New firearms attorney

I heard the radio spot on 96.9 as well, I believe it was last thursday night while pulling into the driveway. It was during the Michael Graham show.
 
I'm not against his right to cash in on the private side and I'm glad he's not stomping on people's rights anymore from the cop/gov side. I'm just saying I hope he fails miserably and goes bankrupt.
 
xtry51 said:
I'm not against his right to cash in on the private side and I'm glad he's not stomping on people's rights anymore from the cop/gov side. I'm just saying I hope he fails miserably and goes bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Switching to the right side of the 2A doesn't make him any less of a douchebag.
 
fencer said:
Well, he should certainly know the inner workings better than anyone. However, Attorney Cohen's phone number is still the one in my cell phone and the number I have told my wife to call if, heaven forbid, I should need the advice of an attorney
Click to expand...
THIS
 
No, there is nothing wrong with him cashing in, as others have said though, he is still a douchebag. I hope he fails miserably as well.
 
A good attorney is like an atomic bomb. Once you see what they're capable of, you thank God you got them first. And you do everything in your power to keep them on your side.
 
This just goes to show that the guy was only doing the job because somebody hired him to do it. Pro-gun, anti-gun -- not the issue. This guy is pro-money. That's something to remember when dealing with a corrupt and oppressive government. Most of the people you meet are just looking to make a paycheck. It doesn't excuse their behavior, but it does tell you something about how to deal with them.
 
What's the saying, keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

-tapatalk and Devin McCourty blow chunks-
 
W.E.C said:
umm, yeah there is something wrong with that, especially if you already coughed up your$100 bucks and your just as qualified as the next joe the next town over who has his "a" sail right through, and yours cost you 5 large.
it is called extortion .between the ahole cleo and him.
Click to expand...

I was going to let this go but...

Seriously Pal, do you really believe that I was advocating in favor of the licensing system? You really got that from my post?

Why do you have a problem with people trying to make money? You hate capitalism.

(See what happens when you read too much into shit?)
 
EddieCoyle said:
I was going to let this go but...

Seriously Pal, do you really believe that I was advocating in favor of the licensing system? You really got that from my post?

Why do you have a problem with people trying to make money? You hate capitalism.

(See what happens when you read too much into shit?)
Click to expand...

[rofl]
 
economist said:
This just goes to show that the guy was only doing the job because somebody hired him to do it. Pro-gun, anti-gun -- not the issue. This guy is pro-money. That's something to remember when dealing with a corrupt and oppressive government. Most of the people you meet are just looking to make a paycheck. It doesn't excuse their behavior, but it does tell you something about how to deal with them.
Click to expand...
There is something else I have experienced in talking directly with them in addition to "getting paid" and "getting elected" driving them...

There is a surprising amount of good old fashioned ignorance among them. I expected a fair amount, but ran into "profound" ignorance when I talked with them. Most of them have no idea what is on the books, what it means, what it does, who it hurts and how little good it does (abso-!@#$ing-lutely none).

This is part of why I think, as futile as this state often seems, there is still work to do in engaging with the people in office in ways we have not previously. First and foremost to understand how to get better people in those offices, but secondarily to fill the void of ignorance within those who currently hold these offices.

There are those who are beyond help and just openly hostile to our civil rights, but there are far more who are ambivalent, apathetic and as mentioned, ignorant of these issues.
 
Don't understand why anyone has an issue with this. Like someone else said earlier on, this is no different than an ADA leaving govt work and going into private practice as a defense attorney. They know the system , the judges, the workings etc.

Many attorneys start their careers with the govt, it is great training, not great money. As an attorney, you are paid to represent your client, regardless of what others think about the guilt or innocence.

I think the 6th amendment tells you are going to need an attorney to protect your 4,5,7, 8th rights when the SHTF for you.
 
What is that old joke... the difference between a hooker and a lawyer.... (read down for punch line)

I know there are a bunch of former A.D.A.'s that go into private practice and promote themselves as having access the the office that is beneficial for the client, and I think that is unethical.

There is definitely an ethics issue here, where a former state employee is going to lobby his former office/department on behalf of his clients. Other than that he is going to do what? Call local departments and show up in district court for the denial appeal hearings?

When he comes out in the press denouncing all the policies he had a hand in crafting, and does pro bono work on behalf of Comm 2A in a class action lawsuit to get non residents their 2A rights to keep and bear firearms in MA let me know.

Otherwise he is just another former hack selling himself for personal gain at our expense.

and the punchline.... there are some things a hooker will not do.
 
Glockaholic said:
What is that old joke... the difference between a hooker and a lawyer.... (read down for punch line)

I know there are a bunch of former A.D.A.'s that go into private practice and promote themselves as having access the the office that is beneficial for the client, and I think that is unethical.

There is definitely an ethics issue here, where a former state employee is going to lobby his former office/department on behalf of his clients. Other than that he is going to do what? Call local departments and show up in district court for the denial appeal hearings?

When he comes out in the press denouncing all the policies he had a hand in crafting, and does pro bono work on behalf of Comm 2A in a class action lawsuit to get non residents their 2A rights to keep and bear firearms in MA let me know.

