Don't think its wise for Hardin to be on MATI. The Farms' lawyer needs to have some degree of professional separation from the client. It could also come very close to being a breach of professional ethics. Not entirely, but it does create impropriety.
I disagree on it being an ethical violation of any sort. Part of the job of a lawyer is being a public advocate, as well as a legal advocate.
However, I do agree on the general optics. That's a different issue, though.
I don't think your concerns are incorrect, though, considering the absolute disaster involving Rekieta and Beard. They were smugly dunking on the defendants while Beard's firm was filing absolute trash (after the deadline btw) with invalid notarizations and literally "lost the case again" for real.
While they were gloating and drinking, Sam Johnson, the only actual real lawyer worthy of the name in the entire case, was rapidly figuring out the killshot that utterly destroyed Beard and his bullshit.
Let's not also forget that the late-filed botched document that nuked the case from orbit thanks to Johnson was also a complete dog's breakfast full of typos, shit like changing fonts in the middle of the Table of Authorities, and absolutely amateurish formatting. Okay, I'm bitter I got flooded with tism ratings for even caring about that but I was right. (I definitely deserve tism ratings for still being at least mildly mad about it.
Butthurt. It fades. But it never entirely vanishes.)
Its unprofessional to be constantly going on TV to opine on things.
It seriously depends on the case and your job. Often, especially in a publicly visible case, either the other lawyer or a criminal prosecutor is going out in public and openly trashing the client's reputation. The client could win the case and completely lose at life forever after because despite the ultimate victory, the public still assumes the client is a rapist, murderer, whatever, and maybe only got off because of a shyster defense lawyer.
A competent lawyer should be considering all elements of the effects of a legal proceeding on the client, including potentially catastrophic damage to reputation.
That said, I again agree I don't think a MATI appearance would be a good idea at this time, but it's really up to the two of them, not to me. I just agree it would be "problematic." Probably.
There are duties to former clients that would limit him in those circumstances.
I've cited that rule multiple times in reference to Robert Barnes, who has a propensity to talk shit about former clients including our own Dear Feeder. I don't think he's necessarily crossed the line in violating the letter of that rule, but one should beware a lawyer who can't stop talking shit about former clients or their choice of replacement counsel, as that foppish popinjay did to Rittenhouse's (winning) legal team after he was unceremoniously fired from the Rittenhouse team, who rejected his idea of turning the case into some giddy conservalard crusade instead of just focusing on the obvious (and ultimately winning) self-defense issue.
