Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Idaho Murders Update: Exclusive Interview With Xana Kernodle's Mother" video.

Conflict of interest -- no, it is NOT okay. Report her to the bar for that. I don't believe she has an excuse. She should have no involvement in this going forward.
13
Sorry. SHE has a professional obligation to recuse herself. Lawyers aren't just employees.
6
Have you ever done a conflicts check? I am genuinely surprised by how thorough they are, and far-reaching. There are conflicts that I would not consider as such, and I am hyper about ethics.
6
@TJ-so9xo And I disagree. To be clear, I think your conjecture is right on target, and that she made a serious misjudgment. I find it suspicious, frankly. The attorney in this case will have a book deal, especially if it goes to trial.
4
No. A lawyer is a professional, not an employee. She should have recused herself from any part of this case. It most certainly is surprising. Are you a lawyer?
3
Moreover, a case with this profile will very likely have a prominent lawyer take it pro bono or nearly so, before it's underway. I don't believe a public defender will try it, frankly. But an accused must have legal representation at every step.
2
@TJ-so9xo Strange. First of all, I asked the OP. Is that you by a different name? If this PD ever represented the MOTHER of a victim, even in an unrelated case, she cannot now represent the alleged murderer. The woman wants to write a book and become rich. That's what she's considering.
2
@flamekeeper-oracle13 For her choice to recuse herself from the FIRST case she took and did substantive work on, which she decided represents a conflict of interest with the SECOND one. Did she ask for advice from a private attorney who has expertise in the rules of professional responsibility? Did she request an opinion letter from the Idaho Supreme Court/Character and Fitness Board,, or whoever it is who is responsible in her state, if anyone? When I witnessed what appeared to be significant wrongdoing on the part of an attorney, I certainly got some very high level advice on my duty to report, if any, and the advice was not free (nor should it be). Well, California trains you for all that. A lot of people go the cheap route, "a wing and a prayer," etc. I certainly did not. Some were never trained. Not every state does it that way, I suppose. (What I witnessed involved money, however; not poor people . . . smh) Sorry, this stuff is no joke. Or at least it didn't used to be. Hmm.
1
@theboys4292 This is false in every state. In every state, you must inform the court if you cannot take a case without a breach of the rules of professional responsibility, and if the judge disagrees, you take your lumps. Yes, that is what you do. Lawyers have even gone to jail for contempt to avoid breach of professional responsibility, and appellate courts have vindicated them. I suggest you read what real lawyers have said about this. There is literally no client that a lawyer must take; there are only critical points in a proceeding when a lawyer may not withdraw from representation. We don't live in times when people act with principles in mind. You might have noticed?
1
@theboys4292 Well, I just gave a very detailed, extensive reply, citing law of COURSE, and it was somehow not transmitted. I'm not going through it again. I'm frustrated, frankly. I am licensed in California. Please. I know what I'm talking about. I shouldn't be here. That's the truth.
1
@theboys4292 If you can't detect the flaws in your own argument, which in your last line amounts to the power of the stronger, then get off this website and hit the books. Procedure is hard, and highly constitutionalized, and mistakes can derail a case in ways that cannot happen in civil suits. If the state has objected to her participation, or plans to, not only would we not know because the discussions would be held in camera, but the state would also be subject to strict confidentiality rules. It may not even be an appropriate role for them to make such an objection in a case like this. Of course they will cooperate with counsel of record concerning discovery in the meantime. They must, absent some truly extraordinary exception, because of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
1
@theboys4292 It's not "media mongering." Of course Cara was assigned new counsel. She has a constitutional right to counsel.
1
@theboys4292 DUH
1
@theboys4292 Harping? I wasn't even sure who you meant when you said her name. So, in your view, there are no people who have principles? It's all about persons. Your post is ad hom, not mine. You may indeed be right. I don't relate to this society in its current state.
1
@theboys4292 My computer failed to transmit my comprehensive response. With an "s." So, what is college like, now? Do you read books and stuff, or just curry favor with professors?
1
@theboys4292 Say. If a public defender in Idaho has to take a case assigned by the judge and has no choice in the matter, why did this lawyer drop Cara's case? Not just why, but how? I bet you're not a math person, either.
1
@theboys4292 You wrote: "you are incorrect. In idaho Public Defenders are assigned by the judge and have no choice in the matter." But she had a choice to drop Cara's case? It's 2023. This is what passes for thinking.
1
@theboys4292 It's who did, not me. I will excoriate your "argument." As for math person, in my social circle that's a joke. That is a different claim, by the way. She was ordered to take Cara's case prior to that, was she not? I mean, by your logic. If this goes to trial, he will almost certainly have private counsel and this will all be moot. Blocked, for bad faith and boredom. Go hit the books, son.
1