Otherwise he is just another former hack selling himself for personal gain at our expense.

and the punchline.... there are some things a hooker will not do.
Click to expand...

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.​
 
EddieCoyle said:
ntomsw said:
There has to be a motive here.
Click to expand...

There is. He wants to cash in, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...
Cashing in on a situation where civil rights are involved seems a little wrong. Even taking pay for the position he held previously smacks of "just following orders."

That said, if i had a situation where I needed a lawyer, I wouldn't rule him out.
 
In business, this stuff happens all the time. For example, buyer from company 'X' leaves and joins company 'Y' as a seller to company 'X' - no accident, they know the playing field and "switched sides", and that is why 'Y' hired them.
 
Isn't This A Conflict Of Interest?

Explanation of the Law for Former State Employees

Massachusetts G.L. c. 268A, the conflict of interest law, continues to apply to state employees, and in some cases their partners, even after the employees leave public service. Section 5 of the law deals with former state employees, and is designed to prevent state employees from making official judgments with an eye toward their personal future interests, or from profiting by their participation in particular decisions or controversies after they leave state service. Furthermore, the law keeps former employees from misusing their past friendships and associations within government to derive an unfair advantage for themselves or others. The law does not prohibit former employees from using expertise gained while employed by the state.

In certain instances the law also prohibits former employees from referring to their partners matters in which they themselves are prohibited from participating.

Section 5(a) -- Restriction from Participation in Particular Matters

Section 5(a) prohibits former state employees from acting as agent or attorney for, or directly or indirectly receiving compensation from, anyone other than the commonwealth or a state agency in connection with any particular matter [1] that is of concern to the commonwealth or a state agency and in which they participated [2] as state employees. Thus, if you actually participated in a particular matter, you can never become involved in that same matter after you leave state service for anyone other than the commonwealth.

Whether former state employees are affected by this section is determined by whether they participated, personally and substantially, as state employees in a particular matter such as a recommendation, decision, application or contract. Participation generally means any official action that entails more than ministerial acts such as the signing of an uncontested weekly payroll warrant. Thus, if your current employment involves matters in connection with the past particular matters in which you participated, it is activity perpetually prohibited under this section.

Example: A former state employee who made recommendations on and decisions pertaining to regulations enacted in her state agency is prohibited from working for a private organization on a challenge to the validity of those regulations.

Example: A former employee of the MBTA may not work for an MBTA contractor under the same contract in which he participated as a state employee.

Example: A former state agency attorney is prohibited from representing a private client in new litigation where the parties, facts, and controversy are identical to a lawsuit in which she participated as a state attorney.​

Section 5(b) -- One Year Restriction on Appearance Involving Matters over which Former Employees had Official Responsibility

Section 5(b) focuses on matters over which former state employees exercised authority. Section 5(b) prohibits former state employees, for one year, from personally appearing before any court or state agency as an agent or attorney for anyone other than the commonwealth in connection with a particular matter that concerns the state and where the matter was under their official responsibility [3] within two years prior to their termination from state service. In other words, this section operates prospectively as a one year ban on former state employees' personal appearances in connection with matters under their authority for the two years prior to their leaving state service.

Under this section, state employees' official responsibilities would include particular matters that they delegated to a subordinate, as well as matters in which they abstained from participation. A personal appearance includes not only the physical appearance of former state employees before their former agencies, but also includes telephone calls or correspondence to their former state agencies made on behalf of any private client.

Example: A manager at the DEQE assigned a decision to her staff in January, 1997. She left her DEQE position in September, 1998 to take a job with a private firm. She is prohibited through September, 1999 from making phone calls, writing or appearing on behalf of the firm or its clients in connection with the decision, because it was under her official responsibility within two years of her leaving DEQE. This restriction would also apply to other matters under her responsibility from September, 1996 through September, 1998.​

>snip<

[1] "Particular matter," any judicial or other proceeding, application, submission, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, decision, determination, finding, but excluding enactment of general legislation by the general court and petitions of cities, towns, counties and districts for special laws related to their governmental organizations, powers, duties, finances and property. G.L. c. 268A, section 1(k).

[2] "Participate," participate in agency action or in a particular matter personally and substantially as a state, county or municipal employee, through approval, disapproval, decision, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or otherwise. G.L. c. 268A, section 1(j).

[3] "Official responsibility," the direct administrative or operating authority, whether intermediate or final, and either exercisable alone or with others, and whether personal or through subordinates, to approve, disapprove or otherwise direct agency action. G.L. c. 268A, section 1(i).
Click to expand...

http://www.mass.gov/ethics/educatio...y/explanation-for-former-state-employees.html
 

Similar threads

Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
New member
2 3
Replies
64
Views
1K
Canndo
Canndo
B Kings Firearms Ohio
Replies
4
Views
330
Da_lucche
Da_lucche
What are your silliest, most useless firearms.
5 6 7
Replies
184
Views
5K
Tim_McD
Tim_McD
Bergen County Firearms lawyer
Replies
4
Views
279
GaryO
GaryO
Back
Top Bottom