Bloom’s loaded statement clearly suggests sexism by Griffin who, Bloom noted, “attacked me, a lifetime women’s right [sic] attorney, and not the rest of her team, all of who are men.” That is a tad bizarre since Bloom put herself out as the lead attorney in the press conference.
However, it is the disclosures that raise the most serious questions. Bloom not only attacks her client as unhinged and possibly sexist, but does so by detailing their prior plan and agreement going into the press conference. That could be viewed as a disclosure without consent under Rule 3-100 Confidential Information of a Client.
Moreover, section (f) of those rules states that lawyers should “advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause with which he or she is charged.”
ABA Model Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information does include seven situations permitting disclosures including situations where the client is engaging in fraud through the lawyer’s service, where the client is suing the lawyer, establishing conflicts of interest etc. However, the ABA emphasizes that lawyers must err on the side of less disclosure. Comment 13 stated:
Any such disclosure should ordinarily include no more than the identity of the persons and entities involved in a matter, a brief summary of the general issues involved, and information about whether the matter has terminated. Even this limited information, however, should be disclosed only to the extent reasonably necessary to detect and resolve conflicts of interest that might arise from the possible new relationship.”
The ABA further adds:
Paragraph (b) permits disclosure only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to accomplish one of the purposes specified. …In any case, a disclosure adverse to the client’s interest should be no greater than the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to accomplish the purpose. If the disclosure will be made in connection with a judicial proceeding, the disclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it and appropriate protective orders or other arrangements should be sought by the lawyer to the fullest extent practicable.
Much of what is in Bloom’s statement seems gratuitous and unnecessary. A client can act like a pedantic child but a lawyer cannot. That means that we often have to absorb a hit to preserve professional obligations. Notably, Griffin’s criticism was far less detailed than Bloom’s response. She merely said that she did not like her representation, thought the fees were a waste of money, and wants nothing to do with Bloom. That was all contained in a brief tweet but then Bloom unleashed a detailed and long counterattack that seemed to put her own interests before those of her former client.
Most attorneys avoid public squabbles with their clients and issue terse denials to any suggestion of malpractice or misconduct. Disclosures are possible when an attorney is sued or charged. In favor of Bloom, this is fairly low grade information — a basic allegation that Griffin went off script and ignored the advice of counsel. However, most attorneys would feel uncomfortable disclosing information that the range of legal advice and support given to Griffin.
What do you think?
Few things are as lovely and delicious as Progressives eating each other alive. By all means, please continue with this broadcast. Simply wonderful.
Speaking of Progressives….it’s great to see Progressives screaming for investigations into malevolent cesspool of male sex abusers in Hollywood, AKA DNC-HQ, best friends of Jesus Obama and HRC….NOT!
Jesus and Mary Obama sent their oldest daughter to “apprentice” under Weinstein. Were the Obama’s unspeakably stupid (“Isaac’s” favorite Trump label), or was this Daddy and Mommy Obama’s payment for Weinstein’s estimated half-billion dollars in donations to the DNC,Obama, HRC, etc?
If there’s a third option, please post it. I’m very curious.
WELL, UNHINGED IS RIGHT FOR SURE.
America does not need Hollywood. The digital camera is incredibly cheap. Turner Classic Movies has the original script that everyone copies anyways. Kathy Griffin? I guess its cheap to get a restraining order. Poor and middle class people don’t have the luxury of feuding neighbors. Kathy Griffin got suckered by her class peer group to go extreme, now she can waste her money when she has less work coming in.
Why, if these two hadn’t had so much work, performed on their faces–loading up on plastic surgery, along with Botox and various fillers, injected into their frozen, immovable and lifeless mugs–we’d be able to see just how upset and angry that they really were over this brouhaha. As it stands, we will need to use our imaginations.
I loved this. This is how I get my
Comic relief. Lol.
https://youtu.be/7YylJ8rhdtA
Lol!
Kathy Griffin is crashing and burning.
The inevitable result of trying to mix comedy with politics.
She is unemployable now, as her free-style comedy facade is no longer believable, her income will also crash and burn.
She self-immolated for no good reason, other than to ingratiate herself with the “hate-Trump” club bubble she lives in.
Sad.
I always found her brand of comedy to be cruel.
Don’t count her out. . .at least, not yet. She’ll be back. Perhaps she is having a rough time, now, booking gigs, but she is, in no way, finished as a performer. With the passage of some time, which will allow her to distance herself from this entire episode, she will be back on her feet and running. Look at Martha Stewart. . .a convicted felon, who did time in prison. How many claimed that she was finished? Kaput? Right. She’s back from the dead and still on TV, telling all of us how to properly ice a cake and make the perfect blueberry scones. Trust me, if Martha Stewart can make it back on the airwaves, after she was convicted of a felony and sentenced to time in the big house, surely a comedienne, known and loved for her audacious conduct and performances, will be back. Time heals all wounds. Ever hear of someone named Jane Fonda?
The keyword is now. Hollywood is all about connections and who you know. Pee Wee had a come back.
