Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Merenguero" data-source="post: 1079692" data-attributes="member: 3426">Here&#039;s your explanation.&nbsp; You&#039;re apparently dying to read it, since you&#039;ve brought it up in multiple posts.Just off of the top of my head:1. He wore a pink shirt during the interview.2. He very obviously didn&#039;t research jack fucking shit about Maryland law prior to conducting the interview.&nbsp; I anticipate a follow-up question citing a specific example of his extreme ignorance, so here goes.&nbsp; It is clearly written in the code, that a fourteen or fifteen year old is able to consent to sex as long as the person with whom she is having sex is not a full four years or more older than her.&nbsp; He didn&#039;t realize that the law was written as such.&nbsp; If you dispute that he had no fucking clue about the consent law, go back and watch the interview.&nbsp; If you don&#039;t think it&#039;s a serious offense that a guy on national television did not in any way research the topic he is discussing, I don&#039;t know what to tell you.3. In my opinion, this was by far his most serious offense.&nbsp; He kept pressing David to tell him who was paying him for this particular client&#039;s services.&nbsp; We have a duty of confidentiality and are prohibited from discussing those matters.&nbsp; This guy continuing to press a lawyer in the hope that he commits a serious ethical violation during the interview is sleezy, petty, unprofessional, and unacceptable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Merenguero, post: 1079692, member: 3426"] Here's your explanation. You're apparently dying to read it, since you've brought it up in multiple posts. Just off of the top of my head: 1. He wore a pink shirt during the interview. 2. He very obviously didn't research jack fucking shit about Maryland law prior to conducting the interview. I anticipate a follow-up question citing a specific example of his extreme ignorance, so here goes. It is clearly written in the code, that a fourteen or fifteen year old is able to consent to sex as long as the person with whom she is having sex is not a full four years or more older than her. He didn't realize that the law was written as such. If you dispute that he had no fucking clue about the consent law, go back and watch the interview. If you don't think it's a serious offense that a guy on national television did not in any way research the topic he is discussing, I don't know what to tell you. 3. In my opinion, this was by far his most serious offense. He kept pressing David to tell him who was paying him for this particular client's services. We have a duty of confidentiality and are prohibited from discussing those matters. This guy continuing to press a lawyer in the hope that he commits a serious ethical violation during the interview is sleezy, petty, unprofessional, and unacceptable. [/QUOTE]

Verification