have horrific social ideas.  Like pocket protectors 

[NameAlreadyInUse 5140]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

The CPA exam is harder than the Texas Bar, and probably all bars.  I don't know what character and fitness examination they undergo, but I'm pretty sure they have to have five years of accounting school.   Go pick at CPAs for a while.

Well that was obvious to me when I passed the bar exam on my first try during Boys State my senior year in high school.

[BamaATL 16593]

51 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well you understand that the state bar of Georgia is incapable of sending him to prison for anything. So within the bounds of obtaniium it's a pretty fair result should it come to pass. 

In so far as what the bar can do, no I'd rather see him disbarred.  If he is allowed to retire, in my mind it still sends a wrong message to other potential enablers.  I'd much rather the state bar have teeth, and an allowed retirement in lieu of disbarment, while functionally the same ultimately isn't the same to me.  A retirement doesn't equate to the public shaming and in turn legal ridicule a disbarment does.  Also, I know it's rare for an actual disbarment to happen here, it shouldn't be.  While the vast majority of the legal provision advocates for their clients within the bounds of law and their obligations, we have lots that color way outside the lines.  The state bar has an obligation to hold their written standards, and no one is begging to be made an example of more than him.  (As an aside, I hope the state bar here starts getting serious and disbarring far more). 

In so far as the rest of the criminal matters are concerned, obviously that is no.  

[Bozo_Casanova 26690]

1 hour ago, BamaATL said:

Lin Wood is a sad story, I will always remember him as the one guy that stood up for Richard Jewel, a man that was ultimately a hero from the Olympic bombing when no one else would.  That's what makes all of these people who have seemingly gleefully thrown away their lives for Donald Trump ultimately tragic; some of them at one point had done good things, and yet here we sit.  It's really sad that he choose to go down the path he has, but he did and now he has to pay for it.  Despite my feeling bad that he choose this path, ultimately, he did choose it, and that will and should have severe consequences. 

This too. Lots of them out there. 

[TwiceHorn 31705]

20 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

In so far as what the bar can do, no I'd rather see him disbarred.  If he is allowed to retire, in my mind it still sends a wrong message to other potential enablers.  I'd much rather the state bar have teeth, and an allowed retirement in lieu of disbarment, while functionally the same ultimately isn't the same to me.  A retirement doesn't equate to the public shaming and in turn legal ridicule a disbarment does.  Also, I know it's rare for an actual disbarment to happen here, it shouldn't be.  While the vast majority of the legal provision advocates for their clients within the bounds of law and their obligations, we have lots that color way outside the lines.  The state bar has an obligation to hold their written standards, and no one is begging to be made an example of more than him.  (As an aside, I hope the state bar here starts getting serious and disbarring far more). 

In so far as the rest of the criminal matters are concerned, obviously that is no.  

Well one thing is, there are two bar proceedings cited there.  I'm virtually certain one is a competency type hearing.  Maybe both.  Competence is easy because there aren't any first amendment or zealous advocacy defenses, but they are embarrassing as fuck.  See Chelsea Davis, RIP.

And, you assume that the Bar is going to win any based on "sedition."  I'm not sure that's a good assumption.  You also assume that any such victory would have a deterrent effect on other "seditionists."  I'm not sure that's a good assumption, either.  But I am certainly Surly's biggest deterrence skeptic.

Speaking of winning against seditionists. the Sixth Circuit has had Powell, Wood & Co's sanctions appeal for a ridiculously long time without decision.  OH SHIT, we missed this apparently, but they upheld the sanctions with some caveats.  Post incoming.

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well one thing is, there are two bar proceedings cited there.  I'm virtually certain one is a competency type hearing.  Maybe both.  Competence is easy because there aren't any first amendment or zealous advocacy defenses, but they are embarrassing as fuck.  See Chelsea Davis, RIP.

And, you assume that the Bar is going to win any based on "sedition."  I'm not sure that's a good assumption.  You also assume that any such victory would have a deterrent effect on other "seditionists."  I'm not sure that's a good assumption, either.  But I am certainly Surly's biggest deterrence skeptic.

