If the situation in Chicago weren’t so tragic, it would be funny. The Tribune reports that Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel doesn’t want the city’s Law Department added to the Department of Justice’s investigation:
Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Tuesday said U.S. Justice Department investigators do not need to add his Law Department to their probe of police use of excessive force, a day after a federal judge’s finding that a city lawyer intentionally concealed evidence in a trial over a fatal Chicago police shooting.
Emanuel said he trusts city Corporation Counsel Stephen Patton to make sure the Law Department is following the proper procedures, even as U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang faulted lax training and oversight at Patton’s department for hampering the production of Police Department records when officers are accused of misconduct.
When the mayor was asked about adding the Law Department’s handling of lethal force cases to the federal probe, he laughed and did not directly answer the question. Pressed again, Emanuel said that step is not needed to give Chicagoans confidence that necessary changes are being made.
“No. I think that (federal investigators) are working where they are,” Emanuel said a day after Chang imposed sanctions against the city and overturned a jury verdict in a lawsuit brought by the family of a man fatally shot by police. “Steve (Patton) has my support to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.”
Monday’s ruling marked the second time in less than a year the judge sanctioned the Law Department for withholding records in a police misconduct lawsuit and ordered a new trial. Emanuel, however, said he does not believe the Law Department is part of a culture of cover-ups on police shootings.
He would say that, wouldn’t he?
The report goes on to explain that Judge Chang found that the city lawyer had intentionally concealed evidence. That’s official misconduct (not to mention malpractice). The head of the city’s Law Department has already resigned.
Money that the city can ill afford to spend is flooding out of the city in civil judgments because of the persistent, repeated criminal conduct on the part of the police and city officials. We don’t condone their actions but we can’t recall them. Give us the tools; we’ll finish the job.
Is it malpractice if you lie for your client, only if you don’t get away with it?
Isn’t a lie to your client that causes damages always malpractice? Both would seem to be true in this particular case.
I’m joking, but there seem to be two motivations here; she was either covering for her client or for herself.
The good news just keeps coming. not really a huge surprise, but I expected to see Milwaukee on top of the list.
As should be clear from my post my suspicion is that she was lying for her client which is precisely why a) the investigation should be extended to the Law Department and b) why the mayor wouldn’t want that to happen.
Hardly a surprise. As I’ve mentioned before, my immediate neighborhood is something of an exception in how highly diverse it is. I have black, Hispanic, West Asian, East Asian, and South Asian neighbors literally within a stone’s throw. One block north of me is pretty different—all white or nearly so.
I’m thinking its probably both. I’m struck by the attorney changing his story. Going from I learned about it today to the week before trial suggests either a crisis of conscience or a fear that his lie would be discovered. Maybe his back was not covered.
In any event, I predict that his law license will be suspended.