Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal-Comment
[2]..." the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false."
[5] ..."requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be..." 1/
"false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence."
[6] "If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to" 2/
"introduce false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered. If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse to offer the false evidence." 3/
Withdrawal
[15] Normally, a lawyer’s compliance with the duty of candor imposed by this Rule does not require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client whose interests will be or have been adversely affected by the lawyer’s disclosure. The lawyer may, 4/
however, be required by Rule 1.16(a) to seek permission of the tribunal to withdraw if the lawyer’s compliance with this Rule’s duty of candor results in such an extreme deterioration of the client-lawyer relationship that the lawyer can no longer competently represent the 5/
client.
Seems the client wanted them to present things that they knew were materially false, both in legal argument and/or in evidentiary presentation. An impeachment trial isn't just talking on a news channel. They have a duty to the bar.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I can't retweet Jon Heyman's tweets related to his incredulity that the MLBPA did not make a counter offer, but I can explain why, under labor law, they didn't. (He blocked me) That said, a lack of education on a subject should never preclude taking a position.
The parties 1/
have an agreement. It's called the CBA. It lays out all of the responsibilities of the parties, including the reporting dates for spring training, the start of the season, number of games, salary payment process, league rules, players' playoff share, and all other wages, hours 2/
and terms and conditions of employment. The duty to bargain is based on reciprocal requirements over mandatory subjects. Those mandatory subjects are all contained in the CBA. It is a permissive subject (meaning voluntary) to negotiate certain other things. One of those 3/
"And once the agreements take effect, they purport to “irrevocably” block the government’s ability to challenge anything about the concessions to the ICE union for the next eight years."
Under FLRA law, an agency can refuse to implement a "non-negotiable" provision at any time. Non-negotiable is a term of art in federal sector labor relations. It means a provision that if a provision of a proposal or implemented CBA directly interferes with management rights 2/
defined in 5 USC 7106, it can be invalidated. If an agency declares a provision non-negotiable during the term of the CBA, the burden is on the Union to enforce the provision, meanwhile, the CBA operates in the absence of the provision. The FLRA applies the same standard 3/
Let's discuss this "proposal." MLB is proposing to pay employees exactly what they are entitled to under the season, but shorten their work schedule by ~5%. That's essentially a 5% raise. It moves the dates, which is essentially a push, although take note, MLB was unwilling 1/
to extend the dates of thee playoffs last season because of their TV contracts. It would seem that those TV schedules are no longer untouchable.
And, here's the kicker-expanded playoffs. This is a unilateral desire by management. MLB has wanted expanded playoffs for several 2/
years. It proposed them last year, reaching agreement, but only for one season. The MLBPA proposed splitting the TV revenue increases as part of the players' share of playoff money and MLB balked. That's why the deal was only for one year.
First, it's not an impasse, because there's no duty to bargain over things that are already in the CBA.
Second, the Commissioner cannot unilaterally suspend the opening of the season.
The only way MLB is going to get MLBPA to the table to negotiate over a later season start 1/
expanded playoffs, and the other bells and whistles, is if it agrees to something similar to the MLBPA's proposal from 2020 regarding the split of additional playoff TV revenue, maybe also other revenue such as streaming too. I don't say this based on any insider info. 2/
It's based on the status quo labor agreement, what the PA wants in the next round of term negotiations, and how it can leverage now to get what it wants moving forward. It has no incentive to agree to something less now. It only has disincentive. The deal to change things now 3/
There are two paragraphs in this article that are frustrating. The first:
"A typical negotiation includes offers and counter-offers, but the league’s proposal did not lead to further discussion. Only last week did the league learn that the union had rejected its offer," 1/x
The second: Players last season received a combined $25 million in salary per day league-wide, so eliminating 26 days in April would cost them $650 million. But the league probably can make up a chunk of those days with split" 2/x
"doubleheaders, play into mid-October and possibly get to 154 games, at full pay. The players might want other benefits. The postseason would then extend into November, perhaps forcing the league to take a hit in its network television deals. But all of the elements" 3/x
I just linked to my previous thread on this subject. I probably should also create a long thread in which I analyze the CBA provision related to national emergencies. I had some dialog with a national baseball writer that I will now thread for others to read. 1/x
I took a screenshot of the provision b/c it's too big to fit in one tweet. 2/x
The first thing that’s notable about it, compared to other force majeure provisions, is that it is in the Uniform Players Contract, not the CBA. The UPC is an appendix to the CBA, so it has the same force and effect, but applies to each player individually, not all players 3/x