Speaking of winning against seditionists. the Sixth Circuit has had Powell, Wood & Co's sanctions appeal for a ridiculously long time without decision.  OH SHIT, we missed this apparently, but they upheld the sanctions with some caveats.  Post incoming.

Being an active participant in a crime doesn't provide much in the way of a defense, though to me that's more importantly a criminal matter.  In order for the bar to address that, it may require the criminal matter to be concluded.  That I don't know.  

[tx 3 putt 78009]

Other than the kush, who else has benefitted from their trump relationship ?

[TwiceHorn 31705]

I don't think I missed this, but if I did, it may be worth reposting.

The Sixth Circuit did affirm the Michigan court's award of sanctions against Powell & Co.  It did whittle them down a bit and found certain material not sanctionable. https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/23a0134p-06.pdf

The upshot:

We reverse the district court’s imposition of sanctions against Emily Newman and Stephanie Junttila, respectively; we reverse the state defendants’ fee award as to Lin Wood; we reduce the City’s award to $132,810.62; and we reduce the state defendants’ fee award to $19,639.75. Otherwise, the district court’s imposition of sanctions in its August 25, 2021 order is affirmed

So, it knocked down the award by about $22k and relieved a couple of late-appearing attorneys who didn't do much of sanctions entirely.  It also notably found that the district court failed to identify an "improper purpose" for which the complaint was filed.  

Note, though, that many of the sanctions were based on frivolous aspects of the complaint, and that anyone that signed or advocated the complaint is vicariously liable for sanctions whether they actually participated in drafting the complaint or not.  And neither of those is the ethical standard, which requires knowingly presenting false information to a court, not merely signing onto something that does, and not merely frivolous allegations (that you should have known were bullshit, knowing =/= should have known).

ETA:  this is a nice hit for the good guys.  Don't get too optimistic that it aids any bar sanctions because the standards are significantly different.

Edited July 5, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31705]

8 minutes ago, BamaATL said:

Being an active participant in a crime doesn't provide much in the way of a defense, though to me that's more importantly a criminal matter.  In order for the bar to address that, it may require the criminal matter to be concluded.  That I don't know.  

If any of them are convicted of felonies, that is very likely to result in disbarment or suspension. It would in Texas.  That will be almost automagical.

[Bullneck 19326]

6 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

What bother with the credentials and all the rigamarole of admission to the profession if they are going to allow such a thing?

Listening to The Beat with Ari Melber this afternoon and I'm pretty sure I heard him say Stuart Rhodes has called Trump and told him if the documents case goes to trial he's going to jail.

So you have to wonder if Trump's lawyers came with a plea deal along the lines of a felony conviction with house arrest forever but no Federal prison and an agreement to admit guilt and that he's barred from ever holding office again, should Smith take it?  

Not satisfying but it gets the job done, and without the risk of a hung jury.  And then let Fani Willis, E. Jean Carroll, and Alvin Bragg do their thing . . .

[TexasEd 8163]

Make the Trump deal a Suspended sentence of 20 years with conditions like he cannot raise money, speak publicly or post on social media. 

[TwiceHorn 31705]

31 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Listening to The Beat with Ari Melber this afternoon and I'm pretty sure I heard him say Stuart Rhodes has called Trump and told him if the documents case goes to trial he's going to jail.

So you have to wonder if Trump's lawyers came with a plea deal along the lines of a felony conviction with house arrest forever but no Federal prison and an agreement to admit guilt and that he's barred from ever holding office again, should Smith take it?  

Not satisfying but it gets the job done, and without the risk of a hung jury.  And then let Fani Willis, E. Jean Carroll, and Alvin Bragg do their thing . . .

The call part is true, but just a bunch of whinging about how it's rigged.

[Hookah Horns 3083]

46 minutes ago, Bullneck said:

Listening to The Beat with Ari Melber this afternoon and I'm pretty sure I heard him say Stuart Rhodes has called Trump and told him if the documents case goes to trial he's going to jail.

So you have to wonder if Trump's lawyers came with a plea deal along the lines of a felony conviction with house arrest forever but no Federal prison and an agreement to admit guilt and that he's barred from ever holding office again, should Smith take it?  

