Duke's boundless chutzpah

Clarice Feldman
After tarring and feathering and discriminating against the Duke lacrosse members  at a critical juncture in their college careers and lives, the Duke Administration has gone to court trying to shut down the players' website, which contains the pleadings in their recently filed case against the university and a compendium of press coverage about the case. 

The website seems well within ethical bounds and the pleadings by the University cite no authority to suggest otherwise. As K.C Johnson observes:

[E]thics rules specifically allow attorneys to make public statements countering negative publicity "not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client."

Given the copious negative statements by Duke officials and especially by Duke faculty members about the unindicted lacrosse players, it's hard to imagine a clearer example of negative publicity "not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client." It's not hard, however, to imagine why Duke would want to ensure that the lawsuit receives as little publicity as possible.

On the assumption that the local courts have finally grown  chary of giving Duke assistance in further depriving these students of their constitutional rights, I assume that the university's request will be denied, and draw your attention to this conduct and the team's website to help thwart this and further such nonsense by making it utterly counterproductive..

After tarring and feathering and discriminating against the Duke lacrosse members  at a critical juncture in their college careers and lives, the Duke Administration has gone to court trying to shut down the players' website, which contains the pleadings in their recently filed case against the university and a compendium of press coverage about the case. 

The website seems well within ethical bounds and the pleadings by the University cite no authority to suggest otherwise. As K.C Johnson observes:

[E]thics rules specifically allow attorneys to make public statements countering negative publicity "not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client."

Given the copious negative statements by Duke officials and especially by Duke faculty members about the unindicted lacrosse players, it's hard to imagine a clearer example of negative publicity "not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client." It's not hard, however, to imagine why Duke would want to ensure that the lawsuit receives as little publicity as possible.

On the assumption that the local courts have finally grown  chary of giving Duke assistance in further depriving these students of their constitutional rights, I assume that the university's request will be denied, and draw your attention to this conduct and the team's website to help thwart this and further such nonsense by making it utterly counterproductive..