This doesn't come close to the definition of practicing law without a license. The real question is why the State Bar opened an investigation in the first place in response to this spurious complaint. You should definitely be pushing for an answer to that question, because it speaks to bias in their system. They are not obligated to respond to complaints with an investigation, and chose to do so in this instance.
I'm trying to imagine how I would respond to legal threats like that. On one hand, it's obviously absurd. But on the other hand, it's freaking scary! Even if you're right on the merits, I don't want to have to hire a lawyer to defend myself over something like that; I would have to drop things that are important to me to make the time and the money to deal with it. I will keep supporting YIMBY and other groups fighting for just causes.
This is absolutely outrageous behavior by the California state bar. Evidently they remain terrible even after the Tom Girardi fiasco. This episode makes me ashamed of my profession.
It's rage against the machine. Land in Portuguese Bend or San Rafael have views of the water and/are surrounded by an ocean of wealth. It doesn't hurt than the residents are wealthy and upwind of the their corporations facilities.
I don't hear much about YIMBY advocacy in Riverside or Antioch, so money is the tell.
The bat complaint is absurd. But I’m sure you and YIMBY Law can find other pro bono legal representation. Using a right wing libertarian group like the Institute for Justice is not good optics and needlessly gives fuel to the left-NIMBY critique of the YIMBY movement.
I’m really curious Ms. Daniels, since IJ is one of my favorite examples to use of “right down the middle” legal reasoning, is there a particular IJ case or cases that causes you to describe them as “right wing”?
This doesn't come close to the definition of practicing law without a license. The real question is why the State Bar opened an investigation in the first place in response to this spurious complaint. You should definitely be pushing for an answer to that question, because it speaks to bias in their system. They are not obligated to respond to complaints with an investigation, and chose to do so in this instance.
I'm trying to imagine how I would respond to legal threats like that. On one hand, it's obviously absurd. But on the other hand, it's freaking scary! Even if you're right on the merits, I don't want to have to hire a lawyer to defend myself over something like that; I would have to drop things that are important to me to make the time and the money to deal with it. I will keep supporting YIMBY and other groups fighting for just causes.
This is absolutely outrageous behavior by the California state bar. Evidently they remain terrible even after the Tom Girardi fiasco. This episode makes me ashamed of my profession.
It's rage against the machine. Land in Portuguese Bend or San Rafael have views of the water and/are surrounded by an ocean of wealth. It doesn't hurt than the residents are wealthy and upwind of the their corporations facilities.
I don't hear much about YIMBY advocacy in Riverside or Antioch, so money is the tell.
It's always a tell.
Does the BAR have any requirement to allow the accused to face the accuser? If so, could such an accuser be subject to an anti-SLAPP lawsuit?
The bat complaint is absurd. But I’m sure you and YIMBY Law can find other pro bono legal representation. Using a right wing libertarian group like the Institute for Justice is not good optics and needlessly gives fuel to the left-NIMBY critique of the YIMBY movement.
The Institute for Justice also defends the rights of left-wing groups.
Just as NIMBYism transcends conventional political categories; so does YIMBYism.
So does the 1st Amendment, for that matter.
I give as much credence to left-NIMBY critiques as I do those coming from the right -- which is none.
Perhaps the tendency to retreat into such lazy categorical thinking is itself the problem.
I am less interested in what people "profess" than what they actually "do".
I’m really curious Ms. Daniels, since IJ is one of my favorite examples to use of “right down the middle” legal reasoning, is there a particular IJ case or cases that causes you to describe them as “right wing”?