- Joined
- May 29, 2021
Nick's comments about the ethics complaint were badly articulated. Rather than just making a simple defense of himself, he went all over the map making all kinds of different arguments. Some ok, some really bad. Some of them really questionable in terms of logic. He also often steps on his own arguments.
1) Nick creates an example to defend himself of a bunch of "co-workers" getting together presumably around a water cooler and calling a female employee "a cunt". Nick suggests that because this is a private conversation, that its "ok" and could not possibly constitute harassment. All I can say is that I would not advise him to do that in a workplace.
2) Nick uses the old excuse that you can use negative terms in public against people if they don't belong to the group that the term is associated with. The idea here is that you can all white people niggers or straight people faggots and thats totally acceptable professional conduct. Nick's reasoning here is that using "cunt" is ok when its a man.
3) Nick's understanding of harassment and harassment laws is that as long as the comments which might be considered harassment are said in a "private space", there can be no harassment. His example is that if someone rents a hall, sells tickets to a select audience and engages in behavior that would be considered harassment in the public space, it cannot be harassment.
4) Nick claims that in acting as an attorney his public statements do not constitute statements made in a workplace environment. He says he has no employee handbook ironically while talking about the ethics rules for attorneys which are of course a handbook.
5) Nick explains that he was not representing himself at the time of the comments. He further explains that the other attorney should have called Nick to learn that Nick was not representing himself. Neither Nick nor his attorney had any obligation to communicate that to him (apparently).
6) He makes some claims about content behind a paywall to the effect that its some different form of speech where many laws do not apply.
7) He says at one point that even if he was representing a client, he had the right to say what he said. Its never good to make an argument to defend yourself and then say it doesn't mean anything.
He wonders if it would be such a bad thing of people were allowed to call each other "cunts" openly in the workplace with no legal fear.
9) He makes a bunch of wild accusations against the other guy and his complaint that don't really help his argument.
He would have done better to make a simple argument that:
(a) In his own mind, he had ceased to represent himself before the time of the comments. That he expected that his attorney would have announced that to the other side. That it was as much an issue of timing as anything.
(b) He used rough language which he often uses - on one occasion to a very small audience toward the attorney out of frustration and meant no harassment or intimidation.
Nick's body motion and constant rocking during the video was also interesting. Typically not a sign of good health.
1) Nick creates an example to defend himself of a bunch of "co-workers" getting together presumably around a water cooler and calling a female employee "a cunt". Nick suggests that because this is a private conversation, that its "ok" and could not possibly constitute harassment. All I can say is that I would not advise him to do that in a workplace.
2) Nick uses the old excuse that you can use negative terms in public against people if they don't belong to the group that the term is associated with. The idea here is that you can all white people niggers or straight people faggots and thats totally acceptable professional conduct. Nick's reasoning here is that using "cunt" is ok when its a man.
3) Nick's understanding of harassment and harassment laws is that as long as the comments which might be considered harassment are said in a "private space", there can be no harassment. His example is that if someone rents a hall, sells tickets to a select audience and engages in behavior that would be considered harassment in the public space, it cannot be harassment.
4) Nick claims that in acting as an attorney his public statements do not constitute statements made in a workplace environment. He says he has no employee handbook ironically while talking about the ethics rules for attorneys which are of course a handbook.
5) Nick explains that he was not representing himself at the time of the comments. He further explains that the other attorney should have called Nick to learn that Nick was not representing himself. Neither Nick nor his attorney had any obligation to communicate that to him (apparently).
6) He makes some claims about content behind a paywall to the effect that its some different form of speech where many laws do not apply.
7) He says at one point that even if he was representing a client, he had the right to say what he said. Its never good to make an argument to defend yourself and then say it doesn't mean anything.
He wonders if it would be such a bad thing of people were allowed to call each other "cunts" openly in the workplace with no legal fear.9) He makes a bunch of wild accusations against the other guy and his complaint that don't really help his argument.
He would have done better to make a simple argument that:
(a) In his own mind, he had ceased to represent himself before the time of the comments. That he expected that his attorney would have announced that to the other side. That it was as much an issue of timing as anything.
(b) He used rough language which he often uses - on one occasion to a very small audience toward the attorney out of frustration and meant no harassment or intimidation.
Nick's body motion and constant rocking during the video was also interesting. Typically not a sign of good health.
