LogFAQs > #922192539

catatonia posted...

aDirtyShisno posted...

BlackScythe0 posted...

WhiskeyDisk posted...

It's just great that our best and brightest law students are so eager to signal their virtue that they're willing to undermine one of the most basic of legal principles to do so.

The legal system is in serious jeopardy going forward if a university such as Harvard actually gave in to this pressure.

That second article seems to indicate his representation of Weinstein had nothing to do with it.

It doesnt say however how many of those complaints were before and after he started representing Harvey Weinstein. If the proportionality of complaints is higher recently it could be argued that the premise of his accusation is correct.

So youre not going to accept any information that doesnt already confirm your bias. (Heres a hint, it hasnt been long enough for the turnover rate to be that big of an issue since he started representing Weinstein.)

Or you could just present evidence showing that the majority of the complaints were before he took the case. If he had a staff of a dozen or so people and most of them quit in a mass exodus when he took the case that could easily inflate the number.

You know, the absence of evidence and all that.
---

Que sera, sera. Whatever happens, happens.
...and he was never heard from again.