Recall the blatant dishonesty of Department of Justice lawyers.
Now Attorney General Loretta Lynch has chosen to fight District Judge Andrew Hanen’s order that her lawyers actually undergo documented ethics training—training that any pre-law pupil might undergo.
In filings Tuesday, the department said the order would “far exceed the bounds of appropriate remedies” and would cost the department millions.
Because requiring lawyers to understand the ethics of their profession is unreasonable for a DoJ lawyer. Sure.
The Department of Justice responded in the court filing Tuesday, saying that it “emphatically” disagrees with the judge’s ruling, claiming that none of its lawyers intended to deceive.
Now Lynch is adding to the deliberate lies. Of course her lawyers intended to deceive when they made representations to Hanen’s court that they knew were inaccurate or false. Words are a lawyer’s stock in trade. Lynch’s lawyers knew exactly what they were saying at the time they said those things, and they said them anyway.
The filing requests Hanen’s order be put on hold so federal lawyers can review.
No need to put Hanen’s order on hold. It can be part of the lawyers’ ethics training plan.
In Tuesday’s filing, the DOJ estimated that the ethics training mandated would cost upwards of $7.8 million.
The convenience of the government is not relevant to whether the government’s lawyers should be sanctioned or to the nature of the sanction. Inconvenience, in fact, is a necessary part of sanctioning. On the other hand, to the extent this is an unreasonable cost for the government to bear, it would be entirely reasonable to require the misbehaving lawyers pay for their own training.
Compounding matters, the sanctions imposed by this Court…unjustifiably impose irreparable injury on…thousands of innocent third parties[.]
This is plain nonsense. The only damage done thousands of innocent third parties was done by Lynch’s dishonest lawyers. As this concerns Lynch’s beef that Hanen’s order is inappropriate, Lynch’s involvement of thousands of innocent third parties is nothing but a cynically dragged red herring.
How dare a mere judge question the Department of Justice? Why, the nerve of that man.