Not satisfying but it gets the job done, and without the risk of a hung jury.  And then let Fani Willis, E. Jean Carroll, and Alvin Bragg do their thing . . .

I'd jump all over that. I don't think there's any chance he gets sentenced to prison time anyway. At least not by Cannon. Barring him from running again makes it even better than a conviction at trial. So this is a no brainer. 

There's also a negative eleventy billion percent chance of Trump making that offer or agreeing not to run for office. 

[Biff Tannen 45786]

3 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Listening to The Beat with Ari Melber this afternoon and I'm pretty sure I heard him say Stuart Rhodes has called Trump and told him if the documents case goes to trial he's going to jail.

So you have to wonder if Trump's lawyers came with a plea deal along the lines of a felony conviction with house arrest forever but no Federal prison and an agreement to admit guilt and that he's barred from ever holding office again, should Smith take it?  

Not satisfying but it gets the job done, and without the risk of a hung jury.  And then let Fani Willis, E. Jean Carroll, and Alvin Bragg do their thing . . .

Look, Bullneck's got fan fiction.

[brown water 3784]

8 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

This is Woods proposal, not disciplinary counsel’s proposal.  It would require disciplinary counsel to dismiss two pending claims against him if he goes away quietly. Again, this is what Lin Woods wants, not what has been agreed to. Yet.

We accept your proposal on the condition that you also irrevocably change your first name to Pecker…

[Pato del Muerto 52960]

There’s a certain oomph to trump admitting guilt that you don’t get with a trial conviction.  After all of the witch hunt comments and denials, for his followers to have to hear him confess and then get told over and over that he admitted it, rather than being able to say he’s a political prisoner, it would be a great outcome. 
 

Someone gets trumpy, remind them he admitted guilt. If they say he just did that to avoid prison, ask why he stopped fighting for them. 

[Upgrayedd 5828]

2 hours ago, TexasEd said:

Make the Trump deal a Suspended sentence of 20 years with conditions like he cannot raise money, speak publicly or post on social media. 

And allow anyone that wants to piss on his grave

Edited July 6, 2023 by Upgrayedd
Puss maybe works too

[TwiceHorn 31705]

12 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s a certain oomph to trump admitting guilt that you don’t get with a trial conviction.  After all of the witch hunt comments and denials, for his followers to have to hear him confess and then get told over and over that he admitted it, rather than being able to say he’s a political prisoner, it would be a great outcome. 
 

Someone gets trumpy, remind them he admitted guilt. If they say he just did that to avoid prison, ask why he stopped fighting for them. 

There is, but I don't think his narcissism will permit him to do it.

[Pato del Muerto 52960]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

There is, but I don't think his narcissism will permit him to do it.

Heard, chef. 

[jimmyjazz 46523]

23 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

There’s a certain oomph to trump admitting guilt that you don’t get with a trial conviction.  After all of the witch hunt comments and denials, for his followers to have to hear him confess and then get told over and over that he admitted it, rather than being able to say he’s a political prisoner, it would be a great outcome. 

He'd flip the script within weeks.  "I didn't admit guilt.  That's crazy!  I'm totally innocent!  Deep State!"

[Biff Tannen 45786]

21 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He'd flip the script within weeks hours.  "I didn't admit guilt.  That's crazy!  I'm totally innocent!  Deep State!"

Fixed

[TwiceHorn 31705]

24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

He'd flip the script within weeks hours.  "I didn't admit guilt.  That's crazy!  I'm totally innocent!  Deep State! Mainstream Media! Hoax!"

Fixed it some more.

I'm going to think of that fat orange bastard every time I see the word hoax for the remainder of my time on this mortal coil.

[Bozo_Casanova 26690]

15 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Listening to The Beat with Ari Melber this afternoon and I'm pretty sure I heard him say Stuart Rhodes has called Trump and told him if the documents case goes to trial he's going to jail.

So you have to wonder if Trump's lawyers came with a plea deal along the lines of a felony conviction with house arrest forever but no Federal prison and an agreement to admit guilt and that he's barred from ever holding office again, should Smith take it?  

