Nancy Grace is vile: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that.
But Nancy Grace’s refusal to adhere to the obligations of a lawyer is unethical. She may not be stoppable on TV, where the demand for eyeballs consumes any interest in accuracy or ethics, but how is it that she still holds her ticket from Georgia? How is it that the rules that apply to lawyers have no hold on Grace’s tongue?
What if Nancy Grace was constrained to air her views as a disbarred lawyer? Would the big networks still give her the platform to spew on national television?. . . . .Even in Georgia, we are lawyers. We need not continue to put our imprimatur of legitimacy on this woman who, more so than any other of recent vintage, has made America more ignorant about the law. Or is the Georgia bar so enthralled with her drawl that they would never pull the ticket from their favorite daughter, exempt from the ethical obligations that apply to the rest of us?
I have been grieved (by Terry Fifer of R.W. Lynch) for opinions I’ve given on this blog. The grievance was dismissed, and I am glad that my opinions here are not grievable, even though I am a lawyer. The disciplinary rules apply to the things I do while lawyering; while I am a lawyer (as Nancy Grace may technically be a lawyer) nobody would confuse what I do on these pages (much less what Nancy Grace does on TV) as lawyering.
As I have been grieved, so have I been sued for opinions I’ve given on this blog. Greenfield and I stand shoulder to shoulder in that lawsuit; the law that protects me from being disciplined for my opinions also protects us there.
So when Greenfield proposes cutting down the law to get to Nancy Grace, I don’t think he means it; not really. We give Nancy Grace the benefit of the law, for our own safety’s sake.