I know, I know, once more, I'm deviating away from my construction 101 series. However, the recent claims by a former housekeeper of Ms. Meg Whitman, and specifically, the attorney representing that former housekeeper, are what drive me to this topic today.
Ms. Gloria Allred, generally perceived as a media starlight in terms of the types of cases she takes, but also generally respected in the legal industry for her skills. By taking Ms. Diaz on as a client at this juncture, however, and the rationale for doing so as explained by Ms. Allred, her representation reeks of ethical violations as well as moral improprieties.
Politicians and Attorneys - ironically, are both looked down upon by the vast majority of citizens and, yet, also respected by the masses as well. Normally, politicians create the laws and enforce the laws. Attorneys represent sides in disputes over how laws apply to a particular set of facts. However, in the instant matter, Ms. Whitman apparently did nothing wrong - upon the actual discovery that her employee was not a legal resident of the United States, she terminated that employee. Technically, she had a duty to disclose the identity and last known address of the illegal resident to the INS as well; morally, she decided not to. She employed someone based on facts obtained through a reputable domestic agency, viewed the person's identification and social security card, and likely interviewed the individual. She paid that person at least 2x minimum wage and retained her services for about 9 years. Then, when she discovered through the own employee's admission, that all was forgery and fraud, and that the employee was illegally in the country, I guess she could have kept mum and helped her obtain her legal status by "pulling a few strings" or by claiming that she'd help her once in office.
Basically, Ms. Whitman was damned if she did and damned if she didn't! But, what is Ms. Allred really representing her client for? Is she representing her to gain legal status? I don't think so. Is she representing her for violations of the Labor Code? Those only apply for legal residents, so I don't think so. Is she claiming that Ms. Whitman falsely kept her client from leaving her work? No. Is she representing her against the IRS? Doubt it. It seems, instead, that she is representing Ms. Diaz solely to upset the political apple cart.
"California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-200: A member (of the Bar) shall not seek, accept, or continue employment if the member knows or should know that the objective of such employment is: (A) To bring an action, ... [or] assert a position in litigation, ... without probable cause and for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person; ..."
Whether Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or any other Party affiliation, vote on the facts, not allegations that have little to do with anything but someone's wish to gain the political spotlight!
Have A Great Day/Weekend!
No comments:
Post a Comment