I love when the parasites start destroying themselves…In case they need more rotting matetial I may have a few more suggestions. Isn’t this the same Bloom gal mentioned with the weinstein story? Just asking.
I think our society is done. Looking at many millennials and the generation coming up – I think three generations of indoctrination is a tipping point (it cracks me up that ‘gen x’ is supposed to have had neglectful parents when the helicoptering and denial of experience modern kids received is the worst possible form – neglect posing as attention). Oh, I’ll keep being a genuine person myself, but we have lost it, and the pockets that want to keep it that way and reinforce it are beyond deep. On this blog people quote policy, procedure, and law. I just don’t know that those concepts hold any salt with the string-pullers.
Much Ado About Nada. Does Griffin hail from Alabama?
These two deserve each other.
I swear I had no idea who this Kathy Griffin was until her stunt. First time I heard the name I thought they were talking about the wife on Family Guy.
There are serious ethical questions involved here for Bloom about revealing confidential information about her client. This is the 2nd legal blog I have seen it commented on at length. I am sure the State Bar of California has already opened a file on this and is looking into it. However, considering it is CA, she is unlikely to get more than a wrist-slap, if that assuming the Bar finds against her.
Still, this is another case of liberals eating their own. 🙂
Bloom should have been trying to put her career back on track, not letting her vanity get the better of her. Griffin’s career is likely unsalvageable, so who cares what she tweets about at 3 am.
CCS – I find it interesting that Bloom, who is the daughter of Gloria Allred, the darling of the feminists, was representing a major (allegedly) sexual predator against women. I always know that if either Gloria Allred or Lisa Bloom are representing someone at a press conference, something hinky is happening.
Has this blog turned into TMZ? I hope not.
The issue of attorneys violated their duties to their clients in matters attracting public attention is a real one. We have seen multiple cases in recent years where attorneys respond to press inquiries or issue statements in their own interests after the termination of representation which violate those duties. This, in turn, indicates to new attorneys, the press, and members of the public that such statements are within the boundaries of permitted conduct. These violations need to be called out as they occur.
I find it ironic that a Liberal is going by the playbook – calling an opponent sexist even when that opponent is a woman and fellow Liberal.
It is possible that Kathy Griffin mentioned Lisa Bloom in a Tweet because Lisa Bloom was calling her, while the rest of her team was not. I have no idea what she was calling her about – unpaid bills? The weather?
Kathy Griffin should not have held up the severed head of the President of the United States, and then complained that people vilified her. Welcome to the free speech she so enjoys as she cruel taunts others in what passes for comedy. She should not have made her quarrel with Lisa Bloom public. Dirty laundry.
Lisa Bloom should not have fueled that public quarrel with a former client. There were more discrete, gracious ways to handle this. She was wrong to disclose absolutely anything that was considered privileged.
A lot of trouble begins with Twitter…
Non story. It belongs in the tabloids, nowhere else. Turley lowers his standong by writing about silly cat fights. Aren’t there more important to write about, especially considering the horror that is happening in the country under Trump?
He writes about what interests him, and occasionally lightens up the choice of topic. There are a variety of threads to choose from, and not all will be everyone’s cup of tea. It’s impossible to please everyone’s interests. Rather than scold the Professor for his choice of conversation on his own blog, I wish you would just choose another topic to read.
JT writes to get the clicks.
Y’know, that big number he throws up every now and then — 40 million, 60 million, whatever — whereupon he thanks the people with no life for commenting so much.
Thank you for your lecture to Louise, though. It exhibits an admonitive streak that is far from endearing while also ignoring your own commentary.
“…especially considering the horror that is happening in the country under Trump”
~+~
I recognize you are looking for an echo chamber to fit your wishes. But as Karen indicates this is Jonathan Turley’s personal web log. He writes what he wants as do the weekenders. Focusing one’s life solely around politics of a certain flavor is truly a waste of that life. But whatever you choose is your choice. Last I checked we weren’t employed to satisfy the specific literary demands of one or two commenters out of nearly 34,000 subscribers. But if you’ve suffered damage as a result of our choice of news topics, you can apply for a refund of the money you contributed.
Darren Smith
I am surprised how many readers take offense at topics chosen – as if you deliberately wrote about something in order to irritate them (their self importance knows few bounds).
Then I am disappointed by the aggressive tone that they often take in their comments. I doubt very much if they would say the same things face-to-face or if they signed their full names.
Ha! Good one Mr Smith!! 🙂
Wow, Louise! Sexist, much? One of those “cats” happens to be an attorney.
https://youtu.be/VKcAYMb5uk4?t=1
Like what horror, Louise? I’m looking at 1.5 million fewer people on food stamps, rising GDP, rising wages, dropping unemployment…Which of these are a “horror” to you?
An attorney violating her ethical obligations to a client for publicity is not a “silly cat fight.” It goes to the heart of how we define the attorney/client relationship and the enforcement of the ethical obligations we voluntarily accept when we agree to represent someone.