Not satisfying but it gets the job done, and without the risk of a hung jury.  And then let Fani Willis, E. Jean Carroll, and Alvin Bragg do their thing . . .

Alright, Peter, just listen. Everything is going to be fine. You're very high right now. You will probably be that way for five more hours. Try taking some Vitamin B complex, Vitamin C complex.. if you have beer, go ahead and drink it. Just remember you're a living organism on this planet, and you're very safe. You've just taken a heavy drug. Relax, stay inside, and listen to some music. Do you have any Allman Brothers?

[cactusflinthead 27615]

It was the Freemasons.

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19292]

20 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

If any of them are convicted of felonies, that is very likely to result in disbarment or suspension. It would in Texas.  That will be almost automagical.

[tx 3 putt 78009]

3 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

It was the Freemasons.

 

 

[BamaATL 16593]

6 hours ago, cactusflinthead said:

It was the Freemasons.

 

 

So as I was saying, I'd like to see them reject the retirement and go ahead with the disbarment.   

[Beau Vine 55012]

On 7/5/2023 at 8:27 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Theoretically, yes.  Would a law school want a disbarred perfesser?  Another question entirely.

 

[TwiceHorn 31705]

On 7/6/2023 at 6:31 PM, BamaATL said:

So as I was saying, I'd like to see them reject the retirement and go ahead with the disbarment.   

Well, let me offer a competing perspective.  The mission of "bars" is to license attorneys.  They have kind of a binary "duty cycle": the lawyers subject to their jurisdiction are either admitted to practice or not, barred or disbarred.

As has been discussed, the main criteria for barred or disbarred is protection of the public, as prospective clients, from attorneys who are ethically or mentally impaired.  Bars do not have some roving jurisdiction to publicly try attorneys accused of all manner of malfeasance.  That is mostly left to the civil and criminal systems, with follow-on discipline from the bar in appropriate circumstances.  For attorney problems that don't rise to civil or criminal liability, bars have the ability to bar and disbar those attorneys, according to the rules of conduct, fitness, and character.

So, here you have Lin Wood, an attorney who appears to be impaired on multiple levels, mentally, "politically," and ethically.

The bar has secured his disbarred status.  The public is thus protected from whatever various dangers Lin Wood represents.  From the bar's perspective, mission accomplished.

Bars, like everything else, have limited resources.  If they can secure the ultimate sanction and thereby fulfill the mission of protecting the public without lengthy, expensive, and uncertain proceedings, then they probably should go ahead and do that.

Of course, there is some value to publicly airing the misdeeds of an attorney who is disbarred.  But the processes in the various state bars vary widely as to how public they are, so "proceeding with disbarment" is not a guarantee of a public airing of grievances against Lin Wood.  And, if one of the discipline proceedings is based on his mental fitness, which I believe it is, there is a privacy component to that, meaning most of it would be out of public view.  And most bars are likely to see a greater urgency in disbarring a mentally impaired attorney and it's also likely a more "objective" disbarment standard to meet.  So, would you have them pursue both grounds of disbarment in parallel?  

And, Lin Wood would be spewing some shit about Freemasons no matter how he got disbarred.  He's like Trump in that sense.

Edited July 8, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[BamaATL 16593]

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, let me offer a competing perspective.  The mission of "bars" is to license attorneys.  They have kind of a binary "duty cycle": the lawyers subject to their jurisdiction are either admitted to practice or not, barred or disbarred.

As has been discussed, the main criteria for barred or disbarred is protection of the public, as prospective clients, from attorneys who are ethically or mentally impaired.  Bars do not have some roving jurisdiction to publicly try attorneys accused of all manner of malfeasance.  That is mostly left to the civil and criminal systems, with follow-on discipline from the bar in appropriate circumstances.  For attorney problems that don't rise to civil or criminal liability, bars have the ability to bar and disbar those attorneys, according to the rules of conduct, fitness, and character.

So, here you have Lin Wood, an attorney who appears to be impaired on multiple levels, mentally, "politically," and ethically.

