New firearms attorney

[OfficerObie59]

They way I knew this "went public" was an email from a friend of mine that started "Almost drove off of the road - Radio 96.9...." so yes, it has been on the radio.

That's what happened to me. Thank god for rumble strips.

I think Jason's issue will be the passionate views regarding guns and firearms. While DA's often switch sides, people don't usually take the policy of the general criminal law personally, or when the corporate attorney switches sides, people dont take the policy of the big banks so personally--and even when they do, they usually don't experience so much negativity at the hands of a single person. We ascribe that those attorneys are doing a job and don't intensely believe the policies and laws they enforce.

The same may or may not go for Guida, I don't know. But he has an uphill road to hoe for the people who believe he does. Unlike most criminals who likely don't have strong policy opinions on why larceny shouldn't be illegal, it's incredibly important to most 2A proponents that a person representing them truly believes in the RKBA.

Don't get me wrong--there are huge benefits to knowing where the bodies are buried and who the players are. But as evidenced here, I don't see the 2A Community giving Guida an instant pass. While he is no doubt duty bound to represent his client to his utmost ability and is no doubt qualified, the 2nd Amendment is far too personal and important for many passionate gun owners to respect a turncoat.

Current ethics rules for state employees:

(a) Forever ban. After you leave your state job, you may never work for anyone other than the state on a matter that you worked on as a state employee.

If you participated in a matter as a state employee, you cannot ever be paid to work on that same matter for anyone other than the state, nor may you act for someone else, whether paid or not. The purpose of this restriction is to bar former employees from selling to private interests their familiarity with the facts of particular matters that are of continuing concern to the state. The restriction does not prohibit former state employees from using the expertise acquired in government service in their subsequent private activities.​

(b) One year cooling-off period. For one year after you leave your state job you may not participate in any matter over which you had official responsibility during your last two years of public service.

Former state employees are barred for one year after they leave state employment from personally appearing before any agency of the state in connection with matters that were under their authority in their prior state positions during the two years before they left.​

The ethics rules for attorneys are someone more extensive. However, the client conflict rules for attorneys going from government to private practice are more relaxed than they would be for an attorney who goes from one firm to another. The reason is because never allowing an attorney to work against their former employer would bar them from huge sloth of cases, and there's a presumption clients have a right to the attorney of their choice.

Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.11:

RULE 1.11 SUCCESSIVE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT

(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation. No lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:

(1) the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

(2) written notice is promptly given to the appropriate government agency to enable it to ascertain compliance with the provisions of this rule.

(b) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person acquired when the lawyer was a public officer or employee, may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may undertake or continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.

(c) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer serving as a public officer or employee shall not:

(1) participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or nongovernmental employment, unless under applicable law no one is, or by lawful delegation may be, authorized to act in the lawyer's stead in the matter; or

(2) negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as lawyer for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially, except that a lawyer serving as a law clerk to a judge, other adjudicative officer, arbitrator, or mediator may negotiate for private employment as permitted by Rule 1.12(b) and subject to the conditions stated in Rule 1.12(b).

(d) As used in this rule, the term "matter" includes:

(1) any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties, and

(2) any other matter covered by the conflict of interest rules of the appropriate government agency.

(e) As used in this rule, the term "confidential government information" means information which has been obtained under governmental authority and which, at the time this rule is applied, the government is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose, and which is not otherwise available to the public.
Comment

[1] This Rule prevents a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of a private client. It is a counterpart of Rule 1.10(b), which applies to lawyers moving from one firm to another.

[2] A lawyer representing a government agency, whether employed or specially retained by the government, is subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct, including the prohibition against representing adverse interests stated in Rule 1.7 and the protections afforded former clients in Rule 1.9. See Comment 8 to Rule 1.7. In addition, such a lawyer is subject to Rule 1.11 and to statutes and government regulations regarding conflict of interest. Such statutes and regulations may circumscribe the extent to which the government agency may give consent under this Rule.

[3] Where the successive clients are a public agency and a private client, the risk exists that power or discretion vested in public authority might be used for the special benefit of a private client. A lawyer should not be in a position where benefit to a private client might affect performance of the lawyer's professional functions on behalf of public authority. Also, unfair advantage could accrue to the private client by reason of access to confidential government information about the client's adversary obtainable only through the lawyer's government service. However, the rules governing lawyers presently or formerly employed by a government agency should not be so restrictive as to inhibit transfer of employment to and from the government. The government has a legitimate need to attract qualified lawyers as well as to maintain high ethical standards. The provisions for screening and waiver are necessary to prevent the disqualification rule from imposing too severe a deterrent against entering public service.

[4] When the client is an agency of one government, that agency should be treated as a private client for purposes of this Rule if the lawyer thereafter represents an agency of another government, as when a lawyer represents a city and subsequently is employed by a federal agency.

[5] Paragraphs (a)(1) and (b) do not prohibit a lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement. They prohibit directly relating the lawyer's compensation to the fee in the matter in which the lawyer is disqualified.

[6] Paragraph (a)(2) does not require that a lawyer give notice to the government agency at a time when premature disclosure would injure the client; a requirement for premature disclosure might preclude engagement of the lawyer. Such notice is, however, required to be given as soon as practicable in order that the government agency will have a reasonable opportunity to ascertain that the lawyer is complying with Rule 1.11 and to take appropriate action if it believes the lawyer is not complying.

[7] Paragraph (b) operates only when the lawyer in question has knowledge of the information, which means actual knowledge; it does not operate with respect to information that merely could be imputed to the lawyer.

[8] Paragraphs (a) and (c) do not prohibit a lawyer from jointly representing a private party and a government agency when doing so is permitted by Rule 1.7 and is not otherwise prohibited by law.

[9] Paragraph (c) does not disqualify other lawyers in the agency with which the lawyer in question has become associated.

Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Similar to Model Rule 1.11.

Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. (b) and (e) no counterpart; DR 9-101 (B).

Cross-reference: See definition of "person" in Rule 9.1(h).

 

[cekim]

Lawyers seem to find a way to firewall away even the most obvious conflicts these days.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Off topic a bit, but that office also requires that all ADAs not hold a pistol possession or carry permit from any jurisdiction.

I would challenge the shit out of that if I worked for them.

Ironic...my job REQUIRES it.

 

[cekim]

I would challenge the shit out of that if I worked for them.

Ironic...my job REQUIRES it.

They will claim BFOQ, you have to be a disarmed sheep for the job.

 

[OfficerObie59]

Ahhhh! Just heard his radio ad again.

 

[pastera]

Font is screwed up - did he hire a ten year old to do the page?

 

[mac1911]

Guida's 1st step should be to file a complaint against the chsb for with holding the very forms to which provide us leagal standing......

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Font is screwed up - did he hire a ten year old to do the page?

It's not that the font is screwed up - the entire page is an image, rather than tagged HTML. Rock of what was done so far no doubt met hard place of go-live deadline.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

The new site seems competently designed - nothing fancy, but it works and has the basic information about his practice.