Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Politics / Woods Ethics Cloud Hangs Over Squeaky Clean Yarbro
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Comments (22)
Showing 1-22 of 22
Yesterday I learned on this blog that Henry should step aside because Yarbro is "fresh-faced" and "an impressive young man." Isn't that all I need to know?
like
dislike
Ah, one of Nashville Scene's favorite arguments.
Woods steals Christmas yet again.
Spotted Dick Lodge among the exclusive guests at a lunch where Sen. Doug Henry announced he's running for a 10th term. Don't think Lodge is suddenly backing Yarbro against Henry.
Dru brings up an excellent point, Woods. Dick Lodge leads Bass Berry & Sims' lobbying presence on the hill. Dick Lodge is an ardent support of Henry. So, does the black cloud shadow over Henry as well?
The rules in question are:
Rule 6.4. Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests
A lawyer may serve as a director, officer, or member of an organization involved in reform of the law or its administration notwithstanding that the reform may affect the interests of a client of the lawyer. When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be materially benefitted by a decision in which the lawyer participates, the lawyer shall disclose that fact, but need not identify the client.
Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents in writing after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents in writing after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
(c) A lawyer shall not represent more than one client in the same criminal case, unless
(1) the lawyer demonstrates to the tribunal that good cause exists to believe that no conflict of interest prohibited under this Rule presently exists or is likely to exist; and
(2) each client consents in writing after consultation concerning the implications of the common representation, along with the advantages and risks involved.
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 in writing after consultation. No lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless both the personally disqualified lawyer and the lawyers who are representing the client in the matter act reasonably to:
(1) ascertain that the personally disqualified lawyer is prohibited from participating in the representation of the current client; and
(2) determine that no lawyer representing the client has acquired any material confidential government information relating to the matter; and
(3) promptly implement screening procedures to effectively prevent the flow of information about the matter between the personally disqualified lawyer and other lawyers in the firm; and
(4) advise the government agency in writing of the circumstances that warranted the utilization of the screening procedures required by this Rule and the actions that have been taken to comply with this Rule.
(b) Except as is otherwise expressly permitted by law, a lawyer who has acquired known confidential government information about a person 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 both the personally disqualified lawyer and the lawyers who are representing the client in the matter comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph (a).
(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 staff attorney to a court or as a law clerk to a judge or other adjudicative officer or arbitrator 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
(1) that has been obtained under governmental authority; and
(2) that, at the time this Rule is applied, the government either is prohibited by law from disclosing to the public or has a legal privilege not to disclose; and
(3) that is not otherwise available to the public.
There are issues that might arise. Is he prima facie disqualified? I don't see it. On the other hand it could impair his effectiveness in office.
That's just it, it's not a real conflict of interest, it's all completely speculative to at least 3 degrees at this point.
It's just a Woods-style conflict.
The facts don't support the title of this article. Where's the "ethic's cloud"? Can you name any company he could work for that wouldn't potentially create a conflict of interest? Yarbro is under a cloud because he works a full-time job to support his family? The state legislature is supposed to be part-time and not a lifetime career.
If Tennessee Supreme Court Justices who are paid by the State are entitled can lobby as they did the General Assembly in their pecuniary self-interest regarding the renewal of an unconstitutional retention-election statute this past session and then not be charged with violating the Canon of Judicial Ethics, then this guy's relationship to Dick Lodge at Bass Berry is a joke.
Don't you remember? When it was Kim McMillan involved she had "FIREWALL."
Even Doug Henry in his senility could remember that.
Woods cracks me up. He is the constant shill for the powers that be in Nashville. Hell, Gail Kerr has the balls in the Tennessean in every 14th column she writes to actually ask tough questions of the powers that be.
Woods does nothing but defend those in power from the west side of town. Hmmm.
That's the decision Rep. Mike Stewart made last year when he was running to succeed Rob Briley. When Stewart won the election, he promptly quit Waller Lansden, another lobbying/law firm, to avoid any ethical conflicts. He didn't want to look like Waller's Manchurian candidate.
And you (and Matt Pulle, to be fair) STILL threw a hissy fit at the time. Because even if he was no longer at Waller, they still all donated to his campaign!
Gail Kerr has the balls in the Tennessean in every 14th column she writes to actually ask tough questions of the powers that be.
I nearly horked up a lung laughing at that one.
Tell us another fairy tale Uncle Anonymous!
An ethics cloud! Jeff Woods, that's some great reporting! Great job.
To begin with, you cite no sources or research -- per the usual with your stories. [The last time you wrote a truly great groundbreaking story was eight years ago, after all -- maybe this is why you feel an affinity for Doug Henry?]
And then, you fail to disclose that Mike Stewart, prior to his election, spent a helluva lot of time hanging around the Hill.
Jeff Yarbro? Not so much. He's not a lobbyist. Never has been. You fail to mention this. But when you're trying to sell a story without doing any legwork -- which is your calling card, writing something while making up sources -- you might try harder next time.
Depending on your perspective you'r either doing something right or something terribly wrong when every comment on your article critsizes it. Given that it was nothing more than 200 words of pure speculation with a few names added in for show, it seems you're doing something wrong.
Yarbro is above reproach.
And remember that Stewart didn't leave Waller Lansden until AFTER the election.
Let's at least get through the primary first.
Meanwhile, keep an eye on Bass Berry and Yarbro's ties. He hasn't done anything wrong so far.
Well, while I disagree with Woods' here, in his defense, I won't put him on Pulle's level for baseless cheap shots. Pulle was the Crown Prince of Petty at the Scene, before he got passed over for E-I-C and threw a tantrum and left.
Matt left the Scene because the new editor din't want him to stay. It was the paper's loss.
And let me get this straight: a clown named "Bobo" engages in anonymous and ill-informed name calling and then accuses Matt of taking "cheap shots"?
It is shameful to write a piece like this. Mr. Woods, you should retract this article. Now anyone wanting to learn more about "Jeff Yarbro" will undoubtedly see "ethics cloud" come up in their Google search. Way to disparage the good name of a great young guy interested in serving our state because of a dreamed-up hypothetical conflict. You really should re-evaluate why you are a political reporter.
"Ethics Cloud Hangs Over Squeaky Clean Yarbro"--Wow, what a titillating title for a political article. Too bad the article contains not one fact that is remotely troublesome or even hints at any ethical impropriety on Yarbro's part. Not exactly an "ethics cloud" for Yarbro, is it Mr. Woods?
I know Dick Lodge from years ago. He is an honest straight forward guy. Lobbyist have been hanging around politicians since the days of Washington and Lincoln. By enlarge the right thing happens day in day out in politics. It's tough to slide something by the public and the media anymore what with C-Span and the coverage of the media.
I like Dick Lodge and he is a honest man. That's all I can say on the subject.
What is so sad about this headline --'Ethics Cloud Hangs Over Yarbro' -- is that in one fell swoop it turns Henry's first really negative adv. into an inquiry by Woods/The Scene about Yarbro's good faith. Jeff has not run any negative ads and Henry had promised to do the same. Now, I guess, seeing the early voting turnout, Henry's campaign is desperate or running scared.
The most critical of Yarbro's ads simply lists Henry's actual Senate votes or actions. For his part, Henry's negative ad asks voters to FEAR that Yarbro MIGHT be careless of the public trust.
Sure, be on the lookout for actual conflicts of interest when Jeff is elected but don't smear his good name with the politics of gullt by association when he is not yet a public official.
Take it back, Woods/SCENE
KP, Nashville
