I’d better plead the 5th at this point before you get me in trouble.

I’d better plead the 5th at this point before you get me in trouble.

As Lawyer Bryant might say: “Wow, she must have been keeoing you very happy!!”

As Lawyer Bryant might say: “Wow, she must have been keeoing you very happy!!”

Thanks David. As for the check, the funds actually went to my law firm, which generously allowed me to spend massive amounts of pro bono time on this case at the expense of billable time (a good 40 hours in the space of 2 weekdays and a weekend).

Thanks David. As for the check, the funds actually went to my law firm, which generously allowed me to spend massive amounts of pro bono time on this case at the expense of billable time (a good 40 hours in the space of 2 weekdays and a weekend).

No editing needed, UCL. Thank you for sharing a good example and a good story. (I would have cashed the check, after making a nice photocopy.)

No editing needed, UCL. Thank you for sharing a good example and a good story. (I would have cashed the check, after making a nice photocopy.)

I hope you’re sitting down, because I have a real-life anecdote to quickly relate to you. It illustrates the absurdity of Justice Pariente’s opinion. Apologies for the length; feel free to edit if you wish.

A few years ago, my lovely wife was an international student from a western European country. She had suffered many injustices before making her way to this country, and in recognition of that she won a coveted, discretionary right to live in this country permanently. Unfortunately, this right was strictly conditioned on our federal government’s timely processing of her immigration paperwork. If the government was untimely, even through no fault of her own, she would have to leave.

Needless to say, the government bungled up her file. Despite having 2 years to process it, with only 10 days left before she would irrevocably lose her right to live here, they were still telling her, “Stop bothering us. We’ll handle it.” She had nowhere to go, no formal government remedy to appeal to (typical of immigration law), and no resources to fight these stubborn government bureaucrats. Except for one little thing: me.

On her behalf, I filed an emergency mandamus action in federal district court. Within 2 days, a brilliant jurist (former law clerk to a certain Supreme Court justice) who sits on the federal bench called us and the US Attorney into his courtroom for an emergency hearing. My motion was air-tight and the case law directly on point. The judge admonished the government, and granted our mandamus relief. His order, and the check for attorney fees we subsequently won under the Equal Access to Justice Act, are currently framed on my office wall.

Justice Pariente would have barred me from taking this extraordinary action on behalf of my wife (she was in fact my fiancee at the time). Clearly, while her proposed rule has good intentions, it is far too sweeping and does not recognize a myriad of circumstances where intimate relations should not necessarily bar an attorney from representing a client. Note, I would not have taken on representation of my wife for a matter concerning protracted litigation. But this was a one-shot, all-or-nothing emergency injunctive motion and I was the only person in a position to do it pro bono. Justice was achieved because I was permitted to act on her behalf, despite my relationship with her.

I hope you’re sitting down, because I have a real-life anecdote to quickly relate to you. It illustrates the absurdity of Justice Pariente’s opinion. Apologies for the length; feel free to edit if you wish.

A few years ago, my lovely wife was an international student from a western European country. She had suffered many injustices before making her way to this country, and in recognition of that she won a coveted, discretionary right to live in this country permanently. Unfortunately, this right was strictly conditioned on our federal government’s timely processing of her immigration paperwork. If the government was untimely, even through no fault of her own, she would have to leave.

Needless to say, the government bungled up her file. Despite having 2 years to process it, with only 10 days left before she would irrevocably lose her right to live here, they were still telling her, “Stop bothering us. We’ll handle it.” She had nowhere to go, no formal government remedy to appeal to (typical of immigration law), and no resources to fight these stubborn government bureaucrats. Except for one little thing: me.

On her behalf, I filed an emergency mandamus action in federal district court. Within 2 days, a brilliant jurist (former law clerk to a certain Supreme Court justice) who sits on the federal bench called us and the US Attorney into his courtroom for an emergency hearing. My motion was air-tight and the case law directly on point. The judge admonished the government, and granted our mandamus relief. His order, and the check for attorney fees we subsequently won under the Equal Access to Justice Act, are currently framed on my office wall.

Justice Pariente would have barred me from taking this extraordinary action on behalf of my wife (she was in fact my fiancee at the time). Clearly, while her proposed rule has good intentions, it is far too sweeping and does not recognize a myriad of circumstances where intimate relations should not necessarily bar an attorney from representing a client. Note, I would not have taken on representation of my wife for a matter concerning protracted litigation. But this was a one-shot, all-or-nothing emergency injunctive motion and I was the only person in a position to do it pro bono. Justice was achieved because I was permitted to act on her behalf, despite my relationship with her.