The bar has secured his disbarred status.  The public is thus protected from whatever various dangers Lin Wood represents.  From the bar's perspective, mission accomplished.

Bars, like everything else, have limited resources.  If they can secure the ultimate sanction and thereby fulfill the mission of protecting the public without lengthy, expensive, and uncertain proceedings, then they probably should go ahead and do that.

Of course, there is some value to publicly airing the misdeeds of an attorney who is disbarred.  But the processes in the various state bars vary widely as to how public they are, so "proceeding with disbarment" is not a guarantee of a public airing of grievances against Lin Wood.  And, if one of the discipline proceedings is based on his mental fitness, which I believe it is, there is a privacy component to that, meaning most of it would be out of public view.  And most bars are likely to see a greater urgency in disbarring a mentally impaired attorney and it's also likely a more "objective" disbarment standard to meet.  So, would you have them pursue both grounds of disbarment in parallel?  

And, Lin Wood would be spewing some shit about Freemasons no matter how he got disbarred.  He's like Trump in that sense.

 

[Bozo_Casanova 26690]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Of course, there is some value to publicly airing the misdeeds of an attorney who is disbarred.  But the processes in the various state bars vary widely as to how public they are, so "proceeding with disbarment" is not a guarantee of a public airing of grievances against Lin Wood.  And, if one of the discipline proceedings is based on his mental fitness, which I believe it is, there is a privacy component to that, meaning most of it would be out of public view.  And most bars are likely to see a greater urgency in disbarring a mentally impaired attorney and it's also likely a more "objective" disbarment standard to meet.  So, would you have them pursue both grounds of disbarment in parallel?  

Of course, because otherwise it would be like allowing Christopher Duntsch to voluntarily surrender his medical licensing without some kind of opprobrium or sanction by the profession. The shocking thing about the Duntsch case was the willingness of the profession (absent the heroic actions of a couple people) to countenance a butcher. I would argue (and did, at length with @Sawbonz) that medmal caps make it easy for the medical profession to look the other way from similar cases, but that's another matter. I think he's an imperfect but interesting analogy to Lin Wood and Sidney Powell because at least at some level mental fitness appears to be an issue, but the real problem is the outsized  consequence of their actions.
Christopher Duntsch wasn't just bad for his patients, as bad as he was. He was bad for the profession and undermined the integrity of the medical system. His actions caused people in pain to avoid care and distrust all doctors. Wood and Powell's negative impact on the law likewise goes far beyond damaging the interests of their clients. Simply letting it be over on his terms seems far too restrained. 

[BamaATL 16593]

The mission of the bar system is not to license attorneys first and foremost.  The purpose is to, among its members; to improve the administration of justice and to advance the science of law.  Additionally, it's to bring a sense of duty and service to the general public.  In order to do so admitting members is part of that, but not central to the association.  Ethical and competency discipline/dismissal are a part of what it does for sure.  I'll even buy the limited resources argument, and I understand the general confidentiality of it all.  

In my opinion, taking the win is sometimes good enough.  In this instance it isn't.  But that is an opinion. 

[Chad Fuck 17897]

It was the Freemasons.
 
 

I knew I liked those guys.

[Chad Fuck 17897]

The mission of the bar system is not to license attorneys first and foremost.  The purpose is to, among its members; to improve the administration of justice and to advance the science of law.  Additionally, it's to bring a sense of duty and service to the general public.  In order to do so admitting members is part of that, but not central to the association.  Ethical and competency discipline/dismissal are a part of what it does for sure.  I'll even buy the limited resources argument, and I understand the general confidentiality of it all.  
In my opinion, taking the win is sometimes good enough.  In this instance it isn't.  But that is an opinion. 

This. We need to foment public trust in the legal system. The bar is one aspect of that. Bad examples need to be made public. It’s why the first thing I do when I get the bar magazine every month is skip to the back and ask myself, “How did these people fuck up?” and “How can I avoid that?”

Usually the answer is “don’t fuck around with people’s money.” I’ve yet to see “don’t commit treason” come up, but I remain hopeful.