The Guilford School Board Chairman and the Edwards Sex Tape

We learn in the News and Record this morning that Guilford County school board chairman Alan Duncan is representing John Edwards' mistress on the legal matter of the infamous sex tape.  And we further learn he was one of Edwards' big contributors.

It is not immediately clear why, of the thousands of attorneys in the state of North Carolina, it had to be our school board chairman who would represent her.

I had posted yesterday about the issue of elected officials' cohabiting.  But this new revelation gives us further clues as to the worldview of some of those sitting on the county school board.  It appears that some of the members of that board might not necessarily feel bound by whatever perceptions the public may have regarding the propriety of their actions.

God help our children. 

Comments

[jaycee]

Perhaps Deena can get a reduced rate from Duncan when she needs a defense attorney.

[Stormy]

Not only that, but the BOE Chairman for Life represents the News-Record and does work for the City of Greensboro. I have always maintained that the Chairman of the BOE also representing these organizations while serving as on the board represents significant conflict of interest. When the heat was being turned-up on Terry Grier and the BOE, the News-Record was in full protection mode. Of course, we have always known that the power brokers in Greensboro are intertwined. It would not surprise me to learn that Duncan also represents the Bryan Foundation. If you look at the minutes of teh BOE meetings, Duncan often has to recuse himself because of conflicts.

[Roch101]

Oh, I get it now. Comedy!

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

It's not funny, Roch. You're not funny.

Smith-Moore-WhoeverIsRotatingThroughTheFirmAtTheMoment. I'm not surprised. Not at all. Did you hear the good one Reille's lawyers told about perjury?

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/02/edwardian-sex-tape-saga-oh-so-now.html

[Spag]

Joe, you have to give Alan a break. As a lawyer you aren't required to adopt the values of your clients and it's not really fair to assign whatever values Rielle Hunter might have to Alan Duncan. He's just doing his job.

The kinds of conflicts that Stormy raises are more worthy of examination and criticism because they suggest serving the competing interests of clients.

[Jack Hart]

Hello jaycee, can you contact me at jackhartjr at aol dot com ?
Thanks
Jack

[Joe Guarino]

Sam, I agree that Stormy raised some excellent points. But while lawyers are not required to adopt the values of their clients, they also are not required to accept every single case. A high-profile case such as this brings notoriety, and our school board chairman does not need to be associated with that-- particularly given all the circumstances.

Sometimes professionals find it appropriate to turn down certain types of work, for various reasons.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Spag, Joe's point is well taken.

It's a job that the Chairman of the School Board did not have to accept.

[Spag]

I fail to see the relevance to Alan's position as Chairman of the School Board. He can have a personal interest in the school system and a professional interest in meeting his clients goals. The Hunter suit has nothing to do with the school board or the school system.

I agree that some cases should be turned down for various reasons, but the Hunter case just doesn't strike me as anything that unusual other than the celebrity aspect of it. If Hunter was a child molester or the case was about kiddie porn or something, I would see it differently.

[Joe Guarino]

Sam, the celebrity/lurid aspect of it is precisely the reason he should have turned it down. He leads a school system that serves children. Some of those "children" in the latter grades will become aware of their school board chairman becoming her advocate. It is a horrendous appearance that is being created.

I would have turned it down. And I continue to wonder whether political/sociocultural worldview considerations might have played a factor in accepting the case. It just seems very possible to me that could have been a factor.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Of course you fail to see the relevance, Spag. Over the years, I've learned that lawyers can rationalize just about anything when it comes to their colleagues.

Joe is exactly right. This Edwardian sex tape fiasco is about as lurid as it gets. Moreover, the children involved are just as much victims as any child molester's prey. The unfortunate "love child" (how would you like to be called that for the rest of your life?) has to live with the stigma of who her parents are and how she was conceived - forever. Then there are Elizabeth's children, especially the younger ones, who sooner or later will have to digest that their Father slept with his mistress in their Mother's bed . . . and all but wished her dead.

Representing the principals in this sordid mess is not just something for the Chairman of a School Board to do. It's not an example to set.

Joe, I've also learned that the Edwardses still have boatloads of friends in the North Carolina trial lawyer community who still think our Johnny got a bum rap and can do no wrong.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

P.S. Has anyone else noticed that the N&R is not allowing comments on most of its Edwards stories?

I note that Duncan also represents the News & Record. Do you think that this might present a conflict in terms of fair and balanced coverage?

[Joe Guarino]

Mary, with respect to the ongoing Edwards saga, the folks at the News and Record who have been there for a while must feel collectively like jilted lovers.:)

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Joe, I think that's a problem in the deep-blue segment of the GSO blogosphere too.

If you take Andrew Young's book at face value (and I do - because he's the most believable character in this saga now), then our more progressive bloggers were way-beyond-hood-winked too . . . they were going to conquer the Internet for John Edwards . . . with a grass-roots organization that would converge (without looking like they were converging) and propel North Carolina's "favorite son" into the White House.

Alas, there will be no nights in the Lincoln for them.

Boo-hoo.

[Stormy]

Dr. Mary,

Many Friends of Edwards are going to believe that he got a bum rap. After all, it was only about sex, multiple cheating on his wife, lying about it to everyone, etc. Now, if we recall how the same people defended Slick Willie for the same offenses, it makes total sense that they would defend Edwards for his slimy actions. They are still supporting Edwards through all of this for the same reasons that they supported Bill Clinton...they don't want their knight to fall when he is fighting their progressive battles. Certainly not over mundane matters, such as a little sex.

[Brenda Bowers]

I have to agree with Joe on this issue. Duncan made a bad choice. Of course I am none too impressed with him anyhow as a lawyer, school board member or humanoid. I have observed him on two occasions, that I remember, actually standing up at the podium and lying to the City Council. I can see where an attorney while defending his client would withhold any damaging remarks, but any one who lies for what ever reason will lie for ANY reason. BB

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Brenda, lying for your client . . . or inducing/enabling your client to lie . . . is winked and nodded at as "aggressive representation" by the N.C. State Bar . . . as opposed to perjury or suborning perjury.

Of course, I am just a little bit biased from being badly burned. I have a history with the oh-so-noble lawyers at Smith-Moore:

http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/2010/02/dr-mary-johnsons-experience-with-smith.html

And lying is no big deal . . . just a small "oversight" that happens in North Carolina courtrooms every day. When people are caught doing it, we're supposed to "shut up about it", and move on.

Just ask our man, Spag.

Duncan isn't defending the makers of kiddie porn. Just porn.