The Big Trunk at Power Line continues his excellent series on the continuing legal education requirement for Minnesota lawyers on "elimination of bias" today with a recap of Eliot Rothenberg's hearing before the state Supreme Court:

My day-job colleague and Power Line reader Peter Swanson attended the Minnesota Supreme Court hearing in the Elliot Rothenberg case yesterday. ... Peter has kindly forwarded us his notes on the hearing, in bullet point form organized by topic.

Swanson's notes make for fascinating reading. It becomes apparent that Rothenberg cuts an impressive figure before the bar, and the justices are loath to revoke or suspend his license for his principled stand. Nevertheless, they interrogate him and opposing counsel Assistant Attorney General Ruth Flynn thoroughly, if professionally and politely. Read all of Swanson's bullet-point notes, but the conclusion is certainly a bit breathtaking, considering Rothenberg's livelihood is on the line:

· The final question was for Rothenberg from Justice Paul Anderson. "Assume we disagree with you," Justice Anderon began. He continued by asking what would be the "remedy" short of involuntary restricted status. Justice Anderson praised Rothenberg as honorable and a person of "distinction" in the Minnesota bar. He also made reference to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," saying that when you make a principled stand, you accept the consequences.

· Rothenberg responded to Justice Paul Anderson with words to the effect that there was no price tag on Rothenberg's principles.

Check out all of the links from the Big Trunk to get a more complete picture of the issue and its ramifications.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is