Court Opinion

ID: 9491827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:24:43.749925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:54:57.711246
License: Public Domain

HENRY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
This difficult case has spawned three excellent opinions. Judge Lucero’s concurrence resolves the case most convincingly for me, and I join that concurrence.
I write briefly to add that this problem may arise again. As the dissent notes, Congress has recently passed legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joe McDade and endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Corporate Counsel Association,1 that repeals the Thornburgh memorandum. It di*1303rects that government attorneys — most of whom are 'licensed in the state in which they practice — be subject to state ethical rules. Thus, the dissent’s suggestions as to other tactics that might be employed may deserve close scrutiny.
Further, I note that although I believe the majority is correct on the tradition argument, I do not see the statute as construed by the dissent as patently absurd. I do see that its operation as construed by the dissent would work what might be called a legal absurdity, in that Congress would have criminalized the general practice. I simply do not believe Congressional intent could have been to criminalize the widespread and common practice of government lawyers.

. See Harvey Berkman, Thornburgh Rule is Nixed, The National Law Journal, Nov. 2, 1998, at A8.